Senator Collins Delivers First Speech of the University of Maine at Presque Isle’s 2015 Distinguished Lecturer Series

 PRESQUE ISLE, MAINE—U.S. Senator Susan Collins delivered the first speech of the University of Maine at Presque Isle’s 2015 Distinguished Lecturer Series this afternoon. In her remarks titled, “Disrupting the Status Quo: Can an Institutionalist Be an Agent for Change?” Senator Collins discussed her bipartisan leadership in the United States Senate and her ongoing work to find compromise and achieve solutions in an increasingly polarized Congress.
 
See below for a copy of Senator Collins’ remarks as prepared for delivery:
 

Disrupting the Status Quo:
Can an Institutionalist Be an Agent of Change?

 
      Thank you, President Schott.  I am delighted to be back at the University of Maine at Presque Isle and back home in The County.  The great thing about coming to UMPI is that all I have to do is set my GPS for “North of Ordinary.”  A great college has America’s best college motto.
 
      I very much appreciate seeing so many friends, neighbors, and, most of all, family members here this afternoon.  This time of year, as we approach the potato harvest later this month, I am reminded of the strong sense of community in The County, which makes it a special place.  We could use more of that sense of community, of working together toward common goals throughout this country, and certainly in Washington.  The theme of this year’s Distinguished Lecture Series is “Disrupting the Status Quo.”  In ancient times, the phrase “status quo” was coined to describe the peace treaty between Rome and Carthage that was forged not by a battlefield victory, but by mutual agreement to restore the balance of power that existed before the war, to return to, as the translation from Latin has it, “the way things were.”  That status quo was the foundation for the rise of the Roman Republic, early democracy, and civil society.
 
      In our times, the “status quo” has taken on a decidedly negative connotation.  At best, today’s status quo suggests a mindless adherence to something that no longer works, a resistance to innovation, opposition to needed change, the kind of stagnation that impedes progress.  At worst, the term describes a system that is corrupt and self-serving.
 
      How did the status quo evolve from a system that offered both stability and progress to one that seems to block progress and at times to be rigged for the benefit of a favored few?  And, when disruption is necessary, how shall it be done, and who shall do it?
 
      I shall approach these important questions from my perspective as a United States Senator and ask one of my own: Can someone who reveres the institution that is the Senate – the status quo, if you will – be an agent for positive change?
 
      I am honored to represent Maine in the Senate and proud of this great institution’s historical role as the world’s greatest deliberative body.  Based on the wisdom of the ancients, the brilliance of the Enlightenment, and the genius of our Founders, the Senate is an institution designed to promote civility, conciliation, and compromise.  It is a place designed to protect and to give a fair hearing to minority views and where raw political power is to give way to statesmanship.  It is often referred to as a “club,” but I think of it as a diverse community where leaders are supposed to work together for the common good.
 
      That is an ideal we have seen carried out by the great Senators of the past, like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and Arthur Vandenberg.  It is an ideal that we have embraced in Maine by sending thoughtful and respected leaders to Washington like Margaret Chase Smith, Ed Muskie, Bill Cohen, George Mitchell, and Olympia Snowe.

    As George Washington said, the Senate is supposed to be the “cooling saucer” for the hot tea of political passions.  In the 18 years I have served in the Senate, however, I have witnessed a withering of this culture.  Ideology and partisanship dictate far too much of the conduct.  Obstructionism is too often employed for its own sake.  Base motives are imputed to reasonable policy differences, causing legitimate differences to evolve into bitter personal disputes.  The cooling saucer more and more resembles an overheated skillet.
 
      I believe in the Senate as an institution.  Like all institutions, it is a collection of unique individuals – 100 in our case – each with our own backgrounds, experiences, interests, and passions.  At its best, these disparate personalities can work together for the good of our nation because of Senate traditions – rules that guarantee open and civil debate, clearly defined procedures for amendments, and respectful debate reinforced by a rule that prohibits attacking another Senator’s integrity on the Senate floor. 
 
      When either party tramples on the rights of the minority, that carefully constructed framework is undermined.  And when the President usurps the role of Congress by overreaching in his use of executive orders or by avoiding the Senate confirmation process through recess appointments, the balance of power enshrined in our Constitution is undermined.
 
      These traditions are based on one central principle, that democracy is achieved through a deliberate process, not through shortcuts, insults, or manipulation.  No matter how noble the policy goal, no matter how frustrating the process, that is the way our system is supposed to work.
 
      Yet the Senate, like so many institutions in our society, is broken.  Despite some encouraging signs of progress this year in the Senate’s operations and achievements, the far left and the far right still make the most noise and grab the attention, but accomplish little.  Little wonder, then, that polls show that the public’s trust in America’s most important public institutions is at all-time lows. 
 
