Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor regarding the current state of the Senate and the need for a correction:

“Over the past several years, those of us who are fortunate enough to serve here have engaged in many fierce debates. Some have been forced upon us by external events, including a searing financial crisis, while others were brought about by an unapologetically liberal president who promised dramatic change, and who has worked very hard to follow through on that pledge — in some cases, even in the face of legal obstacles and widespread public opposition.

“So change has come: Despite the daily drumbeat of headlines about gridlock and dysfunction in Washington, the truth is, an activist president and a Democrat-controlled Senate have managed to check off an awful lot of items on their wish list, one way or another. And yet just as important as what they did is how they did it, because that’s also been at the heart of so many of the fights we’ve had around here over the past several years. These conflicts haven’t stemmed from personal grievances or contempt, as some would have it. They are, instead, the inevitable consequence of an administration that was in such a hurry to impose its agenda that it neglected to persuade the public of its wisdom, and then cast aside one of the greatest tools we have in this country for guaranteeing a durable and stable legislative consensus — and that’s the Senate.
 
“Remember: partisanship is not some recent invention. American politics has always been more or less divided between two ideological camps. Today, that’s reflected in the two major parties. But it’s always been there. On one side are those who proudly place their trust in the government and its agents to guide our institutions and direct our lives. On the other are those of us who put our trust in the wisdom and the creativity of private citizens working voluntarily with each another and through more local mediating institutions, guided by their own sense of what’s right and fair and good. Recent polling suggests, by the way, that most Americans fall squarely into the latter camp. People are generally confident in their local government, but lack confidence in Washington.

“And yet despite the political and ideological divides which have always existed in this country, we’ve almost always managed to work out our differences — not by humiliating the other side into submission, but through simple give and take. It is the secret of our success. The same virtues that make any friendship or marriage or family or business work are the ones that have always made this country work. And the place where it happens, the place where all the national conflicts and controversies that arise in this big, diverse, wonderful country have always been resolved, is right here in this chamber; right here.
 
“I realize it may not be immediately obvious why that’s the case. But the fact is, every serious student of this institution, from de Tocqueville to our late colleague Robert Byrd, has seen the Senate as uniquely important to America’s stability and flourishing. In their view, it’s made all the difference. And here’s why — because whether it was the fierce early battles over the shape and scope of the federal government, or those that surrounded industrialization, or those that preceded and followed a nation-rending Civil War, or those surrounding the great wars of the 20th Century, or the expansion of the franchise, or a decades-long Cold War, or the War on Terror, we have almost always found a way forward, sometimes haltingly, but always steadily. And the Senate is the tool that has enabled us to find our footing almost every time.

“I mention all this because as we begin a new year, I think it’s appropriate to step back from all the policy debates that have occupied us over the past few years and focus on another debate we’ve been having around here, over the state of this institution. It’s not a debate that ever caught fire with the public or the press. But it’s a debate that should be of grave importance to all of us. Because on some level every single one of us has to be at least a little bit uneasy about what happened here in November. But even if you’re completely at peace about what happened in November, even if you think it was perfectly fine to violate the all-important rule that says changing the rules requires the assent of two-thirds of Senators duly elected and sworn, none of us should be happy with the trajectory the Senate was on even before that day, or the condition we find it in 225 years after it was created. I know I’m not. So today I’d like to share a few thoughts on what I think we’ve lost over the past seven years, and what I believe can be done about it, together.

“Now, let me state at the outset that it’s not my intention to point the finger of blame at anybody, though some of that’s inevitable. I don’t presume to have all the answers either. And I certainly don’t claim to be without any fault. But I am certain of one thing — that the Senate can be better. And I just can’t believe that on some level everyone in this chamber doesn’t agree with me. It just can’t be the case that Senators — on either side — are content with the theatrics and the messaging wars that go on here day after day. It just can’t be the case that Senators who grew up reading about the great statesmen who made their name and their mark here over the years are now suddenly content to just stand in front of a giant poster board making some poll-tested point of the month day after day, then run back to our respective corners and congratulate each other on how right we are. I just can’t believe that.
 
