[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 35 (Wednesday, March 25, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2564-S2567]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
``THE LEADERS LECTURE SERIES''--REMARKS OF SENATOR MIKE MANSFIELD
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, last night was a memorable night for this
Senator and I believe a number of others in this Chamber. On Tuesday
evening, I was honored and humbled to introduce to this body, Senator
Mike Mansfield for an address in the old Senate Chamber. This inaugural
lecture was the first of what I hope will be a continuing number of
addresses for ``The Leader's Lecture Series''.
I think I can speak for all Members of this Senate in saying we were
honored in having as the first speaker in
[[Page S2565]]
this series, the longest serving majority leader of this body, Senator
Mike Mansfield of Montana.
I look forward to future addresses from former Senate leaders and
other distinguished Americans in sharing their insights about the
Senate's recent history and long-term practices.
I ask unanimous consent that the remarks of the distinguished former
majority leader be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the remarks were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Senate And Its Leadership: A Second Look
(Remarks by Mike Mansfield--March 24, 1998)
Thank you for your very kind introduction. I am deeply
appreciative of what you have had to say, even though I think
you put too much icing on the cake. The real credit of
whatever standing I have achieved in life should be given to
my wife Maureen, who, unfortunately, could not be with us
this evening. She was and is my inspiration. She encouraged
and literally forced a dropout 8th grader to achieve a
University degree and at the same time make up his high
school credits. She sold her life insurance and gave up her
job as a Butte High School teacher to make it possible. She
initiated me into politics--the House, the Senate and,
diplomatically speaking, the Tokyo Embassy. She gave of
herself to make something of me. She has always been the one
who has guided, encouraged and advised me. She made the
sacrifices and deserved the credits, but I was the one who
was honored. She has always been the better half of our lives
together and, without her coaching, her understanding, and
her love, I would not be with you tonight. What we did, we
did together.
In short, I am what I am because of her.
I would like to dedicate my remarks tonight to my three
great loves: Maureen, Montana, and the United States Senate.
It is an honor to ``kick off'' the first in the Senate
Lecture Series with the Majority Leader, Senator Trent Lott,
and the Minority Leader, Senator Tom Daschle, in attendance.
They represent the continuity of the office first held by
Democratic Senator John Kern of Indiana in 1913 and by
Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts in
1917. They--the two Leaders--represent positions of trust and
responsibility in today's Senate. They are the two among one
hundred whom their respective parties have placed first among
equals. Incidentally, it is my understanding that less than
3,000 men and women have served as Senators since the
beginning of our Republic. They have been the ``favored few''
among the hundreds of millions in their overall
constituencies.
Twenty-two years ago, on June 16, 1976, an audience of
senators and their guests filled this chamber, much as you do
this evening. On that occasion, the Senate convened here in
formal legislative session. Their purpose was similar to ours
today. Carving out a few moments from crowded and distracting
schedules, those Senators of the 94th Congress came to honor
the history and the traditions of the United States Senate.
On that occasion, they came to rededicate this grand
chamber--to celebrate the completion of a five-year-long
restoration project.
The idea for this room's restoration to its appearance of
the 1850's may have first surfaced in 1935. In that year, the
Supreme Court, a tenant since 1860, moved into its new
building across the street. I know for sure that the idea
received close attention in the early 1960's. This once-
elegant chamber had become an all-purpose room--whose uses
included conference committee meetings, catered luncheons and
furniture storage. Where once stood the stately mahogany
desks of Clay, Webster and Calhoun, there then rested--on
occasion--stark iron cots. These cots accommodated teams of
senators on call throughout the night to make a quorum
against round-the-clock filibusters. By the late 1960's, the
idea for this room's restoration moved toward reality--and
the 1976 ceremony--thanks largely to the vision and
persistence of the legendary Mississippi Senator, John C.
Stennis.
