Tom Udall: “there has been much discussion about the need to reform the Senate rules, and I have listened closely to the arguments…”

“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.…”