Tom Udall

New Mexico is home to 17 units of the National Park Service. These parks, monuments, historic trails celebrate New Mexico's proud heritage and help preserve its remarkable landscapes.

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

I know Chairman Dorgan feels that ways, too.

I applaud his work to promote energy development on tribal lands.

In order to access on a commercial basis, we have to make sure when we do our transmission development we include Indian tribes.

It is more important than ever to remove the longstanding roadblocks to energy development on tribal lands.

In order to put ourselves as a Country on a path to energy independence, it is very important to get the tribes to play a role in that.

Many of my colleagues, as well as constitutional scholars, agree with me that a simple majority of the Senate can end debate and adopt its rules at the beginning of a new Congress.

The Senate will remain a distinctive body and instead the Senate will become much closer to its ideal.

I think that the principle you have recognized is an important one, the principle with different presiding officers.

We need to come together on this for the good of the Senate and the good of the country.

The intent of both of these proposals is to make the Senate more like the Senate and actually require debate about the topic that is being filibustered.

The rules get abused.

Legislative entrenchment has long been recognized as an illegal procedure.

I think one of the real problems is that with supermajorities required for just about everything, it does make it hard for the public to hold anybody accountable for what does or does not get done.

Wouldn't you think if we had a tradition of adopting rules every 2 years, that would bring accountability to the system more than anything?

Unlike those specific changes to the rules, which I think all deserve our consideration, my proposal is to make each Senate accountable for all of our rules.

I believe more strongly than ever that our Senate rules are broken.

I worry about the Senate as an institution, but then I worry, if the Senate is not working as an institution, then we are not doing the things the American people sent us here to do.

I do think the problem is more of the culture than it is the rules, that the rules operated better in a previous era.

What does a filibuster really accomplish other than delay and, in some cases, defeat of a nomination?

I do not see that the leverage of another filibuster, which is still going to require 60 votes when you get to the Bill itself, is a necessary commodity.

I believe the Constitution provides a solution to this problem.

If I could wave my magic wand and do one thing, it would be to move the Senate to a schedule which was five days a week, three weeks on and one week off, with no fund-raising during those 15 days a month.

I think it is important that you actually have debate and that there is a real chance for the minority to make its point.