Amending the Standing Rules and Procedure of the Senate--S. Res. 8, S. Res. 10, S. Res. 21, S. Res. 28, and S. Res. 29--Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a particular proposal we will consider later today, but I wish to associate myself with the Senator from Oregon, who has been tireless in pushing for commonsense reforms in the way the Senate operates.

The majority whip made the comment in his remarks before the Senator from Oregon spoke that we want to make these changes so the Senate can respond to the changing nature of the world around us and in particular focus on our economy and getting Americans back to work. If the Senate is tied in knots, we are not going to put the policies in place that these stalwart, committed Senators, including the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, and the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Udall, so compellingly presented to us.

I know there are others who wish to speak, so I will briefly speak to the proposal I have submitted that would bring us a step closer to fixing some of the redundancy in the rules that slow down our progress here and I think ultimately make not just our constituents in our individual States frustrated but Americans all across our country. Put simply, this proposal would encourage Senators to file their amendments 72 hours in advance of a vote to ensure we all have a chance to review that amendment. But then it would also discourage the practice of delaying a final vote by calling for an out-loud reading of the amendment. I have heard concerns from Members of both parties about this particular practice. We all want to have an opportunity to read the provisions in amendments and broader bills, but it has become increasingly obvious to me that we need to make changes in our rules, as I said, to ensure the process works smoothly.

My proposal would encourage Senators to file amendments 72 hours in advance, and it would prevent any Senators from creating a logjam on the Senate floor by forcing the text of that amendment to be read aloud if it is made available in advance.

Mr. President, you and I have been around long enough to know that in the days before copy machines and the Internet, if one was serving in the Senate, it was probably helpful to sit here and hear the text of each amendment read out loud. That practice is outdated, and it is not the way the Senate operates today. Instead, our technology allows us instant access to the text of amendments, and therefore there is no crucial need to hear them read aloud at the last minute. Most of the time, in fact, we just waive the reading and move to the final vote. When a full reading, however, has been forced, it largely brings this place to a halt, as Senator Durbin pointed out earlier. The effect has been to tie the Senate in knots, and it creates a spectacle when the hard-working clerks, who are actually the people who make this Senate run, have to stand here and read amendments, sometimes for hours, to an empty Chamber. That said, there have been cases in which one party believes the text of a rather large amendment has been withheld from them in order to deny them adequate time to review it. I do not want to take that power away from the minority to reasonably voice their opinions on the floor to get the information they need, which is why my proposal is a balanced way of fixing the Senate rules.

This resolution is designed to help us find common ground and prevent needless delays by allowing us to prevent the live reading of an amendment when the text has been available long enough for everyone to have studied it in advance. Instead of allowing an individual Senator to put the Senate on hold literally for hours by forcing an amendment to be read, a simple majority of Senators would be able to collectively vote to dispense with the reading, provided that it was filed on time. This is a commonsense approach. It seeks to address the concerns of those who want more time to read amendments and those who see the forced reading of amendments as needlessly obstructive. It is a simple approach, and I believe later today the Senate will approve such a rules change.

In ending my remarks, I wish to acknowledge the work of Chairman Schumer and Senator Alexander. There is an agreement, as I understand it, and we will vote on it later today. I applaud their work and offer my very sincere thanks.

I also acknowledge Leader Reid and Leader McConnell for helping bring this package to the floor today and for reaching their own agreement on how to improve the way the Senate works.

Finally, as I did in my beginning remarks, I wish to acknowledge Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Tom Udall, and Senator Jeff Merkley for bringing true attention to a concern so many Americans have had on this particular issue. Senator Merkley and Senator Durbin spoke to the fact that this may seem an obscure topic to many constituents. This is historic progress we are going to make today that ultimately will make the Senate function together. I know that is the mission of these three outstanding Senators.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Merkley be listed as a cosponsor of the resolution I am offering today.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I close on this note: I urge my colleagues to vote for the simple commonsense reform of the Senate rules.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source