[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 23, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1719-S1721]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FILIBUSTER
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I have one more topic I would like to
talk about today. It is another important one, and it is one that many
have been talking about here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Many have
spoken very eloquently about this topic, and depending on when they
have spoken about it--this year, this week, last year, a decade ago, a
century ago--it is a topic that is really fundamental to this
institution, and it looks as if Members in this institution are trying
to change the institution forever. Now, I am talking about the
filibuster.
As you know, there has been much talk recently about the possibility
of getting rid of the filibuster. This is an action that will
fundamentally transform this institution, certainly, but I believe,
frankly, it will transform our country. I don't think this is a wise
move at all. The irony is--and I am going to talk about it--until very
recently, the vast majority of my colleagues, Republican and
Democratic, were in agreement on this topic in that getting rid of the
legislative filibuster was not a wise move for the Senate and not a
wise move for America.
Now, this might seem like an insular issue--something that people in
Washington, DC, get incensed about, wound up about, and the people back
home might not necessarily care because it might not impact them--but I
don't think that this is the case at all. This rule, the filibuster, is
at the very heart of what keeps extreme legislation, pushed by a small
minority of the public, from passing. It is a rule that, in the Senate,
certainly encourages, if not demands, compromise and bipartisan work
both when one's party is in or out of power.
Now, look, our instincts as Senators--all of our instincts--are to
get things done for our States, for our country, but what is good for
Alaska isn't always good for Colorado, and what is good for Colorado
isn't always good for New York. What is good for the majority isn't
alway good for the minority and vice versa and isn't always good for
the Nation. That is the heart of federalism. It is also why the
majority can't wield unfettered power in the U.S. Senate. With the
exception of a few laws, what is required here is typically 60 votes on
legislation. It is what separates this body, the Senate, from the
House.
For the good of the country, if you look at our history, we must work
together, find compromise, find consensus, find solutions, particularly
on major legislation, to get a broad-based buy-in from all Americans or
most Americans. This is what the filibuster has required.
Remember, the Framers understood that, here in the Senate, we would
be different from the House. We would be the bulwark against what James
Madison called an anchor, a necessary fence, against the fickleness and
passions that pervade the House. No offense to our Members of the House
of Representatives, but as George Washington is said to have told
Thomas Jefferson, the Framers created the Senate to cool House
legislation. It was the cooling saucer you had with regard to the tea
in the cup.
Indeed, the Senate--often referred to as the ``world's greatest
deliberative body'' in its earliest days--was founded on the right of
unlimited debate. That is what the filibuster is. Even in the first
session of the Senate in 1789, Senators used this right to debate and
debate and debate in order to delay consideration of legislation. It
wasn't until the mid-1800s that this tactic was coined the
``filibuster.''
The point is that this procedural rule in the Senate has been here,
in one form or another, since the founding of the Republic, and when
you hear my colleagues talk about it as some new, recent procedure, it
is just not factually accurate. Before the 1900s, there was no formal
procedure to even end debate if a Senator chose to talk a bill to
death. It wasn't until 1917, during a debate about arming Merchant
Marine vessels during World War I, that the Senate established the
cloture tool, giving the body the ability to end debate by a certain
margin of Senators.
Now, as some of my colleagues have been debating recently and have
mentioned throughout its history, we have seen the filibuster, cloture
used for good. We have used it to stop legislation, and it has also
been used for ill--to delay much needed, historic reforms like civil
rights legislation during the
[[Page S1720]]
fifties and sixties, legislation which was filibustered by Democratic
Senators until the filibuster was finally broken in the sixties. It has
also been used for many other purposes, but Members on both sides have
used it for centuries. In fact, one scholar's account was that the very
first Senate filibuster was over a bridge across the Potomac River. I
am not sure why, but I guess it was an important issue back then.
So slowing things down, cooling passions, that is what this body was
designed to do, and that is what this procedure has done for decades.
That is why my friends on the other side, who are undertaking a push to
get rid of this, need to think. They need to stop. They need to think.
The American people need to understand the consequences, and our good
friends in the media who are covering the Senate need to write some
real history about this.
As my friends on the other side of the aisle know, this is one of
these issues that, when the shoe was on the other foot, we did not take
action. What am I talking about? Recently, the Republicans held the
majority in the Senate, and, recently, with President Trump, we had a
Republican in the White House. There was frustration, and they wanted
to move things quicker, and the President, President Trump, was
pressuring many Senators: Let's get rid of the filibuster. We didn't.
