[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 9, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4559-S4560]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate has just undergone an abrupt 
change in an office well known to all of us here in the Senate, but 
hardly visible, until lately, outside of the Senate--the office of the 
Senate Parliamentarian. I wish to make some comments on this matter. 
But first I would like to commend the outgoing Parliamentarian, Robert 
Dove, for his years of devoted service and to congratulate Alan Frumin 
on his assumption of the duties of the office.
  In my view, there are important institutional considerations that 
must guide the selection of any individual who aspires to become the 
Parliamentarian of the Senate.
  A long career in non-partisan service in the Senate offers the 
obvious benefit of experience, and fosters a detailed comprehension of 
the Senate's institutional role. An understanding of the Senate's 
unique constitutional role can best be developed by actually working on 
the floor of the Senate, and by close observation of Senate debate.
  A prospective parliamentarian should have little or no history of 
active partisan politics but instead should demonstrate an interest in 
the whole Senate as an institution. An individual with such a 
background can best represent the Senate's prerogatives in its dealings 
with the other departments of Government and with the other body, the 
House of Representatives.
  To date, each person who has served as Senate Parliamentarian has 
devoted a career to non-partisan service to the Senate. Every person 
who has become Senate Parliamentarian has served at least a decade as 
an assistant Senate parliamentarian before rising to the position of 
Senate Parliamentarian. Each person who has become Parliamentarian was 
promoted to that role from the status of most senior assistant 
parliamentarian.
  The five individuals who have been Senate Parliamentarian--and I have 
known them all--served an average of 12 years in the Secretary's Office 
before becoming Parliamentarian, with none less than 10 years. Each 
Parliamentarian served as an apprentice to his predecessor and 
progressed in sequence through the ranks following his predecessor.
  The first Parliamentarian, Charles Watkins, served in the office of 
the Secretary of the Senate as the Journal Clerk for 13 years before 
becoming Senate Parliamentarian.
  The second Parliamentarian, Dr. Floyd Riddick, who only recently 
passed from this life, served in the office of the Secretary of the 
Senate for 17 years, 13 as assistant parliamentarian, before becoming 
Senate Parliamentarian.
  The third Parliamentarian, Murray Zweben, who I believe only recently 
was deceased, served in the Parliamentarian's office for 16 years, 13 
as assistant parliamentarian, before becoming Parliamentarian. The 
fourth Parliamentarian, Bob Dove, served as an assistant 
parliamentarian for 14\1/2\ years before becoming Parliamentarian. The 
fifth Parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, served as an assistant 
parliamentarian for 10 years and had a total of almost 13 years of non-
partisan Congressional service before becoming Parliamentarian.
  Mr. President, trust is the basis of all fruitful human 
relationships. Loss of trust has poisoned many a well
  Kings have fallen, presidents have fallen, and Senators have fallen 
because the people lost their trust. Treaties have been abrogated 
because trust was compromised. Especially in a body like the Senate, 
where one's word is one's currency, trust makes the wheels turn. Trust 
and comity, I would say, are the twin pillars upon which this body 
really rests.
  The Parliamentarian is the keeper of the rules. He guards the 
precedents. He keeps the game fair. His advice about complicated 
procedural matters must be above suspicion. Both sides must view him as 
having no personal agenda--no goal but the goal of the best interests 
of the institution; no calling but the calling of doing his utmost to 
see that the Senate remains true to its constitutional mandate. He must 
be trusted by both sides.
  Such an individual must be steeped in the Senate's history and 
traditions. He or she must understand intuitively not only the rules 
and precedents but also the underlying principles which they seek to 
protect and the pitfalls they seek to avoid. His must be a calling and 
a commitment. His must be a labor of love.
  It is heavy, heavy lifting--not a job for a faint heart or a faint 
intellect.
  Benjamin Disraeli once observed that, ``Individualities may form 
communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.'' 
The Senate is the one institution in that constellation of 
institutional stars that comprise the universe of a Representative 
democracy which is designed to protect the rights of the minority. The 
right of unlimited debate and the right to amend are prima facie 
evidence of the Senate's raison d'etre.
  Unlike the House of Representatives, unlike the Judiciary, the Senate 
alone guarantees that the minority will be heard, and will have the 
opportunity to alter the course of events.
  In the Senate, when we speak of the minority of the membership, we 
also speak of the minority of the States.
  The Parliamentarian and his rulings are key to guarding those rights 
and preventing the Senate from losing its purpose. Remember, majorities 
change, and it is in the interests of both political parties to have an 
independent, experienced keeper of the Senate's historical and 
constitutional mandate.
  There must never, ever be a majority or a minority parliamentarian. 
As difficult as it may be in such times as these, we must all work 
together to strive to avoid the crass politicization of that critical 
office. Such an event, were it ever to occur, would be a nail in the 
coffin of the United States Senate. We must not travel down that road, 
no matter how tempting such a path may be. Expediency must never become 
the watchword of the Parliamentarian.

  I have given most of my life to this institution of the Senate. To me 
this is hallowed ground. This Chamber is a sanctuary. To me the 
protection of the liberty of the people rests squarely on these old 
floors. I speak not as a member of any political party today. I speak 
only, as I hope I am, as a faithful steward of this grand and glorious 
institution. I hope that we all can come together in a spirit of true 
bipartisanship to reject any tendency to use the office of 
Parliamentarian as a tool for partisan advantage.
  To guard against such a possibility, I urge that any decision to 
remove or replace a Parliamentarian be the joint decision of both 
Leaders.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I say to the distinguished 
Senator, with reference to this place, that while I can't claim to have 
spent as much of my life as you, it seems almost forever. It has been 
29 years for me. It has been

[[Page S4560]]

a long time since I first met you. You had been here a long time before 
you met the Senator from New Mexico. But I have 29 years of activity 
here of seeing how things are done.
  This is a rather unique institution--unique in the very best sense of 
the word. You really have to be part of it for a while. You can't just 
read a history book. Many political scientists have written about it, 
but none have really captured what it is.
  What you say about trust and comity is very right. There is no doubt 
about it. When people ask you how it runs, you say by rules. But by 
unanimous consent, a lot of the time, Senators can agree. A lot of 
times they are not here when agreements are entered into. Leadership 
does that. That is just one example. Everybody trusts them. They trust 
us who are doing it. We put together a unanimous consent, or my good 
friend, the ranking member, did, and it sounds right to both sides. 
Everybody thinks we are not going to cut them out or improperly agree 
to something. But we run that way.
  Unanimous consent is an interesting word. It means a lot of comity, a 
lot of trustworthiness between individual Members.
  I am not as acquainted with the history, but I have known a number of 
those who are mentioned.
  But you took to the floor talking about this great institution of 
America, and about its moving forward. I thank you.
  When I talked about whether your time should come off the resolution 
and about whether you had 15 minutes or an hour, whatever you needed, 
you got.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New 
Mexico, my friend.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you.

                          ____________________