The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“Filibuster (Executive Calendar)” mentioning Mitch McConnell was published in the Senate section on pages S1586-S1587 on March 17.
Of the 100 senators in 117th Congress, 24 percent were women, and 76 percent were men, according to the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
Senators' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
Filibuster
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it appears that our friends across the aisle are experiencing an existential crisis when it comes to deciding how to manage their newfound powers in the majority. We are just 2\1/2\ months into this new Congress, and already we are hearing the majority leader and many on the other side of the aisle threatening to blow up the rules of the Senate. After decades as a Senator, President Biden even yesterday relented and threw his support behind the plan.
The filibuster has been called into question a number of times over the past few years. That is to be expected, but it is just that our Democratic friends used to be on the other side of the argument. They took one position when they were in the minority, where the filibuster protected their rights. And now when they are in the majority, many of them are looking to eliminate any minority rights and to fundamentally change the Senate.
In 2018, our Democratic colleagues were afraid the Republican Senate majority would blow up the filibuster. I am not really sure why they were concerned. After all, Senator McConnell and Republican Senators have consistently defended the rights of the minority by use of the legislative filibuster, even when President Trump called for it to be eliminated.
But our Democratic friends keep piling on. Senator Durbin, the Senator from Illinois, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was asked about President Trump's call to end the filibuster--that was when President Trump called to end the filibuster--and he said: ``That would be the end of the Senate as it was originally devised and created going back to the Founding Fathers.'' That would be on the right-hand side of this chart. Just to repeat, he said: ``That would be the end of the Senate as it was originally devised and created going back to the Founding Fathers.''
I agree with Senator Durbin. I agreed then, and I agree now.
The Senate filibuster was designed to ensure that the two political parties would actually have to work together, which I think the American people believe is a good thing. And it should be hard to do the work of building consensus in a country as big and diverse as the United States.
But the filibuster was designed to make sure that the majority just couldn't jam things through and deny the rights of the minority to be heard. But when you get 60 Senators to agree on something, it becomes all but impossible for ultrapartisan proposals to become law. That is the nature of the consensus-building process, and that is a good thing for the country.
Imagine the instability and unpredictability that would occur if laws changed as quickly as Presidents and Senate majorities do. Just 4 years ago, Republicans controlled both Chambers of Congress and held the White House. Twelve years ago, our Democratic colleagues controlled all three. The filibuster was designed to encourage, again, consensus building on a bipartisan basis and to provide some stability between those transitory majorities and changing Presidents. And that is a good thing, like I said, in a country where the political party in control is constantly changing, and it ensures that a minority viewpoint cannot be steamrolled.
Our Senate Democratic friends have certainly benefited from the protections of the filibuster over the last 6 years. They filibustered countless bills on everything from pandemic relief to police reform.
But now it appears that our Democratic colleagues--at least their leadership--have flip-flopped. The political tides have shifted, and since the radical left wants to get rid of the filibuster, so do they.
In a floor speech earlier this week, this same Senator, Senator Durbin, our friend from Illinois, said the filibuster is ``not the guarantor of democracy. It has become the death grip of democracy''--a pretty dramatic conversion from 2018 to 2021.
What has changed? Well, the majority has changed. Republicans controlled the majority when he thought the filibuster was a good thing. Now, when Democrats control the majority, he thinks it is a bad thing.
Apparently, the countless filibusters of our Democratic colleagues were not a mockery of democracy. They certainly wouldn't be guilty of that. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, Democrats are ready to hit the big red button and go nuclear. And, I must say, once you go nuclear around here, you certainly don't go back.
But Senator Durbin's views aren't the only ones that have changed on this matter. As I mentioned, former Senator and now President Joe Biden finally changed his views as well. For decades, he was a staunch defender of the institution. When he was asked about removing the filibuster, going nuclear, he said:
This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power-grab by the majority party.
Well, that is certainly not mincing your words. And this isn't some long ago abandoned view of his. In January of this year, President Biden was asked if he could move his agenda with the filibuster rules intact, and he answered yes and explained the opportunities to work together on shared priorities, as he did throughout his career as a U.S. Senator.
He went on to add:
I think we can reach consensus on that and get it passed without changing the filibuster rule.
But now the pressure has been put on both President Biden and the Democratic leadership in the Senate to endorse a rules change, not by the ordinary course of rule changes but by the nuclear option. We know that there are unpredictable consequences of changing the rules in a place where your power, where your majority, is never guaranteed. Chipping away at the rights of the minority may help you today, but you will live to regret it when the shoe is on the other foot.
But it won't take a shift in the majority for our Democratic colleagues to see the disastrous consequences of going nuclear on the filibuster rule because, if anybody needed a reminder, we have a 50-50 Senate: 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans.
Yesterday, Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, somebody who has been around this institution a long time and understands it better than almost anybody I know, reminded our colleagues that ``[t]his is an institution that requires unanimous consent to turn the lights on before noon.''
Unanimous consent is literally the grease that helps the machine run. In order to accomplish even the most mundane tasks in the Senate, you need an agreement. Most of the time it is easy because it is not controversial; it is not partisan; it is the right, practical thing to do. But you need compromise, and you need a quorum.
This rules change being floated wouldn't clear a path for productivity in the Senate. It is an invitation to futility. If our Democratic colleagues take the unprecedented step of blowing up the filibuster, they can expect to be met with an unprecedented response.
Republicans will not sit idly by while Democrats take an axe to the rules in order to advance a partisan agenda. If Democrats go down this road, they will have no one to blame but themselves for the consequences of a horrible miscalculation.
Alerts Sign-up