[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 3 (Friday, January 5, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S43-S44]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ORGANIZING A 50/50 SENATE
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join the number of colleagues who have
spoken on the floor with respect to this agreement. I share both the
respect and admiration that have been expressed for the leadership for
the work they have done in order to bring us here.
Particularly, I know the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, worked
hard within his caucus and had to be particularly persuasive in order
to reach this accord.
I think this agreement respects the outcome of the election this
year. It is a reflection of the closeness of the division in the
Presidential race. It is, in my judgment, a fair and accurate
reflection of what happened in the Senate itself with the losses that
took place on one side of the aisle and a result that ended up with 50
Senators in both parties.
I have argued since day one that the only fair way, and the only
sensible way, to try to bring the country together and set the stage to
be able to reach the compromises we needed to reach was to reflect the
representation of the Senate as a whole in the committee structures.
Some on the other side argued for some period of time that that is
not the way it should work. We heard some people talking a few moments
ago about how, if you are responsible for driving the train, you then
need the extra vote in order to be able to guarantee that you can drive
the train.
The problem with that argument all along is, that is not what the
representation of the Senate itself reflects.
The second problem with the argument is that it relied essentially on
the notion that, by having an extra vote, you somehow have an added
power beyond the power of compromise, beyond the power of logic, beyond
the power of the merits of your argument, that you have a power of the
extra votes simply to drive your will through. We have seen that in
operation in the last few years in the Senate, frankly. I think for
many of us it has been a very negative and, frankly, a very
unproductive experience.
The last few years saw us avoiding the rules of the Senate in order
to drive through by virtue of the fact that there were more votes on
one side. In the end, you may be able to do that on occasion, whether
it is the reconciliation rules that allow you to do that, or it is a
particular conference rule, or the Rule XXVIII issues we have had over
the last years. Those allowed you to do it.
But I know the distinguished Senator from West Virginia would give
the most eloquent argument in the Senate for the fact that that didn't
necessarily serve the interests of the Senate nor even the interests of
the country.
What we have achieved today I believe stands to set the stage for the
ability of the Senate to serve the interests of the country.
Is there something of a sense of loss for some by virtue of this
agreement? I think yes. I think that is reflected in the sort of
difficulty that was presented in getting here to this moment. But in
the end, I think the logic was simply so powerful that 50/50 on both
sides means you divide the Senators and their committees according to
that number.
I admire and respect the Senator from Texas, who is one of the
brightest and most articulate people in the Senate and who read from
the Constitution about the powers of the Vice President to cast a vote
to break a tie. Indeed, that is absolutely true. But I think most
constitutional experts would tell you that is sort of the vote of last
resort--that it never contemplated that the Vice President of the
United States is somehow going to be represented on every single
committee, and then he is going to go to each committee and cast a
vote. It contemplates, if there is a tie and ultimately there is the
inability of the Senate to work its will of compromise, that in that
case the Vice President has the ability to cast his vote. Now the Vice
President will still have that ability. That is respected in this
agreement.
What this agreement achieves, which I think is perhaps the most
important missing ingredient of the Senate, was reflected in the
comments of the Senator from West Virginia, our former leader and
President pro tempore, who turned to his colleague on the
Appropriations Committee and talked about trust. He talked about
respect. Those committees that work the best in the Senate don't need
this resolution. Those chairmen of either party who want to make their
committee work effectively don't need a resolution to know the best way
to get something through the Senate and through the House is to be
inclusive, not exclusive.
So, in fact, we in the minority were remarkably forbearing in the
last year or two in not pressing the full advantage of the rules that
we might have pressed in order to stop the Senate cold in its tracks in
order to disrupt in the many ways possible, using the rules of
parliamentary procedure, to require our colleagues to be repeatedly on
the floor of the Senate to vote. In many ways, we were acquiescent, and
some might blame us for having been so. I think it was out of respect
for the process and out of the belief that there is a better way to get
business done here.
What I believe this agreement now does is set the stage for us to be
able in the Senate to grow the respect and the trust about which the
Senator from West Virginia talked. It gives Members the opportunity and
requires Members in committee to look to the other side of the aisle to
try to build the consensus necessary.
We all understand in that process we will never necessarily get 100
of our colleagues or 99 of our colleagues, but we can build enough of a
consensus that we can send legislation to the floor with votes of 16-4
or 18-0 or of a sufficient number at least to recognize that there has
been a respect for the views of both sides rather than a willingness to
simply write a piece of legislation in conference without even
including one Member of the Senate of the other side of the aisle and
then bring it to the floor and expect people to be happy and expect to
pass something that doesn't invite a veto or that somehow has the
consent of the American people.
The American people are why we are here, all of us. I think this
agreement today respects what the American people said on election day.
I think it respects this institution. I think it gives everyone an
opportunity, long awaited, to do a better job of being Senators and
allowing this body to be the great deliberative entity that it is
supposed to be.
In the end, this resolution and the words that comprise it in its
three pages are not going to do the job. Any Senator who is
sufficiently disgruntled by this agreement, who figures that they will
go their own path, has the ability to continue to do things as we have
done them in the last few years. But I think this is a message to all
Members that we have an opportunity to try to legislate in the best
sense of the word, to find the compromise. There is no way this will
work without that compromise. All Members need to understand that.
I hope in the next days the American people will see the Senate set
the example that we all want, and I know we can.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, let me express my appreciation to the
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. He is a Senator of enormous
ability and great talents. One of those talents is the capability of
elocution in such an impressive and persuasive manner. I want to thank
him for his words today.
The President-elect can be very grateful to the two leaders of this
body today and to the Senators who have acceded to the needs and the
requirements of the moment to give up a little; everyone gives up a
little. We are waiving some rules; we are temporarily changing some
rules in this resolution. In the interests of going forward in the
Nation and in the interests of making it possible for this institution
to rise to the expectations of the American people and accede to their
will, this resolution is really a unique instrument.
[[Page S44]]
As the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has just said, this
resolution makes it possible for the Senate to work its will; and
achieve legislative goals; it only makes it possible. We, the Members
on both sides of the aisle, have to make it work. I am constrained to
hope--yea, even believe--that we are going to make it work. The things
I have heard said on this floor today make me believe that.
I thank the distinguished Senator. I have known him for a long time.
I thank him for his contribution today.
Mr. President, if I may speak just for a few minutes, I ask unanimous
consent I may address the Senate on another matter for not to exceed 10
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________