      And Congress is the lowest of all.  In fact, one poll showed that Congress’ approval rating among the American people is in the single digits – ranking below colonoscopies and root canals.  At least those two procedures come with anesthetics.  We are paying a steep price for forsaking the principles that guide our institutions.

 This point was wonderfully made in an essay a few years ago by former Congressman Lee Hamilton of Indiana.  In 2004, I had the privilege of working closely with Lee when he was co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission and I was Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.  Our work together produced the landmark Intelligence Reform legislation that has helped to prevent another 9/11.
 
      His essay is titled, “Why Congress Needs Institutionalists.”  Here is an especially powerful passage:
 
      “(W)hat an institutionalist values above all else is the role that Congress plays in making our representative democracy viable.  It should not be merely a body of elected officials, each pursuing his or her own goals or banding together to advance one political party's interests.  Rather, Congress has a set of responsibilities laid out in the Constitution and developed over the 220 years of its existence that enable it to serve as the place where the American people come closest to touching their national government.”
 
      And, at a time when Washington seems consumed by gridlock and hyperpartisanship, and ever more distant from the people it is intended to serve, former Congressman Hamilton provides a striking answer to the question of whether institutionalists can be agents for change.  Consider his greatly abbreviated scorecard of what past Congresses have accomplished, of the extraordinarily positive change brought about when Congress has carried out its responsibilities:  land-grant colleges, the GI Bill, the interstate highway system, Medicare, Medicaid, the civil-rights legislation of the 1960s.  It is truly astonishing that the institutionalists dominate the scoreboard, yet the insurrectionists get all the headlines.
 
      Let me give you an example.  In February of 1950, Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin gave one of the most infamous speeches in American history.  His speech was a tirade of baseless accusation, fear-mongering, and name-calling.  His intent was to stifle our freedoms and to turn Americans against each other.
 
      On June 1 of that year, Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith went to the Senate floor to deliver her famous “Declaration of Conscience.”  She did not do so to demonize Senator McCarthy as a person – as tempting as that probably was – but instead to denounce his actions.  She certainly gave him great offense, but she spoke the truth about his tactics of ruining reputations, crushing free speech, and smearing his opponents.  

 Just as important, when she condemned the accusations of “communist” and “fascist” that were flying about the Senate chamber, she was addressing both sides of the aisle.  It was an incredibly bold move that resonated with the American people and helped to bring the Senate back to its senses and to its principles as an institution.  Americans again felt the touch of what President Lincoln used to refer to as “the better angels of our nature.”
 
      History has judged these two approaches and declared a clear winner.  In 1950, Senator McCarthy was a household name, whereas Senator Smith was a freshman.  Today, Senator Smith is revered as a model of leadership who left a remarkable record of accomplishment.  Senator McCarthy is but a sad chapter in our history who left only a scar.
 
      I mentioned my work on the Intelligence Reform law; let me elaborate.  That difficult, sweeping legislation was written, debated, and passed in the midst of a highly contentious presidential campaign year.  It was subject to some 300 amendments, all given full consideration.  In the end, it prevailed in the Senate by a vote of 96 to 2.   My great partner in that endeavor, Senator Joe Lieberman, and I succeeded not by strong-arming the opposition, but by carefully considering all points of view and defending our bill – in other words, by honoring the traditions of the Senate.
 
      The power of time-honored legislative traditions was also clear in our efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 2010.  I joined Senator Lieberman in leading the fight to repeal this law that prevented patriotic gay and lesbian Americans from serving in the armed forces unless they concealed their sexual orientation.  My view was that we ought to be expressing our gratitude to those willing to serve, not drumming them out of our armed forces.
 
      Keep in mind that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was signed into law by a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, in 1993 and enjoyed bipartisan support for many years.
 
      Discrimination was the status quo, and it needed to be disrupted.  This change in the status quo would be difficult and was going to require Republican and Democratic votes and a change in the military’s culture.

  Although it was just five years ago, outright repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was still controversial in 2010.  For example, while the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified in favor of repeal, the Commandant of the Marine Corps was strongly opposed to repealing this 17-year-old discriminatory law. 
 
       After a contentious debate that May, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16 to 13 to include repeal in the defense bill – not exactly an overwhelming vote.  At the time, I was the only Republican to vote in favor of repeal.  But I was optimistic that, ultimately, I could convince other Republicans to join me, and they did.
 
