[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 11, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S143-S147]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Filibuster

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion on 
the floor, certainly today and the days leading up to this, as we talk 
about the importance of protecting minority rights here in the Senate 
and the consequences of weakening the legislative filibuster to a 50-
vote, majority-serving threshold. There is a lot to say, and there has 
been a lot said already.
  I was here listening to the comments from my friend from Utah and 
have had an opportunity to hear much of what has been said throughout 
the course of the day. But I am here perhaps as the sole Senate 
Republican who will vote to begin debate on the John Lewis Voting 
Rights Advancement Act because I happen to believe that it is important 
that we focus on improving our election laws, but I also believe very, 
very strongly that the way to do that is through the regular order 
process. It might sound kind of boring, but that is actually how you 
get the good work, the enduring legislation done.
  I am also here, I guess, as a senior Member of the Chamber now. I 
have been around for almost 20 years. I have spent time in both the 
majority and the minority. But I am also here because I care--I really 
care--about legislating. I understand what it takes to

[[Page S144]]

work across the aisle to bring good policy into law.
  One of the things that I can tell you from firsthand experience is, 
it is hard. It is hard work. It is hard work to bring people together, 
particularly on some of these challenging and difficult issues that we 
have.
  When the problems are hard, that means usually the solutions are 
equally hard. But that is our job as legislators--to bring sides 
together, to find that common ground.
  That is what legislating is all about. And so with all of that in 
mind, I tell you I believe that weakening the current 60-vote threshold 
would be a major mistake, a damaging mistake, especially in light of 
the already deep division that we have within our country today and 
within the divisions that we have represented in this body today.
  So the nuclear option is reportedly coming our way to change the 
threshold for cloture on legislation--on legislation to 50 votes and to 
do this with just 50 votes. But I would suggest to you that this will 
do nothing to cure what actually ails the Senate, and, therefore, we 
should reject it.
  I mentioned that the job that we have as legislators is to come 
together to knit the good ideas from one side to the other, to really 
build that consensus that will allow for enduring policy and enduring 
laws. Gutting the filibuster is not going to do anything to bring both 
sides together. It will not help bring the parties together. It will, 
unfortunately, just serve to push them further apart, split us further 
apart. It would not lead to better or consensus legislation.
  It effectively allows the majority to do what it wants to do, when it 
wants to do it, how it wants to do it without the minority. It 
effectively allows you to ignore the views from the minority. This rule 
change would not restore us as the world's greatest deliberative body.
  I know that there are those who would suggest that we are far, far 
from that, but I would suggest that if we do this, it really 
obliterates that reputation forever.
  There has been a lot of talk about the differences between the House 
and the Senate. We are different. We were designed different. The 
Framers designed the Senate as an institution where the rights of 
individual Senators as well as minority groups of Senators are 
protected. They are highly protected. That is what our rules reflect.
  And that is why--why we can hold forth, why an individual--one 
person--can register objections, why we can place holds and offer 
motions and filibuster legislation when we deem it necessary. And I 
know we don't like it when it is being used against us--we don't--
because it slows things down. It is frustrating. But it is part of what 
has been built into our institution.
  And some may say, well, it is obviously not working, it is obviously 
not functioning because I can't get my priority through. Perhaps we 
need to focus on how we are bringing people together to advance that 
priority.
  This body, the Senate, was never meant to be the House of 
Representatives. Senator Robert Byrd, who served both as the majority 
and the minority leader--so I think he had pretty good perspective on 
things--he also reminded us about the saucer and the role that the 
House plays--excuse me, that the Senate plays.
  The Senate is the proverbial saucer intended to cool the cup of 
coffee from the House. Nobody likes it, particularly the guys in the 
House. They don't like it when they say: Oh, you are so slow over here. 
But we were meant to be deliberative.
  The more we become like the House, the less relevant, in my view, we 
are as an institution and the further we will have strayed from that 
balance, that careful balance that the Constitution envisions for our 
branch of government.
  So we have been here before. As I was walking over, I was thinking 
this is like deja vu all over again. How many times have we had these 
battles over the filibuster? Should we exercise the nuclear option? 
Should we pull this trigger?
  Well, back in 2017, I signed a letter, along with 60 other Members of 
this Chamber. There were 28 Republicans, 32 Democrats, 1 Independent. 
We came together as a pretty representative group of lawmakers, and we 
urged both Republican and Democratic leaders to preserve the 60-vote 
threshold for legislation--for legislation--because we knew where we 
had come from. The Republicans had used the nuclear option to eliminate 
the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees after the Democrats used it 
in 2013 for eliminating the filibuster for confirmation of the lower 
court and executive branch.
  So it is kind of one of these where they did it, so it is OK for us 
to do it. Far be it for me to suggest that sometimes the analogies are 
like what we have when we have got the kids in the back of the car and 
somebody says: Well, he started it. And the other one says: No, well, 
then I get to do it. And my response is: Knock it off both of you.
  Maybe we just need to have a detente here on whether or not we blow 
up the filibuster. Maybe we need to just step back from this and 
realize what it means to all of us because those of us who are in the 
minority today will one day be in the majority, and those who are in 
the majority today will one day be in the minority.
  And so making sure that there is a balance, that it works, that 
minority rights are respected--this is why we are here today. I know 
that there are several Senators who signed that letter back in 2017 who 
are now seeing their words repeated against them. That has got to feel 
pretty uncomfortable. I don't want to be one of those who feels like I 
have to eat my words; that what was good for me when I was in the 
minority is no longer good for me when I am in the majority or vice 
versa. It has to work both ways.

