[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.

                          ____________________