WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Tuesday joined MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports to discuss the For the People Act and unpacked the future of the filibuster in the United States Senate. Murphy also addressed the unanimous Supreme Court ruling in NCAA v Alston yesterday, which is centered on the legality of the NCAA's long-standing rules that cap compensation for athletes to scholarships and stipends.

On the need to protect our democracy and preserve the will of the American voters, Murphy said: “[W]e no longer have two parties that are both committed to democracy and extending the vote. In fact, we have one party that spent much of the beginning of this year actively trying to install someone as president who didn't win the Electoral College vote or the popular vote. And so when that breakdown occurs, it's the responsibility of the majority party, that you know, to make sure that our democracy is protected.”

On filibuster reform, Murphy said: “I'm somebody that would argue for broader reform. I think our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their grave watching us, you know, add a supermajority to a system that was already intentionally designed to make it hard to enact policy change. But if my colleagues, you know, want to engage in more incremental reform, like carving out democracy reforms, or forcing those who, who want to filibuster to actually stand on their feet and do it, I'm open to that as well.”

"It's important to remember that Republicans have no compunction about changing the rules, right? I mean, the minute that they ran into any resistance, when it came to the Supreme Court nominees of Donald Trump, they changed the rules. And so it appears that the Republican Party has sort of no interest in tradition or consistency. It's only a small number of Democrats that hold to that tradition. I'm open to a bunch of different paths forward,” Murphy continued.

Murphy also referenced his own filibuster on the U.S. Senate floor in 2016, following the Pulse nightclub shooting Orlando: “I hope that some of my colleagues are…open to retaining the filibuster, but actually requiring that people who want to stop a bill like the For the People Act from proceeding, stand up on their feet and filibuster. I did that. Five years ago, when I didn't like the way that a budget bill was proceeding right after the Orlando nightclub shooting. I stood on my feet for 15 hours and spoke as long as it took until Mitch McConnell agreed to put up votes on background checks. I think that's what should have to happen on the For The People Act. If people, you know, in the Republican Party, don't want us to have a vote on that piece of legislation, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of Americans want it, then they should actually have to stand on their feet and actually do a filibuster. I'd be willing to support that kind of filibuster."

Click here to watch the interview. A full transcript of Murphy’s interview follows:

ANDREA MITCHELL: "Thank you so much. And let's turn back to the action on Capitol Hill, bringing in Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Murphy. Senator, thank you very much. First of all, what is your response to this Op-Ed in the Washington Post from your colleague, Kyrsten Sinema?"

MURPHY: "I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that she comes to. You know, I value consistency as well. But the facts have changed here in Washington. You know, we no longer have two parties that are both committed to democracy and extending the vote. In fact, we have one party that spent much of the beginning of this year actively trying to install someone as president who didn't win the Electoral College vote or the popular vote. And so when that breakdown occurs, it's the responsibility of the majority party, that you know, to make sure that our democracy is protected.

"So, you know, I understand it's important for people in my business to be consistent and maintain their positions. But you also have to recognize when the facts around you have changed. So we'll continue to have a really robust debate about the future of Senate rules.

"I may go down to the Senate floor in the next 24 or 48 hours and have my say on the question. But it's really important that we don't give the minority party in the Senate veto power over reforms to our democracy that will save our democracy."

MITCHELL: "A couple of things there. Are you in favor of a one time exemption for issues such as voting rights? That would be a talking filibuster, I mean, where do you come down?"

MURPHY: "I guess I remain flexible as to the path forward. I'm somebody that would argue for broader reform. I think our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their grave watching us, you know, add a supermajority to a system that was already intentionally designed to make it hard to enact policy change.

"But if my colleagues, you know, want to engage in more incremental reform, like carving out democracy reforms, or forcing those who, who want to filibuster to actually stand on their feet and do it, I'm open to that as well.

"It's important to remember that Republicans have no compunction about changing the rules, right? I mean, the minute that they ran into any resistance when it came to the Supreme Court nominees of Donald Trump, they changed the rules. And so it appears that the Republican Party has sort of no interest in tradition or consistency. It's only a small number of Democrats that hold to that tradition. I'm open to a bunch of different paths forward."

MITCHELL: "Do you worry about what can happen two years from now given that you've got a 50-50 Senate, and there are a lot of vulnerable Democratic seats? What happens if you're in the minority?"

MURPHY: "Well, but that's democracy. I mean, this idea that, you know, we should, you know, set up our rules, so as to prevent the voters from making decisions about the policy direction of this country, is really dangerous. And so yeah, we win some elections as Democrats and progressives and we lose some elections. But ultimately, it should be up to the voters to decide.

"And remember, in order to get a radical policy change, the voters have to, you know, get a switch and control the Senate, a switch and control the House, and they have to install a new president. It's not that easy for voters in the non-parliamentary system to get things changed. I don't know why we add the supermajority to an already convoluted system, but I understand the risk. I just think that when you live in a democracy, you have to trust the voters."

MITCHELL: "Have you figured out where Joe Manchin is coming down on this?"

MURPHY: "You know, I don't speak for my other colleagues. I'll let them speak for themselves.

"Listen, I credit, my colleague from Arizona for, you know, putting pen to paper. I think it's really important for, you know, the country to sort of hear her perspective. And I think this will allow us to have a more open debate about the future of our rules and the future of American democracy."

MITCHELL: "And what about Joe Manchin? What do you think is going to happen?"

MURPHY: "Yeah, I don't know. Again, that's my point. I can't speak for, you know, my colleagues.

"Again, I hope that some of my colleagues are, you know, open to retaining the filibuster, but actually requiring that people who want to stop a bill like the For the People Act from proceeding, stand up on their feet and filibuster. I did that. Five years ago, when I didn't like the way that a budget bill was proceeding right after the Orlando nightclub shooting. I stood on my feet for 15 hours and spoke as long as it took until Mitch McConnell agreed to put up votes on background checks.

"I think that's what should have to happen on the For The People Act. If people, you know, in the Republican Party, don't want us to have a vote on that piece of legislation, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of Americans want it, then they should actually have to stand on their feet and actually do a filibuster. I'd be willing to support that kind of filibuster."

MITCHELL: "And I also want to get your reaction to the unanimous Supreme Court ruling, the first step perhaps, on opening up money for student athletes. Do you think that this will lead to student athletes being able to get some compensation? You'd hear where schools are making millions and millions and billions of dollars, they get no financial aid."

MURPHY: "Yeah, I mean, this is a $14 billion industry, the college sports industry, and it is just fundamentally unjust—the fact that all of that money goes to mega rich adults, the college presidents, the coaches, the CEOs of the apparel companies and none of that money goes to the kids who, by the way, at the basketball and football programs are majority African American. This is a civil rights issue.

"I've introduced legislation that would allow students to be compensated. There are Republicans and Democrats working on this issue. The Supreme Court case is a watershed because for the first time the Supreme Court has basically said, 'schools, NCAA schools, you cannot collude, you cannot all get together and decide that you are collectively going to deny compensation to student athletes.' I think this is the beginning of the end of this current model in which adults get rich off of the unpaid labor of college athletes. I hope it is at least."

MITCHELL: "Senator Chris Murphy, thank you so much. Thanks for being with us today."

###