[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 14 (Monday, January 25, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S117-S119]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Filibuster

  Madam President, our first order of business has been to fill 
critical positions throughout the Federal Government, and the Senate 
has already confirmed the Director of National Intelligence and the 
Secretary of Defense, both of whom I supported. This afternoon, we will 
vote on the confirmation of Janet Yellen to be Secretary of the 
Treasury, whom I intend to vote for, as well, and there is a slate of 
other important positions that need to be filled in the coming days and 
weeks.
  I should note that voting to confirm a nominee, under the words of 
the Constitution--providing advice and consent--is not a rubberstamp of 
the administration's policies. I know there will be important issues 
that we will disagree on, but if elections mean anything, they mean 
that the prevailing party should not be knee-capped as, unfortunately, 
our Democratic colleagues did to the previous administration when it 
tried to install a new Cabinet and agency heads. Rather, I believe the 
tradition has been to accommodate one another when we can so the 
administration can carry out its duties.
  This morning, I had a very good conversation with Judge Merrick 
Garland, whom President Biden has nominated for Attorney General. Judge 
Garland's extensive legal experience makes him well suited to lead the 
Department of Justice, and I appreciate his commitment to keeping 
politics out of the Justice Department. That is my No. 1 criterion for 
who should be the next head of the Department of Justice, the Attorney 
General. I think both sides should support a depoliticized Justice 
Department, and that is what I hope Judge Garland, once confirmed, will 
deliver. I look forward to talking to him more during the confirmation 
process, but unless I hear something new, I expect to support his 
nomination before the full Senate. It is in the best interest of the 
country to have qualified, Senate-confirmed individuals leading our 
Federal departments and agencies.
  As we look beyond the confirmation process, there are many 
opportunities for Republicans and Democrats to work together in those 
places where we agree, and I know additional coronavirus relief, as it 
is needed, is high on President Biden's list. Approximately 1 million 
Americans are being vaccinated every day, and while the light at the 
end of the tunnel is getting bigger and brighter, we are still not in 
the clear. Congress has provided trillions of dollars in relief to 
strengthen our fight on both the healthcare and economic fronts, but we 
need to remain vigilant in the final, critical phase of this battle.
  I don't support President Biden's pandemic relief proposal in its 
current form, but I do believe it is a starting point for bipartisan 
negotiations. I will gladly support a reasonable, targeted bill as we 
determine precisely, as we can, where the needs truly are. We all agree 
we need to bolster vaccine manufacturing and distribution; that some 
Americans need additional financial support; and that Main Street 
businesses and their workforces are still struggling to survive this 
economic recession. I hope the administration will be willing to work 
with Congress to reach an agreement that receives broad, bipartisan 
support as each of the previous bills that we have passed has.

  During my time in the Senate, I have worked with folks across the 
aisle on our shared priorities, and I have no plans of changing that 
practice now, but make no mistake: I will push back, forcefully, 
respectfully, when the President and I disagree. One of the things I 
have learned, though, is that there is a difference between what some 
elected officials say and what they actually do, and rather than listen 
to what they say, I really prefer to watch what they do and see if 
those are consistent. Only hours after being sworn in and speaking of 
unifying the country, President Biden unilaterally canceled the permit 
for the Keystone XL Pipeline, and on the same day, the administration 
halted all new energy leasing and permitting on public lands and 
waters. With these unfortunate actions, President Biden is killing 
thousands of well-paying U.S. jobs and kicking the U.S. energy industry 
while it is still struggling from the pandemic.
  I had hoped and still hope to work with President Biden on an all-of-
the-above energy strategy that prioritizes our fossil fuels--we have 
280 million cars on the road, and people are still going to need 
gasoline for the foreseeable future--renewables, and innovative 
technologies that help us harness our most prevalent and reliable 
energy sources. One of the things that, I think, is exciting about some 
of the research that is being done is on carbon capture technology, 
which ought to be, again, something that we can all agree on as we 
transition to the next forms of energy.
  As we begin a new Congress and welcome a new President, I am, once 
again, reminded of the words that were quoted from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 
recently deceased Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. She didn't 
originate it, but she did make it popular when she said, ``You can 
disagree without being disagreeable.'' Of course, democracy itself 
expects a competition of ideas but not necessarily the mudslinging and 
name-calling that have become all too common. I hope we can return to 
the respectful battles in the days and months ahead and know there is 
no better battleground for that to happen in than in the Senate, where 
sometimes--sometimes--we live up to the billing as the world's greatest 
deliberative body.
  The primary feature that separates the Senate from the House or any 
other legislative body is that of free and full debate. That is why it 
takes 60 votes to cut off debate--so that you can then vote and pass a 
piece of legislation with 51 votes. It forces us to do what we ought to 
do anyway, which is to have fulsome debate, allow minority views to be 
presented, and then, once the debate is concluded, have a vote on the 
underlying bill. Fundamentally, the Founders saw the Senate as a place 
that protected minority rights. I have been here long enough to be in 
the majority and in the minority, and we know what goes around comes 
around in the U.S. Senate. It is as sure as day follows night. That is 
why we are called a deliberative body. In the House, you have 435 
Members, and in order to pass a bill, all you need is a majority. Got 
the votes? Jam it through. Yet there has to be someplace, somewhere, in 
a nation of 330 million souls, where competing ideas can be seriously 
debated, and that is why our Founders created the U.S. Senate.
  George Washington was famously said to have told Thomas Jefferson 
that the Senate was meant to be a saucer to cool House legislation like 
a saucer was used to cool hot tea. Well, if partisan bills are the hot 
tea, then the Senate cloture requirements are the saucer. Rather than a 
simple majority here in the Senate, you have to get 60 out of 100 
Senators to support a bill in order for it to advance. I know we all 
would love to see each of our ideas passed into law without any delay 
or extended debate, but that is not the way the Senate is supposed to 
work. It forces us to do what we ought to want to do anyway, which is 
to do the hard

