Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I also wish to congratulate my colleague from New Hampshire. It is an extraordinary privilege to serve in this Chamber and it is a long tradition of the Chamber to utilize one's first speech or maiden speech as an opportunity to address something that is close to one's heart. I extend a warm welcome to her and to her voice, her intellect, and her passion on issues that we must, on both sides of the aisle, work to resolve in order to build a better America and put America back on track. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my intern, Robyn Varner, have floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of rhetoric on the floor of the Chamber today defending why air pollution is just fine, explaining why dismantling air pollution regulations is really in the interest of our economy and our families. Indeed, my colleague from South Dakota has listed a little shop of horrors--that the status quo creates economic uncertainty, that the air pollution regulations increase the risk rate of capital, that they destroy jobs, that they even hurt the elderly, that they are an abuse of power, unauthorized by Congress. I am wondering what else is left on the list of reasons to defend the dismantling of air pollution regulations that protect the American people, that are popular in the eyes of American citizens because they want to live in a world where they can enjoy breathing the air throughout our Nation. Let's start by recognizing that the truth about the McConnell amendment is that it increases our dependence on foreign oil. We have heard something about it driving up the cost of oil. Is that right? Well, no, it is not. Repealing the endangerment finding and taking away EPA's part of the regulation of mileage standards is estimated to increase our consumption of oil by 455 million barrels. Gas prices are about $3.50 a gallon right now. So the McConnell- Inhofe amendment represents a $68 billion expenditure on additional oil. It means importing $68 billion more of oil. It means exporting $68 billion in additional American dollars overseas to strengthen the economies in the Middle East, Nigeria, or Venezuela. That energy tax-- the McConnell-Inhofe tax--is one that goes out of our country and hurts us in the worst way. It goes directly to oil companies--out of the pockets of working families, to some of the most profitable corporations in the history of human civilization. Gasoline prices are set by the law of supply and demand. If you increase demand for oil, you also drive up the price. So, if anything, the McConnell-Inhofe amendment doesn't decrease the cost of gasoline; it increases the cost of gasoline. Politifact.com took on this issue because Members of Congress backing this amendment were arguing that it keeps gas prices from increasing. Politifact.com--that independent evaluator of claims made on the floor of the Senate, House, and other places--ranks that claim as false. I can tell you that it is in our interest as a nation to decrease our dependence on oil, not to increase it. We need to decrease that dependence because it is important for our national security. We need to decrease that dependence because millions of dollars that are sent overseas often end up in the hands of those who don't share our national interests. We need to decrease our dependence on foreign oil because when those dollars leave our economy, they leave our family's finances. They don't end up in the retail stores or circulate here in America. Indeed, our purchase of foreign oil accounts for about 50 percent of our foreign trade shortfall. At a time when both parties should be working together to put America's interests first on energy, the McConnell-Inhofe amendment increases our addiction to oil--foreign oil--and creates a supply impulse that raises the price of oil. Isn't that context completely misguided? Perhaps the real issue is public health. This McConnell attack on the Clean Air Act asks Congress to vote in lockstep against the scientific judgment of EPA's scientists and to tell the agency charged with protecting the public health and the health of our children to ignore dangerous carbon pollution. In 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks, 130,000 heart attacks, and 86,000 emergency room visits because clean air isn't just pleasant, it is, in fact, healthy. It is great for the American quality of life to be healthy. You know, that is amazing progress that has been made over the last 20 years under the bipartisan Clean Air Act of 1990. Instead, this amendment would yield to those short-term impulses that have come up on all sorts of aspects of the Clean Air Act. Each time the agency has moved to say that this is a concern, there are those who say: No, no, in the short-term, that might cost me to adjust and we might have to do things slightly differently. Ten years later, everybody says: You know, it is good that we thought about mercury in the air, it is good that we took on lead in the air, and so on and so forth. Taking a longer term view, we need to stay together and resist these short-term impulses to take and dismantle the Clean Air Act. The American Lung Association has specifically said the McConnell amendment is ``a reckless and irresponsible attempt to once again put special interests ahead of public health. The American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, and the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America have urged that we resist the temptation to dismantle the Clean Air Act, which the McConnell-Inhofe amendment does. There is a very simple reason for that: Each of these amendments would have EPA put aside the practice of using science to set commonsense standards to protect public health. Instead, these