“Don’t misunderstand me. There’s a time for making a political point, even scoring points. I know that as well as anybody. But it can’t be only thing we do here. It cheapens the service we’ve sworn to provide to our constituents; and it cheapens the Senate, which is bigger than any of us. So hopefully we can all agree that there's a problem. I realize both sides have their own favored account of what caused it. We have our talking points. You have yours. We all repeat them with great repetition and we all congratulate each other for being on the right side of the debate.  I get that. You guys think Republicans abuse the rules. We think you do. But as I said, my goal here isn’t to make converts on that front. My purpose is to suggest that the Senate can be better than it has been, and that it must be if we’re to remain great as a nation. And I think the crucial first step of any vision that gets us there is to recognize that vigorous debate about our differences isn’t some sickness to be lamented; it’s a sign of strength.

“You know, it’s a common refrain among the pundits that the fights we have around here are pointless. They’re not. What’s unhealthy is when we neglect the means that we’ve always used to resolve them. That's the real threat to this country, not more debate. And the best mechanism we have for working through our differences and arriving at a durable consensus is the Senate. An executive order can’t do it. The fiat of a nine-person court can’t do it. A raucous and precarious partisan majority in the House can’t do it. The only institution that can make stable and enduring laws is the only one we have in which all 50 states are represented equally, and where every single Senator therefore has a say in the laws we pass here. This is what the Senate was designed for. It’s what the Senate is supposed to be all about, and almost always has been.

“Just take a look at some of the most far-reaching legislation of the past century. Look at the vote tallies. Medicare and Medicaid were both approved with the support of about half the members of the minority. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed with the votes of 30 out of 32 members of the Republican minority — all but two. Only six Senators voted against the Social Security Act. And only eight voted against the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“None of this happened by throwing these bills together in a backroom and dropping them on the floor with a stopwatch running. It happened through a laborious process of legislating, persuasion, and coalition-building. It took time and patience and hard work, and it guaranteed that every one of these laws had stability.
 
“Now compare that to the attitude behind Obamacare. When Democrats couldn’t convince any of us that this bill was worth supporting as written, they decided to do it on their own and pass it on a party line vote. And now we’re seeing the result. The chaos this law has visited on our country isn’t just deeply tragic, it was entirely predictable. And that will always be the case if you approach legislation without regard for the views of the other side. Without some meaningful buy-in, you guarantee a food fight. You guarantee instability and strife. It may very well have been the case that on Obamacare, the will of the country was not to pass the bill at all. That’s what I would have concluded if Republicans couldn’t get a single Democrat vote for legislation of this magnitude. I’d have thought, maybe this isn’t such a great idea. But Democrats plowed forward anyway. They didn’t want to hear it. And the results are clear. It’s a mess.

“The Senate exists to prevent that. Because without a moderating institution like the Senate, today’s majority passes something and tomorrow’s majority repeals it; today’s majority proposes something, tomorrow’s majority opposes it. We see that in the House all the time. But when the Senate is allowed to work the way it was designed to, it arrives at a result that’s acceptable to people all along the political spectrum.

“That's the whole point. We’ve lost our sense for the value of that. And none of us should be at peace with it. Because if America is to face up to the challenges we face in the decades ahead, she’ll need the Senate the Founders in their wisdom intended, not the hollow shell of the Senate we have today.
 
“And here’s what I would propose to do about it.

“First, one of the traditional hallmarks of the Senate is a vigorous committee process. It’s also one of the main things we’ve lost. There was a time not that long ago when chairmen and ranking members had major influence and used their positions to develop national policy on everything from farm policy to nuclear arms. These men and women enriched the entire Senate through their focus and expertise.

“Just as importantly, they provided an important counterweight to the executive branch. They provided one more check on the White House. If a President thought something was a good idea, he’d better make sure he ran it by a committee chairman who’d been studying it for the past two decades. And if the chairman disagreed, well, then we’d have a serious debate, and probably reach a better product as a result.
 
