[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 50 (Tuesday, April 1, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2286-S2287]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       HONORING WALTER F. MONDALE

   Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this weekend, Marcelle and I will attend 
an event at the University of Minnesota Law School to honor the life 
and career of Vice President Walter Mondale on the occasion of his 80th 
birthday which he reached in January.
   Vice President Mondale is a valued friend whom I proudly consider 
one of my mentors in the Senate. As I reviewed materials for this 
weekend, I came across an editorial by Vice President Mondale that 
appeared in the Washington Post on July 27, 2007 entitled ``Answering 
to No One.'' The editorial provides an excellent perspective on the 
Office of the Vice President and how that office evolved in recent 
history.
   In order to remind all Senators and their staffs about this 
insightful article, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be 
printed in the Congressional Record.
   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                           Answering to No One

                         (By Walter F. Mondale)

        The Post's recent series on Dick Cheney's vice presidency 
     certainly got my attention. Having held that office myself 
     over a quarter-century ago, I have more than a passing 
     interest in its evolution from the backwater of American 
     politics to the second most powerful position in our 
     government. Almost all of that evolution, under presidents 
     and vice presidents of both parties, has been positive--until 
     now. Under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, it has gone 
     seriously off track.
        The Founders created the vice presidency as a 
     constitutional afterthought, solely to provide a president-
     in-reserve should the need arise. The only duty they 
     specified was that the vice president should preside over the 
     Senate. The office languished in obscurity and irrelevance 
     for more than 150 years until Richard Nixon saw it as a 
     platform from which to seek the Republican presidential 
     nomination in 1960. That worked, and the office has been an 
     effective launching pad for aspiring candidates since.
        But it wasn't until Jimmy Carter assumed the presidency 
     that the vice presidency took on a substantive role. Carter 
     saw the office as an underused asset and set out to make the 
     most of it. He gave me an office in the West Wing, unimpeded 
     access to him and to the flow of information, and specific 
     assignments at home and abroad. He asked me, as the only 
     other nationally elected official, to be his adviser and 
     partner on a range of issues.
        Our relationship depended on trust, mutual respect and an 
     acknowledgement that there was only one agenda to be served--
     the president's. Every Monday the two of us met privately for 
     lunch; we could, and did, talk candidly about virtually 
     anything. By the end of four years we had completed the 
     ``executivization'' of the vice presidency, ending two 
     centuries of confusion, derision and irrelevance surrounding 
     the office.
        Subsequent administrations followed this pattern. George 
     H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle and Al Gore built their vice 
     presidencies after this model, allowing for their different 
     interests, experiences and capabilities as well as the needs 
     of the presidents they served.
        This all changed in 2001, and especially after Sept. 11, 
     when Cheney set out to create a largely independent power 
     center in the office of the vice president. His was an 
     unprecedented attempt not only to shape administration policy 
     but, alarmingly, to limit the policy options sent to the 
     president. It is essential that a president know all the 
     relevant facts and viable options before making decisions, 
     yet Cheney has discarded the ``honest broker'' role he played 
     as President Gerald Ford's chief of staff.
        Through his vast government experience, through the 
     friends he had been able to place in key positions and 
     through his considerable political skills, he has been 
     increasingly able to determine the answers to questions put 
     to the president--because he has been able to determine the 
     questions. It was Cheney who persuaded President Bush to sign 
     an order that denied access to any court by foreign terrorism 
     suspects and Cheney who determined that the Geneva 
     Conventions did not apply to enemy combatants captured in 
     Afghanistan and Iraq.
        Rather than subject his views to an established (and 
     rational) vetting process, his practice has been to trust 
     only his immediate staff before taking ideas directly to the 
     president. Many of the ideas that Bush has subsequently 
     bought into have proved offensive to the values of the 
     Constitution and have been embarrassingly overturned by the 
     courts.
        The corollary to Cheney's zealous embrace of secrecy is 
     his near total aversion to the notion of accountability. I've 
     never seen a former member of the House of Representatives 
     demonstrate such contempt for Congress--even when it was 
     controlled by his own party. His insistence on invoking 
     executive privilege to block virtually every congressional 
     request for information has been stupefying--it's almost as 
     if he denies the legitimacy of an equal branch of government. 
     Nor does he exhibit much respect for public opinion, which 
     amounts to indifference toward being held accountable by the 
     people who elected him.
        Whatever authority a vice president has is derived from 
     the president under whom he

[[Page S2287]]

     serves. There are no powers inherent in the office; they must 
     be delegated by the president. Somehow, not only has Cheney 
     been given vast authority by President Bush--including, 
     apparently, the entire intelligence portfolio--but he also 
     pursues his own agenda. The real question is why the 
     president allows this to happen.
        Three decades ago we lived through another painful example 
     of a White House exceeding its authority, lying to the 
     American people, breaking the law and shrouding everything it 
     did in secrecy. Watergate wrenched the country, and our 
     constitutional system, like nothing before. We spent years 
     trying to identify and absorb the lessons of this great 
     excess. But here we are again.
        Since the Carter administration left office, we have been 
     criticized for many things. Yet I remain enormously proud of 
     what we did in those four years, especially that we told the 
     truth, obeyed the law and kept the peace.

                          ____________________