On the recordSeptember 22, 2020
Madam President, those on the other side of the aisle who openly say they will end the filibuster if they get the majority should have to explain why they continue to vote to filibuster important issues like police reform and COVID relief. Do they somehow believe the filibuster is wrong in principle, or do they admit that they think there should be two sets of rules depending on which political party has the majority in the Senate? If you think at a minimum that the filibuster should be used sparingly and judiciously, how do you justify voting to block even moving, even discussing, let's say, for instance, Senator Scott's police reform bill when you have been promised amendments by the majority leader and when you can always filibuster final passage if you still aren't satisfied after the bill has been discussed for a long period of time and a lot of amendments have been adopted? It is clear their position on filibuster is pure partisanship at its worst. If there is any way you are going to promote the bipartisanship that the people are demanding, it is only in this institution of the Senate, where it requires 60 votes to get to finality on a bill and where you have pressure to do things in a bipartisan way or nothing gets done. I yield the floor. ____________________





