Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 49 (Thursday, April 21, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 49 (Thursday, April 21, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4096-S4097]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PRESERVING SENATE RULES

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, engraved in stone on the panel behind
the Presiding Officer are the words ``E pluribus unum''--``Out of many,
one.''
The words also appear on the seal of the Senate, which appears on the
flag the Senators see to the right of the Presiding Officer. It is one
of my favorite mottos. It is the motto of the United States of America.
The words mean, ``One unity, formed from many parts.'' They represent
the Senate well. For it is here in the Senate our Nation has been
brought together. It is here in the Senate our Nation's leaders have
worked out many of the great compromises that have bridged the issues
of the day. It is here in the Senate that disparate interests in our
Nation have become one.
The Senate is a place of unity, a place of compromise, and a place of
consensus, because of its rules. The Senate works to force unity, not
because its rules make it easy to get things done, but because the
rules make it so hard. Because the Senate's rules require Senators to
assemble majorities of three-fifths, and sometimes two-thirds, the
rules force Senators to find policy positions that appeal more broadly,
that transcend party, that bring more Senators together.
Because its rules make it so hard to get things done, the Senate does
much of its work through the ultimate expression of unity--through
unanimous consent.
Because the Senate's rules make it hard to get things done, Senators
must work together to get things done. Because the Senate's rules make
it hard to get things done, no Senator may completely disrespect a
second Senator because a second Senator might hold up the first
Senator's legislation.
Because the rules make it harder to get things done, the Senate has
collegiality and comity. It is that simple. The rules make it harder to
get things done, and that forces us together. Because the Senate rules
make it harder to get things done, Senators of one party must reach out
to the moderates of another party.
Let me state for the record, as my colleagues already know, I am one
of those moderates. Since 1978, I have worked in this Chamber to put
Montana first, to use common sense, to be effective, and to get things
done. Because of the way the Senate works and because of the way I
work, that has meant working together with other Senators, often across
the aisle.
I have worked together with Republicans to cut taxes, to reform
environmental laws, to open international markets to American trade,
and to update Medicare to provide prescription drugs. Why? Because all
those are important, and it is important to work together to get those
things done.
One of the reasons moderates, like me, of both parties can move
compromises and consensus legislation is because the rules of the
Senate require getting more than a simple majority.
Contrast that with the House of Representatives. There the rules make
it easy to get things done. But there, it is a rare exception when
Members craft legislation to appeal broadly, across party lines. There
the majority passes the legislation that represents the strongest
achievable expression of the majority party's position. Unity is not
their goal.
One might call the result majority rule, but the reality is that the
product of the House of Representatives often represents an even
smaller fraction. The rules of the House of Representatives often
encourage a majority of those in the majority party to decide policy
and then to enforce that policy within the majority caucus. Because its
rules make it so easy to get things done, Representatives of one party
steamroll the moderates of their own party, let alone of the other
party.
Thus, the rules of the House of Representatives foster sharper
partisan division between the two parties. The rules of the Senate lead
to the result: ``Out of many, one.'' The rules of the House lead to the
result: ``Out of many, two.''
The Senate's rules are particularly important to a State with a small
population, such as my home State of Montana. This is particularly true
in light of the small House delegation that such small States have.
Montana, as several other States, has one Representative in the House.
States such as Montana rely on their Senators to allow their relatively
greater influence to protect their interests. Without the Senate rules,
rural America would have a much harder time getting heard. Sometimes it
is good that the Senate's rules require more than a thin majority, in
order to make sure that every part of the country is truly represented.
Fundamental to the Senate's rules, for two centuries, has been the
right to extended debate. In the First Congress, Senators debated at
length the permanent site for the Capitol. In 1811, the House of
Representatives provided that a motion for the previous question could
cut off further debate. But the Senate rules have not included such a
motion since the 1806 codification of the rules. We cannot summarily
cut off debate, as the House can. And even after the Senate adopted
rule XXII of cloture in 1917, the Senate rules have required a
supermajority to bring debate to a close. Since its revision in 1979,
rule XXII has required the affirmative vote of 60 Senators to limit
debate.
Thus, for two centuries, Democrats and Republicans alike have used
the Senate's rules to protect the rights of the minority party. After
two centuries, it would be a mistake to change those rules.
Extended debate allows Senators to protect minority interests.
Extended debate gives life to the traditional story that Washington
told Jefferson that, like pouring coffee into a saucer, ``we pour
legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.'' Extended debate
makes the Senate, in Aaron Burr's words, ``a sanctuary; a citadel of
law, of order, and of liberty.''
The Senate's rules thus help to protect personal rights and
liberties. The Senate's rules help to ensure that no one party has
absolute power. The Senate's rules help to give effect to the Founder's
conception of checks and balances.
The Senate's right of extended debate is particularly important in
the context of nominations for the lifetime jobs of Federal judges.
At the Constitutional Convention, the Founders debated different ways
to appoint judges. On June 13, 1787, James Madison of Virginia proposed
that the Senate make the appointments to protect the integrity, the
independence of the third article; that is, the judges of the United
States of America. On June 15, William Paterson of New Jersey

