Cato strongly opposes and attentive to prevent his success by gaining time with which he spun up the debate until its too late to conclude upon anything. Hey, the filibusters only been around 2064 years since circa 59 b. C. Dont believe the left when they falsely claim the filibuster was created the state of the by aaron burr. The late robert byrd was the otherwise to another speaker, norm orenstein, from 2005 said some things about republicans attempt use Nuclear Options and judgments i agree with. Let me emphasize that this is a radical step it has taken. This will require breaking the, steamrolling the parliamentarian. And i must tell you ive been very disappointed in the reporting of this issue which tends to use a kind of cost and shorten over matters making it appear as if this is something that anytime can be done by a majority. They just havent elected to before. Thats not the case. Its very clear in senate rules if you challenge a ruling constitutional, that challenge is debatable and the debate itself can be filibustered. But what theyre going to have to get in this case, senator calls for a point of order suggesting the filibusters unconstitutional. Is ignore the parliamentarian who will say can be debated and steamrolled over the parliamentarian and basically break their own rules by not allowing debate. Ornstein also argued quote basically the essential character of the senate in the system, the republican form of democracy trying to avoid the emotions of the majority is to provide some outlet for minorities. Change than come you can really do, im sorry. Change that and you would be moved to the potential of tyranny to the majority. Therell always be a president of the lies the congressional leader. That temptation to overrule will always be there. It is there today. What harry reid is trying to do is wrong. If the only way for conservatism is to fight back is engage in a fight. If he is going to push the three in the senate operates under the rules there are no rules, and he has provided an unprecedented opportunity for conservatives to push real senate rules reform changes. If there are no rules since reid cant stop from offering a never ending rule, that may improve the senate. Two quick ideas are, the new twothirds point of order against any intrusion, any infringement in the Second Amendment rights of all americans. Is the subject of a simple majority vote under reids theory. Right now, if you look at the voting history of the same there is a progun majority in the senate. If subject to civil majority but would have a chance of passing to another thing that is very, very important is getting rid of Senate Majority leader harry reid and the future majority centers. Their needs new point of order to get rid of this. Reids tactic about 60 times, far more than its predecessors all combined. It is something that would allow all members of the senate to actually participate in this deliberative process, to offer amendments. And if you were to pass this, it would be something that would be great to pass with 67 votes shutting down the debate. You might not have old problem of the lets call serial filibusters, it might actually go away if republicans were actually allowed to producer in the process. What we are seeing now is a construction of the minoritys rights, the Minority Partys rights and individuals rights by trying to get rid of the motions to proceed, during the bills by enforcing the socalled talking filibusters. If you can try and curtail motions to go to conference. Thank you. [applause] thank you, everybody. Im not as a moderator i would ask the first question. A number of you referred to that, those who might be watching who dont really know how that plays out at the mechanical level, practical of, or one of you maybe illustrate what happens when a lady goes to the floor and ask recognition . What kind of amendments are we talking about . So, the only basis of power for the majority leader in the senate is recognition. So he goes to the floor and the to be recognized by the presiding officer andy gets recognized. He offers an amendment. And he gets recognized. The amendment he will typically offer is pro forma. It doesnt mean anything. It will change a title Something Like the. You offer the amendment. Then you will get recognized again. You offer another amendment, change another number or do something. And so on and so on until you fill up the number of amendments to be offered. At that point you will typically almost exclusively file cloture on the bill. Because cloture is associate with it he needs those amendments in place to control the agenda. Thats why its such a powerful tool when used with the cloture motion to control the agenda. So the filibuster that follows tends to be an effort to undo to amendments that are nonsubstantive in nature, having a debate, offer an amendment, what we might think of as a legislative process. Right. And i think its important to note, tactics that majorities respond to a destruction inaction be seen as obstructing the we see this in the house all the time. Thats what were seeing happening in the senate. Their votes in protest of the process just like the Minority Party votes against a special rule in the house. This rule is draconian. In the senate when you vote against cloture, today at least, especially once [inaudible] and it has been filled and majority to has moved to a different bill, you can say its much the same type of behavior you see in the house. One thing thats important, [inaudible] theres also been instances where senator reid has said im going to build the tree. Therefore, he never filled with the tree that it was the promise of building the tree that hung up the process. I just make a couple of points. First, im glad that brian used all of his eloquent quotations. Mine aside, im a little surprised he didnt do some of the liquid quotations from mitch mcconnell, from orrin hatch and others explain why doing what makes it so terrible for the senate. So fine and desirable, and, of course, [inaudible] which is basically to say hypocrisy goes all around on this issue getting on with you in the majority or the minority. Second, i dont want people to be left with the impression that this is all