Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. An accommodation was reached and----

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. For a 2-year period of time. And we are not----

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. The Senator from Alabama, my good friend and former attorney general colleague, asked the question--when he was answering the last question I asked--has this constitutional procedure for determining Senate rules at the beginning of a Senate ever been used? Yes, in fact, it has been used, and it has been used a number of times. I would point the Senator from Alabama to 1975. In 1975, we had the situation where a number of Democratic Senators were pushing for a change in the rules. The filibuster threshold at that point was 67 votes, unlike 60 today. Actually, that was the time period when they moved that threshold from 67 to 60. What happened was 51 Senators took to the floor and three times voted down the attempt to move away from changing the rules. Now, I would also note that three Vice Presidents--sitting up where Senator Cardin, the Presiding Officer, is right now--have ruled that at the beginning of a Congress--at the beginning of a Congress--you are allowed, the Senate, 51 Senators, to step forward and say: We would like new rules. What is being advocated on this side is putting rules in place and following the rules for a 2-year period of time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask through the Chair, will the Senator yield for an additional question?

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question I will ask through the Chair?

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. The Senator from Alabama--I think we overlapped as attorneys general, and we are good friends--raised this whole issue, and he used the phrase, which has been frequently used on the Republican side, that--and we are getting to this place where we have the opportunity to change the rules. The phrase he keeps using is ``break the rules to change the rules.'' This goes to my question: Is the Senator aware that under the Constitution, and specifically article I, section 5, it says that the Senate may determine the rules of its proceedings? As far as I know--and we have a letter we are going to have printed in the Record later--almost all constitutional scholars in this country as well as three Vice Presidents sitting up there where Senator Cardin is sitting, presiding, have ruled that at the beginning of a Congress, on the first legislative day, the Senate is allowed to change the rules. And the Constitution trumps the Senate rules in that respect in that very early period. So my question to the Senator from Alabama: Does not the Constitution trump the Senate rules?

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. May I answer the question?

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. The rule that was changed, when we lowered-- --

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I thank the Senator from Maryland for his sincere effort to pursue bipartisan rules reform because I think, if we all work together, we can make the Senate a much better place. I am reminded, when we have these discussions about the great traditions of the Senate, of two periods of time when the Senate truly stepped to the plate. We had crucial national issues facing us then and they were issues of war and peace. They were issues of terrible environmental destruction. The fact is the Senate, in its best traditions, stepped forward and acted and moved forward. One of those great traditions of the Senate acting occurred in the 40 years before the Civil War. People may not know it, but it was the Senate and the legislation that was passed through the Senate and signed by the President that for 40 years held the Union together. They held the country together, and they didn't let the country get into Civil War. It was people such as Webster and Calhoun and all the Senators at the time focusing on what the issues were. Whether it was the Missouri Compromise or some other issue that had to do with slavery, they found the common ground, and they held the Union together and they did it for 40 years. That, my friends, is in the best traditions of the Senate, thinking and figuring out where the common ground is. We can't do that. We can't carry out that tradition unless we can get bills on the floor and we can amend them and have debate and then eventually get to a majority. Of course, we want the minority to be able to be heard, offer amendments, but the crucial fact is, at the end of the day, unless there is such a strong minority in terms of its activity, we get to a majority vote. The other period of time where the Senate was in its glory days was in the 1960s and 1970s and we had huge national problems in terms of civil rights. We had lynchings going on, we had discrimination going on, including housing discrimination, discrimination in public accommodations, and there was a big push to try to get rid of that in our society. It was the Senate that stepped forward and crafted civil rights legislation that allowed us to move forward. Many people will remember in the 1970s, the glory days of the Senate, when we had environmental destruction, rivers catching on fire. The Wilderness Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, all those pieces of legislation were crafted in the Senate by people such as Senator Ed Muskie and Senator Stafford and others. They were Democrats and Republicans working with each other, but it was because we could get the legislation on the floor and work on it and amend it and move it forward and allow the deliberative process to work. I submit the Senate has been at these two periods--and I am sure scholars and our Senate Historian and others can point out other periods--but these two periods struck me: the period of the 40 years before the Civil War when the Senate, in its deliberative way, held the Union together for 40 years and in the 1960s and 1970s when we addressed civil rights, environmental legislation, and many of the other big national issues we were facing. So here we are as a country