And we now have Senator Stennis' immediate successor,
Senator Trent Lott, to thank for inaugurating his ``Leader's
Lecture Series.'' Here is another welcome opportunity, on a
periodic basis, to consider the foundations and development
of this United States Senate. Thank you for inviting me, Mr.
Leader.
There are very few advantages to outliving one's
generation. One of them is the opportunity to see how
historians describe and evaluate that generation. Some
historians do it better than others.
One such historian is Senator Robert C. Byrd. As all of you
know, Robert Byrd has combined a participant's insights with
a scholar's detachment to produce an encyclopedic four-volume
history of the Senate. Near the end of his first volume
appear two chapters devoted to the 1960's and '70's. Robert
has entitled them ``Mike Mansfield's Senate.''
Now, I have no doubt that he would be the first to
acknowledge the accuracy of what I am about to say. If,
during my time as Senate leader, a pollster had asked each
Senator the question, ``Whose Senate is this?'' that pollster
would surely have received 99 separate answers--and they
would all have been right. Only for purposes of literary
convenience or historic generalization could we ever
acknowledge that one person--at least during my time--could
shape such a body in his own image.
Senator Byrd has been doubly generous in assigning me a
seat in the Senate's Pantheon. Volume Three of his history
series contains forty-six so-called ``classic speeches''
delivered in the Senate over the past century and a half.
Among them is an address that was prepared for delivery in
the final weeks of the 1963 session. My topic was ``The
Senate and Its Leadership.''
By mid-1963, various Democratic senators had begun to
express publicly their frustration with the lack of apparent
progress in advancing the Kennedy administration's
legislative initiatives. Other Senators were less open in
their criticism--but they were equally determined that I, as
majority leader, should begin to knock some heads together.
After all, they reasoned, Democrats in the Senate enjoyed a
nearly two-to-one party ratio. With those numbers, anything
should be possible under the lash of disciplined leadership.
Sixty-five Democrats, thirty-five Republicans! (Think of it,
Senator Daschle.) Of course, I use the word ``enjoy''
loosely. Ideological differences within our party seriously
undercut that apparent numerical advantage.
I decided the time had come to put down my views in a
candid address. There would then be no doubt as to where I
stood. If some of my party colleagues believed that mine was
not the style of leadership that suited them, they would be
welcome to seek a change.
I had selected a Friday afternoon, when little else would
be going on, to discuss ``The Senate and Its Leadership.''
The date was Friday, November 22, 1963.
That day's tragic events put an end to any such
speechmaking. On the following week, as the nation grieved
for President Kennedy, I simply inserted my prepared remarks
into the Congressional Record. (November 27, 1963)
I have waited thirty-five years to give that speech. I wish
to quote from that address to present views that I believe
are as relevant today as they were more than a third of a
century ago. But first, before I do so, I would like to quote
Lao Tsu, a Chinese philosopher of ancient times, who said,
``A leader is best when the people hardly know he exists. And
of that leader the people will say when his work is done, `We
did this ourselves'.''
``The Speech
``Mr. President, some days ago, blunt words were said on
the floor of the Senate. They dealt in critical fashion with
the state of this institution. They dealt in critical fashion
with the quality of the majority leadership and the minority
opposition. A far more important matter than criticism or
praise of the leadership was involved. It is a matter which
goes to the fundamental nature of the Senate.
``In this light, we have reason to be grateful because if
what was stated was being said in the cloakrooms, then it
should have been said on the floor. If, as was indicated, the
functioning of the Senate itself is in question, the place to
air that matter is on the floor of the Senate. We need no
cloakroom commandos, operating behind the swinging doors of
the two rooms at the rear, to spread the tidings. We need no
whispered word passed from one to another and on to the
press.
``We are here to do the public's business. On the floor of
the Senate, the public's business is conducted in full sight
and hearing of the public. And it is here, not in the
cloakrooms, that the Senator from Montana, the majority
leader, if you wish, will address himself to the question of
the present state of the Senate and its leadership . . . It
will be said to all senators and to all the members of the
press who sit above us in more ways than one.
