I think that the principle you have recognized is an important one, the principle with different presiding officers.

We need to come together on this for the good of the Senate and the good of the country.

The rules get abused.

The intent of both of these proposals is to make the Senate more like the Senate and actually require debate about the topic that is being filibustered.

I think one of the real problems is that with supermajorities required for just about everything, it does make it hard for the public to hold anybody accountable for what does or does not get done.

legislative entrenchment has long been recognized as an illegal procedure.

Wouldn't you think if we had a tradition of adopting rules every 2 years, that would bring accountability to the system more than anything?

Unlike those specific changes to the rules, which I think all deserve our consideration, my proposal is to make each Senate accountable for all of our rules.

I believe more strongly than ever that our Senate rules are broken.

I do think the problem is more of the culture than it is the rules, that the rules operated better in a previous era.

We should not limit our reform efforts to the filibuster, but look at all the rules.

the threat of filibusters has become an almost daily fact of life in the Senate.

one Congress cannot bind a subsequent Congress.

the filibuster used to be the exception to the rule. In today's Senate, it is becoming a straitjacket.

I think that we need to adjust the rules, not to become the House, but to become a restored, effective Senate with the power to deliberate so we can do our jobs and do them better.

This Congress will go down in history as probably one of the more productive Congresses in generations.

The Senate of each new Congress is not bound by the rules of the previous Senates under Section 5 of Article 1 of the Constitution.

We must consider reforms to the filibuster to ensure it serves its intended purpose.