amendments would have the science world put their head in the sand about these problems. Indeed, I am not just concerned about the McConnell amendment; I am concerned about all of the amendments we are considering today that are designed to deflect, delay, and dismantle the protection of clean air. The Baucus amendment would take away EPA's ability to use the best science to continue to modify and tailor the standards they are setting for carbon pollution and their ability to make sure major polluters are all covered. The Stabenow and Rockefeller amendments would put a 2-year delay on pollution standards. It is tempting to think that a 2-year delay might be an acceptable middle ground, but a 2-year delay in protecting public health is 2 years too long. Let me be very clear about this debate. The McConnell amendment and other associated amendments we will consider are wrong because we should not increase our reliance for energy on the most unstable regions of the world. We should not ship American dollars overseas for energy. We should not tolerate more pollution in our air and water. We should not decrease our ability to build on America's foundation of ingenuity and its inventiveness and respond to air pollution challenges and make those environmental decisions in clear partnership with a stronger economy. I think that all of our constituents across this country, as they think, as parents, about the future of their children, know clean air is the right course. But our children probably understand better than we do another key aspect of this, because this conversation today is largely about carbon pollution. We need to wrestle with the fact that carbon pollution has a very substantial impact on the temperature across this planet. Before the Industrial Revolution, we had a carbon dioxide level of about 270 parts per million. The basic scientific consensus is that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere needs to be kept somewhere below 350 parts per million. I would be pleased to report to you today that before we get to that point of 350, we are going to be able to make the adjustments necessary so that we don't end up in a situation where we are creating long-term adverse consequences for our planet. Indeed, we crossed that 350 boundary long ago. We are at 390 now, headed for 400. Ten to 15 years ago, it was going up one part per million per year; now it is going up two parts per million. So the curve is getting steeper, the pace is getting steeper. We are seeing this reverberating from coral reefs, to Arctic tundra; we are seeing it in ice sheets, in glaciers; and we are seeing it in insect populations that are thriving and decimating the forests of the Northwest, where I come from, that weren't there a few years ago. We are seeing it in all kinds of patterns across this planet. When I visit university campuses, as students talk about the issues nearest to their hearts, the top issue is that we must address this threat to our planet. This conversation goes to the heart of it. My generation isn't as up to speed as our college students are about this, but the planet cannot wait for them to graduate, pursue their careers, run for office, and arrive here on the floor of the Senate. So it is our responsibility as Americans who are concerned about our dependence on energy, as Americans who are concerned about keeping our dollars in our economy and creating jobs, and as Americans who are concerned about the sustainability of our practices, to say no to McConnell-Inhofe and no to the other amendments being brought forward to delay or destroy or dismantle the Clean Air Act.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, March 29; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and following any leader remarks there be a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; further, following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 493, the small business jobs bill; and, finally, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 69, 70, 71, and 72, and all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Coast Guard and NOAA; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, rollcall votes in relation to amendments to the small business jobs bill are possible tomorrow. Senators will be notified when any votes are scheduled.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I rise to address the McConnell-Inhofe amendment to repeal EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases. My colleague from Texas was addressing this amendment and noting her support for it. But I wish to bring to my colleagues' attention several reasons this amendment is bad policy for America. First and foremost, this amendment increases our addiction to foreign oil. It increases oil consumption by 455 million barrels. Right now we import about 9.7 million barrels of oil per day. This amendment is equivalent to 6 weeks worth of oil imports. Recognize that gas prices are about $3.50 per gallon, so the McConnell-Inhofe amendment amounts to a $68 billion pricetag for working families to buy gas from oil imported from overseas. This is not a tax that in any way supports our economy. In fact, this is a tax that goes out of our economy to purchase energy from overseas--from the Middle East, from Nigeria, from Venezuela. That is very profitable to the companies that supply that oil. It is very profitable to the governments far outside of the United States of America. But it certainly hurts the citizens of our Nation. It takes our energy dollars and puts them elsewhere, rather than keeping them inside our economy. It decreases our national security rather than increasing our national security. Furthermore, gasoline prices are set by the law of supply and demand. This amendment increases our demand for