[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 24, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1725-S1727]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Filibuster

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have come down to the floor multiple 
times in the past week to talk about the filibuster. I have talked a 
lot about the dangers of eliminating the filibuster, from the loss of 
bipartisanship to the loss of meaningful representation for Senate 
minorities and the constituents they serve.
  One thing I haven't mentioned yet, though, is the fact that Democrats 
are increasingly calling for eliminating the filibuster despite the 
fact that Republicans haven't actually filibustered any legislation yet 
this Congress.
  In fact, the Democratic leader was just down here talking about 
attacking the Republicans for opposing H.R. 1, S. 1, or whatever it is 
that is the election bill that Democrats have put forward, but there 
hasn't been any effort that I am aware of to reach out to Republicans 
to talk about things that they might want to be involved with in terms 
of election reforms or reforming our election system in this country. 
In fact, this last election, we saw record turnout. Millions of people 
more than the previous election came out and voted. It was run by the 
States across the country.
  The proposal that is before us, the H.R. 1 proposal--now, I guess, S. 
1--would attempt to federalize that election process, to nationalize 
the elections, to take the power away from the States that currently 
administer and run elections and have that run out of Washington, DC.
  It seems to me that a lot of people across this country would rather 
deal with State leaders, State Governments, when it comes to 
administering our elections than having them run out of Washington, DC.
  There are lots of other provisions in that bill that many of us would 
object to. I think, frankly, it is a good thing to have a photo ID to 
vote. That is something that my State of South Dakota has. I think it 
makes sense, when people come in to vote, to be able to prove who they 
are. Obviously, it is a voter fraud prevention measure that has been 
adopted by many States across the country and upheld by the courts.
  It just strikes me that there are a lot of provisions in that bill 
that would need to be fixed, honestly. And, frankly, just the very 
premise to have the Federal Government running elections in this 
country, essentially taking over something that has been historically 
handled by the States, strikes me that that would be something the 
American people would have a lot of issues with.
  Now, I am not sure exactly what, given the fact that we had millions 
more voting in the 2020 election than the previous Presidential 
election, would suggest that we need to make changes to election laws 
across this country.
  The States, in my view, when they certified the election, like they 
typically do, in the 2020 election, did it on time, in accordance with 
the law, and the system, I believe, worked pretty well. But the 
Democrats seem to believe that there need to be changes in our 
elections.
  But my point, simply, with respect to their arguments about that and 
about the need to eliminate the filibuster in order to do it is that we 
haven't filibustered anything yet.
  Now, Democrats, when they were in the minority the last 6 years, 
filibustered most things that we brought up that were of major 
consequence, legislation that they objected to. They have used the 
filibuster prolifically--prolifically, you could say--in the last 6 
years. But it seems a little bit odd to have them getting up and 
talking about eliminating something that has been a part of Senate 
history, Senate rules, Senate traditions for a really long time and 
arguing that the reason they need to do that is that Republicans have 
been abusing it when we have been in the majority.
  We have been in the majority for the last 6 years. The filibuster is 
a tool employed by the minority and was employed, I would say, very 
freely by the minority in the past 6 years. We haven't filibustered--
Republicans haven't filibustered anything yet, legislation, in this 
Congress. Yet Democrats are talking about eliminating the filibuster 
and, frankly, without attempting to reach across the aisle and engage 
in talks with Republicans about areas where we might find common 
ground. So that is what I want to talk just a little bit about today 
because I think Republicans have shown a genuine commitment to 
bipartisanship and unity, something that has not been on display from 
the President or the Democrat leadership.
  The Senate confirmed President Biden's Cabinet nominees faster than 
those of both President Trump and President Obama, thanks in no small 
part to Republicans' willingness to move the process along, and many, 
if not most, of those confirmations were bipartisan.
  I voted for a number of President Biden's Cabinet nominees not 
because they were the individuals I would have picked but because I 
believe that, absent serious red flags, a President deserves to have 
his team around him
  So I have a suggestion for Democrats: Why not try bipartisanship? And 
by that I don't mean holding Republicans hostage the way the Democratic 
leader has threatened, quote, ``Support our legislation or we will talk 
about eliminating the filibuster.''
  I don't mean passing a few pieces of bipartisan legislation for show 
and then showing through the rest of your agenda or trying to--I should 
say shoving through the rest of your agenda through reconciliation or 
abolishment of the filibuster; I mean genuine bipartisanship: sitting 
down at the table, identifying big issues that we need to address, and 
then looking at proposals from both parties--both parties--and 
negotiating until we can find agreement. There is a lot of room for 
that.
  While the focus often tends to be on the areas where we disagree, 
there are plenty of areas where Democrats and Republicans either 
already agree or could easily reach middle ground.
  I am a conservative, but I have introduced 14 bills so far this year, 
and 11 of them have had Democrat cosponsors.
  There is a lot of room for us to work together, so why don't 
Democrats try that? We could start with American economic 
competitiveness and global leadership legislation or infrastructure 
legislation--issues that both Democrats and Republicans see a pressing 
need to address.
  The Democratic leader has mentioned his desire to bring up 
legislation regarding America's competitiveness vis-a-vis China, and 
the Republican leader has agreed that it is an issue ripe for a 
bipartisan, regular-order process.
  There are a lot of areas where we could find bipartisan agreement on 
these issues: investing in our domestic manufacturing capacity so we 
don't have to rely as heavily on China or other countries for essential 
products and technologies, promoting the development of 5G technology 
here at home to ensure the United States wins the race to 5G, supply 
chain security, protecting our taxpayer-funded research and 
intellectual property from theft, and more.
  I recently introduced the bipartisan Network Security Trade Act with 
Senator Fischer and Democratic Senators Stabenow and Warner. Currently, 
one of the biggest suppliers of 5G equipment worldwide is a Chinese 
company, Huawei, which is supported by the Chinese Communist Party. 
American security officials have raised concerns that much of Huawei's 
equipment is built with ``backdoors,'' giving the Chinese Communist 
Party access to global communications networks. Our bill would address 
this potential security risk by making telecommunications security a 
key objective when negotiating future trade deals.
  It is important that we encourage our trading partners and allies to 
keep suspect technology like Huawei out of their networks. The 
bipartisan Network Security Trade Act would be a strong candidate for 
inclusion in a thoughtful, bipartisan measure meant to enhance our 
competitiveness with China if Democrats are willing to engage in truly 
bipartisan legislating.
  I believe a strong China policy is a national priority, and I hope we 
will