with the need for having a national energy policy, for dealing with issues such as climate change, protecting middle-class families, and trying to make sure we have job growth and economic development; doing everything we can to bring down the cost of health care but making sure our citizens have high-quality health care. We face tremendous issues, and the Senate, in many cases, has been unable to act. We have been unable to act because the rules are being abused. This filibuster is not out in the open. It is secret, it is silent, and we have the opportunity to act on the first legislative day. So on that first legislative day, I will offer a motion. It is a very simple motion my predecessor, Clinton Anderson, offered. He offered it for the 25 years he was in the Senate. On the first legislative day he would offer a motion. He would move to adopt the rules of the Congress--for him, whatever it was. So this motion dealing with tomorrow: move to adopt the rules for the 113th Congress and then we focus on it. We focus on what those rules should be. I know our Republican friends realize, I know they understand the dysfunction and hopefully they will find a way to join with us to make the Senate a better place.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon, because he has elucidated here the real issue that we face as a Senate. The Senator from Maryland, who is presiding, knows well. He has worked on the rules, and I hope he will join me here for a minute to talk about the rules situation we are in and where we are headed. There are several issues that are before us: How do we move into a more deliberative body? How do we move to the point where we get on to legislation, that we have amendments, we let everyone be heard, we let the minority be heard, and also at the end of the day be able to get to a majority vote? That is the way the Senate used to proceed, and now we have one Senator holding up the whole show. Frequently you will have a Senator who will block hundreds of bills with these secret, silent filibusters. We shouldn't be allowed to have that kind of situation with any Senator, and we need to give up that little bit of power to make the institution itself a better institution. This institution is a great institution. It has a lot of very capable people in it. But it is not responding to what the American people want us to do. That is why we address the rules at the beginning of every Congress and why we should address the rules at the beginning of every Congress. I ask unanimous consent to allow my friend, the Senator from Maryland, and I to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. The Senator from Maryland has hit it on the head. Look at what we are talking about on a motion to proceed. I think it would surprise the American people to know that if the majority leader comes to the floor, now we have--this is not to make it partisan in any way--55 Democratic votes. The majority leader says: I see we have a serious housing problem. We want to put a housing bill onto the floor of the Senate. I don't think people realize that the majority leader, if he doesn't have any agreement at all, then has to file a motion to proceed to that bill. If all the delay and roadblocks and obfuscation are put in front of him, it takes him 8 days to get to the bill if he can get 60 votes. If he does not, he probably wastes a whole week trying to get to the bill, and he doesn't get 60 votes, and then we fold it down and say: What is the next issue we should move on to? As the Senator from Maryland knows, we have to be able to put bills onto the floor and give them the time they deserve. We are wasting all this time up front that we could have a bill on the floor, we could have amendments, we could have debate, we could have all of those things going on that we know are the way the Senate should work. I yield.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I thank very much the Senator from Maryland for his commitment to pursue these bipartisan rules changes to make sure the rules get changed. I know I reminded him about my predecessor, Senator Domenici. Senator Domenici would fight hard, and whenever he tried to look for bipartisan solutions, coming down to the motion to proceed, Democrats and Republicans said we have to get off this motion to proceed and we have to get on the bill. So I thank the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. The Senator from Maryland has really hit it on the head. You do not have to go any further than today's Executive Calendar. We all have them on our desks. You pick up the Executive Calendar and, talking about approving these nominees and judicial nominees, executive nominees, here I see on page 4 that we have people who have come out--this is for the judiciary--have come out of committee March 29, and they have not gotten a vote. Here is another one from April, reported by the committee--April 26, May 17, May 17, June 7, June 21. These are nominations where people have stepped forward. They want to be public servants. The President has nominated them. They have been through the committee process, and they are just waiting. As the Senator from Maryland said, what ends up happening is that good people are discouraged from taking these jobs. My grandfather used to say that if you do not have good people in government, the scoundrels will take over. We are discouraging good people from getting into government. You need good people in public service, and we are discouraging them by setting up a process where, as the Senator from Ohio told me--he had a judge recently, and he told the gentleman: This is a long process, it is laborious, it is tedious, and it will probably take you a year if you are willing to go through this. When the judge finally agreed, it took 2 years from the time the President put him forward until he was actually on the bench. I ask the Senator from Maryland, does he think people are going to put themselves out there, and doesn't this discourage good people from getting into public service? Don't we want the very best and the brightest on our benches and in the executive branch working for the American people?

