Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, S. Res. 10 does five simple things: limits debate on the motion to proceed to 2 hours; eliminates secret holds; No. 3, guarantees the majority and minority three amendments with a 60-vote threshold; No. 4, institutes a talking filibuster; and, No. 5, shortens postcloture debate on nominations, both executive and judicial, from 30 hours to 2 hours. I would ask my colleagues to support the resolution. I yield back.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I wish to thank all of the Senators who have come down for this debate. These are just a couple of cleanup, housekeeping things I need to do. First of all, the charge was made that we are trying to make the Senate like the House. Rather than get in a long debate here, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Federalist Paper No. 62 and a letter from a number of scholars who testified before the Rules Committee.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Finally, once again, I wish to thank our leaders. Lamar Alexander and Chuck Schumer, both working on the Rules Committee, have done a remarkable job in terms of negotiating. Leader Reid and Leader McConnell have made a decision which was announced earlier today, and that decision was to change some of the rules, to let us vote on some changes to the rules. And also, I think one of the most significant things--and I know Senator Alexander has mentioned this--is to try to change behavior. More than anything, I think that could be very significant. They talked and decided they would like to do this differently. We would like to get back to the Senate functioning where we bring things up, we debate them, we allow robust debate, we allow the amendment process to work forward. I know Senator Alexander addressed this at one point in his Heritage speech, saying the Senate is a shadow of itself. We want to get back to that Senate with the robust debate and amendment process, and I think both sides have tried to pull that together. So I very much hope this is a new day in the Senate.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Time and time again last year, during the Rules Committee hearings on rules reform, my Republican colleagues said that any attempt to change the filibuster would make the Senate no different than the House. They said reforming the filibuster would be contrary to our Founders' intent to make the Senate a more deliberative body. This argument makes little sense to me. The filibuster was never part of the original Senate--the Founders made this body distinct from the House in many ways, but the filibuster is not one of them. A letter from seven prominent political science scholars, six of whom testified in last year's Rules Committee hearings, states the following: [T]here is no explicit constitutional right to filibuster. In fact, there is ample evidence that the framers preferred majority rather than supermajority voting rules. The framers knew full well the difficulties posed by supermajority rules, given their experiences in the Confederation Congress under the Articles of Confederation (which required a supermajority vote to pass measures on the most important matters). A common result was stalemate; legislators frequently found themselves unable to muster support from a supermajority of the states for essential matters of governing. But we do not have to rely on today's scholars to tell us that the Senate's uniqueness is not premised on the filibuster and unlimited debate. Our Founders explained their vision for our Republic in the Federalist Papers, and Federalist No. 62 explained quite clearly the ways the Senate is unique from the House of Representatives. In Federalist 62, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote the following: The qualifications proposed for senators, as distinguished from those of representatives, consist in a more advanced age and a longer period of citizenship. A senator must be thirty years of age at least; as a representative must be twenty- five. And the former must have been a citizen nine years; as seven years are required for the latter. They go on to explain about how Representatives will be directly elected by the people, but Senators will be appointed by the State legislatures. This of course was changed in 1913 by the 17th amendment, which established direct election of Senators by popular vote. This, I would argue, is a far more drastic change to the Senate than anything we could do with rules reform, yet even that change did not turn the Senate into the House. But perhaps the most important distinction between the bodies is whom we represent. Federalist 62 explains that the equality of representation in the Senate was the: result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States. . . . [T]hat among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils . . . [and] the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation. It is this fact that makes the Senate very different than the House. As a Senator from New Mexico, I represent just over 2 million people. Senators Feinstein and Boxer represent over 37 million constituents in California. And Senators Barrasso and Enzi, representing Wyoming with a population of just over half a million, actually have fewer constituents than members of the House. Yet we all have the same vote in the Senate. This is what makes this body unique. Our founders did not intend to protect a minority party from being steamrolled by a majority party, but instead to protect small States from being run over by the large States. Federalist 62 goes on to discuss how the number of Senators, and the duration of their term, is another key distinction between the bodies. Unlike