Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde- Smith), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have come down to the floor multiple times in the past week to talk about the filibuster. I have talked a lot about the dangers of eliminating the filibuster, from the loss of bipartisanship to the loss of meaningful representation for Senate minorities and the constituents they serve.

One thing I haven't mentioned yet, though, is the fact that Democrats are increasingly calling for eliminating the filibuster despite the fact that Republicans haven't actually filibustered any legislation yet this Congress.

In fact, the Democratic leader was just down here talking about attacking the Republicans for opposing H.R. 1, S. 1, or whatever it is that is the election bill that Democrats have put forward, but there hasn't been any effort that I am aware of to reach out to Republicans to talk about things that they might want to be involved with in terms of election reforms or reforming our election system in this country. In fact, this last election, we saw record turnout. Millions of people more than the previous election came out and voted. It was run by the States across the country.

The proposal that is before us, the H.R. 1 proposal--now, I guess, S. 1--would attempt to federalize that election process, to nationalize the elections, to take the power away from the States that currently administer and run elections and have that run out of Washington, DC.

It seems to me that a lot of people across this country would rather deal with State leaders, State Governments, when it comes to administering our elections than having them run out of Washington, DC.

There are lots of other provisions in that bill that many of us would object to. I think, frankly, it is a good thing to have a photo ID to vote. That is something that my State of South Dakota has. I think it makes sense, when people come in to vote, to be able to prove who they are. Obviously, it is a voter fraud prevention measure that has been adopted by many States across the country and upheld by the courts.

It just strikes me that there are a lot of provisions in that bill that would need to be fixed, honestly. And, frankly, just the very premise to have the Federal Government running elections in this country, essentially taking over something that has been historically handled by the States, strikes me that that would be something the American people would have a lot of issues with.

Now, I am not sure exactly what, given the fact that we had millions more voting in the 2020 election than the previous Presidential election, would suggest that we need to make changes to election laws across this country.

The States, in my view, when they certified the election, like they typically do, in the 2020 election, did it on time, in accordance with the law, and the system, I believe, worked pretty well. But the Democrats seem to believe that there need to be changes in our elections.

But my point, simply, with respect to their arguments about that and about the need to eliminate the filibuster in order to do it is that we haven't filibustered anything yet.

Now, Democrats, when they were in the minority the last 6 years, filibustered most things that we brought up that were of major consequence, legislation that they objected to. They have used the filibuster prolifically--prolifically, you could say--in the last 6 years. But it seems a little bit odd to have them getting up and talking about eliminating something that has been a part of Senate history, Senate rules, Senate traditions for a really long time and arguing that the reason they need to do that is that Republicans have been abusing it when we have been in the majority.

We have been in the majority for the last 6 years. The filibuster is a tool employed by the minority and was employed, I would say, very freely by the minority in the past 6 years. We haven't filibustered-- Republicans haven't filibustered anything yet, legislation, in this Congress. Yet Democrats are talking about eliminating the filibuster and, frankly, without attempting to reach across the aisle and engage in talks with Republicans about areas where we might find common ground. So that is what I want to talk just a little bit about today because I think Republicans have shown a genuine commitment to bipartisanship and unity, something that has not been on display from the President or the Democrat leadership.

The Senate confirmed President Biden's Cabinet nominees faster than those of both President Trump and President Obama, thanks in no small part to Republicans' willingness to move the process along, and many, if not most, of those confirmations were bipartisan.

I voted for a number of President Biden's Cabinet nominees not because they were the individuals I would have picked but because I believe that, absent serious red flags, a President deserves to have his team around him

So I have a suggestion for Democrats: Why not try bipartisanship? And by that I don't mean holding Republicans hostage the way the Democratic leader has threatened, quote, ``Support our legislation or we will talk about eliminating the filibuster.''

