Senator Chris Dodd took to the Senate floor and delivered his farewell speech as he is retiring at the end of this year. A Democrat to whom I disagree vehemently with his political ideology, but who has served for decades and who said a poignant goodbye.His full speech can be found here, but in his speech he spoke about the use of filibusters and his belief that they serve the purpose they were created to serve and his desire to see the rules unchanged.
Dodd on filibusters and filibuster reform:
I have heard some people suggest that the Senate as we know it simply can’t function in such a highly charged political environment, that we should change Senate rules to make it more efficient, more responsive to the public mood, more like the House of Representatives, where the majority can essentially bend the minority to its will.
I appreciate the frustration many have with the slow pace of the legislative progress. And I certainly share some of my colleagues’ anger with the repetitive use and abuse of the filibuster. Thus, I can understand the temptation to change the rules that make the Senate so unique—and, simultaneously, so frustrating.
But whether such a temptation is motivated by a noble desire to speed up the legislative process, or by pure political expedience, I believe such changes would be unwise.
We one hundred Senators are but temporary stewards of a unique American institution, founded upon universal principles. The Senate was designed to be different, not simply for the sake of variety, but because the framers believed the Senate could and should be the venue in which statesmen would lift America up to meet its unique challenges.
As a Senator from the State of Connecticut—and the longest serving one in its history—I take special pride in the role two Connecticut Yankees played in the establishment of this body.
It was Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, delegates from Connecticut to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 who proposed the idea of a bicameral national legislature.
The Connecticut Compromise, as it came to be known, was designed to ensure that no matter which way the political winds blew, or how hard the gusts, there would be a place for every voice to be heard.
The history of this young democracy, the Framers decided, should not be written solely in the hand of the political majority. In a nation founded in revolution against tyrannical rule, which sought to crush dissent, there should be one institution that would always provide a space where dissent was valued and respected.
E Pluribus Unum – out of many, one. And though we would act as one, the Framers believed that our political debate should always reflect, that in our beliefs and in our aspirations, we are, in fact, many.
In short, our Founders were concerned not only with what was legislated, but, just as importantly, with how we legislated.
Now in my years here, I have learned that the appreciation of the Senate’s role in our national debate, is an acquired taste.
Therefore, to my fellow Senators who have never served a day in the minority, I urge you to pause in your enthusiasm to change Senate rules.
And to those in the minority who routinely abuse the rules of the Senate to delay or defeat almost any Senate decision, know that you will be equally responsible for undermining the unique value of the United States Senate, a value greater than that which you might assign to the political motivations driving your obstruction.
But in the end, this isn’t about the filibuster. What will determine whether this institution works or not, what has always determined whether we will fulfill the Framers’ highest hopes or justify the cynics’ worst fears, is not the Senate rules, the calendar, or the media.
It is whether each of the one hundred Senators can work together – living up to the incredible honor that comes with the title, and the awesome responsibility that comes with the office.
Politics today seemingly rewards only passion and independence, not deliberation and compromise as well.
It has become commonplace to hear candidates for the Senate campaign on how they are going to Washington to shake things up—all by themselves.
May I politely suggest that you are seeking election to the wrong office. The United States Senate does not work that way, nor can it, or should it.
Mayors, governors, and presidents can sometimes succeed by the sheer force of their will. But there has never been a Senator so persuasive, so charismatic, so clever, or so brilliant that they could make a significant difference, while refusing to work with other members of this body.
Simply put, Mr. President, Senators cannot ultimately be effective alone.
As I noted earlier, until last year’s health care bill, there had not been a single piece of legislation I had ever passed without a Republican partner.
Of course, none of those victories came easily. The notion that partisan politics is a new phenomena, or that partisan politics serve no useful purpose, is just wrong.
From the moment of our founding, America has been engaged in an eternal and often pitched partisan debate. That’s no weakness. In fact, it is at the core of our strength as a democracy, and success as a nation.
Political bipartisanship is a goal, not a process.
You don’t begin the debate with bipartisanship – you arrive there. And you can do so only when determined partisans create consensus – and thus bipartisanship.
In the end, the difference between a partisan brawl and a passionate, but ultimately productive, debate rests on the personal relationships between Senators.
A legislative body that operates on unanimous consent, as does the Senate, cannot function unless the members trust each other. There is no hope of building that trust unless there is the will to treat each other with respect and civility, and to invest the time it requires to create that trust and strengthen those personal bonds.
No matter how obnoxious you find a colleague’s rhetoric or how odious you find their beliefs, you will need them. And despite what some may insist, you do no injustice to your ideological principles when you seek out common ground. You do no injustice to your political beliefs when you take the time to get to know those who don’t share them.
I’ve served with several hundred Senators under every partisan configuration imaginable: Republican presidents and Democratic presidents, divided government and one party control.
