[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S182-S183]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Filibuster

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the Democrats' campaign to break the 
Senate continues.
  I want to read a quote:

       The ideologues in the Senate want to turn what the Founding 
     Fathers called the cooling saucer of democracy into the 
     rubber stamp of dictatorship.

  Not my words--those are the words of the current Senate Democrat 
leader back in 2005 when filibuster changes were under discussion. The 
current Democrat leader was once, in fact, a defender of the filibuster 
and the role it plays in ensuring that the minority party in the Senate 
and the Americans it represents have a voice. In fact, the minority 
leader at various times has described trying to get rid of the 
filibuster as ``doomsday for democracy.'' He described those who were 
behind the effort to try to get rid of the filibuster as being in 
support of turning America into ``a banana republic.'' Those were 
statements made by the current Democrat leader when he was defending 
the filibuster in years past.
  In fact, a lot of my colleagues across the aisle have defended the 
filibuster and used the filibuster repeatedly when they were in the 
minority. In the last Congress alone, Democrats filibustered COVID 
relief legislation until they got a bill that they could support. They 
filibustered police reform legislation. They filibustered Israel 
legislation. They filibustered pro-life legislation--and on and on.
  While Republicans certainly didn't enjoy it when Democrats used the 
filibuster when we were in the majority, we recognized that it meant 
that our Senate was working the way that the Founders intended--as a 
place of compromise and deliberation, where the minority, as well as 
the majority, was represented. That is why we resisted repeated calls 
from the former President, our party's President, when we had the 
majority to abolish the filibuster.
  Abolishing the filibuster certainly would have made it easier for us 
to advance important legislation--legislation that was of value to 
Members on our side, things that we wanted to see get done--but we knew 
that sacrificing the long-term good of the Senate and the country for 
short-term gain was not an acceptable course of action.
  Let's be very clear that the gain would have been short term. If we 
had abolished the legislative filibuster, we could have passed a lot of 
important legislation, only to see it overturned as soon as Democrats 
took control of the legislative and executive branches. Once we 
returned to unified Republican government, we could, of course, have 
put our original legislation back in place. That is the kind ping-
ponging that would be terrible for our country.
  Sharp changes in Federal policy every few years would mean endless 
confusion for Americans. Plus, free of the moderating influence of the 
filibuster, legislation would almost unquestionably become more 
extreme, which would harden and intensify partisan division not just 
here in Congress but in the country as a whole. Ordinary citizens would 
look ever more distrustful at government, which would quickly come to 
be seen as government for Americans of one party only--the party of 
power.

  Democrats should know all of the things that I am saying. After all, 
they were in the minority just 1 year ago. It is hard for me to 
understand how they could forget that. Do they think that because they 
have the majority now, that they will always have it? History would beg 
to differ.
  I realize the Democrats have hopes that if they pass their election 
legislation, it will help them stay in power, but surely--surely--
Democrats don't believe that they can maintain a permanent hold on 
government. There have been some pretty robust Senate majorities in 
American history, but sooner or later, power has always shifted, and 
the Presidency has shifted too.
  Even if Democrats succeed in all of their election machinations, the 
day will come--and probably sooner rather than later--when their party 
will return to the minority, and I suspect that at that point, they 
would bitterly regret the loss of the legislative filibuster.
  Democrats have already had cause to regret the loss of the filibuster 
for judicial nominations. More than one Democrat Senator has openly 
admitted regretting Democrats' move to abolish the filibuster for 
judges and other nominees.
  The unravelling of the filibuster for judicial nominations should be 
a lesson to both parties on how well weakening the filibuster or 
creating a filibuster carve-out would work. Democrats carved out a 
filibuster exception for executive and judicial nominees, and 
Republicans took it to its logical conclusion.
  A legislative filibuster carve-out would be the end of the 
legislative filibuster, period.
  If Democrats' carve out an exception for election legislation, a 
future Senate would be likely to carve out an exception for something 
else and so on and so forth, until the filibuster was carved out of 
existence completely.
  In fact, I strongly suspect that a filibuster carve-out solely for 
election legislation wouldn't even survive the coming year. I can 
imagine my Democrat colleagues quickly deciding that some other 
priority of theirs was also worthy of a special exemption. It is 
possible that the legislative filibuster would be gone before the end 
of this Congress.
  Again, I urge my Democrat colleagues to remember their decision to 
remove the filibuster for judicial nominations and how quickly that 
came back to haunt them. They may like the idea of forcing through 
their legislation now, but sooner or later--and probably sooner--I can 
guarantee that they will regret it.
  The filibuster and its protection for the rights of the minority are 
safe so long as neither party starts to chip away at it. Once one party 
starts weakening the filibuster, especially on a totally partisan 
basis, that will be the end of the filibuster and the end of real 
representation for the minority in Congress.
  It is deeply disappointing that the Democrat leader and the President 
have abandoned their previous support for protecting representation for 
the minority. It is even more astonishing, really, that they have done 
so when they enjoy the narrowest majorities in Congress. It should be a 
reminder of how quickly Democrats could once again return to the 
minority and be in need of the legislative filibuster.
  But I know that there are Democrats out there with serious doubts 
about their leadership's course of action. Some would express this 
doubt openly, but I suspect there are others who haven't spoken up who 
also have serious reservations. After all, a majority of the current 
Senate Democrat caucus signed a letter just 4 short years ago 
expressing their belief in the importance of the filibuster. I cannot 
believe that all of them would change their position merely because the 
political winds have shifted.
  So I urge all of my Democrat colleagues to resist this blatant power 
grab by the Democrat leadership and preserve our longstanding 
commitment to representation for the minority in the U.S. Senate, the 
purpose for which this institution was created, and the Americans it 
represents.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

[[Page S183]]

  

                          ____________________