Of the majority, before we do something that cannot easily be undone and we have now done it before we discard the uniqueness of this great institution, let us use the current rules and precedents of the senate to end the abuse of the filibuster. Surely we owe that much to this great and unique institution. There was a conversation, which was a formal conversation, between the majority and the Republican Leaders just last january, and heres what the majority leader said. In addition to the standing order, which is what we had adopted, i will enforce existing rules to make the senate operate more efficiently. After reasonable notice, i will insist, he said, that any senator who objects to consent requests or threatens to filibuster come to the floor and exercise his or her rights himself or herself. This will apply to all objectionobjections and unanimot requests. Senators should be required to come to the floor and participate in the legislative process, to voice objections, engage in debate, or offer amendments. And finally, he said, we will also announce that when the majority leader or bill manager has reasonably alerted the body of the intention to do so, the senate is not in a quorum call and theres no order of the senate to the contrary, the presiding officer may ask if theres any further debate, and if no senator seeks recognition, the presiding officer may put the question to a vote. He said, our majority leader, that this is consistent with the precedent of the senate and with ri riddicks Senate Procedure. What this showed again is that if we in the majority have the will power as much will power as has been shown by some obstructionists in this body if we have an equal amount of will as they have shown, that the current rules before this change today can be used to force filibuster filibusterers o filibuster, to come to the floored and talk. All we need to do is to use the rules, to take the weekend off, to take the week that we hope for a recess and use it to come back here, to take the recess itself, if necessary, during the summer for a month, if necessary to try to preserve what is so essential to this body, its uniqueness; which is that the majority cannot change the rules whenever it wants. The house of representatives can change the rules whenever it wants. Its called a rules committee. They can adopt and modify the rules at any time and they do. This body has not done that. Weve resisted it. The weve attempted to do it. Weve come close to doing it, but weve never done it until today. Do i want to amend the rules . Do i. I want to amend these rules with all my heart. I want to embody a principle that a president , regardless of party, should be able to get a vote on his or her nominees to executive positions and to district and Circuit Courts. I believe in that. I think most senators believe in that. We need to change the rules. But to change it in the way we changed it today means there are no rules except as the majority wants them. It is a very major shift in the very nature of this institution if the majority can do whatever it wants by changing the rules whenever it wants, with a method that has not been used before in this body to change the very rules of this body. We should have avoid add Nuclear Option. We should have avoided violating our precedents. We should have avoided changing and creating a precedent, which can be used in the same way on legislation. It may give comfort to some today, but this is only on judges, this is only on executive appointments. This precedent can equally available to a majority that wants to change the rules relevanrelative to the legislate process. Madam president , those who have abused these rules mainly on the other side of the aisle whether they acknowledge it or not, are contributors to the loss of protections which we see today for the senate minority. Given a tool of great power, requiring great responsibility, they have recklessly abused it. But now i am afraid that it wont just be them that will pay the price. In the short term, judges will be confirmed who should be confirmed. But when the precedent is set, the majority of this body can change the rules at will which is what the majority did today. If it can be changed on judges or on other nominees, this precedent is going to be used, i fear, to change the rules on consideration of legislation, and down the road we dont know how far down the road; we never know that in a democracy but, down the road, the hardwon protections and benefits for our Peoples Health and welfare will be lost. I yield the floor. Mr. Sessions madam president . The presiding officer the senator from alabama. Mr. Sessions madam president , thriet throughouthroughout our , weve had senators like senator levin. And before he departs, i want to thank him for his principled approach to this complex issue and just would share with all of our colleagues, hes completing his service in the senate this year. Hes not running for reelection and certainly would have been reelected. But i was this weekend at a conference of a National Security conference at the Reagan Library and the first winners of an award for National Security were former secretary of defense gates, who served two president s, and senator levin was the other winner of that. I think it is a tribute to his commitment to the to this country. Weve disagreed on a lot of issues, and no one should think hes not a strong and effective advocate for values around here. But i think all of us should listen to his remarks. And his warning it is a very simple warning. That warning is that if a majority can change the rules for the simple majority vote in order to defeat what heretofore was a right of a Minority Party in the senate, there are no minority rights left. They simply exist at the will of the majority. This is a fundamental matter. Its an important matter. Weve had some close calls and a lot of intensity, but weve avoided this kind of action. I think its fair to say, without dispute, that the significance of this rule