On the recordSeptember 30, 2015
Indeed, my experience in the Oregon State Legislature was dramatically different. In many ways, it was much more similar to the way I thought the Senate was operating when I was here in the 1970s and then working for Congress in the 1980s. Once we got to a bill on the floor of the Oregon House, where I served for 10 years and spent 2 years as speaker, every moment was utilized in debate. There was no paralysis. People only had limited time. We were there to hear each other and to make decisions and certainly in a more expeditious style than is the custom in the Senate. But what we had in common was floor time was well utilized in the Senate in the past and well utilized in Oregon. As you were speaking about tradition and how the Senate worked, I was thinking about how all this began. When they had the first U.S. Senate, they had in their rule book a motion to force a vote. They had that rule, but they never used it. Why didn't they use it? Imagine if there are 13 States and just 26 Senators and they stand here occupying a quarter of the space we now occupy and they say: Well, we certainly can extend the courtesy of hearing each person's insight or opinion before we vote. So after a couple of years, when they rewrote the rule book, they decided not to include the rule. They didn't need it because they had the courtesy of hearing each other. So suddenly there is a Senate with no rule on how to close debate and force a vote. And over time that courtesy eroded.…
Source
govinfo.gov




