Filibuster

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to just start by saying amen to everything the Senator has said.

I listened to his words carefully, and I hear a great deal of caution in his words about actions that the Senate may take as a body that would be in response to perhaps short-term gain or immediate political gain--but a gain that could be finite.

Over the course of the years that I have been in the Senate, I, too, have shared the same frustration about legislation that I cared deeply about that I believe had been blocked. Our parliamentarian rules have actually worked to delay things unnecessarily or oftentimes delayed things to the point where they never came to fruition. I have seen the frustration. I also see the benefit of being more methodical, of being that cooling saucer in the process of governance and particularly good governance.

But the words that you used are very, very cautionary. It is as if you are suggesting that if we change the filibuster rules, we will, in effect, have changed the institution of the Senate going forward and have changed the institution so that it is, perhaps, just a smaller body than the House but subject to the same rules, where those who have the most votes on one side win.

My question to the Senator from South Dakota is, Do you believe that a change in the filibuster rules here in the U.S. Senate would be permanently detrimental to the institution of the Senate going forward?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from South Dakota.

I would hope that on a matter as significant as what we are talking about, which is effectively the operational integrity of this institution, there would be good, thorough open discussion and debate on this floor and amongst floor Members.

But the concerns we are hearing that there are efforts on the outside of this body that would push us to change our rules and do so in a way that could permanently erode and undercut the ability of the U.S. Senate to operate as intended would be, I believe, a travesty.

Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one last question?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, to follow the Senator from South Dakota's comments about using the tool that would effectively blow up the Senate, if you will--these are not words that we use freely, but I think it is fair to suggest that utilizing this tool that would eliminate the filibuster, that would eliminate, really, the strongest tool for a minority party, is akin to the nuclear option. We use that term around here in legislative prose.

I would agree with much of what you have said. You and I have served on the Appropriations Committee now for years. We have had an opportunity to be engaged in good, substantive debates that have yielded good, substantive, enduring laws.

As I think about our role around here, it is not just to engage in the partisan message of the day; it is actually to enact laws. But when we enact laws that are good for just one party, that are wholly partisan, you can kind of predict the direction that will be taken when that minority party that voted against that particular policy then regains power and takes the majority and then attempts to overturn whatever that policy may be.

When we think about ways that we can help an economy that is struggling right now, one of the things that I am hearing from businesses is this: The one thing we would really like out of Washington, DC, the one thing we would really like is some level of certainty with policies, that it is not kind of this whiplash, back and forth from one administration to the next.

Well, the way you do that is through a level of consensus. As we know, on this floor right now, where it is still pretty quiet, consensus has been harder and harder to achieve on a bipartisan basis. Maybe this is a place in time where we are, and it is just dark. As our friend John McCain would say: It is always darkest before it goes pitch-black. Well, maybe we are getting close to the pitch-black. One can only hope.

But I do hear your words that the status quo is not acceptable. I agree with you, my friend. It is not acceptable. It is not acceptable that we are in that place where we can't get votes on amendments that are legitimate and pertinent to the legislation that we have.

I am trying to advance an energy bill right now, to get to final passage, and we are going through the procedural hurdles. I will work through those. But we are at a point where, as an institution, I believe we are failing. We are failing the American public. We are failing our constituents. We are failing in our role in governing.

I do think that when people look to the anxiety that is at play right now with our national elections, with a Presidential election that is as volatile as we have seen, if there is some level of comfort and security that they might have, they might think that just maybe the Congress, maybe the Senate, can get its act together and be working together.

So I hear you. The status quo is not acceptable. I am not one who is going to say we can't change any of the rules, but we have to do better. Whether it is behavioral attitudes that need to change or whether we need to work together to change the rules, that is where we should be, not unilaterally bomb-throwing, not unilaterally making the decision that is going to benefit our party today, and then when we lose the majority, we will deal with it later. We owe it to the Senate and we owe it to the country to do better.

I appreciate this back-and-forth today. I would welcome other colleagues to join us. I would hope that we look very, very closely at where we are right now because we are using our own rules to do damage to the institution of the Senate.

So let's not take the last tool that holds us in check--this filibuster--and throw it away as well because we will regret it. In the meantime, let's figure out what we can be doing as Democrats and Republicans to do better for the institution of the Senate and do better for the American people.

I apologize. That wasn't by way of a question; it was occupying the time of the Senator from Illinois. But I think we have a lot of work to do here, and I hope we are able to do it together.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source