change today dwarfs any other appeal of the ruling of the chair that weve seen, maybe in the history of the republic; certainly maybe in the history of the republic. This is a big event, and it changes what goes on here, because we deal with power and the exercise of power. And this whole thing is simply majority leader reid and hes got a difficult job, and ive tried to not make his life more difficult than it needs to be but hes not a dictator. He does not get to dictate how this senate is operated. He does not have the right to come in and change the rules because he wants to fill three judgeship slots that are not needed no way close. There is no way you can justify filling these court slots, as based on simple need, caseload, or judge. So hes unhappy about that. Maybe he wants to change the mood of the country from obamacare and the overreach that was executed here to pass that bill on december 24, to ram it through the senate on a straight partyline vote. I suspect thats part of it. But this is not the way to do business here. The only reason those judges were blocked the only reason they did not get a confirmation was because we didnt need them. This country is going broke. There are districts in america that need judges. The d. C. Circuit does not need more judges. It doesnt need the eight they have. Yes, they have three vacancies, but with the current eight judges, their average caseload per judge was 149. And theyve been continuing to drop. My circuit, the 11th circuit, madam president , youd be interested to know, has an average caseload per judge of 740. The nextlowest caseload per circuit is twice 149. The average is well above that per circuit. Well above twice that. The judges themselves say they dont need anymore judges. They take the whole summer off. These judges would not have been rejected, if wed needed them. But the president is so determined to try to leave a legacy of friends on that court, that he just shoved them anyway and demanded that the senate pass them. And senator reid demanded that we confirm these judges. The judges say they dont need anymore judges on that court. They dont need them, whether they say they need them or not. I know how to look at the conveyingloads. Im i know how to look at the caseloads. Im on the judiciary committee. Ive chaired it and been Ranking Member of it for years sms i for years. I know how to do weighted caseloads. Ness nthere is no justificationr filling a single slot on that complete ancourt. I know we cant keep throwing money away for no good reason. The last thing we do should be able should be asking the American People to fund a 1millionayear judge. Thats what the staff are estimated to cost three of them. Its like burnin burning every 1 million on the mall. We dont have 1 million to throw away. But we do have judges, we do have circuits, we do have District Courts that around the country that are overloaded. And we are going to add some junls to them. And we ought to and we are going to add some judges to them. And we ought to close these judges and move that judge there, like any commonsense person would dovment so it wd do. So it wasnt any animu animus tt led to this. Senator grassley and i block president bush from filling one of the slots. Oh, they wanted to fill the slot. They thought it might leave a legacy judge that would be influential to them. Thats what they suggested. But we refused. We were actually able to transfer one of those slots to the ninth circuit. Thats what Good Business should be done around here. But we certainly are at a point where we dont need to nai to ft slot, and it should in no way it should in no way cause the majority leader, senator reid, to feel like his power was threatened. His majority was threatened. Were going to change the rules of the senate, change the rules of the senate, so he can get three judges confirmed. We dand ill be prepared to debate that issue anywhere, any time. On the merits, not one of those slots should be filled, not one of them. It is the lowest caseload her judgper judge in america and tho not have such complex cases that cellulose down their work and demands more judges. Thats been analyzed and its not true. Well, senator reid asked for this job. Thats what my wife says to me when i complain, dont blame me, you asked for the job. So he asked to be majority leader of the United States senate, and its not easy. Youve got lots of members. Youve got lots of different ideas about what ought to be done. Trent lott called it herding cats. I suppose that is a pretty good description of it. He said one time its like putting a bunch of frogs in a wheelbarrow. You put one in, two jump out. It is not easy to run the senate. I understand that. But changing the rules by simple majority vote to significantly alter the tradition of the senate is a dangerous thing. Senator reid says weve been wasting time on the procedural hurdles thrown up in the senate. He said congress is broken and the American People think that congress is broken. Well, they think it was broken when they used legislative ledger domain on december 24 before scott brown from massachusetts could take office to pass an immigration bill that pass a Health Care Bill that the American People overwhelmingly opposed. Maybe the American People, part of the frustration with the congress is they passed a bill without a single republican vote in the house or the senate, rammed it through, that the American People opposed. Maybe thats why the American People are not happy with us around here. But let me explain, colleagues, what it is thats causing the greatest frustration in the senate. Its a trend that began some years ago, not long after i came to the senate 17 years ago, and its just accelerated. And its reached a pace on the majority leader reid weve never ever seen before, and it undermines the very integrity and tradition of the senate, and its got to stop. And weve got to recover the tradition of this body. We owe it to those who will be filling these seats years to come. And this is the