[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 18 (Monday, February 1, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S209-S210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Biden Administration
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, President Biden built his campaign for
the Presidency around a theme of unity, the promise that he would work
to heal the deep divisions that exist in our country and restore
respect and bipartisan communication. He has consistently pointed to
his decades in the U.S. Senate as proof of his understanding and his
ability to achieve results--and for good reason. Senator Biden had a
record of working across the aisle and brokering bipartisan deals, but
so far, at least, the actions of President Biden have run counter to
his image as a pragmatic dealmaker.
Let's look at the first big test, which is coronavirus relief. This,
of course, has been the main focus of the Senate for nearly a year now.
We passed several bipartisan bills, ranging from far-reaching,
multitrillion-dollar packages to smaller, more targeted bills, and
every single one received overwhelming bipartisan support. Make no
mistake, the path to getting those bills signed into law was not easy.
The Republican-controlled Senate and the Democratic-controlled House
had very different ideas about the size and shape of those bills, but
we managed to overcome those differences and provide trillions of
dollars in relief to support our response on both the healthcare and
economic fronts.
President Biden has made COVID relief a top priority and laid out a
framework for a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package, which
includes everything from bipartisan priorities, like funding for
vaccines, to partisan ones, like slush funds for blue States.
I don't support the President's proposal in its current form, but I
do believe that it is a good place to start to kick off bipartisan
negotiations. I also believe that before we rush out and throw
trillions of dollars--I should say more dollars--at this problem, we
need to see how what we have done is already working. In fact, it was
only a month ago when we passed our last COVID-19 relief bill with big
bipartisan votes, and that money is not even out the door yet.
As we look to the future, I had high hopes that we could continue
this trend of working together. After all, that is the idea the
President ran on--bipartisanship, deal making, and reaching across the
aisle to build consensus.
President Biden knows the rough and tumble of the legislative process
very well. He helped broker many compromises during his career and
promised to use that experience to restore bipartisanship in
Washington. But that is not what the early days of this administration
have looked like, not even close.
Our Democratic colleagues kicked off the year with threats to
eliminate the filibuster. We know the filibuster is the single biggest
safeguard of the minority in the Senate, whether it be Republican or
Democrat, because it requires--indeed, it forces--bipartisan compromise
in order to advance legislation
For the past 6 years, as the minority party, our Democratic
colleagues have proudly filibustered bill after bill. They have blocked
the Senate from considering legislation on everything from coronavirus
to justice reform, to border security.
Make no mistake, Republicans were frustrated. It is frustrating to
have the majority and not be able to get what you want. But the
integrity of the filibuster and its ultimate purpose was never called
into question, even though Leader McConnell faced calls from many--
including President Trump--to toss it out the window.
But in this new reality of a 50-50 Senate, the Democratic leader has
so far not been interested in playing by the existing rules. He wants
an easy, compromised-free path for the Democratic radical agenda, and
he is prepared to go full-scorched earth to make it happen.
Senator Schumer has threatened to eliminate the legislative
filibuster and subject the country to the chaos that a majority-ruled
Senate would create. The difference here, of course, is that Leader
McConnell stood up to those in his own party who called for this.
Senator Schumer so far has led us to believe that he will not do the
same.
Fortunately, the Senators from West Virginia and Arizona, Senators
Manchin and Sinema, have vowed not to participate in this dangerous
exercise. And it is clear--or it should be clear, but I will
emphasize--that this is not for the benefit of the minority party. This
is for the benefit of the Senate as an institution and the country as a
whole.
With the elimination of the filibuster off the table, because at
least two Democratic Senators will not vote to eliminate it, Senate
Democrats have found a new opportunity to break the rules, ignore
precedent, and pave a path for partisan legislation. If the reports can
be believed, our Democratic colleagues are preparing to abuse the
budget reconciliation process to ram President Biden's coronavirus
relief proposal through the Senate. This is a process designed as a way
to enact certain fiscal policies in a budget resolution--things like
spending reductions, tax relief, or tax increases.
Unlike the traditional legislative process, which is used for the
majority of the bills that move through the Senate, there is no 60-vote
threshold when you use budget reconciliation. But that doesn't mean you
can or you should fast-track partisan legislation. In fact, our
predecessors have warned us against that.
One of the most influential Senators in protecting this budget
reconciliation process was Robert C. Byrd, the longtime Senator from
West Virginia. He was the architect of the now so-called Byrd rule,
which is used to keep the reconciliation process from being used to
circumvent the normal legislative process. In short, he wanted to
prevent the process from being abused in the way Democrats appear to be
preparing for now.
The referee in all of this is the Senate Parliamentarian, a
nonpartisan expert adviser on Senate rules and procedure. Folks on both
sides of the aisle know and respect our Parliamentarian and the people
who work with her. We respect their guidance to understand the rules of
the Senate and ensure that both sides are treated fairly.
The most senior Member of this Chamber, the President pro tempore,
once said:
I've been here with many, many parliamentarians. All were
good. But she's the best.