I don't mean passing a few pieces of bipartisan legislation for show and then showing through the rest of your agenda or trying to--I should say shoving through the rest of your agenda through reconciliation or abolishment of the filibuster; I mean genuine bipartisanship: sitting down at the table, identifying big issues that we need to address, and then looking at proposals from both parties--both parties--and negotiating until we can find agreement. There is a lot of room for that.

While the focus often tends to be on the areas where we disagree, there are plenty of areas where Democrats and Republicans either already agree or could easily reach middle ground.

I am a conservative, but I have introduced 14 bills so far this year, and 11 of them have had Democrat cosponsors.

There is a lot of room for us to work together, so why don't Democrats try that? We could start with American economic competitiveness and global leadership legislation or infrastructure legislation--issues that both Democrats and Republicans see a pressing need to address.

The Democratic leader has mentioned his desire to bring up legislation regarding America's competitiveness vis-a-vis China, and the Republican leader has agreed that it is an issue ripe for a bipartisan, regular-order process.

There are a lot of areas where we could find bipartisan agreement on these issues: investing in our domestic manufacturing capacity so we don't have to rely as heavily on China or other countries for essential products and technologies, promoting the development of 5G technology here at home to ensure the United States wins the race to 5G, supply chain security, protecting our taxpayer-funded research and intellectual property from theft, and more.

I recently introduced the bipartisan Network Security Trade Act with Senator Fischer and Democratic Senators Stabenow and Warner. Currently, one of the biggest suppliers of 5G equipment worldwide is a Chinese company, Huawei, which is supported by the Chinese Communist Party. American security officials have raised concerns that much of Huawei's equipment is built with ``backdoors,'' giving the Chinese Communist Party access to global communications networks. Our bill would address this potential security risk by making telecommunications security a key objective when negotiating future trade deals.

It is important that we encourage our trading partners and allies to keep suspect technology like Huawei out of their networks. The bipartisan Network Security Trade Act would be a strong candidate for inclusion in a thoughtful, bipartisan measure meant to enhance our competitiveness with China if Democrats are willing to engage in truly bipartisan legislating.

I believe a strong China policy is a national priority, and I hope we will

consider a bill that addresses the many threats China poses in the near future, as long as Democrats don't simply turn it into a means to promote their partisan priorities under the guise of competing with China.

There is also a lot of bipartisan agreement to be found on infrastructure. In fact, there is a history of bipartisan collaboration on infrastructure legislation.

Our last major infrastructure bill, the FAST Act, was supported by both Democrats and Republicans and was a remarkably successful bill.

Last Congress, the Environment and Public Works Committee here in the Senate developed bipartisan infrastructure legislation. And there is no reason--no reason at all--that we shouldn't reach bipartisan agreement on a substantial infrastructure bill.

I know a lot of us Senators from rural States, both Democrats and Republicans, share a number of the same priorities for infrastructure legislation, like expanding broadband access in rural communities and ensuring that farmers and ranchers have a transportation system they can depend on to get their goods to market. Investments in rural infrastructure benefit our entire economy.

The vast majority of agricultural and industrial commodities originate in rural areas, and speeding the passage of those goods to market benefits everyone--those who produce those commodities and those who rely on being able to sell them or purchase them.

I have introduced two pieces of legislation with Democratic colleagues that I would hope to see included in potential bipartisan infrastructure legislation.

I recently introduced the Railroad Rehabilitation and Financing Innovation Act with my Democratic colleagues Senator Hassan. Our bill takes important steps to improve the accessibility of the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Loan Program for smaller railroads, like those farmers and ranchers rely on to get their goods to market.

I also recently introduced the Tribal Transportation Equity and Transparency Improvement Act with my Democratic colleague Senator Sinema. Tribes across the Nation have struggled to build and maintain roads and bridges within their reservations, which connect Tribal members to critical services. This is especially true for large, land- based Tribes who must maintain vast road networks in sparsely populated areas. Our bill would help Tribes address these challenges by taking steps to make the allocation of funding through the Tribal Transportation Program more equitable and transparent.

