[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 26, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S137-S138]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Filibuster

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk about the 
legislative filibuster here in the Senate over the last few days. As we 
started the new Congress evenly divided between Republicans and 
Democrats, the Republican leader had proposed that the Democrat leader 
include a commitment to preserving the legislative filibuster and the 
power-sharing agreement the leaders have been working out. This should 
have been easy.
  Less than 4 years ago, with a Republican President in the White House 
and Republicans in control of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives, a bipartisan group of 61 Senators affirmed their 
support for retaining the legislative filibuster, stating: ``We are 
united in our determination to preserve the ability of Members to 
engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor.''
  There are 26--26--current Democratic Senators--a majority of the 
current Democratic caucus--who signed that defense of the legislative 
filibuster when they were in the Senate minority. It is disappointing 
that the Democrat leader failed to express his support for this 
essential Senate rule.
  Nevertheless, thanks to the recent commitment from two Senate 
Democrats to oppose any attempt to eliminate the filibuster--a 
commitment which secures this key protection for minority rights--
Leader McConnell is now moving forward without a statement from the 
Democrat leader.
  But it is worth taking a moment to reiterate why the legislative 
filibuster is so important. The legislative filibuster, of course, is 
essentially the requirement that 60 Senators agree before the Senate 
can end debate and vote on a bill. In other words, you need 60 percent 
of the Senate to agree before you can pass a bill. This usually means 
that you need the support of at least some Members of the other party 
before you can move legislation.
  The party in power doesn't always enjoy that rule. All of us would 
like the opportunity to pass exactly the legislation that we want. But 
most of us recognize that it is a good requirement.
  The legislative filibuster ensures that the minority is represented 
in the legislation. This would be important even if elections tended to 
break 60 to 40 or 70 to 30 in favor of one party or another. All 
Americans, whether or not they are in the majority, deserve to be 
represented. But it is particularly important when you consider that 
our country is pretty evenly split down the middle.
  While the advantage sometimes goes to Democrats and sometimes to 
Republicans, the truth is that our country is pretty evenly split, 
which means any attempt to disenfranchise the minority party means 
disenfranchising half of the country.
  Of course, the party in power generally gets to accomplish more than 
the minority party--and that is appropriate. The country may be fairly 
evenly divided, but sometimes it wants to move more toward one side or 
the other.
  What is not appropriate is to eliminate meaningful minority 
representation, which would be the consequence of eliminating the 
legislative filibuster. Our Founders recognized the importance of 
putting safeguards in place to ensure that majorities wouldn't curtail 
or eliminate minority rights.
  That is why the Founders created the Senate. They made the Senate 
smaller and Senators' terms in office longer, with the intention of 
creating a more stable, more thoughtful, and more deliberative 
legislative body to check ill-considered or intemperate legislation or 
attempts to curtail minority rights.
  And as time has gone on, the legislative filibuster is the Senate 
rule that has had perhaps the greatest impact in preserving the 
Founders' vision of the Senate. Thanks to the filibuster, it is often 
harder to get legislation through the Senate than the House. It 
requires more thought, more debate, and greater consensus--in other 
words, exactly--exactly--what the Founders were looking for.
  I am grateful to my Democrat colleagues who have spoken up about 
their commitment to preserving the legislative filibuster. Republicans 
were committed to protecting the vital safeguard of minority rights 
when we were in the majority--despite, I might add, the then-
President's calls repeatedly to eliminate it--and I appreciate that a 
number of my Democrat colleagues share that commitment.
  I am particularly grateful to the Senator from West Virginia and the 
Senator from Arizona for their uncompromising defense of minority 
rights and the institution of the Senate here in recent days.
  Again, however, I am disappointed the Democrat leader chose not to 
express his support for this essential Senate rule. I would point out 
that when Democrats were in the minority in the Senate, they made 
frequent use of the legislative filibuster.
  I hope that the commitment to the legislative filibuster expressed by 
President Biden and a number of Senate Democrats means the end of any 
talk of eliminating the filibuster. No matter how appealing it might be 
in the moment, destroying this longstanding protection for minority 
rights

[[Page S138]]

would be a grave error that both parties would live to regret.
  I hope that all Senate Democrats will recommit themselves to 
preserving this fundamental feature of the Senate and to find 
compromise. We have work to do.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.