[[Page S1726]]

consider a bill that addresses the many threats China poses in the near 
future, as long as Democrats don't simply turn it into a means to 
promote their partisan priorities under the guise of competing with 
China.
  There is also a lot of bipartisan agreement to be found on 
infrastructure. In fact, there is a history of bipartisan collaboration 
on infrastructure legislation.
  Our last major infrastructure bill, the FAST Act, was supported by 
both Democrats and Republicans and was a remarkably successful bill.
  Last Congress, the Environment and Public Works Committee here in the 
Senate developed bipartisan infrastructure legislation. And there is no 
reason--no reason at all--that we shouldn't reach bipartisan agreement 
on a substantial infrastructure bill.
  I know a lot of us Senators from rural States, both Democrats and 
Republicans, share a number of the same priorities for infrastructure 
legislation, like expanding broadband access in rural communities and 
ensuring that farmers and ranchers have a transportation system they 
can depend on to get their goods to market. Investments in rural 
infrastructure benefit our entire economy.
  The vast majority of agricultural and industrial commodities 
originate in rural areas, and speeding the passage of those goods to 
market benefits everyone--those who produce those commodities and those 
who rely on being able to sell them or purchase them.
  I have introduced two pieces of legislation with Democratic 
colleagues that I would hope to see included in potential bipartisan 
infrastructure legislation.
  I recently introduced the Railroad Rehabilitation and Financing 
Innovation Act with my Democratic colleagues Senator Hassan. Our bill 
takes important steps to improve the accessibility of the Railroad 
Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Loan Program for smaller 
railroads, like those farmers and ranchers rely on to get their goods 
to market.
  I also recently introduced the Tribal Transportation Equity and 
Transparency Improvement Act with my Democratic colleague Senator 
Sinema. Tribes across the Nation have struggled to build and maintain 
roads and bridges within their reservations, which connect Tribal 
members to critical services. This is especially true for large, land-
based Tribes who must maintain vast road networks in sparsely populated 
areas. Our bill would help Tribes address these challenges by taking 
steps to make the allocation of funding through the Tribal 
Transportation Program more equitable and transparent.
  If one thing is for sure, it is that a 50-50 Senate is not a mandate 
for one side to force through its agenda unchecked. It is absurd for 
Senate Democrats or House Democrats to pretend they have a mandate for 
a partisan revolution.
  I am not sure that the Democratic leadership realizes this, but I 
think there are a good number of rank-and-file Democrats who do. And I 
hope those rank-and-file Democrats will encourage their leaders to move 
away from their liberal fantasies and try for real bipartisan 
cooperation.
  There is a lot we can do together on a lot of issues if Democrats 
will come to the table. I hope they will.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first, let me salute my colleague and 
friend from South Dakota. I hope we can achieve what he has asked for: 
bipartisanship in the U.S. Senate.
  He made a point that I would like to amplify: that they have not even 
used the filibuster; Republicans have not invoked the filibuster so far 
during this Senate session. Well, there is a reason--because the three 
things that we have done in this session are not, under the rules of 
the Senate, subject to filibuster.
  Let me note as well--I ask unanimous consent that I be given 10 
minutes to speak before the rollcall begins.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are three things that are not 
subject to a filibuster: an impeachment trial, which we have 
accomplished so far this year; the nominations, which the Senator from 
South Dakota alluded to; and the reconciliation bill. It is true, 
Republicans did not apply the filibuster to that. But it wasn't their 
good will that motivated it; the Senate rules demanded it.
  The question is, Can we reach a point where we do things on a 
bipartisan basis, or will it be stopped by a filibuster? So let me 
pause at this moment and say to those following the debate what a 
filibuster is all about. It is a time-honored tradition in the Senate, 
going back to Aaron Burr serving as Vice President, that people can 
speak in an unlimited fashion on the floor--there is nothing to stop 