“The Senate should be setting national priorities, not simply waiting on the White House to do it for us. And the place to start that process is the committees. With few exceptions, that’s gone. It’s a big loss to the institution, but most importantly, it’s a big loss for the American people, who expect us to lead.

“And here’s something else we gained from a robust committee process: over the years, committees have served as a school of bipartisanship. It just makes sense. By the time a bill got through a committee, you could expect it to come out in a form that was broadly acceptable to both sides. Nobody got everything, but more often than not everybody got something. And the product was stable, because there was buy-in and a sense of ownership on both sides.
 
“The committee process is a shadow of what it’s been. Major legislation is now routinely drafted not in committee but in the Majority Leader’s conference room and then dropped on the floor with little or no opportunity for members to participate in the amendment process, virtually guaranteeing a fight.

“There’s a lot of empty talk around here about the corrosive influence of partisanship. Well, if you really want to do something about it, you should support a more robust committee process.  That’s the best way to end the permanent shirts against skins contest the Senate’s become. Bills should go through committee. And if Republicans are fortunate enough to gain the majority next year, they would.
 
“Second, bills should come to the floor, be thoroughly debated, and include a robust amendment process. In my view, there’s far too much paranoia about the other side around here. Both sides have taken liberties and abused privileges. I’ll admit that. But the answer isn’t to provoke each other even more. The answer is to let folks debate; to let the Senate work its will. And that means bringing bills to the floor. It means having a free and open amendment process. It means legislating.

“The Senior Senator from Illinois likes to say that if you don’t want to fight fires, don’t become a fireman, and that if you don’t like taking tough votes, don’t become a U.S. Senator. He has always been right about that. It’s time to allow Senators on both sides to more fully participate in the legislative process, and that means having a more open amendment process around here. Inevitably, this would involve taking tough votes from time to time. But that’s always been the cost of being a Senator. We’re all grown-ups, we can take it. And the irony is, it would probably make this place a lot less contentious, since it’s one of the best things we can do to let off steam. If somebody isn’t allowed to get a vote on something they believe in, of course they’ll retaliate; but if they got that vote every once in awhile, they wouldn’t feel the need to.

“Voting on amendments is good for the Senate, and it’s good for the country. Our constituents should have greater voice in the process. They should also know where we stand on the issues of the day, regardless of whether the majority party thinks those issues are worth debating or voting on. And if Republicans are fortunate enough to be in the Majority next year, they would.

“A common refrain from Democrats is that Republicans have been too quick to block bills from even coming to the floor. What they fail to mention is that more often than not we’ve done this either because we’d been shut out of the drafting process or there wouldn’t be any amendments. In other words, we already knew the legislation was shaping up to be a purely partisan exercise in which the people we represent wouldn’t have any meaningful input. And why would we want to participate in that? Is it good for our constituents? Does it lead to a better product? Of course not. All it leads to is more acrimony.

“Look, I get it. If Republicans had just won the White House, the House, and had a 60-vote majority in the Senate, we’d be tempted to empty our inbox too. But you can’t spend two years doing it, then complain about the backlash. If you want fewer fights, give the other side a say. And that brings me to one of the biggest things we’ve lost around here as I see it.

“The big problem has never been the rules. Senators from both parties have revered and defended the rules during our nation’s darkest hours. The real problem is an attitude that views the Senate as an assembly line for one party's partisan legislative agenda, rather than as a place to build consensus to solve national problems. We’ve become far too focused on making a point instead of making, good stable law. We’ve gotten too comfortable with viewing everything we do here through the prism of the next election, instead of the prism of duty. And everyone suffers as a result. 

“As I see it, a major turning point came during the final years of the Bush administration, when the Democrat Majority held vote after vote on bills they knew wouldn’t pass. I’m not saying Republicans never staged a show-vote when we were in the majority. I’m not saying I don’t enjoy a good messaging vote from time to time. But it’s become much too routine. And it diminishes the Senate. I don’t care which party you’re in. You came here to legislate and to make a difference for your constituents. Yet over the past several years the Senate seems more like a campaign studio than a serious legislative body. Both sides have said and done things over the past few years we probably wish we hadn’t. But we can improve the way we do business. We can be more constructive. We can work through our differences. We can do things that need to be done. But there will have to be major changes if we're going to get there.
 