If one thing is for sure, it is that a 50-50 Senate is not a mandate for one side to force through its agenda unchecked. It is absurd for Senate Democrats or House Democrats to pretend they have a mandate for a partisan revolution.

I am not sure that the Democratic leadership realizes this, but I think there are a good number of rank-and-file Democrats who do. And I hope those rank-and-file Democrats will encourage their leaders to move away from their liberal fantasies and try for real bipartisan cooperation.

There is a lot we can do together on a lot of issues if Democrats will come to the table. I hope they will.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, talk continues to swirl about eliminating the legislative filibuster here in the U.S. Senate. The Democratic leader has threatened that if Republicans don't vote the way he wants them to vote on legislation, eliminating the filibuster will be on the table.

In an interview where he issued his threat, the Democratic leader made it very clear that he is not inviting Republicans to work with Democrats on legislation. This isn't an invitation for both parties to sit down at the table and arrive at an agreement that both parties can support. No. This is an invitation for Republicans to support exactly what Democrats want or face the consequences.

It is ironic that the Democratic leader would be taking that position today because this is what he was saying back in 2017 about the legislative filibuster. This is the Democratic leader saying the ``legislative filibuster'' is ``the most important distinction between the Senate and the House. Let's find a way to further protect the 60- vote rule for legislation.''

So the Democratic leader was very supportive of this back in 2017, when they were using it extensively to try and stop or slow Republican legislation.

The assistant Democratic leader, the Democratic whip, Senator Durbin from Illinois, said this in January 2018:

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.

``[G]oing back to our Founding Fathers,'' referencing the legislative filibuster and how important it was historically here in the U.S. Senate.

Well, about that same time, 2017, 61 Senators out of 100 here in the U.S. Senate--61 out of 100 Senators--signed a letter in which they supported retention of the legislative filibuster. In fact, it goes on to say:

We are writing to urge you--

And this is to the Senate leaders at the time, Senators McConnell and Schumer--

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.

Sixty-one Senators, including over 30 Democrats, on record as recently as 2017 in support of the legislative filibuster--over 30 Democratic Senators, including the Democratic leader and the Democratic whip.

Well, what has changed? Because now they have done an abrupt reversal, a complete 180. I mean, they are spinning around so fast, it makes your eyes glaze over. What an incredible versatility of conviction they have demonstrated on this issue.

And you think about the reason for it. What are they arguing? Well, they are saying the Republicans have been misusing the filibuster. That is a little bit ironic, given the fact that Republicans have been in the majority for the past 6 years. Republicans took the majority in January of 2015 and held it until January of 2021.

So the past 6 years it has been the Democrats who were in the minority. They would be the ones exercising the legislative filibuster, and they used it extensively. They used it extensively last year to block legislation, repeatedly, over and over and over again.

And Republicans, at the time, were under a lot of pressure to get rid of the legislative filibuster, including by the President of the United States, over and over and over, saying Republicans need to get rid of the legislative filibuster.

Republicans, being consistent in thei position--the 61 Senators, Republicans who signed this letter, including me, have been consistent in our position, even when we were in the majority, even when the Democrats were using the filibuster to block legislation that we were trying to advance, that we needed to maintain the filibuster because it was important to the institution of the Senate, and it required bipartisan cooperation. It required a level of comity to get legislation passed, and it made sure that the minority was represented in legislative solutions that were produced by the U.S. Senate. We have been consistent in that position, even when it meant taking on our administration, our President--over, over, and over again.

So the Democrats' argument now is that we have to get rid of the legislative filibuster because Republicans have been misusing it. How was that even possible? We were in the majority. The legislative filibuster is a tool used by the minority. It was used by the Democrats over and over and over again the past 6 years, but their argument now is that the Senate is not functioning, the Senate is not producing legislation? Really?

Last year, Republicans were in the majority. We passed out of the Senate five coronavirus relief bills with huge bipartisan majorities-- huge bipartisan majorities--responding to the greatest crisis facing this country, both health crisis and economic crisis.