the House, who are always facing reelection less than 2 years away, two-thirds of the Senate is always free from the same worry. Coupled with the fact that senators were appointed by the State legislatures, the Founders believed that the Senate would be a check on the House against legislation that was passed too quickly and without sufficient consideration. But they intended the structure of the Senate to make us a more deliberative body, not the rules that govern us. So whatever changes we might make to our standing rules, whether minor or significant, the Senate will always be distinct from the House of Representatives. The cloture rule was only implemented in 1917--any changes we make to it today cannot destroy the uniquely deliberative nature of this body. So to speak more generally now, today we come to the floor as a body to debate changes to the rules that guide this institution. All of the proposals we consider today have merit, in my opinion, and all deserve an up-or-down vote by this prestigious body. Each proposal is important, but as we consider them one-by-one, we must remind ourselves what brought us to this point in the first place. The reason we are here is simple: This Senate is broken. Because of partisan rancor and our own incapacitating rules, this body is failing to represent the best interests of the American people. The unprecedented abuse of the filibuster, of secret holds, and of other procedural tactics routinely prevents the Senate from getting its work done. It prevents us from doing the job the American people sent us here to do. In the Congress that just ended, because of rampant and growing obstruction, not a single appropriations bill was passed. There wasn't a budget bill. Only one authorization bill was approved--and that was only at the very last minute. More than 400 bills on a variety of important issues were sent over from the House. Not a single one was acted upon. Key judicial nominations and executive appointments continue to languish. The American people are fed up with it. They are fed up with us. And I don't blame them. We need to bring the workings of the Senate out of the shadows and restore its accountability. That begins with addressing our own dysfunction. Specifically, the source of that dysfunction--the Senate rules. That is what I--along with my colleagues and friends Senator Merkley of Oregon and Senator Harkin of Iowa--have been trying to do these past weeks. We have been trying to restore the uniquely deliberative nature of this body--while also allowing it to function more efficiently. On Tuesday, Senator Harkin, Senator Merkley and I each were denied unanimous consent to bring up our resolutions for immediate debate in accordance with article 1, section 5 of the Constitution. Denying us the ability to debate the important constitutional issue of how this body adopts its rules was unprecedented. Ten times previous to this--from 1917 to as recently as 1975--the Senate debated reforms to the use of the filibuster, as well as the underlying constitutional issue of adopting reforms by a simple majority at the beginning of a Congress. The results of these debates varied. But the point I make today is this: each and every time a rules change was proposed, this Senate never denied those Senators the right to debate their proposals through the constitutional option. During many of these debates, the reform proposal was defeated, often by tabling it--but they had the debate. 1975 was the last time we had a major reform to our filibuster rules. On three occasions that year, the Senate voted by a simple majority to table points of order against Senator Mondale and Senator Pearson's reform proposal--a proposal that would have amended the cloture threshold from ``two-thirds to three-fifths present and voting.'' It was these votes by a simple majority of the Senate that forced the compromise reform that changed the Senate's cloture threshold to the present rule ``three-fifths duly chosen and sworn.'' We are here today debating the substance of several different proposals, all of which share a goal of restoring debate, deliberation, and transparency to this great body. And this afternoon, we will have votes on these proposals. But, we will have those votes under thresholds that I strongly believe the Constitution does not require. To deny us the right to have that debate about the constitutional question was unprecedented and, I believe, a mistake. But, however misguided I believe that decision to be, that decision has been made, and it is one we have to live with. Now we must seize the opportunity that remains, and that opportunity is the chance for the most substantive debate of the Senate rules in 35 years. I believe this debate is fundamentally important to the health of this institution. Reform is badly needed. We have a responsibility to the American people to come together and fix the Senate. Whether that is through the constitutional option--as I believe we have the right and the responsibility--or through other means, I welcome the debate. As I said more than a year ago when I first proposed the constitutional option: It is time for reform. There are many great traditions in this body that should be kept and respected, but stubbornly clinging to ineffective and unproductive procedures should not be one of them. Mr. President, I want to close by saying this. Since the beginning of this process, my actions have been guided by the great respect I have for the institution of the U.S. Senate, my reverence for the many great men and women who have served here, and my sincere affection for my colleagues. That remains true today. I want to thank my colleagues for their consideration of our proposals, for their willingness to