[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 139 (Thursday, September 29, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: September 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT, 1994--CONFERENCE
REPORT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to
the amendment of the Senate numbered 12 to the bill (H.R.
4649) entitled ``An act making appropriations for the
government of the District of Columbia and other activities
chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said
District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and
for other purposes,'' and concur therein with an amendment.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as I understand it, the amendment sponsored
by Senator Domenici and Senator Boren is the pending business. Is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The Senator is correct. That is
the pending question.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, a lot of people who profess to admire Thomas Jefferson
do not want to get even in the vicinity of the positions that Thomas
Jefferson took. One of the great books that all Senators ought to read
is a little book written by Thomas Jefferson, entitled, ``Manual of
Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the United States Senate.'' In
this book, which is sort of a second Bible to me, Thomas Jefferson
implicitly but nonetheless clearly warned those who in the name of
institutional reform or ending gridlock or any other such contrivance
seek to alter the rules which govern debate in the Senate.
Jefferson clearly sounded a warning which is being ignored time and
time again. You hear all of these arguments about changing this rule
and changing that and expediting this procedure. I wish Thomas
Jefferson could come in that door and say, ``Look here, fellows. Stop
it.'' In my judgment, if Tom Jefferson were around today, he would
disdain those who propose to change the Senate rules. In 1801, 12 years
after the convening of the first Congress, Thomas Jefferson wrote this:
Nothing tended to throw power into the hands of
administration and those who acted with a majority of the
House of Commons, than a neglect of, or a departure from the
rules of proceeding.
Parenthetically, let me say, he was talking about rules of proceeding
of the Senate. He was talking about those who might propose to change
these rules. Then he continues. He said:
* * * that these forms [rules], as instituted by our
ancestors, operated as a check and control on other actions
of the majority, and that they were in many instances, a
shelter and protection to the minority against the attempts
of power * * *
* * * and whether these forms be in all cases the most
rational, or not, is really not of great importance.
It is much more material that there should be a rule to go
by, than what the rule is; that there may be a uniformity of
proceeding in business, not subject to the caprice of the
Speaker, or captiousness of the members.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, there are some among us who are poised
to head down the very path that Thomas Jefferson warned us not to take.
I have reviewed the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the
Organization of Congress, and I acknowledge that the pending amendment
contains some proposals of which I approve, such as the abolition of
joint committees, limiting committee assignments, and the reduction in
the size of personal office staffs and committee staffs. I am all for
those.
But there are proposals that I believe Thomas Jefferson would reject
out of hand--for example, the projected restrictions on the ability of
a Senator or a group of Senators to debate and examine legislation
could ultimately fracture the constitutional balance of power which has
existed between the two Houses of Congress since the year 1789.
I do not make this observation lightly. There is no right as
essential to maintaining our freedoms, nor is there a right as
misunderstood, as the right of unlimited debate in the Senate of the
United States. For more than 200 years the Senate has wisely guarded
its role as a check on the ``passions'' of the House--to use James
Madison's words--and as a court of last resort for the views of a
minority--be it a minority of one Senator, a minority party, an
ideological minority, or a regional minority. We must not do harm to
unlimited debate.
In 1841, John Calhoun fought against the rechartering of the Bank of
the United States. In debate, he remarked that what set the Senate
apart from the controlled atmosphere of the House was:
* * * the minority's unquestioned right to question,
examine, and discuss those measures which they believe in
their hearts are inimical to the best interests of their
country.
As a result of Calhoun's fight, the Senate's role as the forum for
protecting the rights of the minority became an accepted facet of
American Government. Last year, a group of western Senators--
Republicans as well as Democrats--used the same tactics, practiced by
Calhoun and others, to prevent the majority of both Houses from
trampling on the rights of sparsely populated States which derive
substantial revenue from those who use public lands. If the right of
unlimited debate had been curtailed, the needs of this regional
minority would not have been served. The filibuster forced a
recalcitrant Congress and adminisration to pay attention to those who
otherwise would have been ignored, as if they were a ship passing in
the night.
The so-called parliamentary reform advanced by the plan of the Joint
Committee is the abolition of the right of unlimited debate on a motion
to proceed to the consideration of a bill. Because recent Senate custom
has allowed the majority leader to move to consideration of legisaltion
at his pleasure, this change will represent a major expansion of the
majority leader's power to set and dictate the Senate's schedule.
The majority leader is supposed to lead the Senate but he is not
supposed to dictate to it. And that line has been crossed time and time
again. The reform package would also require a three-fifths majority to
overturn a parliamentary ruling of the Chair after cloture is invoked,
again broadening the scope of the majority leader's power.
