Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Then it is transparent, then if you as a Senator on the Klamath Basin want to do something, you can go to that Senator--whoever it is--and say: I have an issue with my State. Can we work together to try to work it out? Right now the problem we have is that some Senator is putting on a secret hold and we do not know who it is and we do not have the ability to clear that away. This is a good, solid proposal.

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. 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. 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. 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

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.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. The Senator from Iowa and my good friend, the Senator from Oregon, want to speak. The Senator mentioned--and I want to put this quote in the Record--the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, who came to the floor and talked today. One of the reasons I have a real belief that we might have some common ground is he was a judge before he came to the Senate. I think he was on the supreme court in the State of Texas. On this issue of the constitutional option, he wrote a law review article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. The name of the article was ``Our Broken Judicial Confirmation Process and the Need for Filibuster Reform.'' Listen to this. This is Senator John Cornyn of Texas: Just as one Congress cannot enact a law that a subsequent Congress could not amend by majority vote, one Senate cannot enact a rule that a subsequent Senate could not amend by majority vote. Such power, after all, would violate the general common law principle that one parliament cannot bind another. He is basically driving home the point that we have the authority today, on the first day of the 112th Congress, the first legislative day, to pull together and take a hard look at the rules. The Senator from Iowa raised a very important issue on consensus. I am going to pass this off to Senator Merkley in this colloquy and let him answer that point. Maybe he may have another question. I wish our friends on the other side of the aisle were here for this discussion. Senator Alexander was here earlier. We had Senator Wicker. But nobody is here to answer the questions we are putting that way, but we are answering the ones this way.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, let me first say to our majority whip, Mr. Durbin of Illinois, that I very much appreciate his long-term effort in looking at rules. I know he signed on to several proposals today. I know he is on the one Senator Merkley and I are on, and he is also on the Harkin proposal. The Senator was here back in those days, and he has seen how much the Senate has changed. So we really appreciate the Senator's contribution to this effort and the remarkable job he has done trying to lead us in these difficult times we are in. It must be tough for somebody like him, who came to a Senate and saw it change over time, and change in the wrong way and get hyperpartisan. I want to say that to the Senator. I also want to say several of our speakers mentioned things, and I think it is very appropriate to put them in the Record because I think when people read the Congressional Record, and things are mentioned, it is important they be able to find them quickly. So the first one is from George Packer, who is a writer with the New Yorker magazine. He wrote a piece called ``The Empty Chamber'' dated August 9, 2010. I commend to my colleagues that article. It was mentioned in the course of the debate and it is an excellent article. He is a very good writer. Secondly, one of the big scholars on Congress--there are a couple of people out there who study Congress over and over and write books and articles and monitor what we are doing, and one of them is a gentleman by the name of Norm Ornstein. Norm wrote--this was also mentioned in the course of the debate by one of the Senators--and Norm wrote a piece in the New York Times called ``A Filibuster Fix.'' That was on August 27, 2010. I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I know my colleague, Amy Klobuchar, is here. Senator Mondale was a distinguished former Vice President and leader in the Senate, and he wrote the very passionate piece in the New York Times that I have just had printed in the Record. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Let me finally say to the Senator from Oregon, the Presiding Officer, that I very much appreciate his support both in working with me on the constitutional option and sorting out the details and making sure we have things right and also for his incredible work in terms of pulling together the talking filibuster part of this. I was here today when he showed his charts, and he took our five ideas and, in the most simple form so the American people could understand it, capsulized those in those five charts. I have been telling my staff--and you need to do this by the end of the debate--we need to find a way to shrink those and put those in the Record also because here we are sitting on the floor and we have these charts and we need to somehow have those be a representation also. So with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I submit on behalf of myself and Senators Harkin, Merkley, Durbin, Klobuchar, Brown, Begich, Blumenthal, Gillibrand, Shaheen, Boxer, Tester, Cardin, Mikulski, Warner, and Manchin a resolution to amend rule VIII and rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, and I ask unanimous consent to proceed to the immediate consideration of the resolution.

