[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 17, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Page S1605]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Senate Filibuster Rule

  Madam President, earlier in the day, my friend and colleague from 
Texas, Senator Cornyn, came to the floor and raised some questions 
about my commitment to the filibuster as a rule in the Senate. He 
quoted me several years ago as saying the filibuster is kind of an 
indication of what the Senate was all about, and I still stand by that.
  The Senate, of course, with two Senators from each State, regardless 
of their population, is an opportunity for smaller States and 
minorities to be represented and to have a voice. And the filibuster, 
at least in some respects, was a procedural reflection of that same 
value.
  But I would say to Senator Cornyn, I have been moved and changed my 
mind somewhat on filibuster because of nothing--nothing. That is what 
has been happening on the floor of the U.S. Senate, nothing. When 
Senator McConnell, as the Republican leader, was in charge of the 
Senate over the last 2 years, we did little or nothing.
  I didn't run for this office to represent the people of Illinois and 
to help our Nation to watch the ink dry on documents that are being 
pushed back and forth on desks here. We came here to do something.
  Two years ago, because of the filibuster, 2 years ago, we considered 
22 amendments in the course of 1 year on the floor of the Senate. That 
is not counting vote-arama, that contraption of a procedure where we 
debate all of 2 minutes before we vote on something, but real debate 
and real amendments--22.
  Well, the following year, 2020, dramatic increase. We went all the 
way up to 29 amendments in the course of a year.
  You say: Well, give me some measurement in history. My wife said: 
What does that mean? In the first year of the Obama administration, we 
had 240 amendments in the first year. Now we are down to 22 and 29. 
Why? Because we reached a point now where everyone assumes that every 
issue is going to be filibustered, and therefore if you don't have 60 
votes, forget it.
  Well, it is rare that that kind of supermajority shows up on anything 
important.
  That is what happens when you play out the filibuster tradition to an 
extreme. As one staffer said to me the other day, the Senate is in a 
death spiral. No one can bring anything to the floor that might be 
subject to a filibuster because you can't imagine where you are going 
to get 60 votes.
  I hope he is wrong, but I can understand his analysis. The measures 
that we have considered so far this year in the U.S. Senate, after 2 
months-plus--well, the impeachment trial--that didn't require any 
filibuster votes. The nominations that come before us every day are not 
subject to a filibuster. And, of course, there is the reconciliation 
bill--the American rescue program for President Biden--that was under a 
procedure where you couldn't use a filibuster.
  So now things are quiet on the floor of the Senate again this week 
and next week because whatever you bring here is subject to a threat of 
a filibuster, and you need 60 votes. I have watched this play out on an 
issue near and dear to my heart. It is called the DREAM Act, which I 
introduced 20 years ago--20 years ago. It basically says that if you 
were brought to this country as an infant, toddler, or a child--your 
parents made the decision--you grow up here and you ought to have a 
fighting chance to earn your way to legal status and citizenship. That 
is it.
  Overwhelming majorities of people in all political parties support 
it. They think it is a good idea. And you say: Durbin, you came here to 
be a legislator, and, in 20 years, you can't pass one bill?
  Well, I tried. Five times I brought the DREAM Act to the floor of the 
U.S. Senate, and it was stopped with a filibuster each and every time. 
I got a majority, and I still have a majority in support of it, but I 
can't get that 60 votes--that magic 60 votes that is needed under a 
filibuster.
  Well, I am frustrated by that, and I hope my frustration is manifest 
by what I said on the floor. My challenge to the Members of the Senate 
on both sides of the aisle is very simply this: If you believe in the 
filibuster and if you believe in working, show me that you can pass an 
important bill subject to the filibuster. Do it next week or the week 
following. Bring something to the floor. Let's debate it, let's amend, 
and let's vote it. I don't think that is unreasonable to ask. In fact, 
I think that is the reason we were elected to come here.
  So I would say to the defenders of the filibuster: Try to defend what 
has happened on the floor of the Senate the last 2 years--almost 
nothing. We can do better. The American people expect it of us