because harry reid is a predator, and now this wouldve happened if he hadnt all of a sudden just out of the blue used this process of filling the amendment tree that is only because of that that were seeing filibusters in congress. Again, no amendments on nominations, unprecedented number of holes and filibusters on nominations, including judicial and executive branch. Filibusters on bills where amendments were allowed and that ultimately passed unanimously. Just a point about deliberation because i fear that, though, your principles are [inaudible] when you have a filibuster you dont have to do anything except lift your baby sentencing im going to filibuster this. When you have 30 hours of postcloture debate where nobody debates, they dont even come to the floor, that doesnt enhance the liberation. Actually if you want to liberation, talking filibuster would be a good thing. You get people on the floor debating. Maybe you would actually get some giveandtake. Id like to see many more opportunities for debate deliberations but id like to see a lot of other changes in senate rules. One final point. I continue to believe everything that i said, including especially about judicial nominations, but also about the real dangers of making these changes. And theres a distinction between making the change right at the beginning of the congress were you debating the question, and in the middle of a session where youve already agreed on the router one of the things that troubles me about the whole continuing body, then they cant be changed except i a simple majority to imagine if democrats had the same number of votes they had in the mid 1960s. Imagine that would go back to the neat deal with it 75 senators. And they passed a rule that says you cannot cut spending in any program without 75 votes, and you cant change the rules without 90 votes. That presumably fits under the same characterization, which any of us like to see that happen . I think that. There are some real questions and issues about whether you can have a rule that a majority sets, or even a super majority that can set the bar so high that you can never change it again. That hasnt happened and maybe it wouldnt happen, but on that front i dont want to see this happen but id much rather see a bipartisan agreement that includes many more opportunities to offer amendments, even embarrassing ones in return for eliminating the frivolous filibusters and filibusters that would be onus on the majority. Theres some question should we could debate a lot. [inaudible] and can members carry over from one congress to another come square and all the members under is going to swear in all the new members. That is making it logical sense to me. [inaudible] that would be the best way to solve this matter. I dont think thats intellectually possible. If i could respond, to point. One, i saved until the q a the response which i knew would come up on the First Nuclear option. The first of all recall the constitutional option but not because we contended it was in the constitution, but mainly the constitution allows for that rule. But moreover, what wouldve been done, which was almost done, wouldve been sitting president by probably tabling [inaudible], which was not new. I could never get the Washington Post to print this point, but robert byrd when he was majority leader exercise the Nuclear Option four times. It goes back to the beginning of the senate whereby you set binding precedent in the senate by simple majority rules. Furthermore, it was being used admittedly extraordinary, one that i think out to be used in very rare occasion, only for extenuating circumstances was done not to up in the tradition but to restore it. Prior to 2003 derrick never been a judge, avril edition nominee denied confirmation deeply filibuster. Never, never, never never. Beginning with i think ultimately five judges who have the majority support, push judges who were all denied confirmation deeply filibuster though they had majority support. Prior to that itd never happen. So we are trying to restore the what it always been. You can argue that ought to be a majority. That had not been the standard pride 2003. On your question of time, youre right. Biggest vulnerability is time. Everything takes so long. I remember when it came to the house and i came over to the senate, and you think were moving to cloture on the bill after eight days on Energy Legislation in 2003. I remember senator dorgan say whats the rush . Weve only been on the hill for eight days . I remember cracking up. Eight hours was a long time and after so youre right about the leverage of time. But that leverage its use to affect changes in legislation because essentially lets have a mandate, but said this change and then i will get back time. [inaudible] how can you think it thursday and friday and have a recess . Whenever we had a recess we had a flurry of activity because everybody wanted to get out of time. Time is an important lever. Spent now will go to our audience. Who would like to ask the first question . [inaudible] you seem surprised at the number of filibusters weve had in four years. Do you not relate it back to the in transit and unwillingness ability to reach out to the Minority Party . Actually, you can take it back to the last two years of the Bush Administration when it shot up dramatically as well. So its not simply a barack obama phenomenon. But i dont. What we see both from my own work inside the senate and observation from what we see with books like mike grunwalds is that it was a very deliberate strategy hatched at least at inaugural if not before to try to raise the bar and to block things from happening, and to get unanimous minority support. And to do it not just on build 40 want to amendments, but on build where he had no interest, just make it all messy and make it difficult. Im not going to defend Barack Obamas outreach to the Minority Party, but i could go back to knot the use of the filibuster but other methods of obstruction with bill clinton who reached out all the time. So i think thats the factor but a minor one. I think harry reids use of filling the amendment tree, partly this is chicken and egg, but has been done too much and that didnt result in at