On the recordJanuary 5, 2011
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his leadership. I want to rephrase my question that I left hanging when I yielded the floor the last time. I see our great friend from New York is here to speak. I will not take more than a minute or two. I want to rephrase the question. I asked the question: What has the filibuster become? And I further asked a question about consensus. If you do not get a consensus--that is, over 60 people--to agree on something, should then the majority not have the right to act? I want to rephrase that question and put it this way: If consensus--meaning over 60 Senators--if over 60 Senators cannot agree on something, then should the minority have the absolute total veto power over what the majority is proposing? That is the essence of it. If you cannot get a consensus, should the minority have the total, absolute power to determine the outcome? That is what has happened in the Senate. That is what has become of this filibuster. The end result has become the fact that 41 Senators-- if you do not have 60 Senators or more--41 Senators decide what we do, what we vote on, what comes before this body. How does that square with the principle of democratic government and majority rule? I leave that out there: Should we have and continue to have, if we cannot reach a consensus, should we continue to have veto power by the minority? I also see the Senator from Colorado here to speak.…





