[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 135 (Friday, December 8, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11591-S11592]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE IMPORTANCE OF SENATE RULES
Mr. REID. Mr. President, as the 109th Congress fades into memory and
the 110th Congress comes into view, I want to say a few words about the
importance of Senate rules. One of our finest accomplishments over the
last 2 years was something that the Senate chose not to do. In May
2005, the Senate turned aside the so-called nuclear option and decided
to preserve the rules of the Senate which allow for extended debate on
judicial nominations.
Almost a century ago the Senate adopted rule XXII which formalized
the principle of extended debate and established a balanced mechanism
for limiting debate. The current version of rule XXII requires two-
thirds of the Senate to cut off debate on any change in the rules and
three-fifths of the Senate to cut off debate on any other question
before the body. The nuclear option would have forced a change in this
venerable Senate rule by the brute force of a simple majority vote.
The campaign to rewrite Senate rules was misguided from the start. It
was a raw abuse of power fueled by a misreading of history. The Senate
came dangerously close to adopting this plan. On the eve of the
showdown vote, a courageous band of 14 Senators, 7 Democrats and 7
Republicans, came together to derail it. They agreed to vote as a block
against the nuclear option in exchange for an up-or-down vote on a
handful of disputed court of appeals nominees.
I feel very comfortable that had that vote occurred, this same result
would have followed, but did I want to roll the dice on that? The
answer is no. In the aftermath of that so-called Gang of 14 agreement,
I was asked who won? I said the American people won. I am happy to
report that commentators since then have also said that the American
people won.
Had the nuclear option prevailed, it is almost certain that other
valuable Senate traditions would soon have fallen to political
expediency, raw power, simple majority vote, and we would have become
another House of Representatives. Confirmation of a handful of
controversial court of appeals nominees was a small price to pay for
preserving the sanctity of the Senate rules for future generations.
The nuclear option was the most important issue I have worked on in
my public life. Its rejection was my proudest moment as minority
leader. I emerged from the episode with a renewed appreciation for the
majesty of
[[Page S11592]]
Senate rules. As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate with
respect for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect.
The Senate was not established to be efficient. Sometimes the rules
get in the way of efficiency. The Senate was established to make sure
that minorities are protected. Majorities can always protect
themselves, but minorities cannot. That is what the Senate is all
about. For more than 200 years, the rules of the Senate have protected
the American people, and rightfully so.
The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate
naturally frustrates the majority and oftentimes the minority. I am
sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of majority leader
in a few weeks. But I recognize this requirement is a tool that serves
the long-term interest of the Senate and the American people and our
country.
It is often said that the laws are ``the system of wise restraints
that set men free.'' The same might be said of the Senate rules.
I will do my part as majority leader to foster respect for the rules
and traditions of our great institution. I say on this floor that I
love so much that I believe in the Golden Rule. I am going to treat my
Republican colleagues the way that I expect to be treated. There is no
``I've got you,'' no get even. I am going to do everything I can to
preserve the traditions and rules of this institution that I love.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
____________________