On the recordJanuary 25, 2011
I wish to thank my colleagues, Senator Udall of New Mexico and Senator Merkley of Oregon, because they are great leaders on this issue. I think they have brought a breath of fresh air to the Senate in exposing what has become gridlock that has made the Senate almost dysfunctional. I say to my friend, Senator Udall, especially in focusing on what the Constitution says and doesn't say, I believe--and I am only speaking for myself--that we are not living up to the oath we took as we stood by the well when we were sworn into the Senate. We took an oath that we would uphold and defend the Constitution and that we would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. Well, quite frankly, the Constitution, I believe, is quite clear in the way it is written, in the verbiage that is used. If you look to what the Founders wanted in the Constitution, they were very clear that but for a few instances, which they clearly spelled out in the Constitution requiring a supermajority of votes--such as treaties, for example, and impeachments, or expelling a Member--everything else is a majority vote. But the Senate has adopted rules in the past that I believe are, quite frankly, bordering on unconstitutional by requiring that in order to change the rules, it requires a two-thirds vote--67 votes. Well, that might be OK for one Congress, if they wanted to adopt that kind of rule, but how can one Congress bind another?