foreign oil. So if anything, this amendment increases gas prices. My colleague from Texas said we cannot afford to ``raise the cost of fuel.'' I absolutely agree, and that is why we should defeat this amendment. Indeed, I think almost everyone understands that when you increase demand for a product, you drive the price up, not down. But there are some third parties that have weighed in on this conversation. PolitiFact.com did an analysis of the claim that this amendment would keep prices from increasing, and it did not find this claim to be true. It found it to be false. So at this moment, when world events are unfolding in Cairo in Egypt, in Libya, and we recognize that our dependence on foreign oil is a huge strategic vulnerability for the United States of America, that the flow of our energy dollars overseas is a huge mistake for our economy, why--why--would we vote for an amendment designed to increase our dependence, our dependence on oil, our dependence on foreign governments, decrease our security, and damage our economy? It is simply a wrong amendment in all that framework about our dependence on foreign oil. Second, this amendment is an attack on public health. It is an unprecedented attack, asking Congress to step in and veto the scientific judgment of the EPA scientists. It tells the agency charged with protecting our public health and the health of our children to ignore dangerous global warming, gas pollution, carbon pollution, and a long list of other global warming gases. The Clean Air Act in 1990 alone prevented 205,000 premature deaths, 674,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 22,000 cases of heart disease, 850,000 asthma attacks, and 18 million cases of child respiratory illness. In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks, 130,000 heart attacks, 86,000 emergency room visits. It has been studied time and time again. What we know is the application of the effort to clean up our air results in all of us having a better quality of life. This amendment, this attack on public health, is the wrong policy for our Nation. Again, it is something that third parties have weighed in on, those who seek to protect our health and our health care system. The American Lung Association calls this amendment ``a reckless and irresponsible attempt to put special interests ahead of public health.'' The American Public Health Association has weighed in similarly. Finally, this amendment is an attack on science. The Clean Air Act, passed by a large bipartisan majority and signed by President George H. W. Bush, tasked the EPA with updating our clean air standards and setting commonsense limits on pollution based on recent science. This amendment would have Congress step in and overrule the EPA on science, not just by gutting basic protections for clean air and clean water but by repealing EPA's program for having polluters simply report their pollution. In other words, this amendment says to the American public, we are not even going to let you know about the dangerous pollutants being put in the air. Certainly that philosophy, not only of attacking our public health, but of attacking our right to know, is absolutely wrong. Colleagues, let me wrap up. This amendment increases our dependence on foreign oil, it increases air pollution that endangers our health, it overrules the Nation's top scientific experts who are warning us to reduce pollution, not increase it, it asks American families to pay $68 billion to the oil industry and foreign governments, instead of keeping that money here at home. It is a mistake. Let's vote it down. I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this debate today is all about jobs. The House Republican budget which we will soon be voting on in this body will destroy 700,000 American jobs. That is the estimate put forward by Mark Zandi, who advised John McCain's Presidential campaign and now works for the nonpartisan Moody's Group. That sort of estimate is not just a voice in the wilderness, it is repeated by major group after major group. Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Fed, said last week the plan would cost ``a couple hundred thousand jobs.'' Goldman Sachs analyst Alec Phillips put forth an estimate that said ``this House job-killing plan will reduce, in the second and third quarters of the next year, the economy of the United States by 1.5 to 2 percentage points.'' What is 2 percent of a $15 trillion economy? It is $300 billion. Whether you view it in terms of the gross domestic product or you view it in terms of the number of jobs of Americans taken away by the job-killing Republican plan, this bill, H.R. 1, that we will be voting on later today, is a disaster. I want us to focus on this number because I can tell you, folks back home in Oregon want to create jobs. They want us to put America back to work. They don't want to have a plan put forward that continues to pay enormous bonuses to the billionaires of Wall Street and creates enormous special tax bonuses for the billionaires who are making their tax returns while taking out this huge economic meltdown on working people. Let's review how this all came to pass. You will recall that during the second Bush administration there was a plan to launch two foreign wars and not pay for them, and then proceed to create Medicare Part D and not pay for it, and then to give bonus tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and not pay for it, and reverse an enormous annual surplus and turn it into an enormous annual deficit and, in the process, produce a very tiny, modest expansion, in which working people actually lost ground. That expansion all went to the very top. That was just the beginning, before my colleagues across the aisle decided they are going to deregulate retail