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

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, with the process we are in right now--and we have had questions back and forth on this whole issue of Senate rules reform--I want to respond to Senator Alexander because Senator Alexander raised some questions, and some of those questions were not answered on our side. So I want to put in a couple responses here. Senator Alexander asked the question: What is a filibuster? He was asking our side. He was asking in this debate, what is a filibuster? Well, all of us know and we have heard in this debate what a true filibuster is. We saw a hero here on our side in terms of a true filibuster when it came to Bernie Sanders just a week or so ago, where he stood up for 8 hours to oppose a tax package on principle. He took the floor and he spoke and spoke passionately. I say to Senator Harkin, another example of a true filibuster is from a movie the American public knows the best, a Jimmy Stewart movie, ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' Senator Merkley earlier had some charts on that, and he showed Mr. Smith on the floor, surrounded by other Senators, where he spoke until he collapsed. Then you have the old-time tales of the Southern Democrats when civil rights legislation was being pushed in the 1950s and 1960s, when a number of what you would say were Northern Senators were pushing an anti-lynching law because lynching was going on in the South. So they were trying to say you cannot do that, and Southern Senators would stand up--I think sometimes the record was in the range of 20 hours or 25 hours where they were completely exhausted from speaking on the floor. So that is what the American public thinks about a filibuster. Well, we know that is not what is happening here. I have been here for 2 years, and the only real filibuster I saw was the Bernie Sanders filibuster. I asked one of the historians, I think: When was the last one? And they said: Well, you would go back to 1992 and Alfonse D'Amato, where he took 12 hours to talk about an issue in New York that he was passionate about. So when Senator Alexander asked us, What is a filibuster, that is my description of what a filibuster is. But what I think the real question is--and I would like Senator Alexander, when he returns, to answer this--is, What impact has the threat of a filibuster had? What impact has the threat of a filibuster had? So people are probably asking: What are we talking about when we say ``the threat of a filibuster''? Well, actually we have been talking about it all day. First of all, it is the secret holds. As our Presiding Officer, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, knows, they work very hard in the Judiciary Committee. They produce a bipartisan result on these judicial nominations. These judicial nominations come out. They are put on the calendar. Then months and months and months later some of them get up for a vote. I do not know about the exact number, but my understanding is that we had to send back to the President a number of judicial nominations that had received bipartisan support from the committee. We finished our business in December, and we sent those nominations back, only to have to have the President send them back down again because it is a new Congress. We are going to have to have hearings all over. This is the kind of situation we are in. So that is one specific case of the threat of a filibuster. And we have these all the time. One of the ones that is the most remarkable to me--and I am not going to pick out the Senator or the exact committee--but a number of us, as Senators, saw a stack of bills, a stack of legislation that had come out, on a bipartisan basis, from one of our committees that was very thick, and it was legislation from 2 years--2 years--of that committee legislating in a bipartisan way, and those Democrats and Republicans working together and doing the hard work, and one Senator--one Senator--held up all of that legislation this last Congress, held it up completely. That is the threat of a filibuster. You may say: Well, how did that happen? What happens is, the legislation comes out of committee, and a Senator--whom we do not even know; a lot of us suspect after various things that have happened over time, but the Senator comes down and says, in a secret way to his leader: Well, if you bring any of those bills to the floor, I am going to filibuster. That is what the threat of a filibuster is. But that is an agreement that none of us knows about. So the threat of a filibuster has had an enormous impact on this institution. Let me describe a couple of other things. I talked about judicial nominations. As to executive nominations, I come from the era when my father was Secretary of the Interior. I was a kid. I remember when he went into office. In visiting with him about that later, I said: We can't get executive people in place. They don't have their team. He said: Tom, I had my whole team in place the first 2 weeks. So you are talking about the whole team for the Department of the Interior in the first 2 weeks. I remember the Washington Post did an extensive study of the first year of the Obama administration. So imagine: President Obama takes office. He goes through a year, and he only had 55 percent of his executive nominations in place. So he only had 55 percent of his team. Those of us who believe in government, believe that government does good things out there, find that appalling because