[[Page S4097]]

proposed that the President make the appointments. On July 18,
Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts proposed a compromise, that the
President make the appointment with the advice and consent of the
Senate. That is, they both decide; not just the President, not just the
Senate, they both do, again, to protect the integrity of the
independence of our Federal judiciary.
The history of the Constitutional Convention thus demonstrates that
the Founders hoped that both the President and the Senate could be
involved in the process.
In its application, the Senate's involvement in the confirmation of
judges has helped to ensure that nominees have had the support of a
broad political consensus. The Senate's involvement has helped to
ensure that the President could not appoint extreme nominees. The
Senate's involvement has thus helped to ensure that judges have been
freer of partisanship and, in fact, more independent.
The Founders wanted the courts to be an independent branch of
Government, helping to exercise the Constitution's intricate systems of
checks and balances. The Senate's involvement in the confirmation of
judges has helped to ensure that the judiciary can be that more
independent branch. And that independence of the judiciary, in turn,
has helped to ensure the protection of personal rights and liberties in
our country.
It is important that we get good judges. Over the years, this has
been one of the issues of greatest importance to me as a Senator. That
is why I worked to set up a merit selection system that is truly
apolitical to select judges that I recommend to the President from
my State of Montana. The Senate's rules help to make a merit selection
possible.

I invite my colleagues to read the inscription in the marble relief
over the Senate's door to my left. There is inscribed a single word:
``Courage.'' That is what preserving the Senate's rules will require:
courage to stand up to the extremists; courage to stand up to the
majority of one's party; courage to save the institution itself.
For Senators of either party, the simplest thing is usually to vote
with the party. Voting with the party makes it easier to go to the
party caucus lunch. Voting with the party makes it easier to hang on to
a committee chairmanship.
To preserve this Senate will take the courage of at least six
Senators in the majority party who are willing to vote for the
institution first before their comfort at party lunches. It will take
the courage of six Senators in the majority party who are willing to
risk their chairmanships to protect the Senate--indeed, the country
itself.
Let me offer this encouragement. I recall a decade ago in 1995,
Senator Mark Hatfield from Oregon, who was then the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, told his majority leader, Senator Bob Dole,
that he would rather resign from the Senate than vote for the
constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. Luckily, Senator
Dole did not accept Senator Hatfield's offer, and Senator Dole later
wrote:

While I strongly disagreed with his position, I also
respected any Senator's right to vote their conscience.

In retrospect, Republican Senators should see it was lucky for them
that Senator Hatfield voted as he did. For if the Constitution required
a balanced budget, it would have required the majority party to make
massive cuts in Government services during the 5 years of deficits and,
thus, if the Constitution required a balanced budget, the voters would
have long ago punished Republican Senators for the cuts they would have
made. They should thank Senator Hatfield that it did not pass. In the
end, the sacrifices of these times ask that six Senators of the
majority party stand up. The sacrifices that these times ask of six
Senators from the majority party pales next to those of an earlier
generation. Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson
selected the words ``e pluribus unum'' as the Nation's motto on August
10, 1776. That was barely a month after they had published the
document, the Declaration of Independence, in which they had written:

We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes
and our sacred Honor.

Just think of the courage of our Founding Fathers when they wrote the
Declaration of Independence to break away from England knowing if they
were apprehended, they would all be hanged. They knew that. Just think
of their courage.
On the occasion of signing the Declaration, Benjamin Franklin is said
to have warned: We must all hang together or surely we will all hang
separately.
Our Founders sought unity from the very beginning. For unity, they
were willing to risk their fortunes. For unity, they were willing to
risk their lives. How many here can say that?
Today, to preserve the rules of the Senate that so foster unity, six
Senators will be asked to risk much less. To preserve this Senate, they
need not offer their fortunes. To preserve this Senate, they need not
offer their lives. But to preserve this Senate, they will need to offer
their courage.
I call on my colleagues in the majority to follow the exhortations
engraved on the west door. I call on my colleagues to recall the
courage of our Founders who risked their lives to give us this sacred
inheritance of checks and balances. I call on my colleagues to summon
the courage to vote against the effort to change the rules that make
the Senate the place we love so much, that would change the Senate so
much so that it will dramatically undermine the protection of liberties
and the protection of our rights that so many Americans look to us to
enforce.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________