Kent Conrad Quotes

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

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

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.

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.

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

It is with deep regret that the determination to assemble Parliament has been so long delayed.

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.

Filibuster is a harsh word. I prefer to offer amendments and let others filibuster.

We have a level of obstruction and an abuse of the Senate rules that we have never had before… We have a dysfunctional Senate. Some say it’s a broken Senate.

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

The filibuster is an affront to commonly understood democratic norms, but then so is the Senate.

There is a limitation on debate, which is unlike other bills, for 20 hours, but there is no limitation on amendments. In other words, Republicans if they wanted to, and I suspect they do, could offer literally thousands of amendments and keep Senate in session for weeks and months.

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.

I understand the principles of dissent in parliament.

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

There's a rhythm to the legislative session and there are rhythms to legislative sessions. So I think that's very important to take into consideration when you are deciding what to do when.

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.

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.

If there is a nuclear tactic being used here, I submit it is the use of that obstruction where a willful minority blocks a bipartisan majority from voting on the President's judicial nominees.

My view of the filibuster is either you've got to lower vote edge or make people really filibuster if they feel that seriously about a piece of legislation.

It seems as though there are Members in this body who want to filibuster just about everything we try to do, whether it is stopping judicial nominations, the Energy bill, or this Medicare bill.

People need to understand that in Washington, the process is the punishment.

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.