we believe if you put people in place, they will be responsive to citizens on the particular issues of those departments. So that is very important, I believe, getting executive nominations in place. So that is what the threat of a filibuster ends up doing. I see my colleague from Mississippi, and I do not know whether he is going to step in for Mr. Alexander and ask questions. We are in this questioning back and forth period. Senator Harkin may want to say something on the question issue here too. What impact has the threat of a filibuster had? We can hear the argument--Senator Alexander has made this a number of times--look at all the great things you accomplished in the lameduck and look at all the great things you feel you accomplished in terms of health care, the stimulus package, and financial reform. But the reality is, in order to accomplish those in the constant filibuster we were in, we have basically destroyed our institution. As some of the more senior Senators here have told me, the Senate is kind of a shadow of itself. What I do mean: ``We have destroyed the institution''? Well, it used to be that our big oversight function was to look over the money bills for the government, the appropriations bills. Guess what. Last year we did not do a single appropriations bill on the floor of the Senate. You do not have to go back very far when we used to bring all 12 of those bills to the floor, and we would have 2 or 3 days of lively debate. Every Senator could put in amendments. Senator Harkin knows because he is one of the cardinals, he is the chairman of one of these committees. It is a very helpful process, one for the agency to know that all Senators are overlooking that agency, and for a person in Senator Harkin's position, as the chair of the committee, to know what the concern of the entire body is. But we have given that up. We do not do that anymore, and it is because of the constant filibuster and the threat of filibuster. So you have that situation. I would think my friend from Mississippi, the Senator from Mississippi, would be very concerned about this one: We did not do a budget last year. The one way we can impact--if you talk about fiscal responsibility, and you talk about keeping the government under control, and guiding it in the right direction, the one thing you want to do is a budget. You want to pass a budget and set some outlines there. Well, we did not do a budget last year because we were in a constant filibuster, the threat of a filibuster. And the story goes on and on. So I say to Senator Harkin, we are in the question phase right now. I am going to yield the floor. I am sure there is time still on the other side. But I think the question is not, as Senator Alexander raised it, What is a filibuster? The real question out there--for when Senator Alexander returns--is, What impact has the threat of a filibuster had on this institution we love of the Senate? I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. The Senator from Iowa makes an excellent point. I was here for his talk earlier, where the Senator led with the filibuster and laid it out and Senator Alexander came back and asked these questions. I think the key question is the one the Senator just asked, which is: What has a filibuster become? The Senator seemed to be defending the old-fashioned filibuster that no longer exists. That is the situation we have. Some of our friends on the other side--I hear them talk about this-- are saying this is the filibuster of the past; it is a very pure thing and a wonderful thing. But it has been distorted, manipulated. The filibuster has been twisted in a way that it does exactly what the Senator is talking about--slowing everything down. It is an attempt, in a way, to defeat the majority from governing. I think the Senator cited the Federalist Papers. One of the biggest dangers in a democracy is if you give the power to the minority to shut down the ability of the majority to govern. If you do that, you have rendered your democracy useless because then you get yourself into a situation, as the Senator from Iowa knows, where they can prevent the majority from doing anything and then run in a campaign and say: Well, they didn't do anything, which is kind of a hypocritical way to approach legislating. One of the things that is remarkable to me--and I served over in the House of Representatives for 10 years and I know we don't have to take up every House bill the way it is written and we don't have to respond to every bill, but when you hear the fact that 400 House of Representatives bills in 2 years--the last session of Congress--were sent over here and we ended up--the younger Members of the Senate were interested in some of these bills. We looked into them. We found out that these were on veterans issues and many were good bills. We found out they had to do with small business, and they were good bills. We found out they had to do with building the economy and economic growth and those kinds of things and that they were good bills. But we didn't have the time to act upon them because the way the filibuster is being utilized is to defeat our ability to move forward. The one other area I wish to mention--and I know this is something that concerns our friends on the other side--if you are talking about making government responsible, fiscally responsible, doing oversight over government--and they say they are going to do all this oversight in the House--one of the best ways to do oversight is in an authorization bill. As