mortgages in order to ramp up predatory mortgages, produce a huge balloon in the real estate market, deregulate Wall Street so they could proceed to securitize those mortgages and have those blow up in financial institutions across America and have the economy melt down in 2008- 2009. That is how we got where we are right now. Rather than take on a plan that creates jobs in America, the plan is to eliminate 700,000 jobs across this country. Let's be clear. There is a tremendous amount we can do to reduce the deficit. A plan was put forward a few weeks ago in which we get rid of those bonus breaks for those who are in the top 2 percent of this country. It saves about $250 billion a year in real hard cash. The plan has been put forward to get rid of the tax breaks for the oil and gas industry which was doing very well and is doing even better now with the oil market speculators driving it up to over $100 a barrel. These things actually close the deficit. They do not destroy the economy. They actually create the sort of plan that can create jobs across this Nation and put people back to work and invest in the future of our Nation rather than saying--after we blew up the economy--let's make working people do even worse. I am going to summarize by saying embedded in H.R. 1 is attack after attack. For example, taking on preventive health care, preventive health care for women across this country by taking out title X. How about the attack on homeless veterans? I go throughout my State and folks say: A lot of our sons and daughters are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan and we need to support them in the transition back home. It is very difficult, there is a lot of post-traumatic stress. Instead of supporting them, my colleagues across the aisle have produced a plan that says let's take away that support for housing for the homeless, housing for veterans. I could go on because the list is so long and the attacks are so many. But that option, while it does only a modest amount in the short term to affect the deficit, proceeds to have devastating results on the economy. And what will happen when the economy will collapse again, a double-dip recession courtesy of H.R. 1? Then the debt goes back up, so it is a loss on both fronts. We need a responsible plan to reduce the deficit, not a plan to bomb the economy on the heads of our working Americans.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I will say that one key aspect is that the House Republican budget would cut $2 billion from EPA's clean water and safe drinking water infrastructure loan programs. As I am going around my State, holding a townhall in every single county, I hold a meeting with the city and county leaders in advance of the public meeting. At virtually every one of these gatherings, I hear stories from mayors and chairs of county councils who talk about the challenge they have with their aging infrastructure, both on their water supply and on their wastewater disposal; and that aging infrastructure needs to be upgraded as plants wear out and as we discover more challenges we need to address. So cutting the loan program that supports our communities--our rural communities, our suburban communities, our urban communities, all of our communities--in providing clean water to the residents and of helping dispose of and treat wastewater would be an enormous mistake. That partnership is absolutely crucial to communities that cannot otherwise afford this infrastructure. That would mean more sewage and other pollution going into our water ways and less treatment of water we take out to drink.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, it is a pleasure to join my colleague from New Mexico to discuss both the general environment, the environment in which we no longer have strong bipartisan support for clean air and clean water that we once had, and some of the specifics of the House Republican budget and the damage that would do to American citizens. Just to give a small sense of this, in 2010 the Clean Air Act prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks, 130,000 heart attacks, and 86,000 emergency room visits. That is why leading public health experts oppose these cuts, groups such as the American Lung Association, which said: ``H.R. 1 is toxic to public health.'' Why is that the case? I will give a couple examples and then turn back to my colleague. One example is that it would prohibit standards for toxic air pollution, including mercury, lead, arsenic, dioxin, and acid gases coming from coal-burning powerplants. A second is that it would prohibit standards for toxic air pollution coming from industries burning coal and oil. A third is that it would prohibit guidance on how to protect clean drinking water from mountain top mining. A fourth is it would prohibit standards for handling hazardous waste from burning coal just 2 years after a disaster in Tennessee caused 1 billion gallons of coal waste to spill into people's neighborhoods and homes. I have a longer list, but I will stop there and note that these impacts on water and air occur to citizens in every State under H.R. 1, the Republican budget.