[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 17, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1586-S1587]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Filibuster

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it appears that our friends across the 
aisle are experiencing an existential crisis when it comes to deciding 
how to manage their newfound powers in the majority. We are just 2\1/2\ 
months into this new Congress, and already we are hearing the majority 
leader and many on the other side of the aisle threatening to blow up 
the rules of the Senate. After decades as a Senator, President Biden 
even yesterday relented and threw his support behind the plan.
  The filibuster has been called into question a number of times over 
the past few years. That is to be expected, but it is just that our 
Democratic friends used to be on the other side of the argument. They 
took one position when they were in the minority, where the filibuster 
protected their rights. And now when they are in the majority, many of 
them are looking to eliminate any minority rights and to fundamentally 
change the Senate.
  In 2018, our Democratic colleagues were afraid the Republican Senate 
majority would blow up the filibuster. I am not really sure why they 
were concerned. After all, Senator McConnell and Republican Senators 
have consistently defended the rights of the minority by use of the 
legislative filibuster, even when President Trump called for it to be 
eliminated.
  But our Democratic friends keep piling on. Senator Durbin, the 
Senator from Illinois, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was 
asked about President Trump's call to end the filibuster--that was when 
President Trump called to end the filibuster--and he said: ``That would 
be the end of the Senate as it was originally devised and created going 
back to the Founding Fathers.'' That would be on the right-hand side of 
this chart. Just to repeat, he said: ``That would be the end of the 
Senate as it was originally devised and created going back to the 
Founding Fathers.''
  I agree with Senator Durbin. I agreed then, and I agree now.
  The Senate filibuster was designed to ensure that the two political 
parties would actually have to work together, which I think the 
American people believe is a good thing. And it should be hard to do 
the work of building consensus in a country as big and diverse as the 
United States.
  But the filibuster was designed to make sure that the majority just 
couldn't jam things through and deny the rights of the minority to be 
heard. But when you get 60 Senators to agree on something, it becomes 
all but impossible for ultrapartisan proposals to become law. That is 
the nature of the consensus-building process, and that is a good thing 
for the country.
  Imagine the instability and unpredictability that would occur if laws 
changed as quickly as Presidents and Senate majorities do. Just 4 years 
ago, Republicans controlled both Chambers of Congress and held the 
White House. Twelve years ago, our Democratic colleagues controlled all 
three. The filibuster was designed to encourage, again, consensus 
building on a bipartisan basis and to provide some stability between 
those transitory majorities and changing Presidents. And that is a good 
thing, like I said, in a country where the political party in control 
is constantly changing, and it ensures that a minority viewpoint cannot 
be steamrolled.
  Our Senate Democratic friends have certainly benefited from the 
protections of the filibuster over the last 6 years. They filibustered 
countless bills on everything from pandemic relief to police reform.
  But now it appears that our Democratic colleagues--at least their 
leadership--have flip-flopped. The political tides have shifted, and 
since the radical left wants to get rid of the filibuster, so do they.
  In a floor speech earlier this week, this same Senator, Senator 
Durbin, our friend from Illinois, said the filibuster is ``not the 
guarantor of democracy. It has become the death grip of democracy''--a 
pretty dramatic conversion from 2018 to 2021.
  What has changed? Well, the majority has changed. Republicans 
controlled the majority when he thought the filibuster was a good 
thing. Now, when Democrats control the majority, he thinks it is a bad 
thing.
  Apparently, the countless filibusters of our Democratic colleagues 
were not a mockery of democracy. They certainly wouldn't be guilty of 
that. But

[[Page S1587]]

now that the shoe is on the other foot, Democrats are ready to hit the 
big red button and go nuclear. And, I must say, once you go nuclear 
around here, you certainly don't go back.
  But Senator Durbin's views aren't the only ones that have changed on 
this matter. As I mentioned, former Senator and now President Joe Biden 
finally changed his views as well. For decades, he was a staunch 
defender of the institution. When he was asked about removing the 
filibuster, going nuclear, he said:

       This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the 
     arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power-grab by the 
     majority party.

  Well, that is certainly not mincing your words. And this isn't some 
long ago abandoned view of his. In January of this year, President 
Biden was asked if he could move his agenda with the filibuster rules 
intact, and he answered yes and explained the opportunities to work 
together on shared priorities, as he did throughout his career as a 
U.S. Senator.
  He went on to add:

       I think we can reach consensus on that and get it passed 
     without changing the filibuster rule.

  But now the pressure has been put on both President Biden and the 
Democratic leadership in the Senate to endorse a rules change, not by 
the ordinary course of rule changes but by the nuclear option. We know 
that there are unpredictable consequences of changing the rules in a 
place where your power, where your majority, is never guaranteed. 
Chipping away at the rights of the minority may help you today, but you 
will live to regret it when the shoe is on the other foot.
  But it won't take a shift in the majority for our Democratic 
colleagues to see the disastrous consequences of going nuclear on the 
filibuster rule because, if anybody needed a reminder, we have a 50-50 
Senate: 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans.
  Yesterday, Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, somebody who has 
been around this institution a long time and understands it better than 
almost anybody I know, reminded our colleagues that ``[t]his is an 
institution that requires unanimous consent to turn the lights on 
before noon.''
  Unanimous consent is literally the grease that helps the machine run. 
In order to accomplish even the most mundane tasks in the Senate, you 
need an agreement. Most of the time it is easy because it is not 
controversial; it is not partisan; it is the right, practical thing to 
do. But you need compromise, and you need a quorum.
  This rules change being floated wouldn't clear a path for 
productivity in the Senate. It is an invitation to futility. If our 
Democratic colleagues take the unprecedented step of blowing up the 
filibuster, they can expect to be met with an unprecedented response.
  Republicans will not sit idly by while Democrats take an axe to the 
rules in order to advance a partisan agenda. If Democrats go down this 
road, they will have no one to blame but themselves for the 
consequences of a horrible miscalculation.