[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S166-S168]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Filibuster

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to applaud the Republican leader, 
the Senator from Kentucky, for saying what needed to be said. If there 
is a unique role for the U.S. Senate in our system of government, it is 
to be the place where debate and deliberation, common sense and 
compromise, prevail over demagoguery.
  And, unfortunately, what we heard from President Biden yesterday was 
sheer demagoguery. And I agree that it was not only unbecoming of the 
President of the United States; it was, frankly, embarrassing. Many of 
us were embarrassed for him that he would resort to that sort of 
rhetoric, particularly when Members of his own political party are not 
on board asking him to do what he wants to do, which is to break the 
rules of the U.S. Senate.
  So until this debate began, many Americans probably didn't think 
twice about something called the filibuster. And as we have all tried 
to explain why it is important and what role the filibuster plays in 
our system of government, I think it is perhaps best described as a 
mechanism to force us to

[[Page S167]]

do what doesn't come naturally, and that is to build consensus, to work 
together in the best interest of the country, and to pass laws that 
will endure, not those that will be reversed with the new majority, 
with the next election.
  When you think about a country like ours, with 330 million people, as 
diverse as it is, it just makes sense for us to have fulsome debate and 
deliberation, because the risk of making mistakes, of unintended 
consequences, is great, and there is no body in America that can fix 
mistakes made by the U.S. Congress.
  So deliberation is an important function, and that is why forcing us 
to do what doesn't come naturally, which means to work together and 
build consensus to get 60 votes to cut off debate, is such a critical 
role.
  Well, unfortunately, our colleagues have--according to the Democratic 
leader and the majority leader--our colleagues have chosen to leave 
bipartisanship and tradition at the door in order to grow their own 
political power.
  Make no mistake, they face an uphill battle. Two of our Democratic 
colleagues have stated their outright opposition, and I imagine others 
who hold the same view who have not wanted to catch the slings and 
arrows that have made their way toward the Senator from Arizona and the 
Senator from West Virginia.
  There are many other Democratic Senators who hold the same concerns 
in private. Still, the majority leader is determined to light the 
Senate rule book on fire.
  As this Chamber considers such an extreme move, I want to share some 
wise words from one of our former colleagues. That would be former 
Senator Joe Biden. The current President served in the Senate for three 
and a half decades and held a deep reverence for the rules and the 
traditions and the norms that govern this body--at least, he did. Back 
in 2005, the Senate was weighing whether or not to eliminate the 60-
vote requirement for certain judicial nominees. At that time we had a 
Republican majority and a Democratic minority. The shoe was on the 
other foot. But Senator Biden--or then-Senator Biden--was absolutely 
clear about his feelings on the matter. He said: Eliminating the 
filibuster--the so-called nuclear option--is ``an example of the 
arrogance of power''--``the arrogance of power.''

  Now, that is not an ambiguous statement. That is not a qualified 
statement. That is not a contingent statement. That is a declarative 
statement about what eliminating the filibuster is--an arrogance of 
power.
  Back in 2005, then-Senator Biden believed that changing the rules to 
benefit yourself or your political party is an example of that 
arrogance of power. And he called it ``a fundamental power grab by the 
majority party.'' But now President Biden obviously holds the exact 
opposite view. In other words, he has done a spectacular flip-flop.
  Now that his party is the one in power, he is not only OK with the 
idea of this arrogance of power, this power grab, he endorses it. He 
advocates for it.
  He is willing to use some of the strongest rhetoric I have ever heard 
come from a President of the United States to condemn it, to condemn 
the filibuster and endorse its destruction. In Georgia, yesterday, 
President Biden made his new position on the filibuster crystal clear. 
He said: ``Let the majority prevail.''
  The move he once called ``a fundamental power grab'' is now his new 
legislative strategy. And President Biden isn't the only one to have 
done a complete flip-flop when it comes to the filibuster, when it is 
opportunistic, when it is convenient, when it is expedient.
  Senator Durbin, the Democratic majority whip, also used to have a 
deep respect for the traditions of the Senate. He said that, if the 
filibuster were eliminated, ``that would be the end of the Senate as it 
was originally devised and created going back to our Founding 
Fathers.'' But his respect for these traditions, these norms, these 
rules dissipated when it became a political inconvenience.
  Last year, Senator Durbin, the Senator from Illinois, said the 
filibuster ``has become the death grip of democracy.''
  I am not sure if he is proud of it now, but Senator Schumer was also 
an advocate for the filibuster in the not-so-distant past. Just a few 
years ago--again, when the shoe was on the other foot and Democrats 
were a minority, and Republicans were a majority--he said we should 
``build a fire wall around the legislative filibuster'' to protect the 
Senate from ``the winds of short-term electoral change.''
  Well, today, for sure, the winds have shifted. The Senator who once 
supported the filibuster now finds himself as the majority leader, 
trying to appease the most radical elements in his political base.
  Where does he stand on the filibuster today? Well, he is whipping 
votes to eliminate it. Democrats who once hailed the filibuster as a 
vital stabilizing force in our government now call it a weapon of mass 
destruction, a mockery of American democracy, and even a Jim Crow 
relic.
  Let's not forget that, just about a year and a half ago, Democrats 
used this Jim Crow relic to block an anti-lynching bill. That is right. 
I was here on the Senate floor when the now-Vice President of the 
United States, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker from New Jersey, our 
colleague from New Jersey, participated in a filibuster to block a 
motion to proceed to a police reform bill that contained their own 
anti-lynching bill in it. Shocking to me. They didn't even want to 
begin discussion of the bill--their own anti-lynching bill.
  Well, now that Democrats control all levers of government, they have 
tossed their previous convictions in the trash. Their agenda, securing 
a result that will result in a permanent partisan advantage, that is 
their sole focus. Our colleagues seem to have been blinded by the 
possibility of short-term victories, and they are ignoring the longer 
term repercussions, because, in the Senate, what goes around comes 
around.
  Let's say that Democrats muster enough support to take a wrecking 
ball to the Senate rules. They blow up the rules and pass this so-
called election bill with only 50 votes plus the tie-breaking vote of 
the Vice President. They would likely spend the rest of the year 
checking other items off of their radical wish list. This idea about a 
carve-out for one kind of bill is just malarkey, to use the President's 
term.
  They would clearly use this to craft new laws to curb Second 
Amendment rights, expand access to abortion, and decimate important 
industries in the United States like the oil and gas industry. At the 
same time, the President is asking for Vladimir Putin and OPEC to pump 
more oil because the price of gasoline has gone through the roof.
  Well, our colleagues like the sound of that--eliminating the 
filibuster--but they aren't prepared for what inevitably would come 
next.
  The great genius of our system and of our country is that power is 
not absolute, and, ultimately, all power lies in the hands of we the 
people, and we are all directly accountable to the people we represent.
  If voters reject Democrats' power grab and hand Republicans the 
Senate majority, Democrats would, if they were successful today or 
tomorrow, have zero impact on the legislative process. You could just 
ignore Democrats and plow your way to a certain result. They would have 
no way of stopping legislation they absolutely abhor from becoming law, 
and the States they represent, represented by Democratic Senators, 
those Senators would be irrelevant. Think about that.
  All of us worked hard to get here. All of us are proud of the fact 
that our voters elected us to represent them in this most august body 
known on the planet, but if you happen to be in the minority, under the 
current position taken by the President and the majority leader and our 
Senate Democratic friends--almost all of them--those Senators elected 
in blue States would have zero impact. They might as well not even show 
up.
  If voters reject the Democrats' power grab and hand Republicans the 
majority, they would have no say in the legislative process, if they 
are successful.
  A Republican-controlled Senate could pass new laws to protect the 
right to life, secure the border, expand and enhance Second Amendment 
rights under the Constitution, and much, much more.
  If that were to happen, would Democrats stand by the rules change 
that they are debating and advocating for

