Phil Gramm Quotes

Some people may call it a filibuster. I call it an extended educational dialogue.

The filibuster has only been around for 2564 years.

There is no Senate rule governing the proper uses of the filibuster.

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.

My way of viewing the talking filibuster was as a way of doing unanimous consent with your feet. You object by going down and talking.

The Democrats filibustered something in the Senate when I was eight years old. I don't remember what it was on and I didn't honestly care when I was eight years old. I cared about the history and the Senate rules.

We've seen filibusters of bills and nominations that ultimately passed with 90 or more votes. Why filibuster something that has that kind of support? Just to slow down the process and keep the Senate from working.

We could beat back Kennedy on Civil Rights, but Lyndon [Johnson] knows how to beat us.

Our boys [the communists] not only attended all the union educational classes … but also took lessons in speaking from Party experts. We were also trained in the fine points of parliamentary trickery … We raised points of order, points of information, divisions of the house, objection to consideration of the question, amendments to amendments, and appeals from the decision of the chair in endless and swift succession.

The Senate is, in a way, the last primitive society in the world. As civilization progresses we honor all the ancient principals of seniority and respect for our elders and occupancy. Territorial imperative runs very strongly in the Senate. And our ultimate test is a trial by ordeal—which we practice in the filibuster.

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

The Senate was designed not to be efficient. If was designed to slow things down, And it does a pretty good job of it.

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.

So I put that all together and I find it makes it hard to justify a filibuster.

They say women talk too much. If you have worked in Congress you know that the filibuster was invented by men.

In the Senate, where 60 votes are required to do anything important, you have to work with your colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

A majority of senators should be able to adopt rules at the beginning of each Congress.

Sometimes Congress likes to milk an issue.

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.

We shouldn't deny the right of the minority to filibuster, but we need to do a much better job of making them own it. That way, the American people could figure out who is being obstructionist and who is willing to compromise.

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.'

Filibusters have proliferated because under current rules just one or two determined senators can stop the Senate from functioning. Today, the mere threat of a filibuster is enough to stop a vote; senators are rarely asked to pull all-nighters like Jimmy Stewart in 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'

Reparations, I believe, are talked about for political reasons, trying to cater for the purpose of getting votes. If Congress was serious about reparations - in '93 and '94 the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, and not one single Republican vote was needed for reparations.