everybody knows, we have an authorization process, and we have an appropriations process. Well, apparently now, with the studies being done at the Center for American Research--and Senator Harkin would know this more than others because he serves on the Appropriations Committee--a major part of our appropriations are unauthorized now. I think the figure I saw was close to 40 percent. So that means if these are unauthorized appropriations, it means the side of our Senate and the side of our Congress that deals with authorization, that is an oversight. You go in there in the authorization process and look at an agency and you say: How is this program functioning? Is this program effective, a good program, something that is working? If the answers come back and you have evidence it is not working, you write in the authorization we are getting rid of that. If you don't do any authorizations at all and the authorization doesn't come to the Senate floor and all Senators don't have an opportunity to participate, then you are giving up that kind of essential oversight. I would think they would be for that. Guess how many authorizations we did last year. How many? We did one. We did it at the very last minute as we went out of town, and that was the Defense Department authorization. That was held up with a filibuster because it had don't ask, don't tell in the bill. So here we are at war--we have two wars going on. As Chairman Levin said, a lot of the things in that bill were to help the military do a better job and help the fighters on the ground in these two wars and we weren't able to get them done at the start of the fiscal year and move forward. So we were able to get it done before we left. I was happy about that. How about intelligence and the huge agencies that run the health care programs and all those? We have not done that oversight. To the Senator's question what has the filibuster become, it has become something pretty horrible in the history of the Senate. If we don't fix this, we are going to be in a bad way. The way to fix it is the constitutional option. That is the wonderful thing about where we are today. Today, we are in the first legislative day of the beginning of the 112th Congress. What everybody has told us on that first legislative day is that we can have all these rules proposals. The Senator from Iowa has one and Senator Merkley and myself have one and Senator Wyden. Guess what. If we round up 51 Senators--and they don't have to be only Democrats--who say, No. 1, here are rules changes we want to make with 51 Senators, we can cut off debate on those changes and 51 Senators--a majority--can vote those rules in, and we can fix the situation we have all been talking about here. I think the Senator's question is the right one. The filibuster has become a procedural morass.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, let me just inquire through the Parliamentarian, it is my understanding that by objecting to this resolution being immediately considered now, the result is the resolution will go over under the rule, allowing it to be available to be brought up at a future time. Is that understanding correct?

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Thank you very much. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the resolution I just mentioned. I have worked very hard with all of my colleagues, including my two colleagues from Iowa and Oregon, Senators Harkin and Merkley, to reform the rules of this unique and prestigious body. I do so after coming to the floor last January--January 25, in fact, now almost 1 year ago--to issue a warning, a warning because of partisan rancor and the Senate's own incapacitating rules, that this body was 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 prevent the Senate from getting its work done. It prevents us from doing the job the American people sent us here to do. Since that day in January things haven't gotten better. In fact, I would say they have gotten worse--much worse. Here in the Senate open and honest debate has been replaced with secret backroom deals and partisan gridlock. Up-or-down votes on important issues have been unreasonably delayed and blocked entirely at the whim of a single Senator. Last year, for example, one committee had almost every piece of legislation held up by holds from one Senator. The Senate is broken. 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 done 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. Last year the Senate Rules Committee took a hard look at how our rules have become so abused and how this Chamber no longer functions as our Founders intended. I applaud Chairman Schumer and his excellent staff for devoting so much time to this important issue. I thank Senator Alexander and Senator Roberts. We have some very good Republican colleagues on the committee, and we have had some good exchanges. They know we had six hearings and heard from some of the most respected experts in the field. But these hearings demonstrated that the rules are not broken for one party, or for only the majority. Today the Democrats lament the abuse of the filibuster and the Republicans complain they are not allowed to offer amendments to legislation. Five years ago, those roles were reversed. Rather than continue on this destructive path, we should adopt rules that allow a majority to act while protecting the minority's right to be heard. Whichever party is in the majority, they must be able to do the people's business. I think that