[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 26, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Page S135]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Filibuster

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has been my good fortune to serve in 
the Senate for 24 years. I have great respect for this institution and 
continue to believe that the men and women who serve here are 
extraordinary examples, by and large, of public service and that we 
have done great things of a historic nature.
  I think of the days of the Obama Presidency, when we had to rescue 
our economy, make reforms on Wall Street that made a difference, and 
build a public health system that we have aspired to for decades. We 
achieved those goals--not easily--with hard work and determination. I 
am glad to have been a part of it.
  When I hear the Republican leader come to the floor and talk about 
his memory of the Senate, I hasten to add: There is another side to the 
story. I will come to the floor in a few days to outline the history of 
the filibuster, but I am sure the Senator from Kentucky, who has been 
in the Senate--and his staff--in elected capacity for decades, would 
concede this point: Up until the 1960s, the filibuster was rarely used 
in this U.S. Senate. The demand for, once, 67 votes, then 60 votes was 
rare.
  Oh, it was remembered that, in the 1960s, civil rights legislation 
foundered on the floor of this U.S. Senate because of the filibuster, 
but it was rarely applied. That changed. It changed under the Senator 
from Kentucky's leadership. It became so commonplace--the filibuster 
was being used so frequently--that it led to Senator Reid, then the 
Democratic leader, making some fundamental changes in the Senate rules.
  I remember that day very well, and I remember the anguish that 
Senator Reid felt at the time. But he felt he had no recourse because 
the filibuster had become commonplace, the 60-vote requirement 
commonplace.
  I don't know exactly what the argument is from the other side at the 
moment, but I think any fairminded Senator would concede the Senate is 
capable of doing great things; it is capable of being deliberative; yet 
it still can be decisive.
  There comes a time when we should act. And to merely let every issue 
get mired down into a 60-vote requirement and filibuster and nothing 
come out of this Chamber as a result cannot be what our Founding 
Fathers envisioned for the world of the U.S. Senate.
  I want to address that issue at another time in more detail, with 
facts and figures on the use and misuse of filibuster, but at this 
moment I would like to raise another question, which is related.