Wikipedia is your friend.
Is that surprising? For 6 of her 8 years as Senator, Republicans held majorities in both Houses of Congress, and for the remaining 2 years, they still held the presidency.
Number of bills that made it to committee is only one measure of how successful a Senator is. Looking at the very same website you used,
Clinton's leadership score (using bill sponsorship patterns) is towards the high end of the Democratic caucus.
The fact is, if you pick and chose statistics, you can tell whatever narrative you like.
If you aren't even going to try to justify your position here, I really actually have to respond.
However, I know your probably going to mention Benghazi, despite the fact that the Republican House has launched multiple investigations that all turned up no evidence of wrongdoing, and despite the fact that Americans were killed in multiple terrorist attacks on embassies during the Bush administration with no witch hunt started.
The Republican obsession over Benghazi shows just how little they actually have on her. If you must go with an anti-Clinton 'scandal', I recommend email-gate. Of course, email-gate isn't an attack on Clinton's experience, it's an accusation of corruption. Which happens to be a line of attack that would get you much further than... whatever it is you're trying to do here.