[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 14, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1915-S1917]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Filibuster

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the new power dynamic in Washington has 
brought about a frenzy of proposed institutional changes by our friends 
across the aisle.
  The American people elected a Democratic President, that is true; 
they reduced the Democratic majority in the House; and elected a 50-50 
Senate. In all of Congress, there are seven more Democrats than 
Republicans. That is all--7 out of 535 Members.
  Despite these tight margins, our friends on the other side have tried 
to characterize this new power dynamic as a mandate, and they have 
floated a tsunami of rule changes to go along with it. First came the 
push to eliminate the filibuster.
  Just a few years ago, the idea of such a radical change terrified our 
Democratic colleagues. We certainly didn't do it when we were in a 
position to do it, notwithstanding the encouragement of President 
Trump.
  When Republicans held control of the Senate, the House, and the White 
House, as our Democratic colleagues do now, our friends on the other 
side of the aisle feared the filibuster would come tumbling down. They 
were so concerned, in fact, that 33 of our colleagues signed on to a 
letter insisting that the filibuster be preserved. Leader McConnell 
agreed. He never wavered to pressure from anyone, even the President, 
to eliminate the filibuster. He has been around this Chamber and this 
Senate a long time, and he knows that what goes around comes around.
  As the leader correctly noted, Democrats didn't just spend the last 4 
years supporting the filibuster, they took every advantage of the 
opportunity for

[[Page S1916]]

the minority to stop legislation they disagreed with. They spent 4 
years using it.
  Our Democratic colleagues employed the filibuster to kill quite a 
number of Republican bills on pandemic relief, government funding, pro-
life legislation, police reform, and the list goes on and on.
  Despite the fact our friends on the other side of the aisle 
consistently praised and utilized the filibuster in recent years, now, 
after the election of 2020, they seem to have reversed course. Since 
the political tides have changed, so, too, have the views of many 
Senate Democrats.
  In recent months, one of our colleagues referred to the filibuster as 
making a mockery of American democracy.
  I happen to remember at John Lewis's funeral--the great civil rights 
icon--even former President Obama called it a ``relic of Jim Crow,'' 
arguably giving permission to Democrats to call the filibuster a racist 
obstacle to making progress in the country.
  Another Senator said that the filibuster had deep roots in racism, 
even though last summer Democrats used this tool to block an anti-
lynching bill.
  The entire debate has ballooned beyond reason, and the past few 
months have been a game of ``will they or won't they'' when it comes to 
eliminating the filibuster.
  You know, the filibuster has very sound origins. It forces us to do 
what I think the American people would want us to do anyway, and that 
is to work together. It forces us to do that. And building consensus is 
hard, as we all know.
  Well, we now have confirmation that our Democratic colleagues do not 
have the votes. Last week, Senator Manchin of West Virginia took to the 
pages of the Washington Post and said he will not support eliminating 
or weakening the filibuster. He has been here long enough to know that 
what you can do in the majority will have consequences when you are in 
the minority, as you eventually will be if you are here long enough.
  I was appreciative of what Senator Manchin said in those pages. I am 
sure it wasn't easy. I am sure there is a lot of pressure on him to be 
expedient, to jam things through on a partisan basis, and I appreciate 
his willingness to stand up.
  I agree with the Senator from Arizona, who said: We don't have a rule 
problem. We have a people problem. We have a behavior problem.
  We need to restore bipartisan cooperation. There is no chance that 
will happen if everything in the Senate is jammed through along party 
lines.
  The filibuster is designed to protect our country from the continual 
change of who is in the majority and who is in the minority and to 
provide the American people a chance to plan their lives. If anything 
that can be done in one election can be undone in the next election, 
that is an invitation to chaos.
  Unfortunately, the list of proposed institutional changes doesn't end 
with the filibuster. Over the last few years, our friends on the other 
side of the aisle have also set their sights on the Supreme Court.
  We all remember the day a sitting Member of this body threatened two 
Supreme Court Justices by name. As the Justices were debating a case, 
the current majority leader said, on the steps of the Supreme Court:

       You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.

  Well, I think he realized the error in making that statement because 
he then followed up with--well, this isn't the point where he realized 
the error because he doubled down on it. He said:

       You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these 
     awful decisions.