  So when as Republicans in the majority we were urged mightily by 
former President Trump to get rid of the filibuster, I was one of those 
who said: No. No. We should not do that. And that is why my advice 
today to the majority is be careful, be careful what you wish for 
because you may look at this and say this may help advance the 
immediate legislative agenda--what they are talking about now is voting 
rights. You may be able to advance the immediate legislative agenda 
there, but the long-term effects might look pretty different.
  And I think we have seen a little bit of a suggestion of what that 
could look like when you don't have the protections in order for the 
minority. So I think it is good for us to be having this open 
discussion. I think it is important that we be thinking about the 
practical effects of weakening the filibuster.
  What will happen if it no longer protects the minority and instead 
only serves to benefit the majority? A 50-vote threshold would allow 
the majority to push through, to rush through legislation without 
consideration of the minority views. And keep in mind that we may be in 
the minority now, a 50-50 minority--pretty skinny minority--but a 
minority that is elected with support from major portions of the 
country.
  Removing the filibuster would reduce the need for the parties to work 
together to reach the broad consensus on policy, again, that can endure 
across elections. And I think that is important for us to just stop and 
take account of because when you don't have legislation that is 
enduring, when you move legislation that is wholly partisan, what 
happens when the tables are turned? The new majority spends all of its 
time trying to undo what the old majority got passed on a wholly 
partisan basis.
  Now we are not giving certainty to the Nation. We are not helping the 
economy move along. It is a whipsaw. It is policy whiplash. Who is 
going to be investing in policies if they just think that what was just 
passed into law is going to be undone in the next Congress?
  We owe it to our constituents, we owe it to the country to give them 
some certainty with policy, and that comes about when you are working 
to build consensus.
  Eliminating the filibuster would make primary elections into fealty 
tests, even more, even more than they already are, as each party sets 
its sights on candidates who are probably unlikely to act independently 
once in office. I mean, why bother? But, again, it would whipsaw--
whipsaw--the country on policy. And as I think about the state of our 
economy right now, where we need to be investing in--we have got a 
great infrastructure bill that we are

[[Page S145]]

