[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S236-S237]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               FILIBUSTER

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, when Democrats last had the majority and 
proposed blowing up the Senate rules and the historic way that the 
Senate has worked, I gave a series of speeches explaining how the 
father of the Constitution, James Madison, intended for the Senate to 
be a deliberative body; in other words, a break on the hot passions 
that occur in the House of Representatives. I repeated my deeply held 
opposition to gutting the Senate process, even when my party took 
control of all three branches--and it would have been politically 
expedient in the short term.
  I don't know how many times President Trump brought up doing away 
with what we call the filibuster or the 60-vote requirement. It was 
even followed by a lot of our Republican Party grassroots wanting to 
overcome Democrats' use of the cloture rule to block the Republican 
agenda during those 4 years. But I spoke out strongly against it.
  In 2017, over half of the current Democrat Senators signed a letter 
calling for preservation of the current rules requiring the 60 votes to 
stop debate for considering the legislation, despite the use of the 
nuclear option for nominees.
  I agree with President Biden's position in 2005. Reflecting on the 
same understanding that I have of the Constitution and the role of the 
Senate as envisioned by James Madison, then-Senator Biden said this:

       That is the . . . reason . . . we have the . . . rule. So 
     when one party . . . controls all levers of Government, one 
     man or one woman can stand on the floor of the Senate and 
     resist . . . the passions of the moment.

  Even Senator Schumer, the majority leader, said, at that time, 
gutting the cloture rule would be a ``doomsday for democracy''--
doomsday for democracy. Now it seems like Senator Schumer invites that 
doomsday.

[[Page S237]]

  Senator Durbin hit the nail on the head as recently as 2018, saying 
it ``would be the end of the Senate as it was originally devised and 
created going back to our Founding Fathers.'' I agreed then, and I 
agree now.
  Now the shoe is on the other foot, and Democrats have changed their 
position, many not for the first time.
  Senator Durbin has now joined the crusade of his Democratic 
predecessor, Stephen Douglas, of Illinois--famous for debating Abraham 
Lincoln on the issues of slavery. But that Douglas from Illinois also 
proposed a Senate rule change allowing a narrow majority to force a 
final vote on bills.
  Hypocrisy is not rare in politics on both sides of the aisle, but the 
fact that Democrats switched principles on such a consequential matter 
whenever Senate control changes from one party to the other is 
particularly glaring.
  The party of Jim Crow, which made liberal use of so-called filibuster 
just over a year ago to block Republicans' agenda, are now saying, 
falsely, it is a relic of Jim Crow.
  I do not see how they can look the voters in the eyes with no sign of 
embarrassment. I do not understand why the policemen of our 
governmental system--the media--isn't roasting them for this 
hypocritical power grab.
  I would now like to address a misconception on the cloture motion, 
the 60-vote requirement. The cloture motion requires 60 votes to bring 
consideration of legislation to finality. Just because it can be used 
to block legislation, does not mean that the term ``cloture'' always 
equals a filibuster.
  Cloture cuts off not just debate but the offering of amendments. 
Voting for cloture, also, is saying that the Senate has voted on enough 
amendments. Senators who have amendments important to their State that 
they want to offer should be voting against cloture to preserve their 
right to offer amendments, as their constituents might desire. Debate 
and amendments are the hallmark of this democracy, not an obstacle to 
be swept aside in pursuit of a short-term partisan agenda.
  When Democrats last controlled the Senate with 60 votes and 
thereafter, amendment votes became very rare. Even rank-and-file 
Democrats lost opportunities to represent their States with amendments 
important to that State.
  Let's look at the cloture issue another way. Also, many people 
confuse debate over filibuster with talking nonstop to delay. That is a 
kind of ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' filibuster--the famous movie, 
you know. This has nothing to do with cloture. People who talk about 
returning to the so-called talking filibuster are confusing two 
different Senate rules, both called filibuster.
  Senators have never had to talk until they dropped from exhaustion to 
preserve their right to amend bills. So the talking filibuster rhetoric 
is nonsense. Democrats have convinced themselves or at least their 
activist base--and done it falsely--that our democracy is in crisis. 
And so it is absurd to say only one party, unilateral governance, can 
save democracy. But once an exception is made--and they are talking 
about that exception just for this voting rights bill, but once an 
exception is made to the right of all Senators to debate and to amend 
legislation, there seems to be no going back.
  Democrats learned that in 2013, when they accomplished the 60-vote 
requirement on district and circuit court judges, and they lived to 
regret it 4 years later when Republicans did the same thing when we had 
a Supreme Court Justice up. It is a slippery slope that you should not 
let come about.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Would the Senator from Iowa yield for a question?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I will.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you very much.
  First, thank you for coming to the floor to debate such an important 
issue as how to make the Senate work well as a deliberative body and 
how to make our country work well.
  I was struck by a couple of things that you mentioned, and that is 
that you had stood strong fast against striking down the filibuster, 
and you noted how consistent you were. But you also criticized 
Democrats for changing position.
  But can you help my memory out on this, because did you not vote to 
strike down the filibuster on Supreme Court nominations?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. MERKLEY. So you changed your position, as well you would concede, 
since previously you had opposed getting rid of the filibuster?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Remember what I said, and I just said this. So you 
obviously heard me. We warned, in 2013, when I think all Republicans 
voted against reducing the 60-vote threshold for district court and 
circuit court judges, so you could pack the DC Circuit Court of 
Appeals, that you would regret that, and you have regretted it because 
Republicans were saying in 2017: What is good for the goose is good for 
the gander. And we voted to reduce it then for a Supreme Court Justice.
  Now, I am sure that, from your point of view, you have a Supreme 
Court that is not very favorable to what you think a Supreme Court 
ought to be doing, with the three people that Trump put on there. So 
that is where I am coming from.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I do appreciate your response, and it is so rare that we 
actually have any dialogue on the floor of the Senate. It is one of the 
things we lost.
  I do recall in that moment that, for over a year, we had working 
groups trying to resolve the extraordinary level--the new level--of 
cloture motions on President Obama's nominations. It concluded in a 
meeting in the Old Senate Chamber where the agreement was reached to 
stop doing that. And then, as you point out, Mitch McConnell came to 
the floor and said: It doesn't matter the quality of the individual who 
is nominated. I will not let any judge be considered for these three 
vacancies.
  That is a completely unprecedented new element that is brought in to 
bear on that particular conversation. That is just to, kind of, 
illuminate some of the details that were left out.
  I was struck by another thing you said, which is that the filibuster 
is not a relic of Jim Crow. I was struck about that because from 1891 
through 1965--so we are talking over 80 years--the only thing that was 
blocked in the U.S. Senate by filibuster was civil rights for Black 
Americans. Given that, wouldn't you say it is fair for us to say that 
the filibuster in that history was, indeed, a relic of Jim Crow?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Do you know who held the Senate during that period of 
time on the issue you brought up? It was Democratic Senators from the 
South. Remember when the Civil Rights Act, in 1965, was passed, that 
there was a higher share--a higher percentage--of Republicans than 
Democrats that voted for it. The one person that made a difference in 
getting the Civil Rights Act passed was Senator Dirksen, the Republican 
leader.
  I am going to have to end this discussion with you, but I want to say 
one thing. Why would you want to expand this precedent that is set by 
Democrats into legislation and weaken bipartisanship? That is where you 
have to leave it. It is a slippery slope. You may intend to do it just 
for a voting rights act, but it is going to go further.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you for answering and responding to my questions. 
I appreciate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

                          ____________________