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to also support the nomination of Judge Marco Hernandez of Oregon to the U.S. district court. Judge Hernandez is unquestionably qualified to serve on this court. He has built his career through hard work and determination. As a young man, he attended night classes at a local community college before enrolling at Western Oregon State College. He then proceeded to get a law degree at the University of Washington School of Law. As a young man, he picked crops. After he graduated from law school at the University of Washington, he returned to Oregon to join Legal Aid Services and represent farm workers. He went on to serve as deputy district attorney in Washington County and was later appointed to be a State court judge, a position he has held since 1995. As a State court judge, he established an innovative domestic violence program designed to aggressively pursue offenders. He also established a new program to assist mentally ill defendants, a program he continues to oversee. Judge Hernandez was first nominated to the district court by President Bush in 2008. Although Congress did not act on his nomination, he has again been nominated by President Obama and has the support of Republicans, Democrats, and organizations representing the spectrum of the legal community. He also has strong support from the Hispanic National Bar Association and, if confirmed, will be the first Hispanic article III judge in the State of Oregon. I urge my colleagues to support Judge Hernandez's confirmation. I look forward to his contributions, based on the depth and breadth of his life experience, to the U.S. district court. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, over the last week, I have watched the affairs in Tahrir Square in Cairo, as millions of Americans have, and I was deeply impressed by the peaceful demonstration of Egyptian citizens calling for change in their nation--change that would respond to the economic plight of ordinary citizens, change that would give ordinary citizens the opportunity to be a part of the voice directing the course of their nation. Until yesterday, those protests were absolutely peaceful. But that did change yesterday when pro-Mubarak forces entered the fray. Last night, I was watching as Molotov cocktails were being thrown by pro- Mubarak forces down from adjacent buildings onto the protesters below. I watched as organized thugs proceeded to stone those protesters. I watched as there was sporadic gunfire in the square. I watched as a group of horsemen galloped through the crowd whipping people with their whips. This thuggery against citizens who were peacefully protesting is absolutely unacceptable. The United States has had a long and close relationship with Egypt. We channel a tremendous amount of economic development aid to Egypt. But let me be very clear. What happened yesterday cannot happen again. What happened yesterday, with thugs attacking peaceful demonstrators on behalf of the government must not happen again. In no way can America turn a blind eye to this ruthless assault on ordinary citizens. This morning, there were voices from within the Egyptian Government calling what happened yesterday a fatal error. Prime Minister Shafik called it a fatal error. This morning, there were signs that the army, instead of allowing and organizing thugs and allowing them on the square to assault the demonstrators, was standing in to protect them. This is a right turn of events. Let it be noted by all who would care to listen that the citizens of the United States of America are not going to stand by and support a government that is attacking peaceful demonstrators in a square in Cairo. If we see a repeat of this violence, America must send a very strong message that there will be no further aid to the Mubarak government. We do not know what the ultimate outcome of these protests will be, but peaceful action against government is a hallmark of democracy, a hallmark of freedom. We should ensure that those protests could continue--those peaceful protests--calling for a voice for ordinary citizens, and that Egypt can move toward free and fair elections. I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to continue the debate on this set of rule proposals, but specifically to talk about the talking filibuster. There is one scene from an American movie that captures everyone's attention, and that is the scene of Jimmy Stewart here in the well of the Senate holding forth to make his case before his colleagues and before the American people to stop a corrupt act designed to destroy a camp for children. That is Jimmy Stewart in the role of Jefferson Smith in ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' He wasn't making some behind-the- scenes move, some backroom deal; he was out in front of the American people. That is why we have brought both the end of secret holds and the end of secret filibusters to the floor today. The concept of the talking filibuster is that the American people believe when you filibuster, you are making a personal action, a courageous action, a public action, with personal time and energy, to stand up and say what you think needs to be said and to fight for what you need to fight for to make your State or this Nation or this world a better place. But this is not what the filibuster has become in modern times. Folks object to closing debate and they go off to dinner, have a glass of wine or two while they paralyze the Senate. It happened 136 times in the last 2 years. Each one of those filibusters proceeded to paralyze this body for a week, and yet those folks would not stand before the public here on the floor of the Senate and make their case. The secret filibuster must go. It is an issue the American people understand, since they believe we will make our case before them when we wish to stall the Senate on an important issue. Let's make it so. Let's make it so with the vote that will take place here in this Chamber within the next couple of hours. I wish to note that hundreds of thousands of people have signed petitions across this country. They have heard about this on the Web and other places. CREDO Action, Common Cause, Daily Kos and the Sierra Club, just those four groups generated almost 200,000 signatures calling for accountability, calling for transparency, calling for us to make our case before the American people so the