Chuck Schumer

The dynamics of the Senate obviously are different, so but let me ask a not entirely rhetorical question, and that is, why do Senators filibuster?

Filling the tree has become an unfortunate practice here.

This hearing is about more than the filibuster. It seems to me it is about the institutional role of the Senate and its function in the legislative process.

These numbers, Mr. Chairman, demonstrate the level of cooperation in the House has dropped precipitously, if not off the cliff.

The Constitution's framers never intended the Senate to function like the House of Representatives.

This is really a good opening hearing.

If the purpose and intent of a filibuster is to exercise a minority veto over legislation or a nomination or whatever, then I think defending recent practice is, in my view, an up-hill climb.

Examining the filibuster is essential to understanding how it has shaped our legislative process.

The constitutional authority to advise and consent found in the Senate for Presidential nominations is one of the Senate's most important responsibilities.

I do not want to get rid of the filibuster, but as I will argue, I think we need a different number.

If, on the other hand, the objective of filibustering or the threat of filibustering is to give the majority an incentive to take better account of policy interests and preferences that it might if the majority were left solely to its own…

I can testify that the majority is better. I can testify firsthand that the House is the institution for the will of the majority.

I want to especially thank Senator Byrd for his continued interest and participation in these hearings.

The filibuster can be the majority's greatest enemy and a minority's best friend.

The place is broken and we ought to fix it without a mind to what particular ascendency each party has.

It is clear that the topic of right to debate and the use of the filibuster are of deep interest to members of this Committee.

The Senate's leadership should have the authority, sustained by a majority and a ruling of the presiding officer, if necessary, to bring nominations to the Senate.

I hope these rules will be ready for adoption at least by the beginning of the next session.

In early 1975, Senator Mondale, together with Senator Byrd, successfully led the bipartisan debate which resulted in amending Senate Rule 22.

I would really hope that we would, regardless of what we do in terms of alleged reform, let us see what lurks behind the banner of reform.

That government which is best governs least.

It is clear that the founding fathers intended to create a system of checks and balances.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The current system is broken.

Under no circumstances should any nominee be confirmed to the Ninth Circuit who would take that court further in the wrong direction.