is what Senator Harkin spoke so persuasively to in his comments on the filibuster--that the majority has to be able to govern. The way the filibuster is being used the minority thwarts the majority's ability to govern. At a hearing in September, I testified before the committee about my procedural plan for amending the Senate's rules--the constitutional option. Unlike the specific changes to the rules proposed by other Senators and experts, my proposal is to make the Senate of each Congress accountable for all of our rules. This is what the Constitution provides for, and it is what our Founders intended. Rule XXII is the most obvious example of the need for reform. Last amended in 1975, rule XXII demonstrates what happens when the Members of the current Senate have no ability to amend the rules adopted long ago--rules that get abused. I have said this before, but it bears repeating. Of the 100 Members of the Senate, only two of us have had the opportunity to vote on the cloture requirement in rule XXII--Senators Inouye and Leahy. So if 98 of us haven't voted on the rule, what is the effect? Well, the effect is that we are not held accountable when the rule gets abused, and with a requirement of 67 votes for any rules change that is a whole lot of power without restraint. But we can change this. We can restore accountability to the Senate. Many of my colleagues, as well as constitutional scholars, agree with me that a simple majority of the Senate can end debate--that is the first step--and adopt its rules at the beginning of a new Congress. Critics of my position argue that the rules can only be changed in accordance with the current rules, and that rule XXII requires two- thirds of Senators present and voting to agree to end debate on a change to the Senate rules. Since this rule was first adopted in 1917, members of both parties have rejected this argument on many occasions. In fact, advisory rulings by Vice Presidents Nixon, Humphrey, and Rockefeller, sitting as President of the Senate, have stated that a Senate, at the beginning of a Congress, is not bound by the cloture requirement imposed by a previous Senate. They went on to say that each new Senate may end debate on a proposal to adopt or amend the standing rules by a majority vote. That bears repeating--by a majority vote-- cloture and amendment, majority vote. Even in today's more partisan environment I hope my colleagues will extend to us the same courtesy, and our constitutional rights will be protected as we continue to debate the various rules reform proposals at the beginning of this Congress. In 2005, Senator Hatch--someone who understands constitutional issues perhaps better than any other Member of this Chamber--wrote the following: The compelling conclusion is that, before the Senate readopts Rule XXII by acquiescence, a simple majority can invoke cloture and adopt a rules change. This is the basis for Vice President Nixon's advisory opinion in 1957. As he outlined, the Senate's right to determine its procedural rules derives from the Constitution itself and, therefore, ``cannot be restricted or limited by rules adopted by a majority of the Senate in a previous Congress.'' So it is clear that the Senate, at the beginning of a new Congress, can invoke cloture and amend its rules by a simple majority. That was Senator Hatch's quote. As Senator Alexander and Senator Corker know, he was for many years chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and I think that is a very powerful quote. This is the basis for introducing our resolution today, just as reformers have done at the beginning of Congresses in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, and it is why I am here on the floor on the first day--to make clear I am not acquiescing to the rule XXII adopted by the Senate over 35 years ago. That Senate tried to tie the hands of all future Senates by leaving the requirement in rule XXII for two-thirds of the Senate to vote to end a filibuster on a rules change. But this is not what our Founders intended. Article I, section 5 of the Constitution clearly states that ``each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.'' There is no requirement for a supermajority to adopt our rules, and the Constitution makes it very clear when a supermajority is required to act. Therefore, any rule that prevents a majority in future Senates from being able to change or amend rules adopted in the past is unconstitutional. The fact that we are bound by a supermajority requirement that was first established 93 years ago also violates the common law principle that one legislature cannot bind its successors. This principle goes back hundreds of years and has been upheld by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions. This is not a radical concept. The constitutional option has a history dating back to 1917, and it has been a catalyst for bipartisan rules reform several times since then. The constitutional option is our chance to fix rules that are being abused--rules that have encouraged obstruction like none ever seen before in this Chamber. Amending our rules will not, as some have contended, make the Senate no different than the House. While many conservatives claim that the Democrats are trying to abolish the filibuster, our resolution maintains the rule but addresses its abuse. But, more importantly, 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. So here we are today on the first day of a new Congress offering a resolution to reform the Senate's