Sen. Rick Scott went on conservative radio to promise that Republicans would intensify pressure on Democrats and force the Senate to start passing more of President Donald Trump’s agenda.

Then he revealed something many exhausted American workers may find far more shocking.

Senators often arrive Monday evening and leave early Thursday afternoon.

“We get here 5:30 on Monday, and finish 1:45 on Thursday,” the Florida Republican said.

For Scott, the schedule explains why the Senate struggles to overcome obstruction and approve major legislation. His proposed solution begins with a demand that would sound ordinary in almost any other workplace:

Start working five days a week.

“I’m a business guy,” Scott told Breitbart News Saturday. “I worked seven days a week.”

“When I came up here, I thought I was going to be up here Sunday night or first thing Monday morning, finish Friday night.”

Instead, he said he discovered a chamber operating on a compressed schedule even while facing battles over election rules, spending, nominations and the future of the filibuster.

Scott vowed that Republicans would “keep the pressure on” Senate Majority Leader John Thune and their GOP colleagues to change how the institution functions.

His immediate target is not the existence of the filibuster, but the modern practice surrounding it.

“We’re not going to get rid of it,” Scott said.

Instead, he wants senators who oppose legislation to physically hold the floor and continue speaking—the dramatic version of the filibuster familiar from the classic film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

“If you want to obstruct and prevent us from passing bills, Democrats, then you’re going to have to be on the floor all the time talking,” Scott warned.

Under current Senate practice, the minority often does not need to deliver an uninterrupted speech to block legislation. In most cases, leaders know they need 60 votes to invoke cloture and end debate, so a bill can stall without senators literally talking through the night.

Scott argues that this arrangement has detached the filibuster from public accountability.

“What I think the public believes is we all sit there on the Senate floor and we talk to each other,” he said. “We don’t.”

A return to the talking filibuster could create powerful political theater.

Democrats attempting to block a Republican election bill might be required to remain on the floor for hours, publicly explaining every objection. Cameras would broadcast the confrontation while Republicans accused them of obstructing the president’s agenda.

But the procedural consequences are more complicated than Scott’s description suggests.

Senate rules determine when debate ends, how continuous speeches operate and what happens when the minority temporarily leaves the floor. Restoring a genuine talking filibuster could require rule changes, consistent enforcement and a majority prepared to remain in Washington around the clock.

It would burden Republicans as well as Democrats.

The majority would need enough senators nearby to maintain a quorum, defeat procedural maneuvers and be ready to vote whenever the filibuster ended. Staff, security personnel and support workers would also face marathon sessions.

Future Republican minorities would be bound by the same expectations when Democrats regained power.

Scott insists he does not want to abolish the 60-vote threshold entirely. That distinction matters because eliminating the legislative filibuster could allow whichever party controls a narrow majority to enact sweeping laws with little bipartisan support.

Instead, his proposal seeks to make obstruction physically and politically expensive.

The timing is significant.

Republicans recently left Washington for a five-week recess without passing the SAVE America Act, a Trump-backed election measure that would require documentary proof of citizenship and impose additional voter-identification rules.

The Senate adjourned by unanimous consent, and no senator forced a roll-call vote before lawmakers departed.

Scott said Republicans remain committed to election security and will continue trying to move relevant legislation.

His promise to apply pressure therefore appears directed not only at Democrats but at Thune and Republicans who allowed the chamber to leave without delivering one of Trump’s key priorities.

“We’re going to continue talking to Thune,” Scott said. “It’s not just Thune, it’s all of our colleagues, to try to get this done.”

Critics may question why a party controlling the Senate needs procedural spectacle to explain its inability to advance legislation. Republicans must still manage internal disagreements, secure sufficient votes and draft measures capable of surviving judicial review.

Forcing Democrats to talk cannot manufacture agreement among Republicans.

Nor does spending more days in Washington guarantee productive legislation. Senators divide their time among committee work, constituent services, state travel and negotiations conducted away from the chamber floor.

Still, Scott’s criticism will resonate with voters accustomed to full workweeks, limited vacation and employers who would never accept arrival late Monday followed by departure early Thursday.

Members of Congress receive six-figure salaries and extensive public resources while carrying responsibility for decisions affecting hundreds of millions of people.

Scott went on air to threaten Democrats with exhausting floor speeches.

His most memorable revelation may be that the Senate would first need to remain at work long enough to hear them.