Mr. President, it is clear to anybody who reads the history of the
Senate that the Founding Fathers never intended that any Member of the
U.S. Senate, including a majority leader, assume the trappings of the
Speaker of the House of Representatives who singlehandedly controls the
timing of debate, controls interpretation of the rules of the House,
and through his surrogates on the Rules Committee, even controls what
amendments will or will not be considered by that body.
If and when the Senate majority leader--regardless of which party,
and there are a lot of folks hoping that the mantle of control moves
from one party to the other after the November election--is allowed to
acquire such powers, and this legislation is the first step toward
that, the Senate will be reduced to being nothing more than ``an
appendage of the House,'' as the distinguished President pro tempore,
the Honorable Robert C. Byrd, has so eloquently noted in his history of
the U.S. Senate.
There is no Member of this body who understands more clearly what is
at stake here than Senator Byrd. I look forward to his remarks on the
pending amendment. Senators had better heed it because he knows what he
is talking about and he knows what is afoot.
Those who have argued for the elimination of unlimited debate contend
that in a democracy the majority must always rule.
I dissent from that with all my being, and I call attention to a guy
named Pontius Pilate, who abdicated his responsibility to a mob. Must
the mob always rule? That position is at odds with the very principles
upon which this Government was built. Do not forget how we honor the
men whom we call our Founding Fathers and what they created at
Philadelphia over 200 years ago. They got down on their knees and they
prayed for guidance in the creation of this country, because they
understood that nothing can be created if there is no Creator. The
Founding Fathers viewed the Senate as the last check--the last check--
on the potential excesses of the House of Representatives and the
executive branch. Without the power to filibuster, the Founding
Fathers' plan would be decimated, destroyed. During his first days in
the Senate, a man named Lyndon Johnson discovered why the Senate's
prerogatives must be carefully protected. Here is what Lyndon Johnson
said:
If I should have the opportunity to send into the countries
behind the Iron Curtain one freedom and only one, I know what
my choice would be * * * I would send to those nations the
right of unlimited debate in their legislative chambers * * *
If we now in haste and irritation, shut off this freedom,--
Meaning in the U.S. Senate,
we shall be cutting off the most vital safeguard which
minorities possess against the tyranny of momentary
majorities.
Mr. President, it is true that from time to time there have been
abuses of the right of unlimited debate. At times, unlimited debate has
been inconvenient to some. How many times do we hear, ``Well, I have to
catch a plane, I have a fundraiser back home, and if you keep on
talking, I will miss my plane.'' I always say to them, ``You ought not
to have made the plans to go home on a working day.''
This system was not designed for the convenience of a President of
the United States, or the whims of a majority leader, or any party.
This system was designed to protect all citizens from the dangers of
hurried, arbitrary, and ill-considered legislation. And the Lord knows
a pile of it flows through this Senate Chamber every year.
The current rules of the Senate strike a necessary balance between
the need of the Senate to carry on its business and the need to ensure
that the minority is not overwhelmed by the majority, because as
history shows, a majority in this town is not always in step with the
wishes of the American people. I could cite a number of pieces of
legislation this year and last year that are in that category. The
defeat of the President's so-called job stimulus package last year is
just one prominent case where the majority was proved wrong.
So if the Senate is really concerned and really serious about reform,
it should not dispose of the rules which have made this body the most
powerful Upper Chamber in the world. Instead, the Senate should focus
on: First, ethics reform; second, making the laws we pass here in the
Senate Chamber applicable to Congress--Senators and Members of the
House of Representatives; and third, a plan for using unspent Senate
funds to reduce the Federal deficit and get that burden off the
taxpayers' back. These are meaningful reforms, which would increase
public confidence in, and respect for, the U.S. Senate.
I close, Mr. President, with words from a reporter's account of an
address delivered by Vice President Aaron Burr on March 5, 1805. That
was the day of his departure from the Senate. Aaron Burr's speech has
been described as ``the most dramatic ever delivered before the
Senate.'' I think it is proper to close my remarks by quoting from that
speech, or at least the reporter's account of what Burr said:
He [Vice President Burr] further remarked that the ignorant
and unthinking affected to treat as unnecessary and
fastidious a rigid attention to rules and decorum. This
House, said he, is a sanctuary; a citadel of law, of order,
and of liberty; and it is here--it is here, in this exalted
refuge; here if anywhere, will resistance be made to the
storms of political phrensy and the silent arts of
corruption; and if the Constitution be destined ever to
perish by the sacrilegious hands of the demagogue or the
usurper, which God avert, its expiring agonies will be
witnessed on this floor.
That is a very, very interesting comment by Aaron Burr. I thank the
Chair.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to
proceed as in morning business for a period of time not to exceed 10
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________