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. To the Senator from Maryland, I have one more question if he has time. First I want to respond as to the motion to proceed and what he has just talked about. This means we cannot get on legislation, as he laid out, for a large number of days. Sometimes we burn a week and several more days before we are able to get on to the bill. The Senator by the name of Senator Pete Domenici, whom everybody knows very well, served for 36 years in the Senate and was my predecessor. He served on bipartisan study groups to look at the rules. We have had many study groups such as that. They have always concluded that the motion to proceed should be short and significant, and we should get on to the bill. Senator Cardin has worked very hard to do the same with a bipartisan group to say: How can we make it work better? How do we make this institution work better? The reality is we get on to the bill, allow amendments, allow debate, and allow discussion. That is the way to move. On a number of occasions this has been bipartisan. I hope we can join together. My question goes to a different part of the rules. As the Senator from Maryland knows--and we both served in the House together--today we have a Democratic Senate and a Republican House. The way to resolve differences between the two is to go to conference. That is the best way to bring the expertise of both bodies and the people in the bodies who know the substance of the legislation and bring them together if there are differences. If they both pass a bill, they get together, resolve those differences and then the respective Houses pass them and they go on to the President. We now have in our rules for the Senate three debatable, filibusterable motions to go to conference. We look at them and we say: Well, they are basically about going to conference. Let's shrink down the proposals we are hearing. Why are we putting a filibuster in place to get into conference to try to resolve disputes? I know the Senator has looked at this issue. My question is: If the Senate is able to pass a bill on housing--to use the housing example-- and they are very different bills, but if we have smart people from the Senate and the House who are on the Housing Committee getting together--as the Senator from Maryland knows--we can resolve those differences. We can find the common ground and move forward. I ask the Senator: Aren't our rules a little bit antiquated in terms of having three motions to go to conference and allow a filibuster on every one of those rules?

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 5 p.m., with all other provisions remaining in effect.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I will finish by thanking my friend, a very close colleague on this particular issue, the Senator from Oregon. I know he has worked diligently on framing the talking filibuster, trying to bring it open, and make it the public process that will work for the whole Senate. He has been a key player in all the other rules reform, especially those two packages we put forward in the last Congress. I thank the Senator from Oregon and I thank the Senator from Maryland. I now see on the floor the Senator from Illinois, who also has been here for a significant period of time. He has watched the rules operate, and I think he believes there has been a lot of abuse and we need to get down to the business of reforming these rules in a way that is going to work for the minority, because we know we will be in the minority sometime and work for the majority, so we can do the work of the American people. I yield for the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I rise today to express my longstanding concerns about the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. We are being asked to extend the sunset provisions in the Act until 2017. Without adoption of the amendments to include additional privacy protections and oversight requirements, I cannot support an extension. We all appreciate the dedicated work of the intelligence community. They have a big job in keeping us safe. But we also have to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens. That goes to the heart of who we are. Of what our country stands for. These aims are not contradictory. We can do both. And we must do both. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 gave broad powers to the intelligence community. Too broad, for some of us. I was one of the minority votes in the House against FISA. It allows a very wide net to search phone calls and emails of foreigners outside of the United States. We knew then, and we know now, that net would also scoop up the private communications of American citizens. The challenge was clear. Go after the bad guys. But do not violate the privacy of the American people. So the Act contained specific limitations. Now, 4 years later, we are asking a basic question. Have those limitations worked? And the answer is--we really do not know. This uncertainty is not for lack of trying. We have tried to get answers. Numerous times. But the information is still lacking. Intelligence officials have said they are unable to tell us how many U.S. communications have been collected under FISA authority. Not an actual