Throughout modern history, Senate Parliamentarians have advised the
Senate on which provisions can and cannot be included in a budget
reconciliation bill based on the application of the Byrd rule. In fact,
the Parliamentarian gives it a process known as ``a Byrd bath.''
While the majority party technically has the power to determine
whether or not to accept the Parliamentarian's advice, there has never
been much of a question about whether to do so or not.
Think about this. It would be like allowing a batter in the World
Series to ignore the umpire's balls-and-strikes call and treat every
pitch as if it were a ball. I am sure it is no surprise, then, that the
last time either party ignored the Parliamentarian's ruling was 1975--
nearly 50 years ago. Since then, both Republicans and Democrats have
understood the dangers of such reckless action and have respected the
advice of the Parliamentarian, even when it punches a hole in their own
legislation.
But if reports are to be believed, it looks like our Democratic
colleagues may be preparing to break precedent once again. With the
filibuster--legislative filibuster--still intact, our Democratic
colleagues are no doubt considering a plan to shove President Biden's
massive coronavirus relief bill through the Senate using
reconciliation, and that plan involves ignoring
[[Page S210]]
any adverse rulings from the Parliamentarian. Over the last several
decades, Senators on both sides have refrained from such a dangerous
move because of the precedent it would set.
Here is another instance where, despite pressure from some in my
party, Leader McConnell refrained from eliminating the legislative
filibuster. He knew how detrimental it would be to the U.S. Senate as
an institution.
Basically, what we are hearing now about budget reconciliation and
considering eliminating the Byrd rule is essentially a backdoor method
to eliminate the filibuster and push the most partisan, controversial
measures through with only a simple majority.
In 2001, Senator Byrd said: ``Reconciliation was never, never, never
intended to be used as a shield for controversial legislation by
depriving Senators of their rights and their duty to debate and
amend.'' But that is precisely what our Democratic colleagues are
reported to be considering now--to overrule the advice of a nonpartisan
adviser to the Senate so they can deprive Senators of their duty and
ability to debate and amend legislation.
I urge our colleagues not to go down this road. After all, you would
have thought they learned a lesson now that the shoe is on the other
foot when it comes to nominations and the filibuster.
In 2013, then-Majority Leader Harry Reid went nuclear and eliminated
the 60-vote cloture requirement on judicial nominees--something
distinct and different from a legislative filibuster but applied to
nominees. Leader McConnell told our colleague from Nevada at the time:
``You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you
think.'' And as it turned out, he was right.
As our colleagues now know very well, the Republican-led Senate
confirmed more than 230 judges who were nominated by President Trump,
all thanks Harry Reid's rule change. This action cleared the way to
eliminate the 60-vote cloture threshold on Supreme Court nominees,
which lead to the confirmation of three Supreme Court Justices during
the Trump Presidency.
There are inherent and perhaps unintended consequences of changing
the rules in a place where your power is never permanently guaranteed.
Chipping away at the rights of the minority may help you now, but you
are sure to regret that someday, just as Democrats now regret the day
Harry Reid cleared an easy path for hundreds of conservative Federal
judges.
There are a few ways to stop this madness before Democrats head down
this dangerous path. The first is for President Biden to intervene and
warn Senate Democrats not to break the rules by ignoring decades of
precedent.
We are less than 2 weeks in a Biden Presidency, which was won on the
promise of working together. President Biden consistently pointed to
his experience as a U.S. Senator as evidence of his ability to reach
across the aisle to get things done. This will be his first test. Will
he urge Senate Democrats to pursue a bipartisan approach to
legislating, or will he give up on his single largest campaign promise
less than 2 weeks into his administration?
The second option is for our Democratic colleagues to speak up.
Senators Manchin and Sinema stood up to the Democratic leader when he
threatened to eliminate the filibuster. As I see it, this is no less
dangerous.
Whatever precedent you set or break when you are on one side will
affect you when you are on the other side, which you, inevitably, will
ultimately be.
If Democrats destroy the budget reconciliation process now, it will
clear the way for them to pass a progressive agenda with absolutely
zero need for Republican votes. That could include everything from
Federal funding for abortions to heavyhanded climate policies. And when
Republicans ultimately find themselves in the majority, all of these
policies could be eliminated with a party-line vote and replaced with
new laws.
This is a dangerous and unnecessary road to go down, and our
Democratic colleagues have a duty, I believe, as Members of this body,
to respect its rules and respect the Senate as an institution. The
Senate should not replace the Byrd rule with Harry's rule.
I would like to once again share some wise words from our late
colleague Senator Byrd, who was known as a master of the Senate rules
and process and procedure. Not long before his death, he spoke in a
Senate Rules Committee hearing about the importance of protecting
minority rights--something the Senate has been known for. Oddly enough,
the current Democratic leader was presiding at the time. Senator Byrd
said:
As I have said before, the Senate has been the last
fortress of minority rights and freedom of speech in this
Republic for more than two centuries. I pray that Senators
will pause and reflect before ignoring that history and
tradition in favor of the political priority of the moment.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.