least some protests and willingness of some senators on his side who might otherwise have joined in some of these filibusters to do so. It had much more to do with a concerted Party Strategy can which i think is the first time we have seen it. I think theres two separate issues. One, obstruction on nominations, and to come obstruction on [inaudible] it is true you see these judges and it will go 99 points. But i think its important to remember what we are talking about. The alternative to that is to move it by unanimous consent. Its not like the house where there is about. And if a member of checks to unanimous consent because they do not want to vote, dont want to be forced to vote for a judge, they say i will have a roll call. Now, the majority leader at that point schedules, we are not. Its his prerogative. In many times he doesnt. We see that in Minority Party or one individual [inaudible] woman ultimately get around to having a vote on that judge what you see happen is 99 to one, 98 to two, 97 to three. I dont think anyone in this room would suggest that individual or those three individuals should be required to vote yes for that judge, which is what unanimous consent does. Its not what the house does. Its not what heavyhanded majorities, they enforce votes. They enforce votes simple majority to pass. And lastly when it comes to cloture, norma mentioned earlier that you have holding the floor and talking to post a cloture you basically have to do that. If you stop talking under the rules [inaudible] the majority could stay in it at Minority Centers dont show up we could have a vote. Actually on the senate floor youre seeing right now, the senate was in until 1 00 last night in the morning. They were doing that and we are passing bills. So we were doing it by voice vote and they were moving. They would say, is it any further debate . If no one is rounded with a okay. Lets have a vote and they would vote. They would have a vote and it would pass. Its frustrating but thats the prerogative you have as a majority. If you choose not to do things that way, its because as i argue oftentimes are trying to control the agenda, which is you look at the same to cloture, when you look at amendment tree, youre trying to block things from happening on the floor that you either disagree with our block amendments you dont want to have a vote on. That is what youre saying time and time again. The reason we havent had a budget and said for for years is because you cant block amendments. You cant. Thats why we havent had a budget. Its very difficult to do [inaudible] we havent done an appropriations bill and i dont know how long. And again because you cant offer a menace. It all goes back to majorities under the current leadership [inaudible] which is their right. You mentioned harry reid might be doing this as a tactic. I would assume them he said he doesnt like the result. Stomach he doesnt like the handshake agreement they had. What would be an acceptable deal for him. [inaudible] first of all, this has happened in the past were leaders have said im going to use Nuclear Option and change rules. And an agreement was negotiated. Thats happened on numerous occasions. They also have precedence for the senate object to the idea, its not a continuing body. But if they sit down and work on its best work at it agreement of parties. Menu using regular order allowing the opportunity for senators to extend debate on rules change they dont like. If theres a vote and its 68 to whatever, then that is a much better way to resolve it. As for changes to the rules, i dont, i have not heard senatorial harry reid ahriman saying we are ready to give up our right on the tree if you get rid of the motions to proceed to bills, or you know, implement the talking filibuster but it doesnt seem like its going that way. Its a one way street were senator udall of new mexico and merkley and harkin of iowa all have ideas out there that dont have balance and dont provide enough rights for the minority power to make it plausible. I would say first look at the proposal that carl levin put out at the end, a few months ago. Its in the record. You will see it. As a starting point but its something that had been discussed in a bipartisan way in the Senate Rules Committee through several hearings on the filibuster over the last couple of years. Chuck schumer, the chairman of the committee, lamar alexander, the ranking republican, and others are least talked about the idea of a trade off, limiting filibusters on the motion to proceed in return for some guarantee of amendments. And senator levins proposal is fairly specific and how that could work. I think you could use that as a starting point and then maybe agree to some of the changes. And that would be very much like what happened in 1975. It was part of the agreement was that they put in rule five for the first time. It had never been there. Okay, came this close but were not going to do. Were going to put that in the rules. But you could imagine finding a bipartisan agreement. The other possibility is that you get another even handshake or implicit agreement between reid and mcconnell that will be a change in the way they do things now. There will be more willingness to offer amendments and in return fewer frivolous filibusters but and it might include something, remember, we saw last year a very ive its a commendable step in a bipartisan fashion in the senate to try to streamline executive nominations, removing some that should be senate confirmable and creating grievance otherwise. At the use of the hold which is done by all senators, and then often not because of objections to individual nomination but as a hostagetaking mechanism has increased enormously in the last few years. And finding a better way around executive nominations might be part of an agreement as well. I dont think its necessary going to happen but their are things of a deal that could work for both sides. We are over our time but made we have time for one last question. Are we doing okay . Okay. Please join me in a one round of applause for all of our panelists today. [applause] thank you. [inaudible conversations] former afghanistan Commander Lieutenant colonel j. B. Vowell said he was cautio