[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 11, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S143-S146]
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]]