number. Not an exact number. Not even an estimate. Plain and simple--we need more information. How else can we evaluate this policy? The American public has a right to know. And needs to know. How many Americans are affected by FISA? Are existing privacy protections working? Are they too weak? Do they need to be strengthened? These are vital questions. They need to be answered. And so far they have not been. That is why the amendments that have been offered are so important. These amendments are intended to strengthen privacy protections of American citizens and to improve congressional oversight. These amendments will improve FISA. And they deserve bipartisan support. I want to emphasize my support for Senator Wyden's amendment that we will vote on this morning. The amendment would require the Director of National Intelligence to report to Congress on the impact of FISA. And provide specific information. In particular, how many U.S. communications have been collected under the Act? Have there been deliberate attempts to search the phone calls or emails of individual Americans? Without obtaining a warrant or emergency authorization? The Director's report would be available to the public. And the President could withhold public disclosure of any information necessary to national security. This amendment will not compromise national security. But it will help protect the rights of American citizens. As Senator Wyden stated on the floor yesterday, several of us sent letters to Director Clapper requesting this information, but have not received an adequate response. The Wyden amendment would ensure that Congress has the information we need to make an informed decision about whether to extend future sunset provisions. The war on terrorism that began after the 9/11 attacks has continued for over 10 years. During that time, Congress has passed laws, including the PATRIOT Act and FISA Amendments Act, which gave sweeping new authorities to law enforcement and the intelligence community. I know we must protect the Nation from future attacks. But there must also be a balance--we cannot give up our constitutional protections in the name of security. I voted against the PATRIOT Act and FISA Amendments Act because I believed they were not balanced--they unduly infringed on the guaranteed rights of our citizens. As I said, we all value the work of our intelligence community. Their efforts are vital to our Nation's security. But, I believe these amendments are crucial. We can protect our citizens without trampling their constitutional rights. Unfortunately, none of the amendments we voted on yesterday were adopted. But the main argument I heard against them was not on the substance of the amendments. It was that we do not have time to amend the bill and send it back to the House. The Chair and Vice-chair argued that we must pass the House bill without amendment and get it to the President before the provisions expire. This is not how the ``world's greatest deliberative body'' should function. It is one more example of why we need to reform our rules so that we are not constantly mired in procedural gridlock. Rather than an 11th hour passage of the House bill, we should have had a real opportunity to debate and amend the Senate bill that came out of committee over 5 months ago.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the vote on the motion to waive earlier today, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today with a difficult task: to honor a great Senator and a great friend, Senator Jeff Bingaman. This is difficult for two reasons. First, Senator Bingaman is not one to call attention to himself, and, second, he does so as briefly as possible. On both counts--let me just say now--I am going to fall short. Jeff is that rare combination of character--brilliant and humble. For Jeff, it is about the work, not about his own ego, not about a monument to himself. For three decades in the U.S. Senate, he has been making a difference, for the American people and for our home State of New Mexico. Public service is a noble profession--when it isn't swamped by money, when it isn't held hostage to hyperpartisanship. Jeff is the best example I know of the nobility of politics. The origin of the word ``noble'' is ``nobilis''--well-known--from the latin ``noscere'' to come to know. Jeff, who is a scholar, probably knows that. I had to look it up. But, knowing, making sense of the world, using that knowledge to make the world a better place, that is what public service is supposed to do, and that is what Jeff Bingaman does. By Washington standards, Jeff is a man of few words. And when he comes to this floor to speak, we listen. If I am at my desk in my office, I will turn up the television, I will stop what I am doing, because I know that he will say something insightful, something worth knowing, something worth thinking about. When Jeff came to the Senate 30 years ago, this was a different place. There was a new President. There was a fierce battle of ideas, of ideology, of where the country needed to go. Principles did not matter any less then than they do now. But folks worked together. They clashed, but they also compromised. We all know what has happened since then. Washington has become more and more