the filibuster should not be used to frustrate the very purpose of the Senate procedures, to foster discussion.

I believe it is an idea whose time has truly come in not de jure, if you will, but de facto, relating to Senator McCaskill's point.

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…

This was a great hearing. My only wish is that every one of our colleagues could have witnessed it...

It certainly is time for us to listen to Senator Harkin's thoughts about how to make this institution better.

A bill was passed in the Senate by voice vote, jointly sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator John Cornyn, to amend the financial regulatory law with regard to the Freedom of Information Act.

The hearing will come to order. And I want to thank everybody, including my friend Bob Bennett, for participating in this hearing.

My resolution would actually require at least 41 Senators to show up and vote to block cloture, or else the legislation could move forward.

The confirmation process is not the sole source of delay in filling executive or judicial positions.

I would guarantee them those rights.

The American people want to see their elected representatives work together.

the filibuster become the norm, not the exception.

There is a need to fix the system and some areas where we can agree.

I recommend against giving a hold a formal standing in the rules. I think that would do real damage.

Despite the easing of the logjam yesterday, what we have seen overall in this Congress is the worst obstruction of presidential nominations in recent memory.

Many members of the Senate have said that this body is in crisis.

I do think though, Senator, that the use of instruction-- obstructionist tactics by the minority and the majority's response in trying to get its program enacted has played a fundamental role...

that government which is best governs least.

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

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

Republicans say, 'We have no choice but to delay, unless we are allowed the opportunity to offer amendments.'

Senators do not melt.

we ought to restore it to its traditional role as the deliberative body where we have amendments and we have debate.

The constitutional remedy was invoked by majority rule in 1975, and the compromise was adopted by a large bipartisan vote.

But as I argue in my testimony, that then had unintended consequences because they did not think through how that would change Senators' calculations as they are deciding whether or not to filibuster.