rules. We don't intend to force a vote today; in fact, we hope that we can return from the break and spend some time on the floor debating our resolution, considering amendments to make it better, and debating other resolutions. This should not be a partisan exercise. I think almost every one of us who have spoken today have said that. We know both sides have abused the rules, and now it is time for us to work together to fix them. But we believe the Senate of the 112th Congress has two paths from which to choose. There is the first path: We do nothing and just hope the spirit of bipartisanship and deliberation returns--the truth is we have been on this path for a while now, and I think the results are pretty clear--or we can take a second path: We can take a good, hard look at our rules, how they incentivize obstructionism, how they inhibit rather than promote debate, and how they prevent bipartisan cooperation, and then we should implement commonsense reforms to meet these challenges, reforms that will restore the uniquely deliberative nature of this body, while also allowing it to function more efficiently. I contend that we not only should but have a duty to choose the second path. We owe it to the American people and to the future of this institution we all serve. The reform resolution we introduce today is our attempt at the second path. It contains five reforms that should garner broad, bipartisan support--if we can act for the good of the country and not the good of our parties. The first two provisions in our resolution address the debate on motions to proceed and secret holds. These are not new issues. Making the motion to proceed nondebatable or limiting debate on such a motion has had bipartisan support for decades and is often mentioned as a way to end the abuse of holds. I was privileged to be here for Senator Byrd's final Rules Committee hearing, where he stated: I have proposed a variety of improvements to Senate rules to achieve a more sensible balance, allowing the majority to function while still protecting minority rights. For example, I have supported eliminating debate on the motion to proceed to a matter . . . or limiting debate to a reasonable time on such motions. In January, 1979, Senator Byrd--then-majority leader--took to the Senate floor and said unlimited debate on a motion to proceed ``makes the majority leader and the majority party the subject of the minority, subject to the control and the will of the minority.'' Despite the moderate change that Senator Byrd proposed--limiting debate on a motion to proceed to 30 minutes--it did not have the necessary 67 votes to overcome a filibuster. At the time, Senator Byrd argued that a new Senate should not be bound by that rule, stating: 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.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for another 2 minutes--also recognizing the Republican side has speakers-- to wrap up.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, efforts to reform the motion to proceed have continued since. In 1984, a bipartisan Study Group on Senate Practices and Procedures recommended placing a 2-hour limit on debate of a motion to proceed. That recommendation was ignored. In 1993, Congress convened the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. That was a bipartisan, bicameral attempt to look at Congress and determine how it can be a better institution. My predecessor, Senator Domenici, was the co-vice chairman of that committee. He was a long-time Republican here, and he supported that. The third provision in the resolution is included based on the comments of Republicans at last year's Rules Committee hearings. Each time Democrats complained about filibusters on motions to proceed, Republicans responded that it was their only recourse because the majority leader fills the amendment tree and prevents them from offering amendments. Our resolution provides a simple solution, guaranteeing the minority the right to offer amendments. The fourth provision in the resolution, which Senator Merkley will cover extensively, is regarding the talking filibuster. We want to replace a silent filibuster with a talking filibuster. Finally, our resolution reduces postcloture time on nominations from 30 hours to 1. Postcloture time is meant for debating and voting on amendments--something that is not possible on nominations. Instead, the minority now requires the Senate use this time simply to prevent it from moving on to other business. These reforms will not, as some have contended, make the Senate the same as the House. We understand, and respect, the Framers intent in structuring the Senate to be a uniquely deliberative body. Minority rights are a critical piece to its unique operations. Which is exactly why they remain protected in our reform resolution. But the current rules have done away with any deliberation and we have instead become a uniquely dysfunctional body. Our resolution will make actual debate a more common occurrence. It would bring our legislative process into the light, and hopefully, it would help restore the Senate's role as the ``world's greatest deliberative body.'' With that, I will sum up and say that reform is badly needed. We have a responsibility to the Constitution and to the American people to come together and fix the Senate. We were sent to Washington to tackle the Nation's problems. But we find that the biggest problem to tackle is Washington itself. With that, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial on the filibuster that appeared in the Washington Post, and an op-ed piece in the New York Times by Walter Mondale be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, in addition to his UC, we have myself for 15 minutes, Senator Merkley for 15 minutes, and I believe Senator Wyden has asked for 30, and then to accommodate the Republicans, our UC would say if there is a Republican seeking recognition that we alternate between the two sides and they be under the same time limitations as listed above. So Senator Alexander can see I would speak for 15, and then he would have a block for 15, and then Senator Merkley, and then it would be 30 for Senator Wyden.