Filibuster

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. 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 supermajority vote to pass legislation, with few exceptions. These rules have helped to make the U.S. 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 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 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 5 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.

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 vital importance to the Senate and to our country.

This is what our letter stated, in part:

[W]e 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 any effort to curtail the existing rights and prerogatives of Senators to engage in full, robust, and extended debate as we consider legislation.

Senate, Washington, DC, April 7, 2017. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader McConnell and Democratic Leader Schumer: We are writing to urge you to support our efforts to preserve existing rules, practices, and traditions as they pertain to the right of Members to engage in extended debate on legislation before the United States Senate. Senators have expressed a variety of opinions about the appropriateness of limiting debate when we are considering judicial and executive branch nominations. Regardless of our past disagreements on that issue, 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 any effort to curtail the existing rights and prerogatives of Senators to engage in full, robust, and extended debate as we consider legislation before this body in the future. Sincerely, Susan M. Collins; Orrin Hatch; Claire McCaskill; Lisa Murkowski; Christopher A. Coons; Joe Manchin; John McCain; Patrick Leahy; Roger Wicker; Luther Strange; Angus King; Michael Bennet; Amy Klobuchar; Robert P. Casey, Jr.; Martin Heinrich. John Boozman; Lindsey Graham; Richard Burr; Mark Warner; Jerry Moran; Roy Blunt; Marco Rubio; Jeanne Shaheen; Thom Tillis; Sherrod Brown; Shelley Moore Capito; Kirsten E. Gillibrand; Brian Schatz; Michael Enzi; Dean Heller. Cory Booker; Mazie Hirono; Dianne Feinstein; John Thune; Bill Cassidy; Heidi Heitkamp; Jeff Flake; Chuck Grassley; Maria Cantwell; Rob Portman; Lamar Alexander; John Kennedy; Jon Tester; Tom Carper; Pat Roberts. Maggie Hassan; Tammy Duckworth; Jack Reed; Thad Cochran; Joe Donnelly; Ben Sasse; Todd Young; Kamala Harris; Bill Nelson; Johnny Isakson; Ed Markey; Mike Lee; Debbie Stabenow; Sheldon Whitehouse; Robert Menendez; Tim Kaine.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. 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 2 years later on a simple majority vote and then perhaps reenacted in another 2 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 improving 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 a 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 longstanding 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 U.S. 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.''

Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source