      In December, during the final days of the legislative session, the giant defense bill, which included the repeal provisions, was brought up on the Senate floor.  But dysfunction in the Senate and disagreement over amendments stalled the defense bill and almost killed repeal of DADT.  We appeared to be stymied.
 
      Senator Lieberman and I talked about how to respond to this big setback.   We decided to introduce a separate bipartisan bill to repeal DADT.
 
      But the clock was ticking, and we were worried about how we would get our bill brought to the Senate floor.  That weekend, the Assistant Democratic Leader from the House, Steny Hoyer, called me.  He proposed that the House, then under Democratic control, would pass a separate repeal bill but wanted a guarantee from Joe and me that we could round up a sufficient number of Republican votes to pass it in the Senate.  I told him that I thought we could.
 
      For the next 10 days, I worked night and day to round up Republican votes even as the clock on the 111th Congress ran down.  Many people thought ours was an impossible task, but Senator Lieberman and I made the case persistently, one-on-one with our colleagues.

 When the Senate clerk began to call the roll on our bill, I was anxious but confident that the Republican votes needed to put the bill over the top were there.  And they were.  The final roll call on December 20th was a filibuster-proof 65 to 31, and history was made when the bill was signed into law two days later.
 
      My point is that, as with the civil rights legislation of 50 years ago, without bipartisan leadership, and without the votes of members of both parties, DADT would not have been repealed that year.   And because there was bipartisan support, there has not been any serious attempt to delay or turn back the clock on repeal.  The institutional traditions of Congress won the day.
 
      A clear example of the damage caused by ideological polarization occurred almost two years ago and was once again resolved by the power of bipartisan compromise.
 
      On October 1, 2013, a government shutdown began because Congress and the Administration failed to reach an agreement to fund the federal government for the new fiscal year that began on that date.  It is estimated that the 16-day shutdown cost the American economy $24 billion.
 
      Hard-working people in Maine paid a high price for Washington’s hyperpartisanship.  Small businesses – such as the inns, gift shops, and restaurants – around Acadia National Park lost some $16 million, or $1 million each day, due to the closure of the park during the peak fall foliage season.  That hurt not just the business owners, but also the wait staff, store clerks, and housekeepers. 
 
      On Saturday, October 5, as the shutdown ended its first week, I was alone in my Senate office listening to the highly partisan debate on the Senate floor.  All of my staff had been furloughed.  The debate on the Senate floor consisted of a Democratic Senator followed by a Republican Senator, alternating back and forth, each blaming the other side with no one offering a solution. 
    I thought, “This must stop.”  I drafted a plan I believed both parties could live with, rushed over to the Senate floor, and implored my colleagues to work to end the impasse.  I challenged both sides to come out of their partisan corners, stop fighting, and start legislating in a manner worthy of the people of this great nation.
 
      No sooner did I leave the Senate floor than my cellphone started ringing.  First to call was Lisa Murkowski from Alaska who said, “Count me in; I want to help.”  The next call was from Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire with much the same message.  Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota also called.  The discerning in the room will recognize a pattern. Yes, the women led the way. We also attracted a few good men, I hasten to say.
 
      Very quickly, I was leading a bipartisan group of seven Republicans, six Democrats, and one Independent, my Maine colleague Angus King.  We worked night and day to come up with a compromise to reopen government.
 
      Reaching across party lines, we broke through the partisan impasse.  Instead of finger-pointing and blame-fixing, we offered a solution.  It showed that the two parties could come together, negotiate, and reach an agreement in an atmosphere of mutual respect and good faith.  I call our bipartisan group the “Common Sense Coalition,” and we continue to seek solutions across the partisan divide.
 
      Compromise is difficult, but governing without it in a democracy is impossible.  Rather than second best, a bipartisan solution reached by honest debate and consideration of alternate viewpoints very often is not just the one with the best chance to prevail, but also the best answer.  Often what makes a policy issue challenging is that there are valid arguments and concerns on both sides.  In such cases, the optimal resolution accommodates the concerns of the opposing sides to the greatest extent possible.

  The Roman Republic fell because the status quo that provided stability and progress became a rigid structure that denied the basic human instinct for opportunity and liberty.  America has thrived because our government is based upon flexible yet principled institutions that allow us to meet emerging challenges. 
 
      The examples I have provided I hope will underscore this crucial point:  unyielding adherence to an extreme position is easy.  It is the hard work of bringing people together to find common ground that requires determination, intellect, and courage.  One can believe in our institutions and be passionate about the positive change, justice, opportunity, and progress that they can produce.  This works best when we work together, when we apply that sense of community, of working to achieve common goals that I learned growing up in Aroostook County.
 
      Thank you, and I am happy to take your questions.