all poised to try to advance, lots of good things coming for that--we 
don't want to be undermining investment in our ability to address major 
challenges if we are looking at a situation where, again, the new 
majority coming in, they just work to reverse the work of their 
predecessors.
  These aren't good outcomes for a divided nation, and they only take 
us further from what should be our goal. We have got to be focused. We 
have got to be focused on finding more ways to work together. And we 
have got good examples. We had an energy bill that we advanced in 2020, 
a good bill. We had been working on that for a long time, but it was a 
very bipartisan product.
  I mentioned our bipartisan infrastructure bill. We have the CARES Act 
as another example. So many measures have shown us that this is 
absolutely possible.
  As part of that, when we consider changing the rules, we need to 
focus on incentivizing bipartisanship, pushing Members to reach across 
the aisle, not making it less of a priority. Let's think about how we 
do that in a positive sense, how we are pushing one another to work to 
build things rather than dividing one another and just throwing things 
at one another.
  I will vote against any motion to weaken the filibuster or create 
carve-outs within it. Legislation and legislating in and of itself, as 
I mentioned at the outset, it is not supposed to be easy. We don't have 
that red ``easy'' button on our desk here. It is deliberately hard.
  But as I learned from somebody a couple weeks ago, I don't want to 
come to talk about the problems without offering up some solutions at 
the same time. I do have some suggestions for how we could perhaps move 
forward on voting rights legislation, potential changes to our rules. 
So for voting rights, the Senate doesn't need to change its rules here; 
the majority needs to change its approach.
  You have me--basically me alone at this point--willing to debate one 
of the measures that was written. It was written on a partisan basis, 
but I did my homework. I looked at it. I weighed in. I worked with 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle and made some good, solid 
suggestions. I think we have had some good dialogue there. I think it 
is important. I want to reach a compromise on it. I think that that 
would be important, but I have acknowledged that there needs to be some 
changes that would need to be made to that, and I have worked to 
suggest it.
  But what that does for right here right now is it makes it abundantly 
clear that we don't have agreement right now on voting rights 
legislation, so it is no wonder that the legislation is being blocked.
  Partisan bills don't suddenly become bipartisan just because they 
have hit the floor. So instead of looking for ways around consensus, we 
have got to go back; we have got to actually start building it.
  So let's take this back. Let's take it to the committee process. 
Let's look for areas of agreement, like some suggestion has been out in 
the past couple weeks here, reforming the Electoral Count Act. I don't 
know how far that can take us, but when something like this is put on 
the table, let's take a look at this.
  Let's work through some of these proposals rather than just summarily 
dismissing it out of hand. Let's take that time, put in the effort, 
build a product that can pass and hopefully by more than just the 
smallest of margins. We did that before with Voting Rights Act 
historically. We have demonstrated that it can be done.
  As far as rule changes, I agree we should be having the debate. But 
how we do the debate, I think, is also important. We want to have a 
thoughtful discussion. Both sides need to be involved. Any Member who 
wants to participate should be doing so.
  But these discussions need to focus on the problem, and the problem 
is that there is not enough consensus building across parties. That is 
what we need to be focusing on, rather than focusing on eliminating the 
need for it altogether.
  So instead of targeting the filibuster, one of the things that I have 
suggested to several folks is the development of a consensus calendar. 
Now, I am not saying it is going to solve everything, but if you have 
strong, bipartisan bills that have made it through the process, they 
have demonstrated that good, strong show of support, there ought to be 
a way that we can move things through on an expedited process, an 
expedited consideration.
  There has also been a lot of talk about eliminating the filibuster on 
the motion to proceed.
  So these are areas where, again, I think you have had thoughtful 
people willing to sit down and say: Can we reform our processes around 
here? Can we be more efficient? Can we still be that cooling saucer, 
that deliberative body, but be more efficient?
  I would argue that no rules changes should take effect this year. 
Whatever we can agree to, let's set the effective date of January of 
2023. Make these decisions based on what any majority in any year 
should have to govern.
  We need to make sure that if we are changing the rules, we do it for 
the right reason. We do it because it is the right thing to do for the 
Senate, no matter who is in charge. And I think that is just a matter 
of fairness there.
  We all know that filibusters can be so very, very frustrating, and 
those in the majority feel it directly. I know of which I speak. I have 
been there. It can be agonizing. It is like you are up against a brick 
wall.
  As I mentioned, when we were advancing my energy bill several years 
back, I can't tell you how many times I felt like I had the rug pulled 
out from underneath us. But it was a good legislative product, and so 
we didn't give up. We kept working at it. And, in fairness, I think we 
actually worked to improve the legislation.
  As difficult as it might have been, it was through that process that 
we were able to come to some terms on HFCs, probably as significant an 
effort that we have made when it comes to reducing emissions, and that 
came about as a result of that very deliberative process that you 
wanted to pull your hair out over, but it actually worked to advance 
that legislation.
  But I think what happens is this forces us, as Members, to work 
together and to remember we can overcome these. And in these partisan 
times, they prevent the majority from simply running over the minority, 
which only serves to worsen our political divide.
  The 60-vote threshold for legislation requires consensus to be part 
of the legislative strategy. Changing it to 50 votes to serve the 
narrowest possible majority will lose that essential benefit; it will 
have lasting consequences for the Senate and for the people that we 
serve.
  So I absolutely think that we can do better than this, better 
approaches for both voting rights legislation and rules changes. They 
are available to us. We just have to work. Neither side is going to get 
everything that it wants out of them, but I absolutely believe that we 
will be better served, our country will be better served if we have a 
bipartisan path working together.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor to congratulate and 
commend the remarks by the senior Senator from Alaska. She certainly 
knows from whence she speaks.
  I remember so well the discussion that she just mentioned with regard 
to the energy bill and HRCs and the effort for a cleaner environment, 
and it was through the process that we were able to come up with 
legislation that we believe--all believe--was a better result for the 
Nation and for the environment.
  It took longer than any of us wish it would have taken, but it was 
through that process. And had we been in a situation without the 
ability to filibuster, we would have never gotten to such a good result 
because a 50-50 Senate is--basically it is a mandate to move to the 
middle.
  So I commend the senior Senator from Alaska. She knows from whence 
she speaks. She is very high up in seniority in the institution. She 
has institutional memory, more than many, many Members of this body, 
and when she says what goes around comes around and the shoe is, at 
another time, on the opposite foot, she knows what the implications of 
those are and why what the Democrats are proposing now is in the wrong 
direction for the country.
  So I believe it is misguided, and I concur with her comments.