[[Page S118]]

work of bipartisan negotiation and compromise, come up with an 80-20 
solution that can leave the 20 percent you don't agree on for another 
day and another battle, but to pass into law and make progress, on 
behalf of the American people, the 80 percent we can agree on.
  Neither party has had a filibuster-proof majority since the late 
1970s, and as a result, Senators from red States and blue States have 
had to work together, as they should, to reach agreements on nearly 
every piece of legislation that has moved through this Chamber in the 
last four decades. The only real exception is the budget reconciliation 
process, which, by court rules, can be done with 51 votes, but, 
otherwise, in the main, 60 votes--a bipartisan majority--is required in 
order to move legislation.
  When bills require bipartisan support in order to pass, they are more 
durable. The fact is, if you pass a partisan piece of legislation, the 
next time the majority flips, it can undo it. I think it is useful in 
terms of our comity, in terms of our relationships, and in terms of our 
ability to get things done for the American people to try to figure out 
how to do things on a bipartisan basis. While I know bipartisanship 
isn't necessarily popular with the political bases of either party, it 
is critical to our democracy.
  Unfortunately, some of our colleagues on the other side have 
expressed an interest in using their newly gained powers in the 
majority to blow up the filibuster and to shatter that important 
cooling saucer. Make no mistake: That would do irreparable harm to this 
institution and inflict serious damage on our democracy. Without the 
60-vote cloture requirement, both Chambers would be majority-rule 
institutions, with a steady flow of partisan legislation moving through 
Congress. If the same party controls both Chambers and the White House, 
that party could pass strictly partisan legislation that would quickly 
be signed into law without a single vote from the opposing party. Does 
that feel good? Well, if you are on the winning side, yes. Is it good 
for the country? No, it is not. It is efficient, but it is not 
effective. It is not lasting. It is not durable. It doesn't provide the 
sort of stability and ability to plan that the current structure 
provides.
  All the reasons I have given for doing away with the Senate cloture 
requirement are why no majority has ever tried to blow it up before.
  During the past administrations--the Trump, Obama, Bush and Clinton 
administration--there was a period of time when the President's party 
controlled both Chambers of Congress. If you go further back in 
history, you will find dozens of examples. But no Senate, until now, 
has ever been so shortsighted as to get rid of the cloture requirement 
and the filibuster when it comes to legislation.
  If Democrats carried out their threat to do that today, they would 
clear the path to pass a radical agenda that would fundamentally 
reshape our country without a single Republican vote.
  As a reminder, we have a 50-50 Senate, and in the House there are 221 
Democrats and 211 Republicans. In all of Congress, there are 10 more 
Democrats than Republicans out of 535 Members of Congress. That is far 
from a progressive or a radical mandate.
  As I said, elections happen, majorities change, and Presidents come 
and go, as do U.S. Senators. In 2 years, Republicans could win the 
majority in either or both Chambers, and in 4, a Republican could win 
the White House as well.
  If we were to do away with this restraint on snap decisions and 
partisan legislation, what would the succeeding Republican 
administration likely do? It would simply undo everything that had been 
done on a partisan basis.
  Well, would our Democratic colleagues support a rule change to blow 
up the filibuster when Republicans control both Houses and the White 
House? Would they believe the Senate minority should be silenced, as 
they believe now?
  As I say, what goes around comes around, and the shoe is always on 
the other foot, eventually.
  The good news is we don't have to wonder what the answer would be 
because we already know it. In 2017, there was a Republican-led Senate, 