listen, and for their friendship. And I want to make clear to all those who have supported this effort--our work is not complete: our cause endures. History has made clear that substantial rules reform is--more often than not--the work of many Congresses, not just one. The debate that began in this Congress will serve as a foundation for reform moving forward. And I commit to doing all I can to ensure that the Senate is not a graveyard for good ideas--but instead remains a shining light of Democracy around the world. So now we come to the concluding point in the debate where I think it is very appropriate to thank staff. My two staff members who have worked the hardest--all my staff have worked very hard on this, but Matt Nelson and Tim Woodbury deserve individual recognition for their tireless work. I know that as a result of this, we put a lot of pressure on the Rules Committee. Jean Boudwich and her whole crew over there have done a great job and the Parliamentarian shop headed by Alan Frumin. We have also had great assistance from them in terms of answering questions and working with them, so I applaud Alan and all of the Parliamentarians. At several places in the Record, a variety of different items were mentioned. To clarify the Record, I ask unanimous consent to have printed, No. 1, a New York Times editorial from January 25; No. 2 includes quotes from constitutional scholars and conservative scholars on the constitutional option; and No. 3 is an op-ed from the Washington Post entitled ``Fixing a Broken Set of Rules.'' I also commend to my colleagues a Harvard Law and Policy Review article entitled ``The Constitutional Option: Reforming the Rules of the Senate to Restore Accountability and Reduce Gridlock.''

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, before Senator Alexander leaves, and I know we have our conferences, and I guess we are going to go to about 1:00 today, I would like to thank him for all of his efforts. I really look forward to Senator Alexander being the ranking member--I believe he is going to be the ranking member--on the Rules Committee now that Bob Bennett has moved on to other things. He has participated in many of these hearings. I look forward to continuing the exchange on rules that we have had. I do not think this is the end of the rules debate. I think that is why we have a full-time Rules Committee to take a look at this. I hope these new Senators who are listening to us today--whom you are going to talk to on your side, I am sure, in about 15 minutes--that they look at our rules and offer suggestions and that we still continue this discussion in the Rules Committee. I thank all of the leaders who came down here today and talked. Senator Reid and Senator McConnell have announced an agreement. We are moving forward with reforms. Senator Schumer has been a real champion on rules reform. I remember going to him and asking for hearings, and he said: Well, what kinds of hearings are we looking at? What do we want to do? And I explained to him, went through--we need to talk about the history of the filibuster. You know, the filibuster was not in the original Senate. There were rules for 17 years where you had what was called a motion to order the previous question. That is a majority motion to cut off debate. And then later it was changed. So I said: We have to get the history out there for everybody to see because some of these charges are not very accurate. And he was a champion. He allowed us to do six hearings. We brought in constitutional scholars. Both sides participated, and it was very productive. So here we are at the beginning of a Congress, and we have been pressing--with my good colleague and friend from Oregon--for rules reform through the Constitution, relying on the Constitution. In article I, section 5 of the Constitution, it gives us the power and the authority--a majority of us at the beginning of an organizing session-- to determine what rules we function under for the next 2 years. That is the exercise in which we have been engaged. Both the Senator from Oregon and I realize if we hadn't utilized our rights under the Constitution, if we hadn't pushed this very hard and said we are trying to round up 51 Senators who will stand with us and say they want change in this institution, we want to get back to being the greatest deliberative body, we want to consider all the important bills in a timely way--budget bills, appropriations bills--by utilizing our constitutional option or our rights under the Constitution, we have come a long way in 1 year. We have had many debates in our caucus. We have had many discussions. We are not exactly where the Senator and I think we should be at this particular point in time. These reforms--and let me say, these reforms are steps forward and in some ways significant. The fact that we are getting rid of secret holds, if we have that vote today and get 60 votes, is a good thing. Nominations, letting the President get his team in place, that is a good thing. Reading of amendments, my cousin, Senator Mark Udall, is involved in that. The motion to proceed, the gentlemen's agreement on the motion to proceed and filling the tree, that is a significant step in behavior to say: Let's change our behavior, and then the fact that we will have votes today on S. Res. 10, on the Merkley talking filibuster and the Harkin proposal, these are significant votes to be taken and significant steps forward. I strongly disagree with one thing announced here, the idea that the two leaders are taking off the table us utilizing our constitutional rights. That was what was announced. I think we both heard it the same way. Leader McConnell and Leader Reid both said they are not going to rely on a majority