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I very much agree with that. I have been sitting here following the debate, and I think Senator Alexander, among others, has propounded some very good questions. I actually have another question I was going to ask on top of his question of what is a filibuster. So I am looking forward to that portion of it. Senator Harkin, thank you very much for that.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I yield my hour of postcloture time to Senator Kerry.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to echo the call of the Senators and Presidents who have furthered the cause of peace. I rise to continue this body's longstanding work to reduce the threat that nuclear weapons still pose to our Nation and world. Much has changed since the groundbreaking arms treaties of the 1990s. The cold war has ended, and with its end the balance of power changed greatly. But the threat of nuclear war has not entirely gone away. Over the last decade, we have seen the U.S. attacked on 9-11. And we learned about al-Qaida's ambition to acquire a weapon of mass destruction. One mishap or one intentional attack is all that is needed to throw our entire global society into a tailspin. Thanks to the work done through Nunn-Lugar, the U.S. has been involved in efforts since the end of the cold war to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands. But today, with our resources spread thin due to two wars overseas and the threat from failed states and unstable regimes in possession of nuclear weapons the risk of nuclear proliferation has steadily increased. That is why the goal articulated by President Kennedy, built upon by President Reagan, and further advanced by President Obama is more important than ever. Moving toward a world with zero nuclear weapons is a move toward a safer and more peaceful future. Through committed negotiations on the New START treaty, the U.S. and Russia have renewed their commitments to this important goal. Passing New START would be another momentous step toward that more peaceful world. But, as we have all seen in recent days, and over the course of the year since the U.S. and Russia reached this historic agreement, some in this Chamber are playing partisan politics with an issue that has the potential to impact every person in America and across the world. This political posturing is short-sighted at best. And it is dangerous at worst. The threat of nuclear weapons is not a partisan issue. It is an American issue. And, more importantly, a human issue. When START One was ratified in 1991, it was ratified not with just a simple majority but with 93 Members of the Senate voting in favor of the legislation. Similarly, START Two, ratified in 1993, had the support of 87 Members of the Senate. The New START treaty deserves similar support from this body. Obstruction of this treaty does not strengthen our country. It reduces our security. And arguments to the contrary go against decades of bipartisan work to reduce the threat of nuclear annihilation. Those opposed to ratification say this treaty will diminish our national security. They argue that we cannot rely on a smaller nuclear arsenal to effectively deter an opponent. These concerns have been overhyped and hyperpoliticized. And they fall flat in light of the scientific evidence provided by our scientists and engineers at the National Labs. Along with Senator Bingaman, I helped lead a visit to New Mexico's National Labs while the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was debating ratification. The scientists and engineers at the Labs briefed the delegation, which also included Senators Kyl, Corker, Risch, and Thune, on issues pertinent to this debate. After participating in these briefings, I am confident of two things. One, that the United States can assure our allies that our nuclear arsenal remains an effective deterrent. And two, that our scientists and engineers will be able to verify that Russia is abiding by its end of the bargain. New Mexico will be at the forefront of verification measures because the Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs have the requisite professional expertise to aid the monitoring of Russian forces. I have been continually amazed by the work of our National Labs in New Mexico. The Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs, and the hardworking men and women who serve there, are truly a treasure of the Nation. Unfortunately, some on the other side of the aisle have derided the labs as ``decrepit and dangerous.'' This poorly imagined and strikingly inaccurate description couldn't be further from the truth. Los Alamos National Labs Director Michael Anastasio, Sandia National Labs Director Paul Hommert, and Lawrence Livermore Director George Miller, have been unequivocal in their testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They all agree that our labs are prepared to maintain our nuclear stockpile, and they are ready to lend their scientific expertise to the overall mission of verification and reduction. To quote Director Anastasio's Senate testimony: I do not see New START fundamentally changing the role of the Laboratory. What New START does do, however, is emphasize the importance of the Laboratories' mission and the need for a healthy and vibrant science, technology and engineering base to be able to continue to assure the stockpile into the future: Sandia National Labs also plays a major role in stockpile stewardship, life extension, and stockpile surveillance. Director Hommert's testimony makes clear that Sandia understands the challenges involved under New START but that it is ready to undertake those challenges. He said: As a whole package, the documents describing the future of U.S. nuclear policy represent a well founded, achievable path forward. I believe that it is no small coincidence that the progression toward a world without nuclear weapons will require the continued, diligent work of those who first created and then secured our arsenals. The safety, security, and reliability of our available nuclear weapons will become increasingly important to our country as we reduce our stockpile. For New Mexico, President Obama's strategy will mean an expanded role for our National Labs in managing our Nation's nuclear deterrent. For our country, President Obama's strategy means that we are one step closer to closing the curtain of the cold war's legacy of nuclear arms races. For the world, it means we will be taking a step forward toward greater cooperation and peace, and one step back from catastrophe. Fewer weapons mean fewer opportunities for mistakes or losses of warheads. Fewer weapons also mean fewer opportunities for unstable regimes such as North Korea, Iran, or Myanmar, or individuals with malicious intentions to acquire or build a nuclear weapon. The two nations with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons have a duty to remain vigilant in protecting the rest of the world from the unthinkable. By ratifying this treaty, the Senate is upholding its duty to protect our Nation and to protect our shared planet. President Kennedy said the following during his 1962 State of the Union Address: World order will be secured only when the whole world has laid down these weapons which seem to offer us present security but threaten the future survival of the human race. By ratifying this treaty, we move a step closer toward realizing this legacy and continuing a longstanding policy goal of our country--the goal of creating a more peaceful and secure world. Let us continue our work together by ratifying this treaty and sending a message to the world that the United States of America will continue making significant steps towards peace.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, in July I introduced S. Res. 581, a resolution honoring the educational and scientific significance of Dr. Jane Goodall on the 50th anniversary of the beginning of her work in what is today Gombe Stream National Park in Tanzania. I would like to urge my colleagues to support this resolution, which also has a companion bill that was passed with unanimous support in the House of Representatives on July 28 of this year; and I would like to have printed in the Record the article printed in the October 2010 edition of National Geographic. The article, entitled ``Fifty Years at Gombe,'' describes Dr. Goodall's lifetime of dedication and contribution to our understanding of chimpanzees and the natural world, as well as her unique and heroic personality. As described in the article, Dr. Goodall ``made three observations that rattled the comfortable wisdoms of physical anthropology: meat eating by chimps--that had been presumed vegetarian--tool use by chimps--in the form of plant stems probed into termite mounds--and toolmaking--stripping leaves from stems--supposedly a unique trait of human premeditation. Each of those discoveries further narrowed the perceived gap of intelligence and culture between Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes.'' As a leading researcher, conservationist, and humanitarian, Dr. Goodall has made remarkable contributions to our understanding of the species with whom we live. She has led by example in efforts to ensure that these species continue to thrive and to ensure that surrounding communities are also able to thrive. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article to which I referred.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I wish to echo the comments of Senator Leahy on Ambassador Holbrooke. My sense was, Ambassador Holbrooke was a remarkable diplomat and public servant. I got to see him both when he was in his public position and a private position. He was always dedicated to peace in the world. I remember reading his book, ``To End a War,'' which was about the Balkans, and sharing it with my father and my father having discussions with him on the phone. He said: This diplomat, Richard Holbrooke, is a remarkable guy. If you read that book, it is a classic about bringing peace to a very difficult situation. I express my heartfelt condolences to his wife Kati Marton and his two children, David and Anthony Holbrooke. I tell the family we will miss him very much on the international scene.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for approximately 20 minutes.