House, and White House, when we held both Houses and the White House. 
There was fear by some folks across the aisle--actually, both sides of 
the aisle--that the filibuster would be eliminated in order to clear a 
path for a Republican agenda.
  That was when 61 Senators, a filibuster-proof majority, wrote a 
bipartisan letter to then-Majority Leader McConnell and Democratic 
Leader Schumer, urging them to protect the filibuster. That was 61 
Senators. Among the cosigners were 27 current Democratic Senators. One 
of the signatures on this bipartisan letter is that of our newly sworn-
in Vice President, Kamala Harris.
  I can promise you that Leader McConnell has no interest in 
eliminating the filibuster, when he was majority or now as minority 
leader, because he knew the institutional damage that this would cause 
and the damage to our democracy.
  Unfortunately, Leader Schumer refuses to acknowledge that most basic 
fact.
  The two party leaders are now in the process of negotiating an 
organizing resolution on how this new reality of a 50-50 Senate will 
operate. Fortunately, there is modern precedent for how this has been 
done, and the two leaders have shared an interest in emulating the 2001 
agreement negotiated by Tom Daschle and Trent Lott.
  But because of the newfound obsession of some on the left with 
uprooting the cornerstone of the Senate, Leader McConnell has asked for 
assurances from Leader Schumer that the filibuster and the cloture 
requirement will remain intact. After all, it is not unreasonable to 
ask your negotiating partner to commit to not breaking the rules, which 
is all Senator McConnell is asking for.
  Senator Schumer has derided that request, calling it ``extraneous'' 
and saying it falls outside the bounds of the 2001 organizing 
resolution.
  But I would like to remind our colleagues that in 2001 the majority 
party was not threatening to blow up the Senate rules to advance a 
partisan agenda. That is why it wasn't the subject, explicitly, of that 
negotiation of the organizing resolution. There was no need to ask for 
assurances on the protection of the filibuster because it wasn't even a 
question to be answered.
  Our Democratic colleagues have relied on the filibuster while 
Republicans have held the majority. I can think of time after time 
after time when we have tried to pass more COVID-19 relief bills that 
our Democratic colleagues felt were inadequate. And time after time 
after time, they used the filibuster to prevent passage of those bills, 
which was their right--I think a mistake, a decision I disagree with, 
but within their rights under the Senate rules. Republicans have also 
relied on the filibuster while Democrats have held the majority.
  We all recognize that at some point the shoe is always on the other 
foot, which is why no one has been so foolish as to eliminate the 
legislative filibuster or to even seriously consider it before. I hope 
our colleagues on the other side will avoid making this tragic mistake 
in order to pursue shortsighted political goals.
  And in an encouraging sign on Friday, the White House indicated that 
President Biden does not support getting rid of the legislative 
filibuster either. President Biden served in the Senate for, I believe, 
36 years. He understands how this institution works, how it is supposed 
to work, and his advice--and it is only advice, since he is the 
President and not a Member of the Senate anymore--is: Don't go there.
  I encourage our more than two dozen Democratic colleagues who have 
repeatedly voiced their support for maintaining the legislative 
filibuster to insist that this critical stabilizing force in our 
democracy be preserved in the organizing resolution currently being 
discussed by Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell. I truly believe 
that if we don't do that, if the legislative filibuster is eliminated, 
we will all rue the day.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I tell you, I am going to follow 
right along with the comments that my colleague from Texas has made, 
because, in Tennessee, whether someone is a Republican or a Libertarian 
or an Independent or a Democrat, they have