``How, Mr. President, do you measure the performance of
this Congress--any Congress? How do you measure the
performance of a Senate of one hundred independent men and
women--any Senate? The question rarely arises, at least until
an election approaches. And, then, our concern may well be
with our own individual performance and not necessarily with
that of the Senate as a whole.
``Yet that performance--the performance of the Senate as a
whole--has been judged on the floor. Several senators, at
least, judged it and found it seriously wanting. And with the
hue and cry thus raised, they found echoes outside the
Senate. I do not criticize senators for making the judgment,
for raising the alarm. Even less do I criticize the press for
spreading it. Senators were within their rights. And the
press was not only within its rights but was performing a
segment of its public duty, which is to report what
transpires here.
``I, too, am within my rights, Mr. President, and I believe
I am performing a duty of the leadership when I ask again:
How do you judge the performance of this Congress--any
Congress? Of this Senate--any Senate? Do you mix a concoction
and drink it? And if you feel a sense of well-being
thereafter, decide it is not so bad a Congress after all? But
if you feel somewhat ill or depressed, then that, indeed, is
proof unequivocal that the Congress is a bad Congress and the
Senate is a bad Senate? Or do you shake your head back and
forth negatively before a favored columnist when discussing
the performance of this Senate? And if he, in turn, nods up
and down, then that is proof that the performance is bad? . .
.
[[Page S2566]]
``There is reference (by members and the media), to be
sure, to time-wasting, to laziness, to absenteeism, to
standing still, and so forth. But who are the time wasters in
the Senate, Mr. President? Who is lazy? Who is an absentee?
Each member can make his own judgment of his individual
performance. I make no apologies for mine. Nor will I sit in
judgment of any other member. On that score, each of us will
answer to his own conscience, if not to his constituents.
``But, Mr. President, insofar as the performance of the
Senate as a whole is concerned, with all due respect, these
comments in time wasting have little relevance. Indeed, the
Congress can, as it has--as it did in declaring World War II
in less than a day--pass legislation which has the
profoundest meaning for the entire nation. And by contrast,
the Senate floor can look very busy day in and day out, month
in and month out, while the Senate is indeed dawdling. At one
time in the recollection of many of us, we debated a civil
rights measure twenty-four hours a day for many days on
end. We debated it shaven and unshaven. We debated it
without ties, with hair awry, and even in bedroom
slippers. In the end, we wound up with compromise
legislation. And it was not the fresh and well-rested
opponents of the civil rights measure who were compelled
to the compromise. It was, rather, the exhausted, sleep-
starved, quorum-confounded proponents who were only too
happy to take it.
``No, Mr. President, if we would estimate the performance
of this Congress or any other, this Senate or any other, we
will have to find a more reliable yardstick than whether, on
the floor, we act as time wasters or moonlighters. As every
member of the Senate and press knows, even if the public
generally does not, the Senate is neither more nor less
effective because the Senate is in session from 9 a.m. to 9
p.m., or to 9 a.m. the next day.
``Nor does the length of the session indicate a greater or
lesser effectiveness. We live in a twelve-month nation. It
may well be that the times are pushing us in the direction of
a twelve-months Congress. In short, we cannot measure a
Congress or a Senate by the standards of the stretch-out or
of the speedup. It will be of no avail to install a time
clock at the entrance to the chamber for Senators to punch
when they enter or leave the floor.
``There has been a great deal said on this floor about
featherbedding in certain industries. But if we want to see a
featherbedding to end all featherbedding, we will have the
Senate sit here day in and day out, from dawn until dawn,
whether or not the calendar calls for it, in order to impress
the boss--the American people--with our industriousness. We
may not shuffle papers as bureaucrats are assumed to do when
engaged in this art. What we are likely to shuffle is words--
words to the President on how to execute the foreign policy
or administer the domestic affairs of the nation. And when
these words pall, we will undoubtedly turn to the Court to
give that institution the benefit of our advice on its
responsibilities. And if we run out of judicial wisdom, we
can always turn to advising the governors of the states, or
the mayors of the cities, or the heads of other nations, on
how to manage their concerns.
