Senator Collins Defends Filibuster, Urges Colleagues to Protect This Critical Check on Power
Click HERE to watch Sen. Collins’ remarks. Click HERE to download high-resolution video.
Washington, D.C.—U.S. Senator Susan Collins delivered remarks on the Senate floor today, calling on her colleagues to reject the Democratic Leader’s proposal to eviscerate the legislative filibuster by employing the nuclear option to unilaterally change Senate rules. In 2017, Senator Collins co-authored a letter that was signed by a bipartisan group of 61 Senators expressing support for the 60-vote threshold for legislation.
“We are now on the brink of heading down that dangerous road, a slippery slope toward a tyranny of the majority,” said Senator Collins. “Limiting the ability of Senators to engage in debate on legislative matters would give the majority party unprecedented power to push through major changes without careful deliberation or bipartisan cooperation. Such a move would have lasting implications as future majorities -- whether Republican or Democratic -- would have little incentive to work with the other party.”
“It is crucial that we work together and find common ground on the issues that matter most to the American people,” Senator Collins continued. “Changing long-standing Senate rules to benefit one political party would discourage efforts to forge consensus and only serve to reinforce bitter partisan divisions. I urge my colleagues to stand against this calamitous change and for the principles of compromise and cooperation that have long defined and been the hallmarks of the United States Senate. Let us listen to the admonition of the Democratic Leader when he spoke against changing the rules in 2017: ‘Let us go no further down this road.’”
Senator Collins’ full remarks are below:
Mr. President, our democracy is protected by its institutional checks on unlimited power. The three branches of government are not the only manifestation of the careful balancing achieved by the Framers of the Constitution. Within the legislative branch, the Senate’s unique traditions protect the rights of the minority party by allowing extended debate and by requiring a super-majority vote to pass legislation with few exceptions, these rules have helped to make the United States Senate the greatest deliberative body in the world.
Before commenting further on the importance of the extended debate and the 60-vote requirement for passing legislation, I want to point out a critical protection built into the Senate’s procedures. Changing the rules Mr. President, requires 67 votes, not 60 votes, not 51 votes, 67 votes. But in a power grab that would be incredibly destructive to the functioning of the Senate, the Democratic Leader is proposing to circumvent the rules of the Senate in order to eviscerate the filibuster because he does not have anywhere near the 67 votes required to rewrite the Senate rules. Instead, he will propose to “change the rules by breaking the rules,” as former Democratic Senator Carl Levin, a true giant of the Senate, put it when arguing against a similar ploy in 2013.
As one of Senator Levin’s predecessors, Arthur Vandenberg warned in 1949, if the majority can change the rules of the Senate at will, “there are no rules except the transient, unregulated wishes of a majority of whatever quorum is temporarily in control of the Senate.”
Both Senators Levin and Vandenberg actually favored the rule change being considered at the time, but each recognized that “breaking the rules to change the rules” would irreparably harm the Senate and thus our country.
Democrats well understand the consequences of what they are proposing. Just five short years ago, Senator Chris Coons and I wrote a letter urging Senate leaders to preserve the 60-vote threshold for legislation. That letter was signed by 61 Senators: 28 Republicans, 32 Democrats, and 1 Independent. This total not only represented a majority of Senators, but also a majority of the Republican caucus, a majority of the Democratic caucus, and the current Vice President.
How well I remember seeking signatures on the Senate floor for that letter. Holding a green folder with the letter inside, I approached Senators on both sides of the aisle to achieve my goal of a total of 60 Senators signing, representing a majority of each caucus.
Mr. President, not a single Senator whom I approached said “No” to signing the letter. Not one. Quite the contrary, each was eager to sign the letter, and many thanked me for leading the effort to make clear that whatever our disagreements on a supermajority vote for nominees, they were firmly committed to keeping the filibuster for legislation. They understood its importance to the Senate and to our country.
This is what our letter stated in part:
…we are united in our determination to preserve the ability of Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor….We are mindful of the unique role the Senate plays in the legislative process, and we are steadfastly committed to ensuring that this great American institution continues to serve as the world’s greatest deliberative body. Therefore, we are asking you to join us in opposing an effort to curtail the existing rights and prerogatives of Senators to engage in full, robust, and extended debate as we consider legislation….
Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that this bipartisan letter dated April 7, 2017, be entered into the record.
Mr. President, the culture of the Senate is built upon a foundation of respect and cooperation that is meant to transcend partisanship. It is a culture in which legislative goals are reached with patience, persuasion, and perseverance, not raw power.
I implore my colleagues to consider the ramifications for our country. Do we want laws enacted one year to be repealed two years later on a simple majority vote and then perhaps re-enacted just two years and another two years by just 51 votes?
Do we want major laws, significant changes in policy, to be rammed through the Senate without thoughtful debate and bipartisan support?
At a time when our country is deeply – and closely – divided, do we really want to worsen the polarization by approving significant changes in public policy by a narrow, partisan vote?
We are now on the brink of heading down that dangerous road, a slippery slope toward a tyranny of the majority. Limiting the ability of Senators to engage in debate on legislative matters would give the majority party unprecedented power to push through major changes without careful deliberation or bipartisan cooperation. Such a move would have lasting implications as future majorities -- whether Republican or Democratic -- would have little incentive to work with the other party.
It is crucial that we work together and find common ground on the issues that matter most to the American people. Changing long-standing Senate rules to benefit one political party would discourage efforts to forge consensus and only serve to reinforce bitter partisan divisions. I urge my colleagues to stand against this calamitous change and for the principles of compromise and cooperation that have long defined and been the hallmarks of the United States Senate.
Let us listen to the admonition of the Democratic Leader when he spoke against changing the rules in 2017: “Let us go no further down this road.”