polarized. But, time and again, Jeff Bingaman has been a voice of reason, of doing what is best for our country--no grandstanding, just hard work, paying attention to details, getting problems solved, getting the job done. He is an inspiring role model. In his own quiet way, Jeff does something essential: He challenges us to think a little harder, look further down the road, see how we can move our country forward, not just today, but far into the future. He doesn't look for the limelight. He looks for solutions. And his accomplishments make for a very long list. He has been a truly great chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He has done so much to protect our natural resources, to build a clean energy economy, for jobs, for the environment. I was proud to work with Jeff on the first renewable electricity standard in Congress. He led the Senate bill, and I led the House bill. And, as always, I learned from his example: steady, focused, and reasonable. We will continue to carry the torch on renewable and clean energy standards in Congress, following in his footsteps. But today, we can be proud that 30 States--including New Mexico--have enforceable renewable standards. Together, these cover the large majority of the U.S. population. Jeff also shepherded the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the first comprehensive energy bill in 13 years. a ``do it all'' energy bill that covered renewables, nuclear, clean coal, and oil and gas. And 2 years later, he took the lead in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. That bill was an even more ambitious effort than 2005. As the National Journal reported, it was ``the most sweeping energy efficiency legislation ever put into law.'' On both of these bills, Jeff worked in a commendable, bipartisan fashion with Senator Domenici, a Republican from New Mexico. He also achieved these compromise bills with a Republican House in 2005, a Democratic House in 2007, and both were signed into law by Republican President George W. Bush. The public lands package of 2009 was another great achievement. Jeff reached across the aisle for compromise and protected 2 million acres in nine States as new wilderness areas, and more than 1,000 miles of rivers and streams--one of the greatest land protection laws ever. It will benefit generations to come, and it is part of the legacy of Jeff Bingaman. We are spending time these days debating the failings of the Senate, the gridlock, the partisanship. In contrast, Jeff's committee has been a leading light of cooperation and compromise. When other committees lost their bipartisan way, the Energy Committee kept steady. I believe the standard he set will shape future energy and natural resources policy in years to come. I hope it guides us next year. When this body has looked for answers, so often it has turned to Jeff. No surprise that he was one of the Gang of 6 to negotiate health care reform. When real solutions are on the agenda, Jeff will have a seat at the table. Jeff was also one of the key negotiators in the No Child Left Behind Act, and he pushed for the Technology for Education Act and the America COMPETES Act--raising standards for all students, increasing opportunity for all Americans. Because he knows that investments in education and technology and training are crucial, crucial for the jobs of the future, crucial for our country. Education, health care, jobs, energy, and the environment--Jeff has been a leader in all these areas. And what comes through over and over: he never forgets the people who brought him here. He never forgets that what we do here is about families, is about communities, is about making a better future for our children and grandchildren. That is what drives him, and that is what has made him such a great Senator. One of the things I admire most about Jeff Bingaman is his courage. You know where he stands, and he is not afraid to go against the current. He was one of 23 Senators who voted against war with Iraq. As he said later: ``I think that was the right vote, but it was not a popular vote.'' I have valued his counsel on many occasions. It has been an honor to serve with him. He is going to be missed--not just for his good humor, not just for his friendship, but, more importantly, for his character and wisdom. On both sides of the aisle, his absence will be felt. With typical humility, Jeff would be the first to say he has a great staff, and he does. When I first came to Congress, on the House side, Jeff and his staff reached out to me, and to my staff, always available to help, always ready to work together, to try and do what is best for our State and our Nation. And, finally, I know Jeff would also say, he could not have accomplished so much without the support of his amazing wife Anne. They met at Stanford Law School, and have walked side by side, equal partners, ever since. Anne Bingaman is as remarkable as her husband, and he would very likely insist more so. My dad once said that the measure of someone isn't about winning elections or awards or honors. It is what the people who know you best think about you. For those of us who know Jeff Bingaman, he is the real deal. Jeff Bingaman has lived a life of service--substantial, enduring, noble service. I have no doubt that--though he is leaving the Senate-- he will find other ways to serve, and New Mexico and our Nation will be the better for it. Jeff, thank you. Thank you for your leadership, for your friendship, and for your always wise counsel. As you and Anne begin a new chapter in your lives, Jill and I wish you the very best. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I spoke about Senator Bingaman. I know the Presiding Officer is on his committee and she feels the same way about him and all the work he has done. It is going to be a sad day for all of us when he exits at the end of this year, but he is a pretty remarkable leader.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, the Senator from Colorado--my cousin, but he is more like a brother--to highlight the importance of clean energy, renewable energy. The Senator just spoke a little bit earlier about renewable energy, clean energy, and wind energy. I wish to express my support for the extension of the wind production tax credit. Mark Udall, he knows well--as do I--how important this is. I wish to commend him for his efforts on the floor--and his persistent efforts-- to try to get this done. I came to the Chamber to discuss wind incentives earlier this year. I urged then and I urge now an immediate extension. We need this before the end of the year. We need to provide certainty for wind projects and employees. But here we are again. We have not gotten it done yet. We are going to have to keep working. As the Presiding Officer and the Senator from California know, we work on the floor, we work off the floor, we are working behind the scenes to try to get this done. We need to get this extension. This vital tax credit for wind is set to expire in 18 short days. That would be a huge mistake to let it expire. Many projects would be delayed, thousands of jobs would be lost. Clean energy jobs have been a bright spot in our economy. We have seen wind energy capacity in America grow to the equivalent of 75 large powerplants. It is still growing. We added the equivalent of 106 large powerplants' worth of wind power in 2011. We see this on this chart. We are going to add even more this year. This chart shows some interesting facts about wind power in New Mexico. We already have enough wind power installed in New Mexico to power 200,000 homes. We have 20 times more capacity in the planning stages. Then look at this projection: New Mexico has wind potential power 75 times more than the State's electricity need, with the right transmission lines--and I think this is something we also want to work on together--getting a good grid in place, a smart grid, and getting the areas of the country hooked up that have wind energy to be able to move it around. With the right transmission lines, New Mexico is set to become a major wind power exporter. Wind power already supports 500 jobs in New Mexico. Wind farms mean payments for farmers and ranchers in New Mexico during times of drought. They mean a local tax base support for rural schools. They mean a brighter future for our economy. We are seeing real growth, real potential. But progress depends, in part, on us continuing the support for this tax credit. The tax credit has been extended seven times by Presidents and Congresses of both parties. It was enacted under a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush. It was extended in 1999 by a Republican Congress and signed by President Clinton. In 2005, it was extended under President George W. Bush as a part of the bipartisan energy legislation drafted by Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici of New Mexico. I do wish to say we are going to miss Senator Jeff Bingaman, our chairman on the Energy Committee. He has done a remarkable job of putting clean energy at the front and center of our agenda. Then this tax credit was most recently extended in 2009 as part of President Obama's Recovery Act. So renewable energy has enjoyed longstanding bipartisan support, and the wind tax credit has been a great success. The cost of wind power has fallen dramatically, as the Presiding Officer knows. It has fallen dramatically over the years. For example, GE's wind power costs have dropped from 15 cents per kilowatt hour to near 5 cents in the last 10 years. Wind is becoming cost competitive with fossil fuels. On some days, it is the cheapest electricity available. Let me repeat that because that is important because we hear arguments out there that this is expensive. But on some days, it is the cheapest electricity available. The Department of Energy estimates we could receive 20 percent of our electric power from wind alone by 2030. But we need to stay the course and support a policy with proven benefits. We will not need this incentive forever, but we should not eliminate it overnight. Wind resources are widely available in the West, the Midwest, and often offshore. Support of the wind tax credit is diverse. Wind power benefits a wide variety of Americans: farmers and ranchers who lease their land, tax revenues for rural school districts, iron workers, steel workers and engineers and everyone who wants to breathe clean air. Other countries--China, India, Japan, and Germany--see these benefits too. They also want the job growth. They also want the energy security. They are acting aggressively to take leadership of the clean energy economy. Our workers and entrepreneurs can compete with anyone on a level playing field. But the Congress is tying one hand behind their backs by leaving important incentives such as this in jeopardy. Let us continue the bipartisan support for the wind tax credit. Let us work together and get the job done for our economy, for our energy independence. Let us continue to invest in clean energy. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, there has been much discussion about the need to reform the Senate rules, and I have listened closely to the arguments against these changes by the other side. Today I rise to address some of their concerns. My Republican colleagues have made impassioned statements in opposition to amending our rules at the beginning of the next Congress. They say the rules can only be changed with a two-thirds supermajority. They say any attempt to amend the rules by a simple majority is breaking the rules to change the rules. This simply is not true. Repeating it every day on the Senate floor doesn't make it true. The supermajority requirement to change Senate rules is in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is very specific about when a supermajority is required and just as clearly when it isn't required. Article I, section 5 of the Constitution States: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. When the Framers require a supermajority, they explicitly said so. For example, for expelling a Member. On all other matters, such as determining the Chamber's rules, a majority requirement is clearly implied. There have been three rulings by Vice Presidents sitting as President of the Senate. Sitting up where the Presiding Officer is sitting, three Vice Presidents have sat there. And the meaning of article I, section 5, as it applies to the Senate, this is what they were interpreting. In 1957, Vice President Nixon ruled definitively, and I quote from his ruling: While the rules of the Senate have been continued from one Congress to another, the right of a current majority of the Senate at the beginning of a new Congress to adopt its own rules, stemming as it does from the Constitution itself, cannot be restricted or limited by rules adopted by a majority of a previous Congress. Any provision of Senate rules adopted in a previous Congress, which has the expressed or practical effect of denying the majority of the Senate in a new Congress the right to adopt the rules under which it desires to proceed is, in the opinion of the Chair, unconstitutional. That was Vice President Nixon. Vice Presidents Rockefeller and Humphrey made similar rulings at the beginning of later Congresses. I have heard many of my Republican colleagues quote Senator Robert Byrd's last statement to the Senate Rules Committee. The Presiding Officer knew Senator Byrd well. He is from his State of West Virginia. Senator Byrd came to that Rules Committee. I was at that Rules Committee, and I was at the hearing where he appeared--and I have great respect for Senator Byrd. He was one of the great Senate historians. He loved this institution, but we should also consider Senator Byrd's other statements and the steps he took as majority leader to reform this body. In 1979 it was argued that the rules could only be amended in accordance with the previous Senate rules. Majority Leader Byrd said the following on the floor: There is no higher law, insofar as our Government is concerned, than the Constitution. The Senate rules are subordinate to the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution in Article I, Section 5, says that each House shall determine the rules of its proceedings. Now we are at the beginning of Congress. This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past. That was Senator Robert Byrd. This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past. As Senator Byrd pointed out, the Constitution is clear. There is also a longstanding common law principle upheld in the Supreme Court that one legislature cannot bind its successors. For example, the Senate cannot pass a bill with a requirement that it takes 75 votes to repeal it in the future. That would violate this common law principle and be unconstitutional. Similarly, the Senate of one Congress cannot adopt procedural rules that a majority of the Senate in the future cannot amend or repeal. Many of my Republican colleagues have made the same argument. In 2003 Senator John Cornyn wrote in a Law Review article--as many of you know, Senator Cornyn was an attorney general in Texas, was a distinguished justice. Senator Cornyn said the following in this Law Review article: Just as one Congress cannot enact a law that a subsequent Congress could not amend by a majority vote, one Senate cannot enact a rule that a subsequent Senate could not amend by a majority vote. Such power, after all, would violate the general common-law principle that one parliament cannot bind another. That was Senator John Cornyn. Amending our rules at the beginning of a Congress is not breaking the rules to change the rules, it is reaffirming that the U.S. Constitution is superior to the Senate rules. And when there is a conflict between them, we follow