``Let me make it clear that Senators individually have
every right to comment on whatever they wish, and to do so on
the floor of the Senate. Highly significant initiatives on
all manner of public affairs have had their genesis in the
remarks of individual Senators on the floor. But there is one
clear-cut, day-in-and-day-out responsibility of the Senate as
a whole. Beyond all others, it is the constitutional
responsibility to be here and to consider and to act in
concert with the House on the legislative needs of the
nation. And the effectiveness with which that responsibility
is discharged cannot be measured by any reference to the
clocks on the walls of the chamber.
``Nor can it be measured, really, by the output of
legislation. For those who are computer-minded, however, the
record shows that 12,656 bills and resolutions were
introduced in the 79th Congress of 1945 and 1946. And in the
87th Congress of 1961 and 1962, (that number had increased
by) 60 percent. And the records show further that in the 79th
Congress, 2,117 bills and resolutions were passed, and in the
87th, 2,217 were passed.
``But what do these figures tell us, Mr. President? Do they
tell us that the Congress has been doing poorly because in
the face of an 8,000 increase in the biannual input of bills
and resolutions, the output of laws fifteen years later had
increased by only a hundred? They tell us nothing of the
kind.
``If these figures tell us anything, they tell us that the
pressures on Congress have intensified greatly. They suggest,
further, that Congress may be resistant to these pressures.
But whether Congress resists rightly or wrongly, to the
benefit or detriment of the nation, these figures tell us
nothing at all.
``There is a (more meaningful way to measure) the
effectiveness of a Democratic administration. I refer to the
approach which is commonly used these days of totaling the
Presidential or executive branch requests for significant
legislation and weighing against that total the number of
congressional responses in the form of law.
``On this basis, if the Congress enacts a small percentage
of the executive branch requests, it is presumed, somewhat
glibly and impertinently, to be an ineffective Congress. But
if the percentage is high, it follows that it is classifiable
as an effective Congress. I am not so sure that I would
agree, and I am certain that the distinguished minority
leader (Senator Dirksen) and his party would not agree that
that is a valid test. The opposition might measure in
precisely the opposite fashion. The opposition might, indeed,
find a Democratic Congress which enacted little, if any, of a
Democratic administration's legislation, a paragon among
congresses. And yet I know that the distinguished minority
leader does not reason in that fashion, for he has acted time
and time again not to kill administration measures, but to
help to pass them when he was persuaded that the interests of
the nation so required. . . . I see no basis for apology on
statistical grounds either for this Congress to date or for
the last. But at the same time, I do not take umbrage in
statistics. I do not think that statistics, however refined,
tell much of the story of whether or not a particular
Congress or Senate is effective or ineffective.
``I turn, finally, to the recent criticism which has been
raised as to the quality of the leadership. Of late, Mr.
President, the descriptions of the majority leader, of the
Senator from Montana, have ranged from a benign Mr. Chips, to
glamourless, to tragic mistake.
``It is true, Mr. President, that I have taught school,
although I cannot claim either the tenderness, the
understanding, or the perception of Mr. Chips for his
charges. I confess freely to a lack of glamour. As for being
a tragic mistake, if that means, Mr. President, that I am
neither a circus ringmaster, the master of ceremonies of a
Senate night club, a tamer of Senate lions, or a wheeler and
dealer, then I must accept, too, that title. Indeed, I must
accept it if I am expected as majority leader to be anything
other than myself--a Senator from Montana who has had the
good fortune to be trusted by his people for over two decades
and done the best he knows how to represent them, and to do
what he believes to be right for the nation.
``Insofar as I am personally concerned, these or any other
labels can be borne. I achieved the height of my political
ambitions when I was elected Senator from Montana. When the
Senate saw fit to designate me as majority leader, it was the
Senate's choice, not mine, and what the Senate has bestowed,
it is always at liberty to revoke.
