[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S184-S185]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Filibuster

  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

[[Page S185]]

     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.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bipartisan letter, 
dated April 7, 2017, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. 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.

  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.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.