American people can weigh in as to whether we are heroes or bums. When we hold the vote on the talking filibuster today--I understand there has been a lot of pressure applied for there to be a unanimous party-line vote across the aisle against it. It troubles me. A number of our new Senators campaigned on transparency. They campaigned on accountability. They campaigned on changing the broken ways of Washington, and one of the first votes their leadership is asking them to do is toss away accountability, toss away transparency, and not help fix the broken Senate. There are some who said we must make sure we protect the rights of the minority. The talking filibuster does exactly that. We still need 60 votes to close debate. My colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, was just here. If there were an issue affecting Oregon that we must oppose, the two of us alone could take and hold this floor back and forth to make sure this body doesn't run over the rights of Oregon as long as we have the 40 colleagues with us to avoid cloture. That is the way it is now and that is the way it will be under the talking filibuster. I am not going to belabor this. There are others who wish to speak and we want to hear them. But let me say this: When we have gotten to the point that we could not get a single appropriations bill done in 2010, when we cannot address 400 House bills that lie collecting dust on the floor, when we have 100 nominations in which we did not fulfill our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent, then we have a responsibility to work together to change the conduct of this Senate, to change the rules of this Senate, so those rules are not abused in a fashion that undermines our performance under the Constitution. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I want to correct the record on something that has been said on the other side of the aisle; that is, the abuse of the filibuster has been a response to filling the tree. In the last 2 years, we had the tree filled once. We had 33 filibusters. In response to those filibusters, the tree was filled 9 times. We had 34 filibusters, the tree filled 6 times, and a filibuster 36 times. Obviously, 36 times was not a response to 6 times filling the tree. That myth created by the opposing side is actually a myth. So while it is a convenient argument, it happens to be a wrong one. I think that is important to know. I also wish to note that my colleague from Tennessee was talking about postcloture discussions for 30 hours, thereby confusing the conversation about the filibuster on the motion to proceed, the filibuster on amendments, the filibuster on a bill with a 30-hour requirement on nominations. Actually, we had a proposal to reduce those 30 hours to 2 hours. That proposal is in S. Res. 10 that will be voted on today. I do hope my colleague, in support of the principle he was putting out, which is that those hours should be reduced, will support S. Res. 10, noting that is a very logical way to reduce the delay of the Senate. My colleagues wish to speak. I will close with this comment: If you have the courage of your convictions and you want to exercise the privilege of shutting down the Senate for a week, then stand up and make yourself accountable to the American people.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lautenberg for introducing the concept of a talking filibuster 2 years ago, and I thank all colleagues who have worked to end the abuse of our current filibuster. The fact is, we have not done any appropriations bills in 2010. We left 100 nominations without our advise and consent or opposition, and we left 400 House bills collecting dust on the Senate floor. The American people believe the filibuster is an act of personal courage. Let's make it so. They believe those who filibuster should make their case before the public. Let's make it so. They believe when 41 Senators want additional debate, let's make it so. Let's end the secrecy and obstruction of the silent filibuster and establish the accountability of the talking filibuster. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico for his leadership on the constitutional option. Some may ponder how it is that we have come to have this constitutional argument at this moment. As he has noted, under the Constitution, this body is empowered to organize itself. That is not that those who spoke 100 years ago or 50 years ago get to tell us how to operate but that we today in this Chamber have the power of the Constitution to organize ourselves. There is little question from constitutional scholars about this understanding of the very plain words written by our forefathers as they designed this institution. Indeed, they were clear, when supermajority requirements were set--supermajority for overriding a Presidential veto, supermajority for impeachment, supermajority for treaties--but a simple majority to pass bills, a simple majority to pass amendments, a simple majority to adopt the rules by which we function. Indeed, that is exactly what the first Congress did. They used a simple majority to adopt their rules, and they extended to each other a courtesy to hear each other out, those 26 Senators coming from 13 States. They heard each other out so they could make better decisions. Over time that courtesy has grown to be informally entrenched in a Senate rule that says shutting down debate takes a supermajority. But when that was done, it went hand in hand with a social contract to understand that such power for one Senator to shut down this body--to require a supermajority, delay action for a week--would be a power rarely used, a power used in courtesy and respect to other Members, that it would only be used for the most important issues, the highest issues of concern