vote for rules in the future, no matter who is in power and what is happening. The beauty of the Constitution--and we all realize this--is that is a good agreement for them. It doesn't apply to 98 other Senators. Each Senator under the Constitution has his or her right to rely on those constitutional rights. I urge, as has been done every time in the past when we have had a movement for change on rules, that it be bipartisan. We are seeking 51 Senators who will join with us. Because if 51 Senators join at the beginning of a Congress and say they want rules reform, they want this place to function better, they want to do the people's work better, they want to take up some House bills, the 400 bills that died, they want to do appropriations bills in a timely way-- all these things are very important to a better functioning Senate, and a better functioning Senate is all about the people's work. I know the Senator from Oregon has some initial comments. But I thought we could talk about the idea that we have moved a long way. We have pushed the constitutional option. I don't think there is any doubt that he and I are giving up on our constitutional rights. Other Senators can say what they want to do, but we are going to stand and utilize our rights as we move down the road. We are hoping we will be at a place where we have 51 Senators, Democrats and Republicans, who will continue to look at this and find a better way to make this institution work in terms of modern issues, modern times. I think we are kind of stuck back in another century with some of these rules. We need to bring it up to date. With that, the Senator from Oregon and I are going to engage in a colloquy, but I know he had some additional comments. I am happy to yield.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 27, 2011, at 2:15 p.m., to hold a European Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Crackdown in Belarus: Responding to the Lukashenko Regime.''

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 27, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 27, 2011, at 1:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Gulf Coast Recovery: An Examination of Claims Administration and Social Services in the Aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.''

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on January 27, 2011, at 11 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Affordable Care Act: The Impact of Health Insurance Reform on Health Care Consumers'' on January 27, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 27, 2011, at 2:15 p.m., to hold a European Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Crackdown in Belarus: Responding to the Lukashenko Regime.''

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on January 27, 2011, at 11 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Affordable Care Act: The Impact of Health Insurance Reform on Health Care Consumers'' on January 27, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. That is correct. So what we are doing today--and I know Senator Merkley has introduced a freestanding proposal on the talking filibuster, and we have joined together; I have also signed on to that--we have S. Res. 10, filed on January 5, which has the five solid provisions for reforming the rules. I think if you look at these in history, they have had broad bipartisan support. I would at this point recognize our colleague in this rules debate, our partner and hard worker and more senior in experience on these rules matters, who has joined us--Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa. We are in a colloquy situation, so I will yield.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Let me also say one thing about the talking filibuster that hit me, and that is bipartisanship. As we know, both of us, I think, were on the Senate floor when Senator Arlen Specter gave his farewell address. I believe the Presiding Officer was also here. Senator Specter served in the minority for 2 years and then was in the majority for almost 2 years and both times he came forward with a proposal where he was calling for the same thing--a talking filibuster, whether he was on the minority side or the majority side. So I think, once again, that just demonstrates that each of these provisions has bipartisan support in it. We don't think this debate is about partisanship. We don't think it is about a power grab. We don't think it is about those kinds of things. It is about, as the Senator has elucidated, making the Senate work better. When we say ``make the Senate work better,'' we are talking about it working better for the American people. I think if we did the oversight of government when it comes to appropriations bills, a budget, getting the budget out on time, getting appropriations bills done on time, that does a lot to make sure the public's money is well spent, and that is something I hear a lot about back home. I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Republican Policy Committee paper titled ``The Constitutional Option: The Senate's Power To Make Procedural Rules by Majority Vote,'' dated April 25, 2005. We keep hearing that any use of the constitutional option is simply a power grab by Democrats. That is simply not true--and a 2005 Republican Policy Committee memo provides some excellent points to rebut the power grab argument. Let me read part of the 2005 Republican memo and I will ask that the entire memo be printed in the Record: This constitutional option is well grounded in the U.S. Constitution and in Senate history. The Senate has always had, and repeatedly has exercised, the constitutional power to change the Senate's procedures through a majority vote. Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd used the constitutional option in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 to establish precedents changing Senate procedures during the middle of a Congress. And the Senate several times has changed its Standing Rules after the constitutional option had been threatened, beginning with the adoption of the first cloture rule in 1917. Simply put, the constitutional option itself is a longstanding feature of Senate practice. The Senate, therefore, has long accepted the legitimacy of the constitutional option. Through precedent, the option has been exercised and Senate procedures have been changed. At other times it has been merely threatened, and Senators negotiated textual rules changes through the regular order. But regardless of the outcome, the constitutional option has played an ongoing and important role. The memo goes on to address some ``Common Misunderstandings of the Constitutional Option.'' Let me read some of those. Again, this is a direct quote: Senate procedures are sacrosanct and cannot be changed by the constitutional option. This misunderstanding does not square with history. As discussed, the constitutional option has been used multiple times to change the Senate's practices through the creation of new precedents. Also, the Senate has changed its Standing Rules several times under the threat of the constitutional option. The next misunderstanding addressed in the memo is that ``Exercising the constitutional option will destroy the filibuster for legislation.'' The Republican rebuttal is: The history of the use of the constitutional option suggests that this concern is grossly overstated. Senators will only exercise the constitutional option when they are willing to live with the rule that is created, regardless of which party controls the body. And a final misunderstanding in the memo, and one which the Republicans are happy to use now, is that ``the essential character of the Senate will be destroyed if the constitutional option is exercised.'' The memo rebuts this by stating: 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. I ask unanimous consent that the memo be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I think this shows this isn't about a power grab; this is about trying to work to make sure the Senate is going to work better for the American people. The fifth provision of S. Res. 10--and as Senator Merkley knows, we are down here today to try to get S. Res. 10, rules changes, onto the Senate floor, and so we are going to be asking unanimous consent for that. But the fifth provision is called postcloture debate on nominations. Now, what are we talking about? Well, when we have a nomination that comes to the floor--a judicial nomination, an executive nomination--in the rule nominations have 30 hours of postcloture debate. So when you decide to cut off debate, when you get to the point that you say we are going to cut off debate, that 30 hours is normally used for amendments and to work through the amendment process. Well, when you have a nomination, you are not amending a nomination. You are trying to either move forward with an up-or-down vote on the nomination--the person is either voted up or down. It makes no sense to have 30 hours. So the other commonsense proposal we have is to shorten that postcloture time to 2 hours, from 30 hours, because there is no reason to amend in that phase. I know Senator Merkley is also familiar with this provision.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. The fourth provision--and I think the Senator is very right on section 3, but section 4 is the issue of extended debate, and I would like to have the Senator talk about that issue because that is the issue on which you worked the most closely. The Senator from Oregon has raised the issue of what we have going on right now is what we call a silent debate. It is a silent filibuster. We have people who say they want to filibuster and object, but then they go home or they go on vacation or something like that. So my colleague has drafted a provision--he is the architect of this provision in S. Res. 10, if he could just go through that and talk about that section on extended debate, what it does and why it is important to what we are dealing with today.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. You bet.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Of course.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, that is the essence of it. What we have now is Senators leaving. We actually had the case where a Senator wanted the cloture vote to take place but then left and went home. That is a pretty disgraceful situation. I have heard that our good friend, Senator Alexander, is going to join us in a little bit. I know the Senator from Oregon was quoting from a speech he recently gave at the Heritage Foundation on January 4, 2011. One of the things Senator Alexander said in there that I think we, all three of us, have echoed--Senator Harkin, Senator Merkley, and myself--is: Now there is no doubt the Senate has been reduced to a shadow of itself as the world's greatest deliberative body, a place which, as Sen. Arlen Specter said in his farewell address, has been distinctive because of ``the ability of any Senator to offer virtually any amendment at any time. I say to Senator Harkin, I know he has spoken passionately about the idea of offering amendments, how our democracy has deteriorated in the Senate because it takes now 60 votes--every amendment. I say to the Senator, it did not always used to be like that, did it? I would ask the Senator, did it? The Senator has been here a while. What was the Senate like 10, 15 years ago? Could you get an amendment through with a majority vote?