[[Page S146]]

  



                             Nord Stream 2

  Mr. President, I come to the floor today on another matter, and that 
is to support sanctions on Vladimir Putin and his Nord Stream 2 
pipeline.
  This body will be voting on that very issue in the next day or so, 
and I am urging my colleagues to support S. 3436, which is known as 
Protecting Europe's Energy Security Implementation Act.
  Let me just explain why this is so important. And it is important 
because right now, Vladimir Putin has mobilized close to 100,000 troops 
near the border with Ukraine. They are nearly encircling the country of 
Ukraine. Our intelligence community has warned of a potential Russian 
invasion of Ukraine in the next month or so.
  So why is this happening? Well, Vladimir Putin has always wanted to 
control and dominate Ukraine. This is nothing new. He invaded in 2014. 
He illegally annexed Crimea and continues to occupy Crimea today. Now, 
he wants more, and he is now also flush with cash. With Joe Biden in 
the White House and the Democrat energy policies, Vladimir Putin has 
hit the energy financial jackpot.
  You don't have to take my word for it; take it from the Biden 
administration. Joe Biden's Under Secretary of State for Political 
Affairs is one of his top Russia experts for our own State Department. 
She has spent her entire career working on issues related to Russia, 
Ukraine, and Europe.
  Well, in December, she testified before the Foreign Relations 
Committee. She testified about increasing Russian aggression on the 
Ukraine border. She said, ``Energy is the cash cow that enables these 
kinds of military deployments.''
  She said Vladimir Putin ``needs the energy to flow as much as the 
consumers need'' it to flow.
  But why is that? Well, it is because of Russian energy that Putin is 
able to pursue these dangerous military ambitions.
  The late Senator John McCain, with whom I have traveled on several 
occasions to Ukraine, used to say, ``Russia is a Mafia-run gas company 
disguised as a country.''
  Energy is the only successful sector of the Russian economy. Natural 
gas is what is propping up the Russian military and the entire Putin 
regime. Vladimir Putin uses energy as a geopolitical weapon, and he 
knows how to use it.
  He uses energy to coerce and to manipulate our allies and our 
partners in Europe. If they don't do something that Putin wants or they 
do something that he doesn't like, he can turn off the power and turn 
off the heat. We just saw an example of this in November, when Russia 
threatened to cut off gas flows to the small and neighboring country of 
Moldova. Moldova had to declare a state of emergency.
  Well, under Joe Biden's energy policies, Europe will soon be in a 
state of energy emergency as well. It is because Europe already gets 
almost half of its gas imports from Russia. With the Nord Stream 2 
pipeline from Russia to Germany, the imports will only need to go up, 
and they will go up.
  Under Secretary Victoria Nuland told the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, ``We have been counseling Europe for almost a decade now to 
reduce its dependence on Russian energy.''
  A decade. A decade includes the administrations of both President 
Trump and President Obama. Yet Joe Biden has done everything he can to 
cripple American energy production.
  What happens with that? Well, it makes our allies more dependent on 
Russia for energy. It gives more power to Putin.
  Under Joe Biden, American energy production hasn't really recovered 
yet to the 2019 levels. This is a direct result of the anti-American 
energy policies of this White House.
  On his first day in office, Joe Biden killed the Keystone XL 
pipeline. He then blocked new oil and gas leases on Federal lands. We 
are now producing 1.4 million fewer barrels of oil each day than we 
were before the pandemic.
  We are, in the U.S., now, using more oil imported from Russia than we 
are using oil from our own home State of Alaska. It is a national 
disgrace to be dependent more upon Russia for oil than we are from our 
neighboring State of Alaska.
  Joe Biden's National Security Advisor even pleaded with Russia to 