“The committee process must be restored.

“The people we represent must be allowed to have a say through an open amendment process.

“And finally, we have to learn how to put in a decent week's work on the floor again, because another thing we’ve lost around here is an appreciation for the power of the clock to force consensus.

“The only way 100 Senators will truly be able to have their say, the only way we’ll be able to work through our tensions and disputes, is if we’re here more. Some of us have been around long enough to remember when Thursday night was the main event. We worked late, sometimes well into the morning. And it worked. That may sound quaint to some people who’ve only been here for one-term. It might sound scary to others. I’m sure the Majority Leader remembers those days. I remember him vividly myself, walking around with his whip card, trying to get his members lined up behind a vote.

“I’m sure he also remembers how the pressure of the clock helped move things along. I realize amendments frighten some people. But it’s the best way I know to force an outcome everybody’s satisfied with.  We got a glimpse of that during last year's budget debate. Somebody who has two dozen amendments at noon starts to prioritize those amendments around midnight. They start talking about what it would take to get unanimous consent.

“That’s how you reach consensus — by working, and talking, and cooperating, through give and take. That way, everyone’s patience is worn down, not just the Majority Leader’s, and everyone can agree on a result, even if they don’t vote for it in the end. It’s been said that the rules governing [the Senate] are founded deep in human experience. Using the clock to force consensus is the greatest proof of that. And if Republicans are in the Majority next year, we would.

“Restoring the committee process, allowing Senators to speak through an open amendment process, extending the workweek — these are just a few things the Senate could and should do differently. None of it would guarantee an end to partisan rancor. None of it would cause us to change our principles or our views about what’s right and what’s wrong for our country. But as I said, partisanship itself has never been the problem. The real problem has been a growing lack of confidence in the Senate’s ability to mediate the tensions and disputes we’ve always had around here. There are many reasons some have lost that confidence. And ultimately, both parties have to assume some level of blame. But we can’t be content to leave it at that. For the good of the country, we need to work together to restore the Senate to its purpose.

“America’s strength and resilience has always depended on our ability to adapt to the various challenges of the day. Sometimes, that’s meant changing the rules when both parties think it’s warranted. And when the Majority Leader decided a few weeks back to defy bipartisan opposition by changing the rules that govern this place with a simple majority vote, he broke something. But our response can’t be to just sit back and accept the demise of the Senate. This body has survived mistakes and excesses before. And even after some of its worst periods, it’s found a way to spring back, and to be the place where even the starkest differences and the fiercest ideological disputes are hashed out by consensus and mutual respect. Indeed, it’s during periods of the greatest polarization that the value of the Senate is most clearly seen.

“We’re all familiar with Lyndon Johnson’s reign here in the middle of the last century. And some look at LBJ’s well-known heavy handedness as a kind of mastery. Personally, I’ve always believed the leader that replaced him was a better fit for the place. And evidently so did Johnson’s colleagues, who elected him with great enthusiasm. The popular account of LBJ’s life and legacy often leaves out this important detail, but by the time he left the Senate, LBJ’s colleagues had had enough. They may have bent to his will while he was here, but the moment they had a chance to be delivered from his iron-fisted rule, they took it. With their support, Mike Mansfield would spend the next 16 years restoring the Senate to a place of greater cooperation and freedom. And as we look at what the Senate could be, his example offers a clue. There are many well-known stories about Mansfield’s fairness and equanimity as leader. But they all seem to come down to one thing, and that was his unbending belief that every Senator should be treated as an equal.

“Both sides will have to work to get us back to where we should be. It won’t happen overnight. We’re all out of practice. But it’s a goal that I truly believe we can all agree on and agree to strive toward together. Because restoring this institution is the only way we’ll ever solve the challenges we face. That’s the lesson of history and experience. And we would all be wise to heed it.”