We didn't. We told the President: It is not a good idea for the Senate,
and it is not a good idea for the country.
That is what we did when the shoe was on the other foot. We said no.
It is not good for this body, and it is not good for the country. The
Republican President was pushing: We need to get things done. We need
to get rid of it. No.
Let me just read a few of the things that were said recently about
the necessity of keeping the filibuster.
My friend from Delaware, in 2018, said:
I am committed to never voting to change the legislative
filibuster.
Now, he said that when a Republican President was in the White House.
My friend from New Jersey, in 2009, said:
My colleagues and I--everybody I have talked to--believes
the legislative filibuster should stay here, and I will
personally resist any efforts to get rid of it.
My Democratic friend from Montana said just a little over a year ago:
I am a ``no'' on changing the filibuster. The move to make
the Senate like the House, I think, is a mistake.
I could go on.
I don't want the Senate to become like the House. The
consequences of getting rid of the filibuster are too great.
These are all words spoken very recently by my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle.
Even more impressive, just a few years ago, we had 61 Senators--33
Republicans, 25 of whom are still here, and 30 Democrats, 27 of whom
are still in the Senate today--who sent a letter. I have it right here.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter
sent to the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and the Democratic
leader, Senator Schumer, saying we have to maintain the 60-vote
threshold for filibusters involving legislation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, April 7, 2017.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell and Democratic Leader
Schumer: We are writing to urge you to support our efforts to
preserve existing rules, practices, and traditions as they
pertain to the right of Members to engage in extended debate
on legislation before the United States Senate. Senators have
expressed a variety of opinions about the appropriateness of
limiting debate when we are considering judicial and
executive branch nominations. Regardless of our past
disagreements on that issue, we are united in our
determination to preserve the ability of Members to engage in
extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor.
We are mindful of the unique role the Senate plays in the
legislative process, and we are steadfastly committed to
ensuring that this great American institution continues to
serve as the world's greatest deliberative body. Therefore,
we are asking you to join us in opposing any effort to
curtail the existing rights and prerogatives of Senators to
engage in full, robust, and extended debate as we consider
legislation before this body in the future.
Sincerely,
Susan M. Collins, Christopher A. Coons, Orrin Hatch, Joe
Manchin III, Claire McCaskill, John McCain, Lisa Murkowski,
Patrick J. Leahy, Roger F. Wicker, Lindsey Graham, Luther
Strange, Richard Burr, Angus S. King, Jr., Mark R. Warner,
Michael F. Bennet, Jerry Moran, Amy Klobuchar, Roy Blunt,
Robert P. Casey, Jr., Marco Rubio.
Martin Heinrich, Jeanne Shaheen, John Boozman, Thom Tillis,
Sherrod Brown, Dianne Feinstein, Shelly Moore Capito, John
Thune, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Bill Cassidy, Bill Schatz,
Heidi Heitkamp, Michael B. Enzi, Jeff Flake, Dean Heller,
Chuck Grassley, Cory A. Booker, Maria Cantwell, Mazie K.
Hirono, Rob Portman.
Lamar Alexander, Thad Cochran, John Kennedy, Joe Donnelly,
Jon Tester, Ben Sasse, Thomas R. Carper, Todd Young, Pat
Roberts, Kamala D. Harris, Margaret Wood Hassan, Bill Nelson,
Tammy Duckworth, Johnny Isakson, Jack Reed, Edward J. Markey,
Mike Lee, Debbie Stabenow, Sheldon Whitehouse, Robert
Menendez, Tim Kaine.
United States Senators.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, this was sent in April 2017. Now, what
was going on in April 2017? Republicans had the majority, and President
Trump was pressuring us to get rid of the filibuster. We said no.
This is what the letter said:
Regardless of our past disagreements on that issue, we are
united--
Remember, 61 Senators, 27 Democratic Senators, who are still here,
just 3 years ago said this--
we are united in our determination to preserve the ability of
Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the
Senate floor.
We are mindful of the unique role the Senate plays in the
legislative process, and we are steadfastly committed to
ensuring this great American institution--
The U.S. Senate--
continues to serve as the world's greatest deliberative body.
Therefore, we are asking you to join us in opposing any
effort to curtail the existing rights and prerogatives of
Senators to engage in full, robust, and extended debate as we
consider legislation before this body in the future.