We responded to it in a bipartisan way, honoring the rules and the traditions of the Senate, which were created by the Founders to make the Senate a place unique in all the world, where the rights of the minority are honored, which required cooperation and working together to get results.

And we produced results, in spite of the fact that Democrats consistently filibustered legislation. Now, there were certain pieces of legislation we didn't get passed. We didn't pass policing reform. Senator Tim Scott offered a piece of legislation that included all kinds of provisions that would have addressed that important issue for our country, and the Democrats filibustered it, over and over and over again. So we didn't get the 60 votes to get policing reform across the finish line.

But it is incredibly ironic. I mean, hypocrisy is not something that is unknown in politics, but hypocrisy on this level is unprecedented. The Democratic leader, the Democratic whip, and over 30 Democratic Senators have said as recently as 2 years ago, 3 years ago, that we need to preserve the legislative filibuster because it is true to the tradition of the Senate and what the Founders intended in terms of the role that the Senate was supposed to play in our democracy.

And here we are, 2 or 3 years later, not because the Republicans had been misusing the filibuster, because the Republicans have been in the majority. We have been fending off the use of the filibuster by Democrats. They had no problems with the filibuster when they were using it as a tool at their disposal to block Republican initiatives.

The first CARES bill they filibustered multiple times, and it forced us to sit down with them and forge a compromise that, in the end, got 96 out of 100 votes in the U.S. Senate. But now the shoe is on the other foot. They are in the majority, and they have got all these things they want to get done, all this pent-up agenda.

I would argue that what is happening here is all the outside groups, all the leftwing groups that have all these things they want to get done, all of a sudden have concluded that notwithstanding their use of the filibuster to block Republicans from accomplishing their agenda for the past 6 years, now that the shoe is on the other foot, we are in the majority and we have got power, we are going to do away with over 200 years of history--200 years of history that was put in place by the Founders to require the U.S. Senate to be different than the House of Representatives.

The House of Representatives does everything by simple majority. They have a Rules Committee. I served for three terms there. They have a Rules Committee that prescribes, basically, what legislation can come to the floor, what amendments are made in order, how much time is allowed for debate on each amendment. Everything is very structured. It is very organized. It is all done by democratic rule--majority rule, simple majority rule.

The Senate was created to operate differently by the Founders. And here we are having a debate about whether we are going to honor that tradition, that heritage, that legacy, that vision the Founders had when it came to how the U.S. Senate should operate.

Earlier this month, one Democratic Senator suggested that we should get rid of the filibuster because it is ``undemocratic.'' Undemocratic. In other words, it prevents the majority from doing everything it wants to do. But, as I said on the floor last week, letting the majority do everything it wants to is not what the Founders had in mind. The Founders recognized it wasn't just Kings who could be tyrants; they knew majorities could be tyrants, too, and that a majority, if unchecked, could trample the rights of the minority. So the Founders combined majority rule with both representation and constitutional protection for the minority. They established safeguards--checks and balances--throughout our government to keep the government in check and ensure that the rights of the minority were protected, and one of those safeguards was the Senate.

In the House of Representatives, as I said, majority rule is emphasized, and the Founders could have left it at that. They could have stuck with a single legislative body, but they didn't. Why? Because they were worried about the possibility of tyrannical majorities in the House endangering the rights of the minority.

The author of Federalist No. 62 notes:

A senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly,

distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be

in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles

the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of

two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy. . .

. Secondly. The necessity of a senate is not less indicated

by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to

yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to

be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and

pernicious resolutions.

That is from Federalist No. 62.

So the Founders created the Senate as a check on the House of Representatives. They made the Senate smaller and Senators' terms of office longer, with the intention of creating a more stable, more thoughtful, and more deliberative legislative body to check ill- considered or intemperate legislation and attempts to curtail minority rights.

As time has gone on, the legislative filibuster has become perhaps the key way the Senate protects minority rights. The filibuster ensures that the minority party has a voice in the Senate. It forces compromise. It forces bipartisanship.