them--until there came a cloture vote, which didn't appear until the 
early 20th century. Before that, the Senator could hold the floor 
indefinitely and slow things down to a crawl, to a stop if necessary. 
The filibuster allowed them to continue that, but then came the cloture 
motion, which stopped the filibustering. It initially took a two-thirds 
vote, 67, and eventually 60 votes. But that is what it boils down to.
  If you want to get anything done on the floor and you don't want one 
Senator to stand up and say ``I refuse to accept the vote,'' then you 
have to have 60 votes. So in a majority Senate, 51 would clearly be 
sufficient. Under a filibuster, 60 is required. There are 50 Democrats, 
50 Republicans. Vice President Kamala Harris can be the tie-breaking 
vote, the 51st vote. So the Republicans, by applying the filibuster 
rule, could require 60 votes, which, of course, the Democrats by 
themselves, even with the Vice President, couldn't come up with.
  There was a statement made by Senator McConnell, the Republican 
leader, yesterday which was nothing short of amazing. At a press 
conference, he said of the filibuster: ``It has no racial history at 
all--none.'' Amazing that he would say that.
  If you go back and study the history of this body, John Caldwell 
Calhoun, a Senator from South Carolina, started in the early parts of 
the 19th century using this unlimited debate to protect slave States, 
to protect the interests of the Southern States. That progressed in 
history to the point where, in modern times, at least in the 20th 
century, the filibuster was used consistently to stop federalization of 
the crime of lynching. I don't know who would argue in Kentucky or 
anywhere else that the crime of lynching has nothing to do with race, 
but the filibuster was used to prevent the federalization of that 
crime.
  It was used in an effort to stop the bills that were trying to outlaw 
a poll tax. Poll tax? That meant you had to pay to be able to vote. It 
was used in the South to try to discourage African Americans from 
voting. It clearly was racial, and the filibuster was used over and 
over again to protect a vote on the Senate floor, this Senate floor, 
from taking place on the poll tax.
  Then fast-forward several decades to the 1960s. Richard Russell of 
Georgia engineered--he was the architect, the legislative architect of 
the filibuster that stopped the civil rights bills in the 1960s. 
Certainly Senator McConnell, who was working in the Senate at that time 
as an intern, if I am not mistaken, must remember the filibuster being 
used against the civil rights bill. And to say that the filibuster 
``has no racial history at all--none'' is to ignore the obvious.
  Here is the point we are getting to. Senator Schumer has said it on 
the floor, and others have said it as well. We have to be productive in 
this session of the Senate. After the last 4 years, we have seen the 
Senate really break down to the point where they weren't productive at 
all. We weren't productive at all.
  There were 29 amendment votes in the last year of Senator McConnell's 
reign as Republican leader. Twenty-nine amendment votes in 1 year? The 
previous year under Senator McConnell: 22 amendment votes; no activity 
on the floor of the Senate. We can't let that happen. There are things 
that need to be done.
  Let me mention, too, that one of them that certainly needs to be done 
is to protec America's right to vote. The Senator from South Dakota 
comes and says: Well, we had this big turnout on November 3, 2020, and 
now the Democrats are meeting and talking about changing the voting 
laws. Why would we want to change if we had such a big turnout?

[[Page S1727]]

  He ignores what happened in between. After the election returns of 
November 3, 2020, Republicans across the Nation, in 40 different 
States, introduced hundreds of bills to limit people's right to vote. 
That is why we are responding with this Federal response that is now 
being considered in the Senate Rules Committee.
  He missed part of the equation. It went from November 3rd's big 
turnout to efforts in State legislatures to restrict turnout, to limit 
the rights of people to vote across America, especially African 
Americans and Latinos and those who are not wealthy--to limit their 
right to vote. And then came this response on the Federal basis. That 
is an important point. If we believed that the filibuster would not be 
used against it, if there was some promise that it wouldn't be, we 
certainly could bring that bill to the floor for debate, and we should, 
if we are given that kind of assurance.