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Senator Merkley hit it on the head. That is a problem, and we have had that consistently in the 2 years that he and I have been here. My understanding is, it happened in many of the years before that time. In fact, Senator Byrd was very upset about the way the motion to proceed was being used. In 1979, he came down to the floor--he was the majority leader--and he did everything he could to change the motion to proceed and try to make sure it was used more rationally and more reasonably. What our proposal is, I say to Senator Merkley, and other Senators on this resolution know, we are talking 2 hours of debate on the motion to proceed. Rather than wasting a week, if Majority Leader Reid comes down and says we are going to proceed to legislation about jobs and he puts it on the floor, the side over there gets an hour and our side gets an hour and then we are on the legislation, ready to have amendments filed, ready for debate to take place. We have saved us what we believe would be 1 week of time. That is dealing with the first proposal on the motion to proceed. The second proposal is very simple, but it is going to move the Senate along in a dramatic way; that is, section 2, eliminating secret holds. I know we have several Senators who have worked for years and years on secret holds. When I talk about the bipartisanship on secret holds, Senator Grassley, Senator Wyden, from Senator Merkley's great State of Oregon, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri more recently, have all been working on the issue of secret holds. We very simply do this in one little section. We say: No Senator may object on behalf of another Senator without disclosing the name of that Senator. That gets right to the heart of secret holds.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. One of the things that happens--and we have seen a lot of this--we know some Senator is objecting, for example, to a nomination, a high nomination in an executive department and does it secretly so we do not know on the Senate floor, the press who covers this does not have an idea, and the people do not know. Then, the same Senator goes to the department and negotiates policy, national policy about a particular issue that concerns the whole Nation, all our States, and tries to get an agreement, a backroom deal and an agreement. That is not the way we should be doing business, and that is why this very simple proposal: ``No Senator may object on behalf of another Senator without disclosing the name of the Senator.'' You own the hold.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I am going to move on to the third section of S. Res. 10, which is the right to offer amendments. As Senator Merkley knows very well and our Presiding Officer, one of the big issues around here--and this is getting into a little bit of the weeds, but one of the big issues that can help us function better is if we just agree, whether we are in the majority or in the minority, that we want both sides to have the opportunity to debate and to offer amendments. And so we are trying to protect that right. Many of us are thinking in terms of these rulings, and we are saying we want them to be fair to both sides. So the provision on the right to offer amendments is in the legislation. It talks about them being majority and minority amendments. It doesn't talk about parties because a lot of the pundits are saying we are going to be in the minority in 2 years, and I think it is only fair in the Senate that we have that kind of relationship. Senator Merkley.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I say to Senator Harkin, one of the things that happened to us right at the end of the Congress was when we had a vote on a piece of legislation called the DREAM Act. I believe the majority had 55 votes for the DREAM Act.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent Tim Woodbury, my law clerk, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of this debate.