Even in the now rare case when a majority party has a filibuster- proof majority in the Senate, the filibuster still

forces the majority party to take into account the views of its more moderate or middle-of-the-road Members, thus ensuring that more Americans are represented in legislation.

People tend to focus on the fact that the filibuster protects the country from any one party's most extreme legislation, but the truth is--the truth is--the filibuster is probably the biggest reason that any bill in the Senate is ever bipartisan. Routine spending bills, farm bills, Defense authorization bills--the main reason many of these bills are ever bipartisan, outside of divided government, is because the filibuster forces the parties to compromise. Don't believe me? Just look at how the House has handled these bills in recent years.

Democrats were eager to take advantage of the filibuster's protection for minority rights when they were in the minority, but now that they are in the majority, they don't want anything standing in their way. They don't want to have compromise. They don't want to have to consider the Americans who didn't vote for a Democratic agenda. They want to do whatever they want, whenever they want it.

Democrats' disregard for minority rights would be troubling even if they had a substantial majority in the Senate. The voice of the minority deserves to be heard even when the minority is substantially outnumbered. But it is particularly outrageous that Democrats are so determined to sweep away protections from minority rights when they barely--barely--have a majority in the Senate and certainly don't have a mandate. In fact, Democrats don't have a real majority at all; only a technical one. The Senate is divided 50 to 50. The only reason Democrats have a deciding vote in the Senate is because the Vice President is a Democrat. In the House, Democrats' majority narrowed substantially in the November election.

Now, as for the Presidency, while certainly a Democrat won the election, it is worth noting that the only candidate who could win the Democratic primary was a man historically regarded as a moderate. Even among Democrats, Democrats' far-left liberal candidates did not fare so well.

If there was any mandate in the election, it was a mandate for moderation. It was a mandate for compromise, for pulling the country together. But Democrats are running away from unity and bipartisanship as fast as they can. They are determined to leverage their weak victory into the implementation of a partisan, far-left agenda.

There are two bills that have driven the conversation around eliminating the filibuster in recent weeks. They are H.R. 1, an election bill, and H.R. 5, the so-called Equality Act.

The first bill is a truly outrageous power grab, an attempt to federalize election law and eliminate protections for election integrity. Democrats have discarded years of important bipartisan work on election security and integrity in order to permanently boost Democrats' chances of winning majorities. The second, the so-called Equality Act, is an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment that would substantially restrict the rights of Americans to live by their faith. These are the bills that Democrats think should be shoved through by the narrowest of majorities.

There have been suggestions that eliminating the filibuster is the cure for partisanship and gridlock in the Senate. Well, it might be the cure for gridlock in the sense that the majority could steamroll through whatever it wanted, whenever it wanted, but you don't cure partisanship by making it easier for the majority to be partisan.

Eliminating the filibuster isn't going to eliminate partisanship; it is going to heighten it. Take away the filibuster, and the majority party has zero reason--zero--to take into account the views of the minority. What eliminating the filibuster will do is ensure that one party has no voice at all in the U.S. Senate, no matter how many Americans that party represents.

A couple of weeks ago, we got a preview of what life would look like in a filibuster-less Senate when Democrats passed their so-called COVID bill under the simple-majority rules of reconciliation There wasn't a lot of gridlock since reconciliation allowed Senate Democrats to force their bill through, but there was plenty of partisanship. Democrats made it very clear that while Republicans were welcome to vote for their bill, Republican ideas were not welcome at the table.

Democrats knew that they didn't need Republicans to pass their legislation, which empowered them to completely reject Republican input in drafting the bill and to load the bill with Democratic priorities, from a bailout for union pensions, to a State slush fund heavily weighted in favor of blue States, to the omission of longstanding Federal restrictions on using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions. It was quite a contrast to the five bipartisan COVID bills passed under the filibuster rule in a Republican-led Senate, which were focused on fighting the virus rather than shoving through partisan priorities.