``But so long as I have this responsibility, it will be
discharged to the best of my ability by me as I am. I would
not, even if I could, presume to a tough-mindedness which,
with all due respect to those who use this cliche, I have
always had difficulty in distinguishing from soft-headedness
or simple-mindedness. I shall not don any Mandarin's robes or
any skin other than that to which I am accustomed in order
that I may look like a majority leader or sound like a
majority leader --however a majority leader is supposed to
look or sound. I am what I am, and no title, political face-
lifter, or image-maker can alter it.
``I believe that I am, as are most Senators, an ordinary
American with a normal complement of vices and, I hope,
virtues, of weaknesses and, I hope, strengths. As such, I do
my best to be courteous, decent, and understanding of others,
and sometimes fail at it.
``I have always felt that the President of the United
States --whoever he may be . . . is worthy of the respect of
the Senate. I have always felt that he bears a greater burden
of responsibility than any individual Senator for the welfare
and security of the nation, for he alone can speak for the
nation abroad; and he alone, at home, stands with the
Congress as a whole, as constituted representatives of the
entire American people. In the exercise of his grave
responsibilities, I believe we have a profound responsibility
to give him whatever understanding and support we can, in
good conscience and in conformity with our independent
duties. I believe we owe it to the nation of which all our
States are a part--particularly in matters of foreign
relations--to give to him not only responsible opposition,
but responsible cooperation.
``And, finally, within this body, I believe that every
member ought to be equal in fact, no less than in theory,
that they have a primary responsibility to the people whom
they represent to face the legislative issues of the nation.
And to the extent that the Senate may be inadequate in this
connection, the remedy lies not in the seeking of shortcuts,
not in the cracking of nonexistent whips, not in wheeling and
dealing, but in an honest facing of the situation and a
resolution of it by the Senate itself, by accommodation, by
respect for one another, by mutual restraint and, as
necessary, adjustments in the procedures of this body.
``The constitutional authority and responsibility does not
lie with the leadership. It lies with all of us individually,
collectively, and equally. And in the last analysis,
deviations from that principle must in the end act to the
detriment of the institution. And, in the end, that principle
cannot be made to prevail by rules. It can prevail only if
there is a high degree of accommodation, mutual restraint,
and a measure of courage--in spite of our weaknesses--in all
of us. It can prevail only if we recognize that, in the end,
it is not the Senators as individuals who are of fundamental
importance. In the end, it is the institution of the Senate.
It is the Senate itself as one of the foundations of the
Constitution. It is the Senate as one of the rocks of the
Republic.''
[[Page S2567]]
Thus ended my abridged observations of November 1963.
In my remarks during the 1976 dedication ceremonies in this
chamber, I returned to the themes of 1963. I stated my belief
that, in its fundamentals, the Senate of modern times may not
have changed essentially from the Senate of Clay, Webster,
and Calhoun.
What moved Senators yesterday still moves Senators today.
We have the individual and collective strength of our
predecessors and, I might add, their weaknesses. We are not
all ten feet tall, nor were they. Senators act within the
circumstances of their fears no less than their courage,
their foibles as well as their strengths. Our concerns and
our efforts in the Senate, like our predecessors and
successors, arise from our goals of advancing the welfare of
the people whom we represent, safeguarding the well-being of
our respective States and protecting the present and future
of this nation, a nation which belongs--as does this room--
not to one of us, or to one generation, but to all of us and
to all generations.
The significance of that 1976 gathering--and perhaps of our
being here tonight--is to remind us that in a Senate of
immense and still unfolding significance to the nation, each
individual member can play only a brief and limited role. It
is to remind us that the Senate's responsibilities go on,
even though the faces and, yes, even the rooms in which they
gather, fade into history. With the nation, the Senate has
come a long way. And still, there is a long way to go.
____________________