[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.

                          ____________________