-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source