[[Page S168]]

today? Would they stand by their decision to silence the minority party 
and minority Senators? Would they agree with President Biden's 
statement, ``Let the majority prevail''?
  Well, we don't have to wonder because we have seen this movie before. 
Our colleagues have already expressed regrets over the previous 
filibuster carve-out.
  Contrary to the strong statement Democrats made in 2005 advocating 
for the filibuster to be maintained, they started chipping away at it 
just 8 years later.
  In 2013, Democrats eliminated the 60-vote threshold for judicial 
nominees, and the move has haunted them for nearly a decade and 
resulted in the confirmation of three Supreme Court Justices during 
President Trump's term of office.
  Back then, when they invoked the nuclear option, Leader McConnell 
said:

       You will regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner 
     than you think.

  Reflecting on that moment a few years ago, Senator Bennet, one of our 
Colorado colleagues, was clear. He said Senator McConnell was right.
  Under the previous administration, the Republican-led Senate 
confirmed more than 230 conservative judges, all thanks to the 
Democrats' elimination of the filibuster when it comes to nominations.
  The senior Senator from Colorado isn't the only one who has shown 
remorse after ending up on the losing side of that rules change. 
Senator Tester, our colleague from Montana, said voting on that rule 
change was ``probably the biggest mistake [he] ever made.''
  Senator Shaheen, our colleague from New Hampshire, concluded that 
``it has not served us well.''
  Even Senator Schumer, the majority leader, has said that ``I wish it 
hadn't happened.''
  And as a reminder, this is only in reference to Federal judges. These 
individuals hold tremendous power, no mistake about it.
  But now we are talking about rule changes that stipulate how laws are 
made, not how nominations are considered. This is the so-called 
legislative calendar, and what happens in the wake of this change would 
impact every single family across the country.
  When Republicans, inevitably, at some point, take the majority again, 
it would be a simple thing, with 51 votes, to dismantle all of the laws 
that our Democratic colleagues have passed if they were to eliminate 
the filibuster. Then, of course, when Democrats take control again, the 
reverse would happen.

  You know, I think that the 60-vote requirement is forcing us to do 
something that doesn't come natural, and that is to force us to work 
together to build consensus. I think that is what the American people 
want us to do, to work together. And the filibuster, that 60-vote 
requirement to close off debate, forces us to do just that. It 
eliminates the possibility that we can, with a mere majority of 51 
votes, have our way, only to see it reversed after the next election. 
That is not good for the country. That is not good for our 
constituents. That doesn't create the sort of predictable, enduring 
laws that the American people should be able to rely on.
  Well, when it comes to eliminating the filibuster, Senator Biden's 
line about ``the arrogance of power'' is exactly that. At some point, 
the shoe will be on the other foot--it always happens--which is why no 
party, neither party, has been so shortsighted, until now, to try to 
eliminate the legislative filibuster. No party has ever been so power 
hungry and so shortsighted as to shatter the norms and traditions of 
this institution.
  I would like to close with one more quote from then-Senator Biden 
back in 2005. He said:

       What shortsightedness, and what a price history will exact 
     on those who support this radical move.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.