The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“Filibuster (Executive Session)” mentioning Tim Scott was published in the Senate section on pages S1532-S1534 on March 16.
Of the 100 senators in 117th Congress, 24 percent were women, and 76 percent were men, according to the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
Senators' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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.
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]]
Alerts Sign-up