Mr. Johanns: The Founders of this great country wanted the Senate to be set up as a body anchored to fully demand and fully debate issues. Yet there has been a lot of talk lately about the Senate rules changes to limit Senators' ability to make their voices heard.
Now to many this may sound like inside baseball, limited to the concerns of just a hand full of U.S. Senators. But let me assure you, Mr. President, that this issue is so much more than that. The changes that are being contemplated would significantly impact everyday Americans especially those in rural or less populated states.
Take Nebraska, for example. We don't consider ourselves small. We have almost two million people and several Fortune 500 companies. But we also don't like the idea of get steam rolled by high-population states, for example, California and New York or Illinois. But that's exactly what these Senate rules changes would allow. This isn't just some wild supposition on my part. The Majority Leader himself said the filibuster "is a unique privilege that serves to aid small states from being trampled by the desires of larger states." He went on to say "it's one of the most sacred rules of the Senate."
Of course that was a few years ago, before he proposed to do the very thing that he has criticized. He now appears ready to undermine the most important rule, not by a two-thirds vote as clearly required by Senate Rule 22, but by a simple majority fiat. This contradicts long-standing practice and disregards the 67-vote threshold that President Lyndon Baines Johnson said “preserves indisputably the character of the Senate."
This is the same so-called nuclear option that Democrats previously decried as breaking the rules to change the rules. For example, the senior Senator from New York previously opposed such a blatant power grab, saying “the checks and balances that Americans prize are at stake. The idea bipartisan, where you have to come together and can't just ram everything through because you have a simple majority is at stake. The very things we treasure and love about this grand Republic are at stake." That's pretty powerful and unequivocal words, but it doesn't stop there. The senior Senator from Illinois called it "attacking the very force within the Senate that creates compromise and bipartisanship."
So that reflects a trifecta of the Democrat leadership saying it's a bad idea. Yet, they keep pushing it, like it has somehow magically been transformed into a good idea. But it doesn't matter how long you polish the tin cup. It won't magically become the golden challis. You don't have to believe me. One of the Senate's great historians, Democrat Senator Byrd of West Virginia, was very clear on this issue. And he said "our Founding Fathers intended this Senate to be a continuing body that allows for open and unlimited debate and the protection of minority rights." And when faced with the idea of limiting these basic underpinnings of the United States Senate, he concluded "we must never ever tear down the only wall, the necessary fence this nation has against the excesses of the Executive Branch and the resultant haste and tyranny of the majority."
Now I had the great privilege of working with Senator Byrd when I first came to the Senate. We offered an amendment together which would have prevented the majority from stretching the Senate rules to enact draconian cap and trade legislation on a simple majority vote. Interestingly enough, a situation not so difference from today's proposals. Senator Byrd was very wise in these matters, serving as his party's leader and both times in majority and minority. He had seen both sides of the fence, if you will, had studied the Framers and had determined that such a blatant power grab could not stand. In fact, the vast majority of our colleagues on a bipartisan basis agreed and our amendment passed on a vote of 67-31. And that's exactly what should happen here. If changes are needed, a bipartisan supermajority should approve them, not a simple majority changing the rules to break the rules. Not a simple majority steam rolling the nation.
Senator Byrd left no doubt about his opinion of the so-called nuclear option when he said "jealously guard against efforts to change or reinterpret the Senate rules by a simple majority. Circumventing Rule 22 where a two-thirds majority is required." And he concluded with a statement more eloquent than any original words I might speak, so allow me to once again quote him. And I implore my colleagues to listen carefully. "The Senate has been the last fortress of minority rights. In the freedom of speech in the Republic for now more than two centuries, I pray that Senators will pause and reflect before ignoring that history and that tradition in favor of the political priority of the moment."
It's often said that those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it. I hope my colleagues will study this history, discover the wisdom of Senator Byrd and decide to abandon this ill-advised, hostile takeover of the United States Senate, this attempt to put a gag on the minority. One of my favorite statements on this subject from Senator Byrd was "before we get all steamed up demanding radical changes of the Senate rules, let's read the rules."
Well, let's do that. Senate Rule 5 clearly states "the rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed in, as provided in these rules." And Rule 22 is very clear. It unquestionably says the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting to change the Senate rules. So, again, very clearly, Mr. President, this is all about breaking the rules to change the rules. A sad day for our Senate and our great nation is that once the bell is rung, it can't be unrung -- simple majorities votes to change our Senate rules will become commonplace. Whenever a majority takes control they will change the rules by majority vote. They will run roughshod over the minority party, the laws that they passed when they were in the majority, and their constituents.
It is absolutely inevitable. And today's assurances that it only applies to motions to proceed will eventually ring hollow when it extends to judges, to bills, and then to conference reports. And there will be nothing to stop it. And one day we'll wake up with the Senate that basically is the House of Representatives, where majorities rule. And only their leadership decides what amendments will be considered and what votes will occur and when they will occur. And we'll have a Legislative Branch that doesn't resemble even faintly what the Framers of our great constitution envisioned. But maybe just as importantly, we'd find entire states of constituents who have no voice in the policies that affect their daily lives. And that, Mr. President, would be a travesty.
So I implore my colleagues one last time to listen to the wisdom of their leaders of today and throughout our history. People like our Majority Leader, who said "for more than 200 years the rules of the Senate have protected the American people, and rightfully so." and Senator Byrd who said "as long as the Senate retains the power to amend and the power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will remain secure." But unfortunately, this great institution has evolved into a constant cycle of bringing flawed legislation to the floor, filling the amendment tree to prohibit all amendments, daring the minority party to vote "no" to protect the rights of their constituents. And when they do so, claim that they are filibustering and obstructionists. If we could fix one basic problem, we could return the Senate to its most basic principle of open debate and opportunity for amendments. Maybe we'd realize the folly of these proposed rule changes. And we'd get back in the business of being the United States Senators again and working together again. This quick fix is not the answer. I hope between now and January cooler heads will prevail and we will put ourselves back on a path to finding bipartisan solutions to our nation’s most pressing problems.