Filibuster
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, when Democrats last had the majority and proposed blowing up the Senate rules and the historic way that the Senate has worked, I gave a series of speeches explaining how the father of the Constitution, James Madison, intended for the Senate to be a deliberative body; in other words, a break on the hot passions that occur in the House of Representatives. I repeated my deeply held opposition to gutting the Senate process, even when my party took control of all three branches--and it would have been politically expedient in the short term.
I don't know how many times President Trump brought up doing away with what we call the filibuster or the 60-vote requirement. It was even followed by a lot of our Republican Party grassroots wanting to overcome Democrats' use of the cloture rule to block the Republican agenda during those 4 years. But I spoke out strongly against it.
In 2017, over half of the current Democrat Senators signed a letter calling for preservation of the current rules requiring the 60 votes to stop debate for considering the legislation, despite the use of the nuclear option for nominees.
I agree with President Biden's position in 2005. Reflecting on the same understanding that I have of the Constitution and the role of the Senate as envisioned by James Madison, then-Senator Biden said this:
That is the . . . reason . . . we have the . . . rule. So when one party . . . controls all levers of Government, one man or one woman can stand on the floor of the Senate and resist . . . the passions of the moment.
Even Senator Schumer, the majority leader, said, at that time, gutting the cloture rule would be a ``doomsday for democracy''-- doomsday for democracy. Now it seems like Senator Schumer invites that doomsday.
Senator Durbin hit the nail on the head as recently as 2018, saying it ``would be the end of the Senate as it was originally devised and created going back to our Founding Fathers.'' I agreed then, and I agree now.
Now the shoe is on the other foot, and Democrats have changed their position, many not for the first time.
Senator Durbin has now joined the crusade of his Democratic predecessor, Stephen Douglas, of Illinois--famous for debating Abraham Lincoln on the issues of slavery. But that Douglas from Illinois also proposed a Senate rule change allowing a narrow majority to force a final vote on bills.
Hypocrisy is not rare in politics on both sides of the aisle, but the fact that Democrats switched principles on such a consequential matter whenever Senate control changes from one party to the other is particularly glaring.
The party of Jim Crow, which made liberal use of so-called filibuster just over a year ago to block Republicans' agenda, are now saying, falsely, it is a relic of Jim Crow.
I do not see how they can look the voters in the eyes with no sign of embarrassment. I do not understand why the policemen of our governmental system--the media--isn't roasting them for this hypocritical power grab.
I would now like to address a misconception on the cloture motion, the 60-vote requirement. The cloture motion requires 60 votes to bring consideration of legislation to finality. Just because it can be used to block legislation, does not mean that the term ``cloture'' always equals a filibuster.
Cloture cuts off not just debate but the offering of amendments. Voting for cloture, also, is saying that the Senate has voted on enough amendments. Senators who have amendments important to their State that they want to offer should be voting against cloture to preserve their right to offer amendments, as their constituents might desire. Debate and amendments are the hallmark of this democracy, not an obstacle to be swept aside in pursuit of a short-term partisan agenda.
When Democrats last controlled the Senate with 60 votes and thereafter, amendment votes became very rare. Even rank-and-file Democrats lost opportunities to represent their States with amendments important to that State.
Let's look at the cloture issue another way. Also, many people confuse debate over filibuster with talking nonstop to delay. That is a kind of ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' filibuster--the famous movie, you know. This has nothing to do with cloture. People who talk about returning to the so-called talking filibuster are confusing two different Senate rules, both called filibuster.
Senators have never had to talk until they dropped from exhaustion to preserve their right to amend bills. So the talking filibuster rhetoric is nonsense. Democrats have convinced themselves or at least their activist base--and done it falsely--that our democracy is in crisis. And so it is absurd to say only one party, unilateral governance, can save democracy. But once an exception is made--and they are talking about that exception just for this voting rights bill, but once an exception is made to the right of all Senators to debate and to amend legislation, there seems to be no going back.
Democrats learned that in 2013, when they accomplished the 60-vote requirement on district and circuit court judges, and they lived to regret it 4 years later when Republicans did the same thing when we had a Supreme Court Justice up. It is a slippery slope that you should not let come about.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. I will.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Remember what I said, and I just said this. So you obviously heard me. We warned, in 2013, when I think all Republicans voted against reducing the 60-vote threshold for district court and circuit court judges, so you could pack the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, that you would regret that, and you have regretted it because Republicans were saying in 2017: What is good for the goose is good for the gander. And we voted to reduce it then for a Supreme Court Justice.
Now, I am sure that, from your point of view, you have a Supreme Court that is not very favorable to what you think a Supreme Court ought to be doing, with the three people that Trump put on there. So that is where I am coming from.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Do you know who held the Senate during that period of time on the issue you brought up? It was Democratic Senators from the South. Remember when the Civil Rights Act, in 1965, was passed, that there was a higher share--a higher percentage--of Republicans than Democrats that voted for it. The one person that made a difference in getting the Civil Rights Act passed was Senator Dirksen, the Republican leader.
I am going to have to end this discussion with you, but I want to say one thing. Why would you want to expand this precedent that is set by Democrats into legislation and weaken bipartisanship? That is where you have to leave it. It is a slippery slope. You may intend to do it just for a voting rights act, but it is going to go further.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source