Ted Cruz Quotes

There are two ways of looking at the talking filibuster. My way is as a form of unanimous consent.

You know, the purpose of reconciliation is to avoid the filibuster. The filibuster is an effort to talk something to death.

Let the filibuster be no more. Let the people decide.

No one ever built the filibuster rule. It just kind of was created.

If the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage. Therefore I will try to stop the passage of the bill.

The Senate has unlimited debate; in the House, debate is ruthlessly circumscribed. There is frequent discussion as to which technique most effectively frustrates democratic process.

This has not been a legislative process worthy of the Senate. Members of the Judiciary Committee, as I just said, were implored to save their amendments for the floor. Then, when we got here, we were told no amendments could be accepted.

Filibusters should require 35 senators to... make a commitment to continually debate an issue in reality, not just in theory. The number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster should be reduced to 55 from 60.

What happens is that, you know, on Mondays, at least in the Senate, you know, Monday night we'd have what you'd call a bed-check vote. Just to get, you know, the machinery of the Senate up and running so they can start the committee process; on Tuesday morning, things go. By Thursday, you know, jet fumes, the smell of jet fumes.

It used to be in the Senate that if you were filibustering, you stood up. There was a physical dimension to it, that you - when you became exhausted you would have to leave the floor. That was the idea of the filibuster.

In Parliament we debate on and we decide the laws that are going to govern the country.

The House of Representatives eliminated the filibuster way back in the 19th century, and somehow it managed to survive.

When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'

When you use the word 'filibuster,' most of us in America - and I count myself among them - envision it as the ability to hold the floor on rare occasions to speak at length and make your point emphatically and even delay progress by taking hours.

Congress is so strange. A man gets up to speak and says nothing. Nobody listens—and then everybody disagrees.

If you know an amendment [you are opposed to] will pass you don't want a roll call [vote] because that makes it [the amendment] harder to drop in conference.

[A] Senator who wants to stir up trouble ... can do so by introducing on the floor amendments which he was duty bound to present in committee. But presentation in committee makes no headlines.

The interests of the assembly are best subserved by allowing the floor to alternate between the friends and enemies of a measure.

As a new member (of Parliament) you will also be instructed in the details of what is expected from you as a backbencher…. It will be made clear to you that your role in the decision-making process is to raise your hand when you are told to and to occupy your seat in the house when it is required.

The minority in the Senate has the power to prevent the majority from acting.

Anybody who get easily frustrated should not be in the United States Senate. We operate by unanimous consent …. Any Senator can stop the train.

If somebody feels strongly enough to be willing to stop the Senate, he should at least be required to be on the floor and explain why.

The gentleman’s time has expired, and I now have the floor, and I want to say that it is an improvement to the floor.

The filibuster has only been around for 2564 years.

The filibuster is the most important check on raw Presidential power.