While their recent narrow majority has seemingly erased all memory of their minority status over the last few years, I encourage my Democratic colleagues to remember just how much they valued the legislative filibuster during their time in the minority and how bitterly they regretted eliminating the judicial filibuster once President Trump became the beneficiary.

While Democrats might like to think that their time in power will last forever, it is a truth of American politics that sooner or later, no matter how powerful your majority, you end up in the minority again. I encourage my colleagues to think about that time when they will be in the minority again and to ask themselves whether they really want to eliminate their voices and the voices of their constituents in future policy battles.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, once again, we are hearing chatter from some Democratic Senators about abolishing the filibuster. I had hoped we would move on from such talk after multiple Democratic Senators pledged to uphold the filibuster but apparently not. Apparently, some Democrats think that they can pressure or bully those Senators and other Democratic Senators who have expressed reservations into going back on their word.

Let me quote a former Senator on attempts to change filibuster rules in the Senate, and I am quoting:

We should make no mistake. This nuclear option is

ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a

fundamental power grab by the majority party. . . . Folks who

want to see this change want to eliminate one of the

procedural mechanisms designed for the express purpose of

guaranteeing individual rights, and they also have a

consequence, and would undermine the protections of a

minority point of view in the heat of majority excess.

That was former Senator Joe Biden.

Here is what a current Senator had to say on eliminating the legislative filibuster, and again I quote:

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 a statement from the current Democratic whip in 2018.

In 2017, 33 Democratic Senators signed a letter urging that the legislative filibuster be preserved--2017.

Of course, Democrats have not limited their support of the filibuster to words; they have supported it by their actions. In the last Congress, Democrats set a record for forcing cloture votes, which is what has to happen in order to end a filibuster. They repeatedly used the filibuster when they disagreed with legislation that Republicans were advancing. They filibustered COVID relief. They filibustered police reform even though Senator Scott and Leader McConnell had committed to a robust, bipartisan amendment process. They filibustered pro-life legislation, and they made it very clear that they deeply regretted the fact that they could not filibuster judicial nominees--a situation, I would point out, of their own making. Even without the judicial filibuster, they used every tool at their disposal to slow down judicial nominations.

So, as of last year, Democrats' actions clearly demonstrated their firm support of the filibuster, but now that they have actually taken power here in Washington, albeit by the slimmest possible majority, they are pushing to get rid of it.

Democrats, of course, would like people to believe that this is a principled change; that all of a sudden, they have realized that it is really much better for the country if the majority party gets to do whatever it wants when it is in charge. Well, I just have to say, if you believe that, I have some nice oceanfront property in South Dakota to sell you.

I doubt that there is anyone anywhere in the country who seriously thinks that the Democrats' dramatic 180-degree turn on the filibuster is a principled reversal of their previous position. No, this isn't about principle. It is partisanship. It is political expediency. Democrats' principles haven't changed; their power in the Senate has. They are in charge now. They don't want anything holding them back, like that pesky Senate rule that they have used so often to their advantage.

The truth is, Democrats want a one-sided advantage. Last year, they were perfectly happy to exercise their rights as a minority and filibuster any Republican legislature they didn't like, but now that they are in charge, they want to deny the minority a right Democrats repeatedly exercised when they were in power. They are apparently too shortsighted to see that their proposal could be turned back on them in an instant.

When Democrats abolished the filibuster for judicial nominees, Leader McConnell warned Democrats that they would reap the whirlwind, and they did. Much to Democrats' horror, President Trump ended up being the chief beneficiary of the abolition of the filibuster for judicial nominees, appointing a vast number of conservative judges to the Federal bench.

Several Democratic Senators have openly admitted that they had made a mistake by abolishing the judicial filibuster. The junior Senator from Delaware came to the floor in April 2017 and said he regretted changing the rules in 2013. The senior Senator from Minnesota not only said she regretted changing the rules, she went so far as to say in 2018 that she would support bringing back the 60-vote requirement. Yet now Democrats are apparently ready to abolish--abolish--the legislative filibuster. How have they not learned their lesson? Unless Democrats are so arrogant as to think they will never again be in the minority.