to one's particular State or to the future of the Nation. That social contract is what has disappeared that went hand in hand with the rule, with the supermajority. Let me display a simple chart that shows the deterioration of that social contract. Here we are with the average number of cloture motions--that is, to shut down debate--filed. The average from 1900 to 1970 on was one per year. In the 1970s, it went to 16. We can see how this grows over time until in the 1990s we were at 36, in the 2000s at 48, and these last 2 years, 68 per year. This is the change from the courtesy of hearing each other out to using a supermajority as an instrument of legislative destruction to blockade a good debate, to blockade the will of the majority, to blockade and paralyze the Senate as a whole. Recognizing this damage that meant that no appropriations bills were adopted last year, that no budget was adopted, that 400 House bills lay collecting dust on the floor rather than being processed and voted on, that more than 100 nominations were never acted on and that we failed in our constitutional duty to advise and consent, it is in recognizing all that--it was particularly apparent as new Members of the Senate observing this--that something had to be done. That is why I was so impressed when the Senator from New Mexico stepped forward and said: We will use the power of the Constitution to help restore the broken Senate. It has been a privilege and an honor to team up with him and to team up with many Members in this effort. We come to this point today where, as my colleague mentioned, there are a number of steps forward coming out of this debate. They are modest steps forward. Some of them are ones that have been debated for years. I applaud Senator Wyden from my State, who worked with Senator Grassley and Senator McCaskill on secret holds. As Senator Wyden likes to note, for 15 years he has argued we should not be able to put a hold on legislation without taking public responsibility, literally since he came to the Senate. He is absolutely right. Today, I think a supermajority will adopt that. These other steps--not abusing the reading of amendments, reducing the number of folks subject to confirmation--are steps forward. But I would like Members to envision three 60-foot-high walls between where they are now and where they need to be to have the Senate work as a body that debates legislation and votes on legislation. The first 60- foot wall is cloture on the motion to proceed. The next 60-foot wall is cloture on an amendment. Actually, there can be any number of those. The third 60-foot wall is final passage, closing down debate for final passage. In this agreement today, there has been a sense between the leaders that the motion to proceed will not be filibustered. That is the first wall. That is being taken down or at least a commitment not to use it except in extraordinary circumstances. But that means there are two more major walls left in place. I step back from that and ask: How much will it change for the Senate? If I go back to this chart, the first wall is one that has only been occasionally used. It is the second and third walls that are driving the paralysis of the Senate. I hope, indeed, that when the majority and minority leader talk about changing behavior, when my good friend from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, talks about changing behavior, I hope they are talking about restoring the social contract, that the filibuster would rarely be used. That would be a tremendous step forward. I will hold out that promise. Meanwhile, recognizing that it will only happen when a Senator comes forward and does a frivolous effort to continue debate on an amendment or a bill or a nomination that is overwhelmingly supported, that it will be up to leadership to say that is not acceptable. We need to restore the social contract. If that change in behavior happens, that would be a tremendous step. Meanwhile, I echo the comments of my colleague. I cannot surrender the rights under the Constitution to use a majority to continue to pursue rules that will make our broken Senate work better. I reserve that right, as does he. There are many who say the Senate should be different than the House, that it should be a cooling saucer. That was related to the debate in the design of the Constitution, when terms were staggered so one-third is elected every 2 years. The country may be way over here and the Senate may change accordingly, but only one-third is up for election. Then, maybe over here the Senate changes less. In addition, this courtesy, this respect of hearing each other out and pondering the arguments of each other. But a cooling saucer is very different than the routine use of the filibuster to obstruct the ability to act, very different than the way it has been used these last 2 years to prevent us from doing appropriations bills, from doing House bills, preventing nominations from being considered. That has to end. That has to change. I pledge myself to continue working, hoping that behavior will change on its own but working with others to say, when it doesn't change, we need to change, we need to change the rules to make this institution fulfill its constitutional responsibilities. We will be breaking soon. When we come back, I hope to resume a conversation about some of the specific items we will be voting on later today. The one I particularly wish to talk about is Jimmy Stewart or the talking filibuster. It is a compromise that takes into account the desire that we hear each other out, the desire that we be a cooling saucer but prevents an opportunity to be accountable to the public, not to have the silent or secret filibuster we have now but to have the public and talking filibuster, where we actually debate. I will say more about that when we come back. I close by thanking all those who have been in this conversation, certainly Lamar Alexander from the Republican Party and Chuck Schumer, who have been working on rules to hold hearings to craft the structure for our leadership, our majority leader Harry Reid and our minority leader Mitch McConnell, who have been in this conversation that has resulted in these steps forward that we are taking today. I applaud all the Members who have said that as Senators sworn to uphold the Constitution, they have an obligation to make the Senate a great deliberative body, something it once was, something it is not now but something that is in our hands to make happen again.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the issue of Senate rules. I will be joined by a few colleagues in a few minutes.

