It is not going to get better. It is going to get worse because every time they do a filibuster on us, we are going to do two on them.

So today I would argue that the Senate is not only not functional, it is not very interesting.

The inability to appoint conferees by unanimous consent was always done. The leader picked the name.

Does not this reflect the new reality that maybe Senator Byrd did not have to live within his political experience, that now is the reality of the Senate?

It is no way to run a government.

It provides for debate and deliberation.

I predicted at that time that an arms race was underway.

I could not disagree more. Why should the minority, any minority, compromise?

It makes the Senate not an institution to be respected for its principles, but a dysfunctional institution which apparently is not even committed to principle.

It strikes me that this really is offensive, that someone says, I have got to protect my rights, but in absentia, I have got things to do back home.

The idea that Senator Byrd, the late, great Senator Byrd, when he was extraordinarily ill, had to be forced to come to the floor to provide a 60th vote, or that the Senate was frozen in the period after his death and before Senator Goodwin…

I think we need fundamental change.

There is something fundamentally wrong with this institution.

Once you have been around for a few years and you have cast thousands of votes, you figure there is plenty for them to work with and I do not have to worry about tomorrow's vote.

I would like to follow up on that, because we had a classic example where a member from your side forced a vote on a Saturday on a filibuster.

The human cost is there for judges, as well.

the filibuster is an indispensable tool for controlling the effects of partisanship and factionalism...

he wonders what sort of rules changes he would want if he were in the minority