Some Democrats have suggested that we need to abolish the filibuster because otherwise the Senate won't get anything done. Well, not quite. Not quite. It is not that the filibuster could prevent us from getting anything done; it is that it could prevent us from getting everything Democrats want done. That is a big difference.

The truth is, Democrats could easily get something done in the Senate if they were willing to actually work with Republicans. And by ``work with Republicans,'' I don't mean inviting Republicans to join their bills while excluding any meaningful Republican input. I don't mean threatening Republicans to support their bills on pain of having the filibuster abolished or substantially altered. No, I mean genuinely inviting Republicans to the table.

Now, it would mean the Democrats wouldn't get everything they want done, and, of course, Republicans certainly wouldn't get everything we want done, but we could get something done. In fact, we could get some pretty meaningful things done. We could negotiate an infrastructure bill. We could pass section 230 reform, like the bipartisan bill I introduced with Senator Schatz yesterday. We could pass police reform legislation, expand domestic manufacturing capacity, and protect election integrity. We could do all of that and more if Democrats would engage in genuine bipartisan negotiation.

Is it really too much to ask that Democrats find 10 Republicans to work with on major legislative items? Everyone would like to pass their unedited agenda just like they want it, but that is not how things are supposed to work, at least not in the U.S. Senate, and it is certainly not how it is supposed to work when, like Democrats, you barely have a majority. The Senate and, indeed, our whole system of government were designed to prevent a partisan majority from steamrolling through its unedited, unchecked agenda.

Let's just talk for a minute about the purpose of the Senate. Actually, let me take a step back and talk about the purpose of our whole system of government.

Our Founders established not a pure democracy, where the will of the majority reigns unchecked, but a democratic Republic. It was their intention

to combine majority rule with representation and protection for the minority. Why? Because the Founders knew very well that it wasn't just Kings who could be tyrants. They knew that majorities could be tyrants, too, and that a majority of citizens could easily trample the rights of the minority. So they put safeguards in place throughout our government, checks and balances to keep the government in check and ensure that minority as well as majority rights were protected.

One of those safeguards was the U.S. Senate. Wary of, to quote Federalist 62, ``the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions,'' the Founders created the Senate as a check on the House of Representatives. They made the Senate smaller and Senators' terms of office longer, with the intention of creating a more stable, more thoughtful, and more deliberative legislative body to check ill-considered or intemperate legislation and attempts to curtail minority rights.

As time has gone on, the legislative filibuster has become a key tool in preserving the Founders' vision of the Senate. The filibuster does indeed make it harder to get legislation through the Senate, and that is a good thing. That is what the Founders intended. The Senate was not designed to be a rubberstamp for a partisan agenda; it was intended to check partisanship or, as the Founders might put it, faction.

Now, does the filibuster sometimes stop good legislation from getting passed? Of course it does. Last Congress, it stopped us from passing legislation to protect unborn babies who can feel pain from being killed by abortion. The failure of the Senate to pass that bill, I think, is a tragedy, but just as you don't abolish the burden of proof in criminal cases just because some criminal sometimes escapes justice for lack of evidence, you don't permanently remove protections for minority rights because you might be able to force through a good piece of legislation.

In 2005, when some Republicans were suggesting eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees, then-Senator Joe Biden said:

I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the

field right now, but you won't own it forever. I pray God

when the Democrats take back control, we don't make the kind

of naked power grab you are doing.

Fortunately, in 2005, Republicans didn't take that step. And in 2017 and 2018, when President Trump was pushing for Republicans, who were in the majority at the time, to abolish the legislative filibuster so he could push through our agenda and we could push through our agenda, we said no.

For the future of the Senate and our system of government, I pray that Democrats will make the same decision.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).