[[Page S119]]

very high expectations of what this Congress is going to be able to 
accomplish, and they also have high expectations for this 
administration. What they are doing is looking there, and they are 
saying: Politics and politicians are not what this is all about. They 
don't necessarily matter. Policies matter.
  And, as my colleague is saying, maintaining the filibuster rule in 
the Senate allows robust, respectful debate so that we arrive at a 
sense of compromise and we do what is best for the American people.
  Today, I was talking with one of our Tennesseans, and they were 
talking about that it doesn't matter what is being said on social 
media--on Twitter or Facebook or Parler or any of the social media 
platforms--that when you strip it all away, good policy is good policy, 
and that is what matters. Good policy is good policy. It is good for 
the people, and that is where the emphasis should be.
  So when I say they have high expectations, I don't only mean that 
they want good policies; they want this to focus on them. They want it 
to focus on their concerns, their communities, their schools, their 
right to feel secure, their right to enjoy free speech, their right to 
pursue their happiness, their American dream, and their right to 
celebrate and protect life. It is about them, not politicians, not 
politics. It is about the American people.
  From their perspective, we can spend hours debating the budget or 
immigration reform or data privacy--which I will talk more about later 
this week--as long as at the end of the day, whatever compromise we 
reach not only meets their needs but recognizes that the people are the 
most important part of this entire equation--the people.
  Every Member of this body understands that when the balance of power 
shifts, sometimes that means that the guy across the aisle is going to 
get the upper hand. Things change, but it would be a mistake for my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to assume that that means we 
are willing to set our priorities and our principles aside.
  It doesn't mean that we are going to submit to their agenda. It 
doesn't mean we are going to conform to their agenda. It means we are 
going to stay true to our principles, represent our States, and work--
work diligently--for what is going to be best for the people.
  We may have had a changing of the guard here in Washington, but it 
doesn't mean that any of us has set aside the promises that we have 
made to the people we represent, and that is why I came out so strongly 
against the Biden administration and the President's Executive order 
that really crushed the jobs and the potential for energy security that 
came with the building of the Keystone XL pipeline.
  This was a project that had achieved bipartisan support, and what are 
we seeing now? Lost jobs, lost livelihoods, more money being taken out 
of the taxpayers' pocket.
  For similar reasons, I came out in opposition to rejoining the Paris 
climate accords and reversing our course on the departure from the 
World Health Organization.
  For me, this is isn't about politics. It is about the policies this 
new administration has decided to unilaterally say yes to--without 
consulting Congress, without including the people in the discussion.
  And just so we are all aware, President Biden said yes to more 
unilateral policy changes on day one than any President in our Nation's 
history--more than any President in our Nation's history.
  The Biden administration looked at those new policies and decided 
that the result--achieving that outcome--was worth whatever it would 
cost the American people to get it.
  So over the next few weeks, we will also be examining the President's 
Cabinet picks to get a sense of the tradeoff they will be willing to 
make.
  Safety is at the forefront of everyone's mind back home in 
Tennessee--not just safety from COVID but from the bad actors and the 
foreign adversaries who continue to show us just how far they are 
willing to go to undermine us on the world stage. Back in Tennessee, we 
have a saying: When somebody shows you who they really are, you better 
believe them.
  And I will tell you that they are paying attention, and I will tell 
you that they are not very impressed right now with some of the so-
called soft talk that they are hearing on proposed policies toward Iran 
and the communist regime in China.
  This is why I chose not to support the confirmation of our new 
Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines. I also had some pretty 
tough questions to ask Secretary of State Nominee Blinken about some of 
these same issues dealing with Iran, dealing with China. Many of the 
proposals that I am hearing from them have sounded strangely familiar 
from years gone by.

  We don't have to look overseas to find some very real policy 
differences between what Tennesseans have said they expect and what the 
Biden administration is signaling that they want to deliver.
  In his hearing before the Commerce Committee, Transportation 
Secretary Nominee Pete Buttigieg signaled to the panel that he would 
put the administration's environmental goals ahead of some very basic 
changes to Federal policy that would lighten the regulatory load on the 
county and city mayors trying to get their transportation projects off 
the ground.
  As I told him, many times the regulations at issue don't just slow 
the projects down, they kill the project and that town's prospects for 
growth, for a better life, for people in the community. Hopefully, he 
is going to keep in mind what it means to these mayors the next time he 
is asked to consider the benefits of removing unnecessary redtape.
  These tradeoffs many times are just too destructive to say yes to. I 
would encourage all of my colleagues to look at the compromises the 
President is asking each and every one to make, not just in terms of 
what we stand to gain but what is going to be the cost.
  What is the monetary cost?
  What is the cost of freedom?
  What is the opportunity cost that will be delivered to the American 
people in order for the administration to have their way, to get their 
income? That is the question we should each ask: What is the cost to 
the American people in order to protect them, in order to meet the 
expectations that they have? We should be listening to the people. 
These policies are about them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.