And as odd as it may sound in the present political environment, in my three decades here, I cannot recall a single Senate colleague with whom I could not work.
Sometimes those relationships take time, but then, that is why the Framers gave us six-year terms: so that members could build the social capital necessary to make the Senate function.
Under our Constitution, Senators are given six years, but only you can decide how to use them. And as one Senator who has witnessed what is possible here, I urge each of you: Take the time to use those years well. I pledge to you, your tenure here will be so much more rewarding.
More importantly, you will be vindicating the confidence that the Framers placed in each person who takes the oath of office, as Senator, upholding a trust that echoes through the centuries.
I share the confidence that Roger Sherman, Oliver Ellsworth, and the Framers placed in this body and in its members. But I am not blind. The Senate today, in my view, is not functioning as it can and should.
But look around you. This moment is difficult, not only for this body, but for the nation it serves. And, in the end, what matters most in America is not what only happens within the walls of this chamber, but rather the consequences of our decisions across the nation and around the globe.
Our economy is struggling, and many of our people are experiencing real hardship – unemployment, home foreclosures, endangered pensions.
Meanwhile, our nation faces real challenges: a mounting national debt, energy, immigration, nuclear proliferation, ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and so much more. All these challenges make the internal political and procedural conflicts we face as Senators seem small and petty.
History calls us to lift our eyes above the fleeting controversies of the moment, and to refocus our attention on our common challenge and common purpose.
By regaining its footing, the Senate can help this nation to regain confidence, and to restore the sense of optimism.
We must regain that focus. And, most importantly, we need our confidence back – we want to feel that same optimism that has sustained us through more than two centuries.
I am not naïve. I am aware of the conventional wisdom that predicts gridlock in the Congress.
But I know both the Democratic and Republican Leaders. I know the sitting members of the Senate. And my confidence is unshaken.
Why? Because we have been here before. The country has recovered from economic turmoil. Americans have come together to heal deep divides. And the Senate has led by finding its way through seemingly intractable political division. We have proven time and time again that this Senate is capable of meeting the test of history. We have evidenced the wisdom of the Framers who created its unique rules and set its high standards.
After all, no other legislative body grants so much power to each member, nor does any other legislative body ask so much of each member.
Just as the Senate’s rules empower each member to act like a statesman, they also require statesmanship from each member.
But these rules are merely requiring from us the kind of leadership that our constituents need from us, that history calls on us to provide in difficult times such as these.
Maturity in a time of pettiness, calm in a time of anger, and leadership in a time of uncertainty – that is what the nation asks of the Senate, and that is what this office demands of us.
His reasoning speaks for itself but there is more.
Changing the filibuster rules would benefit Democrats right now, but should Republicans net just four of the 33 Senate seats, (23 of which are Democratically held seats) that will be in play in 2012, it would then benefit Republicans going forward and leave Democrats without a voice.
No minority party, Democrat or Republican, should be without a voice to represent their constituents.
We are not a tyranny, we have a majority and minority for a reason and the minority's job, whether it is Republicans as it now or Democrats as it was before 2007, the use of a filibuster can and does prevent, for the most part, any one political party from setting their agenda and only their agenda, in stone on a massive level, leaving a whole segment of the population without a voice no matter how big or small that segment is.
Should Republicans take enough seats in 2012 and/or the White House, it will fall to the Democrats as the minority to be the voice which airs the concerns of their constituents, just as it is the Republican's obligation now to fight for their constituent's priorities.
More importantly, in my view, where a majority in the House of Representatives can simply step on and over any disagreeing segment of the body itself by virtue of simply being the majority, and bills are passed fast and furiously and the public, the voters, rarely would have the chance to understand the legislation passed nor time to learn what is the bills passed before being signed into law by the President, the Senate gives the remedy for that.
The Senate is supposed to debate those issues, tweak them, and eventually be forced to worked together enough to come to some sort of compromise so a bill can be passed.
This is where the public generally learns the most about what is in the bills the House has passed. We learn the details and the fighting and what is usually described as "bickering" in the Senate also allows us to learn the arguments for and against each aspect of each bill, so that we the people, the voters who elected our officials, can make our voices heard with letters, emails and phone calls to those elected officials.
When Republicans controlled the House and the Senate they complained of Democrats using the filibuster to obstruct and now that the shoe is on the other foot, Democrats make the same claim and both sides, when it adversely affects their ability to jam legislation through calls upon the Senate to reform the rules.
The filibuster was created for exactly this purpose though and the majority party never appreciates it and never will.
The fact is when one party sweeps into power the other party just doesn't go home and wait for the next election because the whole purpose of having a majority and minority is so that everyone in the country, no matter their political party, have a representative to be their voice in Congress.
Trivia- Until 1842, the filibuster was also used in the House of Representatives.
Goodbye Senator Dodd, I didn't agree with you, half the time I didn't even like you but that was one hell of a speech. Thank you for your service.
.
