[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 16, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1532-S1534]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Filibuster

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today I would like to begin with a few 
quotations.

       The legislative filibuster . . . is the most important 
     distinction between the Senate and the House. Without the 60-
     vote threshold for legislation, the Senate becomes a 
     majoritarian institution like the House, much more subject to 
     the whims of short-term electoral change. No Senator would 
     like to see that happen. So let's find a way to further 
     protect the 60-vote rule for legislation.


[[Page S1533]]


  That was the current Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, in April of 
2017, less than 4 years ago.
  Now, here is another quote, Mr. President:

       What about [the] nuclear option doing away with the 
     filibuster?
       I can tell you that would be the end of the Senate as it 
     was originally devised and created going back to our Founding 
     Fathers. We have to acknowledge our respect for the minority, 
     and that is what the Senate tries to do in its composition 
     and in its procedure.

  That was the assistant Democratic leader, Senator Durbin, in 2018, 
about 3 years ago.
  A few years ago, 33 Members of the Democratic side signed a letter 
insisting that ``we preserve existing rules, practices, and 
traditions'' regarding legislation. Now, under pressure from the 
outside, many of our Democratic colleagues are abandoning their stated 
principles as fast as possible.
  Yesterday, Senator Durbin said the filibuster is not a core principle 
but ``an offhanded clerical suggestion.'' An offhanded clerical 
suggestion.
  A number of Senate Democrats are trying to pressure the senior 
Senators from West Virginia and Arizona to abandon their own very 
recent commitments to honor this central rule of the Senate.
  The Framers designed the Senate to require deliberation, to force 
cooperation, and to ensure that Federal laws in our big, diverse 
country earn broad enough buy-in to receive the lasting consent of the 
government. James Madison said the Senate should be a ``complicated 
check'' against ``improper acts of legislation.'' Thomas Jefferson said 
that ``great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities.''
  Senate Democrats parroted all these arguments when they were the ones 
benefiting from minority protection. When President Trump pressed 
Republicans to kill the filibuster, our Democratic colleagues cried 
foul. When our Republican majority stood on principle and refused to 
wreck the rules, our Democratic colleagues happily used the filibuster 
themselves. In some cases, they flat-out blocked legislation, like 
Senator Tim Scott's police reform bill. In many other cases, Democrats 
did what minority parties always do and leveraged the existence of the 
filibuster to influence must-pass legislation long before it got to the 
floor.
  There is so much emphasis on the most extreme bills that either party 
might pass with a simple majority. People forget that the Senate's 60-
vote threshold is the only reason--the only reason--that any routine, 
must-pass legislation is bipartisan except during divided government. 
Big funding deals, appropriations bills, farm bills, highway bills, the 
NDAA--the Senate's 60-vote threshold backstops all of it. It is not 
just about controversial items; it is about everything we do.
  The Senate Democrats who are pressuring our colleagues from Arizona 
and West Virginia to reverse themselves are not just arguing for some 
procedural tweak, not a procedural tweak; they are arguing for a 
radically less stable and less consensus-driven system of government. 
Forget about enduring laws with broad support; nothing in Federal law 
would ever be settled.
  Does anyone really believe the American people were voting for an 
entirely new system of government by electing Joe Biden to the White 
House and a 50-50 Senate? This is a 50-50 Senate. There was no mandate 
to completely transform America by the American people on November 3. 
That may be what a few liberal activists want, but does anyone believe 
that millions of Americans thought that is what they were electing? Of 
course not.
  There is an ironic element to this whole conversation. Some 
Democratic Senators seem to imagine this would be a tidy tradeoff. If 
they could just break the rules on a razor-thin majority, sure, it 
might damage the institution, but then nothing would stand between them 
and their entire agenda--a new era of fast-track policymaking. But 
anyone who really knows the Senate knows that is not what would happen.
  So let me say this very clearly for all 99 of my colleagues: Nobody 
serving in this Chamber can even begin--can even begin--to imagine what 
a completely scorched-earth Senate would look like.
  None of us have served 1 minute in the Senate that was completely 
drained of comity and consent. This is an institution that requires 
unanimous consent to turn the lights on before noon, to proceed with a 
garden-variety floor speech, to dispense with the reading of lengthy 
legislative text, to schedule committee business, and to move even 
noncontroversial nominees at anything besides a snail's pace.
  So I want our colleagues to imagine a world where every single task--
every one of them--requires a physical quorum, which, by the way, the 
Vice President does not count in determining a quorum. Everything that 
Democratic Senates did to Presidents Bush and Trump and everything the 
Republican Senate did to President Obama would be child's play compared 
to the disaster that Democrats would create for their own priorities 
if--if--they break the Senate.
  So this is not a tradeoff between trampling etiquette but then 
getting to quickly transform the country. That is a false choice. Even 
the most basic aspects of our colleagues' agenda, the most mundane 
tasks of the Biden Presidency, would actually be harder--harder--not 
easier for Democrats in a post-nuclear Senate that is 50-50, dead even.
  If the Democrats break the rules to kill rule XXII on a 50-50 basis, 
then we will use every other rule to make tens of millions of 
Americans' voices heard. Perhaps the majority would come after the 
other rules next. Perhaps rule XXII would just be the first domino of 
many, until the Senate ceases to be distinct from the House in any 
respect. This chaos would not open up an express lane to liberal 
change. It would not open up an express lane for the Biden Presidency 
to speed into the history books. The Senate would be more like a 100-
car pileup--nothing moving.
  And then there is the small matter that majorities are actually never 
permanent. The last time a Democratic leader was trying to start a 
nuclear exchange, I remember offering a warning. I said my colleagues 
would regret it a lot sooner than they thought. In just a few years and 
a few Supreme Court vacancies later, many of my Democratic colleagues 
said publicly that they did. Touching the hot stove again would yield 
the same result but even more dramatic.
  As soon as Republicans wound up back in the saddle, we wouldn't just 
erase every liberal change that hurt the country. We would strengthen 
America with all kinds of conservative policies, with zero--zero--input 
from the other side. How about this: nationwide right-to-work for 
working Americans; defunding Planned Parenthood and sanctuary cities on 
day one; a whole new era of domestic energy production; sweeping new 
protections for conscience and the right to life of the unborn; 
concealed-carry reciprocity in all 50 States and the District of 
Columbia; and massive hardening of the security on our southern border.
  We saw during amendment votes, just days ago, that some commonsense 
Republican positions actually enjoy more support right now than some of 
the Democratic committee chairs' priorities, and this is with them in 
the majority. So the pendulum would swing both ways, and it would swing 
hard.
  My colleagues and I have refused to kill the Senate for instant 
gratification. In 2017 and in 2018, I was lobbied to do exactly what 
Democrats want to do now. A sitting President leaned on me to do it. He 
tweeted about it. What did I do? I said to the President at that time: 
No. I said ``no'' repeatedly, because being a U.S. Senator comes with 
higher duties than steamrolling any obstacle to short-term power. I 
meant it. Republicans meant it.
  Less than 2 months ago, two of our Democratic colleagues said they 
mean it too. If they keep their word, we have a bipartisan majority 
that can put principle first and keep the Senate safe.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S1534]]