That is the letter. Twenty-seven of my Democratic friends said
``Don't get rid of the filibuster'' 3 years ago. Where are they now?
Why is it that when this topic comes up, Senators Manchin and Sinema
are the only ones the media focuses on? How come they are not asking
the questions of the other 25--one-quarter of the entire body--who
wrote this letter? What happened? Where is their conviction?
When the shoe was on the other foot, we said we are not doing it, but
they now want to do it. Nobody is asking them. I think the media should
take a look at every Senator who signed this letter 3 years ago and
say: Hey. Why did you change your opinion so quickly? Three years ago,
you were adamantly against the filibuster, getting rid of it. What
happened? Could it be that you now have power and you--but we didn't do
that when we had the power, when we had the White House.
It is a really important question. Actually, it is so important, I
would welcome any of my colleagues who signed the letter, Democrat or
Republican, to come on down and explain to your constituents, explain
to the American people why you switched so quickly and what you think
it is going to do to the structure of the U.S. Senate and literally to
our country.
What strikes many of us is how, on so many issues, people change
their side--it happens on both sides--when people are holding power
from different perspectives.
Let me provide another example that even hits our media friends. In
2004, when George W. Bush was President and Republicans had the
majority, they were evidently considering getting rid of the
filibuster, and they didn't.
The New York Times wrote the following:
The Republicans see the filibuster as an annoying obstacle,
but it is actually one of the checks and balances that the
founders, who worried greatly about the concentration of
power, built into our system.
It is the New York Times saying the Founders built the filibuster
into our system.
People who call themselves conservatives should find a way
of achieving their goals without declaring war on one of the
oldest traditions in American democracy.
The filibuster. That is the New York Times. So Republicans heeded the
advice of the New York Times. It doesn't happen a lot, but it did.
[[Page S1721]]
So let's see where the New York Times was on this one just about a
month ago.
The filibuster is a centuries-old parliamentary tool that
has been transformed into a weapon for strangling functional
government. The filibuster must go.
Well, so much for the New York Times's convictions. I wonder why they
are changing their tune. I wonder why they are changing their tune.
Probably the same reason that some of my Democratic colleagues are
changing their tune after signing this letter.
So I will end with one final quote. This is from a politician we all
know well, all very familiar with him. It is from a speech on the
Senate floor by U.S. Senator--in 2005, U.S. Senator Barack Obama. He
spoke about how the American people expect their politicians to work to
create a more perfect union.
What they do not expect is for one party, be it Republican
or Democrat--
This is former Senator, former President Obama speaking right here on
the floor--
to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they
can make all the decisions while the other party is told to
sit down and keep quiet.
Sounds a little bit like what is going on with this filibuster
debate.
I understand that Republicans are getting a lot of pressure
to do this--
``This'' meaning get rid of the filibuster--
from factions outside the [Senate] Chamber, but we need to
rise above the ``ends justify the means'' mentality because
we are here to answer the people--all of the people, not just
the ones who are wearing our particular party label.
That was Senator Obama--former Senator Obama, former President Obama
saying in 2005: Don't do it, Republicans. You have the power. You have
the Presidency. You have the Senate. Don't get rid of the filibuster.
Well, I couldn't agree more with our former President. Again, when we
had the ability to do this just 3 years ago, we said no.
I hope our friends in the media will write about this. Don't hold
your breath. But here is one instance when the shoe was on the other
foot. Because it was so important to America, so important to this
institution, we declined to make the power move.
It would be really good--whether it is President Obama, who has
spoken out about this now; or the New York Times, who has changed their
tune; or all 25 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who
signed this letter 3 years ago saying ``Don't do it''--come on down,
speak to the American people. Tell them why you have had such a drastic
change of heart.
But I will tell you this: If we do do it, you are going to regret it;
we are going to regret it; the American people are going to regret it.
And do you know what? In my discussions with some of my Democratic
colleagues, and I am not going to name names, they know that. They know
that. They are getting a lot of pressure. Majority Leader Schumer is
getting a lot of pressure from the far left.
Don't let the far left ruin this institution. Don't let the far left
bludgeon you guys into changing America, because I think deep down in
your heart of hearts, especially all of you who signed this letter 3
years ago know what the right thing to do for the U.S. Senate is and
the right thing to do for the United States of America is, and it is to
continue to keep what the Founding Fathers devised for this body.
I yield the floor.
____________________