the Constitution. I find some of the rhetoric about amending our rules particularly troubling. We have heard comments that any such reforms, if done by a majority, would ``destroy the Senate.'' Again, I can turn to my Republican colleagues to answer this accusation. In 2005 the Republican Policy Committee released a memo entitled ``The Constitutional Option: The Senate's Power to Make Procedural Rules by Majority Vote.'' That memo supports the same arguments I make today for reform by a majority, and it also refutes many of the recent claims about how the Senate will be permanently damaged. One section of the memo titled, ``Common Misunderstandings of the Constitutional Option'' is especially interesting and enlightening. It responds to the argument that ``the essential character of the Senate will be destroyed if the constitutional option is exercised,'' and it responds with the following words: When Majority Leader Byrd repeatedly exercised the constitutional option to correct abuses of Senate rules and precedents, those illustrative exercises of the option did little to upset the basic character of the Senate. Indeed, many observers argue that the Senate minority is stronger today in a body that still allows for extensive debate, full consideration, and careful deliberation of all matters with which it is presented. What is more important about the Republican memo is the reason they believed a change to the rules by a majority was justified. Because of what Republicans saw as a break in longstanding Senate tradition. They claimed they weren't using the constitutional option as a power grab, they were using it as a means of restoring the Senate to its historical norm. This is exactly where we find ourselves today. Back then, the Republicans argued the constitutional option should be used because 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees were threatened with a filibuster. I believe the departure from Senate tradition now is far worse. Since Democrats became the majority party in the Senate in 2007, we have faced the highest number of opposition filibusters ever recorded. Lyndon Johnson faced one filibuster during his 6 years as Senate majority leader. In the same span of time, Harry Reid has faced 386. For most of our history, the filibuster was used very sparingly. But in recent years, what was rare has become routine. The exception has become the norm. Everything is filibustered--every procedural step of the way, with paralyzing effect. The Senate was meant to cool the process, not send it into a deep freeze. Since the Democratic majority came into the upper Chamber in 2007, the Senates of the 110th, 111th, and current 112th Congresses have witnessed the three highest total of filibusters ever recorded. A recent report found the current Senate has passed a record low 2.8 percent of bills introduced. That is a 66-percent decrease from the last Republican majority in 2005 and 2006 and a 90-percent decrease from the high in 1955 and 1956. So the Republicans argued in 2005, ``[a]n exercise of the constitutional option under the current circumstances would be an act of restoration.'' An act of restoration. I cannot improve on that statement. We must return the Senate to a time when every procedural step was not filibustered. I respect the concerns some of my Republican colleagues have regarding the constitutional option, but there is an alternative. We don't have to reform the Senate rule with a majority vote in January. This is up to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Each time the filibuster rule has been amended in the past, a bipartisan group of Senators was prepared to use the constitutional option. But with a majority vote on the reforms looming, enough Members agreed on a compromise and passed the changes with two-thirds in favor. We could do that again in January. I know many of my Republican colleagues agree with me that the Senate is not working. Some say we don't need to change the rules, we need to change behavior. But we tried that--the changing of behavior--with a gentleman's agreement at the beginning of this Congress. It failed. So now it is time to make some real reforms. This is not a ``power grab,'' as some have charged. We want to make the Senate a better place--a place where real debate happens for both parties. So I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to bring their own proposals to the table. Let's work together to restore the deliberative nature of the Senate where all sides have the opportunity to debate and be heard. I said 2 years ago I would push for reforms at the beginning of the next Congress regardless of which party was in the majority. I will say again that our goal is to reform the abuse of the filibuster, not trample the legitimate rights of the minority party. I am willing to live with all the changes we are proposing whether I am in the majority or the minority. The American people, of all political persuasions, want a government that actually gets something done, that actually works. We have to change the way we do business. The challenges are too great, the stakes are too high, and we do not want a government of gridlock to continue. I thank the Chair for the time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.