[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.