  Well, we know this wasn't an isolated incident. It is true that the 
majority leader tried to walk back his words later after he realized 
how intemperate and inappropriate they were when directed at two 
sitting members of the U.S. Supreme Court.
  We don't have to remember too far in the past to know how the words 
we speak here in Congress and as public officials--the impact they can 
have on other people's minds and perceptions, especially those who are 
not particularly stable in the first place.
  Well, several of our Democratic colleagues filed an amicus brief in 
which they threatened the Supreme Court with retribution unless they 
got the outcome that they wanted.
  Thank goodness our Founders designed the Federal Government with 
three separate but equal branches. Through this system of checks and 
balances, they sought to prevent any one branch of government from 
forcing its will on the other two. Standing up on the steps of the 
Supreme Court and issuing threats to the Justices that they must do 
what you want or else is certainly not consistent with the Founders' 
vision.
  Let me be clear. An independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our 
Constitution and our constitutional Republic--an independent judiciary. 
In the words of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, ``We should 
celebrate our strong and independent judiciary as a source of national 
unity and stability.'' But now, even this hallowed institution is being 
attacked by our Democratic colleagues unless they get the result they 
want. They are trying to intimidate the members of the Supreme Court.
  Then there is the most recent discussion--threat, really--about 
packing the Supreme Court with additional members. The push to pack the 
Supreme Court has been a mainstay of the far left for years, but it has 
now made its way into the Biden administration.
  Previously, throughout his campaign, President Biden refused to weigh 
in on this topic. He knew how explosive this was, this threat to pack 
the Court, to make it a political body, to eliminate its role as an 
independent judiciary. Well, he refused to weigh in on it during the 
campaign, and I have no doubt this was an important strategic decision. 
He realized how offensive that would be to the voters he hoped would 
vote for him in 2020. A poll last fall found that less than one-third 
of Americans support increasing the number of Justices on the Supreme 
Court.
  The President previously said he is ``not a fan of court packing.'' 
In fact, he called it a ``bonehead idea.'' He referred to President 
Roosevelt's proposal to pack the Court as a ``terrible, terrible 
mistake.'' But now President Biden has appeared to have embraced this 
``bonehead idea'' and this ``terrible, terrible mistake'' that he 
condemned previously.
  The first step was last week when he created a Commission to examine 
adding members to the Supreme Court of the United States above the 
current nine. This decision and announcement came despite the fact that 
Justices on both sides appointed by Presidents on both sides of the 
aisle have affirmed the integrity of the Supreme Court with just nine 
members.
  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was an icon for the liberals on the 
Court and many people in America, said: ``Nine seems to be a good 
number.''
  Just last week, Justice Breyer said that the Court's authority 
depends on ``a trust that the court is guided by legal principle, not 
politics.'' He said that these types of changes would erode the trust 
that the American people must have in the highest Court in the land.
  The American people simply won't have faith in an independent 
judiciary if one side is adding names to the roster so that they can 
game the outcome. They need to get involved in the legislative process 
if they want to make policy, not try to make politics through the 
judiciary, through the Supreme Court.
  So I would urge President Biden to heed his own words that he 
delivered with such conviction during his time on the Judiciary 
Committee when he said that President Roosevelt's decision ``put in 
question for an entire decade the independence of the most significant 
body . . . in this country.''
  Well, unfortunately, the power grab doesn't stop there. The single 
biggest legislative goal of our friends on the other side of the aisle 
is an attempted takeover of State election laws. That is in spite of 
the fact that article I of the Constitution explicitly gives the States 
the power to regulate the ``times, places, and manner of holding 
elections.'' Yet this massive bill creates a one-size-fits-all mandate 
that every State must follow. It preempts State law, but I doubt it 
would ultimately be held up as constitutional because of the explicit 
guarantee that the States will regulate the time, manner, and place of 
holding elections.

  But there are also other changes that our Democratic colleagues--
where they

[[Page S1917]]

seek to reap the benefit of a politicized Supreme Court and Federal 
Agencies.
  In this instance, the Federal Election Commission has six members, 
three from each party--intentionally designed to be a tie vote if they 
vote along party lines, to protect the Commission from partisan 
politics.
  We have learned that a fair and balanced Commission, which has been 
the standard for many years, isn't the gold standard for Democrats when 
they are in control of Congress and the White House. The election 
takeover bill introduced by our Democratic colleagues would remove one 
of the seats held by a Republican member of the Commission and turn the 
FEC into a partisan body. No more equal representation. No more 
consensus building. Why bother with that if you can steamroll an agenda 
with no opposition?
  Then there is the taxpayer funding of political campaigns. Instead of 
candidates working to gain the support, the vote, the activism and 
contributions from their preferred candidate, our Democratic colleagues 
want the taxpayer to pay for those campaigns. And it is not even a 
dollar-for-dollar match. The American taxpayer would pay $6 dollars for 
every $1 dollar that was donated to a candidate. That means if someone 
donates 200 bucks to their preferred candidate, the Federal Government 
would match that with up to $1,200. Those are taxpayer dollars. That is 
money coming out of your pocket whether you support that candidate's 
policies or not.
  On top of that, there are campaign vouchers proposed which would 
provide eligible voters with a $25 voucher to donate to the campaign of 
their choosing. I would rather this funding support the people and 
organizations that really need it: crime victims, unaccompanied 
children on our border, domestic violence, shelters. There are far more 
urgent needs for this money than our Democratic colleagues' campaign 
account.
  Of course, this effort comes at a time when the House Democrats are 
already trying to overturn the results of an Iowa congressional 
election in order to boost their own numbers.
  This confluence of institutional changes isn't about repairing a 
broken system; it is revolutionary. It is a revolution. You can't win 
every case before the Supreme Court? Well, just add some more liberal 
Justices. You can't build support for legislation? Well, eliminate the 
filibuster and the need to build consensus and to work together on a 
bipartisan basis. You can't win an election? Overturn the results and 
secure government funding or taxpayer funding for your candidates. And 
to cement these changes for a generation, better throw in a complete 
partisan takeover of our election laws.
  Our Democratic friends are taking the saying ``If you can't win the 
game, change the rules'' to a whole new level. This has been branded by 
propaganda, really, as a way to fix the system. Well, the system is not 
broken, and to the extent it needs reforms, it can be reformed at the 
State level, where the Constitution provides the authority for the 
States to run their elections.
  Well, I think it is important for the American people to understand 
exactly what is going on here. You can't understand what is going on 
here by just reading social media or watching cable news shows that 
reinforce your own bias. Unfortunately, our news these days seems to be 
like ships passing in the night, and people pick the channel that 
reaffirms their previous bias and doesn't challenge people with ideas 
that perhaps they are not familiar with or don't agree with, which is 
the way we ought to be dealing with each other. It is OK to disagree, 
but we ought to engage each other in a civil and respectful manner and 
to work those out in the crucible of our democracy known as the 
Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). The Senator from Ohio.