Mr. MERKLEY. I wish to note, as Senator Udall observed, Senator Wyden, Senator Grassley, and Senator McCaskill have worked hard on a much more detailed version than we have in S. Res. 10, but the basic notion is the same. If a colleague is going to place a hold, they are going to do so in a public and accountable fashion and that would greatly improve the quality of ballot. I have been in the position of trying to get help for the Klamath Basin in Oregon because they have had little rainfall. I eventually did find out, but it took me quite a while, asking a lot of questions about who had the hold so I could ask them to release the hold so we would have a chance of moving that assistance for this drought-impacted portion of my State. With this change, those holding up assistance to Klamath or any other area would have to come to the floor and make clear where they stand.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I submit a resolution on behalf of myself and Senator Tom Udall to amend rule XIX and rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, and I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the resolution.

Mr. MERKLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Tennessee for coming to the floor. I applaud his long service. When I first came to the Senate, Senator Hatfield asked me to bring greetings to his former colleagues, and I had the chance to sit down with Senator Alexander to convey those greetings and to work with him on some projects, including the advocacy for electric vehicles. It is good for the American economy, good for the strategic positioning of America in terms of our consumption of energy, and certainly good for the environment. I wish to note that while we disagree on this, this is actually the way it should happen. We should come to the floor and share our respective views, disagree with each other, make our points. I believe, at this moment, we should be on a rule. We should be debating it. My colleague has expressed his difference of opinion in a very gracious and respectful manner, and that, too, should be a factor of Senate dialog, so I thank the Senator. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, it has been the tradition of this Chamber, when there are rules proposals, to put them on the floor for debate and to hold that debate. Then if the body does not like that, either to defeat them outright or to table them or refer them to committee for further work. Indeed, under the Constitution, it is in order for us to have a debate now as a simple majority to amend our rules. The Constitution calls for a supermajority for impeachments, a supermajority for treaties, but it calls for a simple majority to amend our rules and to organize ourselves. Many Members of this body often talk about the Constitution, and it is the Constitution we are talking about right now when it calls for a simple majority to be able to organize. So that is why, in 1953, the Senate debated Senator Anderson's resolution, eventually defeating it by tabling it. That is why, in 1957 and in 1959, they proceeded to put it on the floor--both sides agreeing that it was appropriate under the Constitution to have the debate in this Chamber--and then to either approve or to vote down or to table or to refer to committee. Then, in 1961, Anderson's rule proposal to make cloture three-fifths present and voting was referred to committee. So it was defeated again, but it was debated and referred to committee. Then the committee returned it to the floor for further debate. No one objected to us holding a debate. In fact, here is the irony. We are talking about fixing the broken Senate because debate is unable to take place, and this very conversation we are having right now, with proposals to be put on the floor, is being objected to by the other side because they are saying it is not appropriate. But the Constitution says it is appropriate. The tradition of the Senate says it is appropriate. So I too have a resolution to put on the floor, a proposal for debate. It is the talking filibuster proposal. It is important that Senators not be able to object to the regular order of 51 and then go home or go on vacation and hide from the American people, but that if they believe there should be additional debate, they come to this floor and debate. The people of America believe that is what the filibuster is about: making your case before the American people. Let's make it so. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 21, a resolution to amend rule XIX and rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate to enact the talking filibuster; that there be 6 hours for debate equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with no amendments in order; and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the resolution.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, for purposes of having the resolution go over, under the rule, I object.