produce more oil--hard to believe, hard to believe that the National 
Security Advisor for Joe Biden in the White House would plead with 
Russia to produce more oil.
  Well, the administration actually put the Russian energy request on 
the White House website. Joe Biden would rather have America buy energy 
from our enemies than sell energy to our friends.
  Joe Biden would rather have European nations dependent on Russian 
energy than increase American energy production and exports from home 
here to our allies. It is completely backwards.
  Under Joe Biden, American energy production is down and energy 
prices, as any consumer knows, is way up. American families are caught 
paying the price for these policies of the Democrats and the Biden 
administration.
  In November, we saw the biggest energy price increase in 10 years. 
CNBC reports that one in five American families can't afford to pay an 
energy bill this year. Roughly the same percentage have kept their home 
at an unhealthy low temperature because they can't afford the cost to 
heat their home. People who traveled for Christmas just faced some of 
the highest Christmas Day gasoline prices in history. American families 
are getting squeezed, and Putin is getting rich.
  Joe Biden is against American pipelines, but in May, he gave a green 
light to Vladimir Putin's pipeline between Russia and Germany. This is 
a betrayal of American energy workers. It is a betrayal of America's 
allies in Europe.
  If the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is completed, it will double the amount 
of Russian natural gas flowing into Germany. Putin will be able to 
manipulate the price and the availability of energy to European nations 
in the middle of winter. He will be able to hold half of Europe 
hostage.
  Stopping this pipeline should be an area of bipartisan agreement in 
this body. In fact, it was an area of bipartisan agreement until Joe 
Biden became President. Even Joe Biden said that he was against the 
pipeline--well, until he was for it.
  Many Democrats voted for the sanctions against the pipeline on more 
than one occasion, but when Joe Biden flip-flopped, so did they.
  Senate Democrats now are running interference for Joe Biden. But 
Democrats just spent 4 years talking about Russia, Russia, Russia--
obsessed with Russia. They spent 4 years going on TV, spreading 
conspiracy theories, all of which were false.
  Yet now, the Democrat caucus is attempting to protect the Kremlin's 
greatest geopolitical weapon.
  For the Democratic Party, this is a return to tradition. Democrats 
were soft on Russia during the Cold War, soft on Russia under the Obama 
administration. Hillary Clinton gave the Russians a great big reset 
button. President Obama was caught in a hot-microphone moment telling 
the Russian President at the time that he would have more flexibility: 
Tell Vladimir I will have more flexibility after I am reelected.
  Democrats talk tough--they did under the last administration, that 
is. But now we are back to the old Democratic playbook. This is the 
kind of Washington, DC, partisanship the American people hate--the same 
thing Democrats did with Iran when Barack Obama was in the White House.
  An American President must always negotiate from a position of 
strength. Democrats tend to think if you give Putin or the Ayatollah 
something they demand, that they will then play nice. That is not how 
the real world works. Vladimir Putin is cunning, he is opportunistic, 
and he is aggressive. He sees an opportunity, and he takes it. He can 
smell weakness. He respects strength, not statements.
  The Nord Stream 2 Pipeline from Russia to Germany will be an enormous 
transfer of wealth from our allies to our enemy. It will make our 
allies weaker, and, of course, it will make Vladimir Putin stronger. 
When Putin gets stronger, he gets even more aggressive.
  History should not be kind to those who gifted Putin a pipeline, 
pointed like a gun into the heart of Europe.
  This vote to support sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline is our 
chance

[[Page S147]]

to undo a great mistake, and it may also be our chance to prevent an 
even greater mistake.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.