problem. A maneuver was discovered called filling the tree, a parliamentary maneuver that the majority leader, who gets recognition first in the senate, seeks recognition, and then he fills the tree, and the parliamentary maneuver basically blocks anyone else from getting an amendment. You cant get your amendment up. So how do we have an amendment. Well, you have to go hat in hand to senator reid and say, senator reid, id like an amendment. Well, i dont think so, i dont like that amendment. But i like it. I want to vote on it. Sorry, we dont want to vote on it. And this is the way it goes. And its been going every year. This defense bill that commonly had 30 or more amendments of substance when it hit the floor, its 500 billion. The biggest appropriations bill we have, 500 billion. Senator coburn has an amendment that would save some money directly related to the defense department. Senator reid wont give him a vote on that. People say why dont you do something, sessions. Why dont you get an amendment passed. You cant get it brought up unless he agrees. And he says its because of delay. He says its because, that it creates time difficulties. But weve been a week on this bill. We havent had but two votes. Weve gone days with no votes. Its not time. Let me tell you what it is. The majority leader of the United States senate is protecting his members from tough votes. He does not want them to have to cast votes on Critical Issues in this country, and its not time, its not delay. Its plenty of time. We could have cast 15 votes already on this bill and wouldnt have many left, and everybody would be satisfied. And thats the way it was when senator mcconnell came here. Thats the way its been. Thats the way it was when i came here. We had 60something votes on a bankruptcy bill. It went on three weeks. So this is causing tension. This is causing frustration. And one of our new members to the senate, when we were debating this very question some months ago said they tell us we have to get senator mcconnells permission before theyll let us get an amendment. And i said, wait a minute, do you not understand that you are duly elected senator from a state of america, and you have to ask permission of the republican leader before you can get a vote on an amendment . I mean, how did this happen . So this is a background issue that we have that is undermining collegiality in this body. Im tired of asking the majority leader for permission to give me a vote in the United States senate. A senator would the senator yield . Mr. Sessions yes. Mr. Roberts id just like mr. Sessions senator from kansas, i yield for a question. Mr. Roberts id like to point out, im assuming his situation is very similar to the situation that i find myself in. About a year ago we had a farm bill up. I was the Ranking Member of the committee. We voted 73 times. We had over 300 offered. As amendments came forth and the First Amendment had nothing to do with agriculture, basically we got through it in two and a half days. Now move ahead to this years farm bill, i think there were ten votes. Senator thune, whos been on the committee for a long time we respect his voice and we respect his amendments, he had about four. Senator grassley has been on the committee for a lot longer. Hes always got amendments on the farm bill. Senator johanns is a former secretary of agriculture, excellent senator, excellent representative for nebraska and a real voice for agriculture. He had several amendments. Personally, i had about two or three amendments. I would have liked to have been considered. The reason im mentioning them is we all agreed to hold off on committee if we could raise them on the floor because we wanted to expedite it because the big issue is time. We dont have time for a farm bill. Usually farm bills take a week or two weeks. Thats not the case anymore. We did it in two and a half days last year. This year we were expecting to have votes. None of us, none of us got amendments. After ten, maybe seven i think it was ten votes, bingo, it was cut off. And the majority leader controlled the effort. This is like the house. This is like the rules committee. I remember when i was in the house. I remember we had a robertsstenholm amendment. Mr. Sessions in the house, senator roberts, you cant get an amendment voted on unless approved by the rules committee . Mr. Roberts that is correct. Mr. Sessions that is the difference in the house and the senate. Mr. Roberts we had a Robert Stenholm amendment at that point while we were in the minority, the republicans and Charlie Stenholm was the democrat and he whispered and said you might want to make this the stenholmroberts amendment. I figured that out and we had our amendment made in order. I thought as the rules committee, as a younger member of the house at that particular time was based on the merits, whether it was germane, et cetera, et cetera. It was not. One of the reasons i decided to come to the senate was you could offer an amendment at any time on any subject unless it was something involving National Security or whatever. I understand that. Now what we have is the oneman rules committee. I really i deeply resent that. I just think that and i feel so sorry for the senate and i feel sorry for the members who come here and are not able to have their amendments considered. One of the first things i did as the Ranking Member of the Senate AgricultureCommittee Last year was to promise a lot of people on our side that had never had the opportunity to offer an amendment before. I said you will if i can get this thing done. And we did. We opened it up and it was one of the few bills that went under regular order and we got things done. Now theres only one house. Theres the house and theres the senate, just like the house, and thats a shame and i thank the distinguished senator for his comments. Mr. Sessions i thank the senator so very much. His insight is correct. Ill wrap right up and say what happened today is a very, very significant and sad day. It represents the greate