[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 98 (Monday, June 28, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5469-S5474]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REMEMBERING SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin by expressing my deep sorrow
and my condolences to Robert C. Byrd's family. And that family
includes, obviously, not only his direct, immediate family but
obviously the literally legions of people who worked for Robert C.
Byrd--worked with him in both the House of Representatives and this
body for the more than five decades he served in the U.S. Congress.
I suspect I am one of a handful of people left who remember the day
when I was 7 years old, in the gallery of the House of Representatives,
watching my father be sworn in as a new Congressman, watching my father
and a young 34-year-old West Virginian named Robert C. Byrd to be sworn
in as a Member of the House on January 3, 1953. Seven years later, at
the age of 14, I was in the gallery of this Chamber when I watched my
father and his great friend be sworn in together on January 3, 1959, as
Members of the Senate. Two years later, as a 16-year-old sitting on the
very steps where these young pages sit today, in the summer of 1961, I
worked with Robert C. Byrd. In fact, with his departure and his death,
he is now the last remaining Member of the Senate who was there that
day when I first arrived as a page in the summer of 1961 when all these
chairs were filled by 100 Senators. For the last 25 years, I have sat
next to him at this very seat to be the recipient of his good counsel,
his advice, his humor, his contributions in so many ways to me, as he
was to so many others with whom he served during his tenure in the
Congress.
So this is a very poignant day, one that begins, in a sense, a sense
of bookmarks to me and a sense of public life. It won't be the same for
the remaining 6 or 7 months of my tenure here to not have this
wonderful human being, Robert C. Byrd, as my seatmate in the Senate.
So I rise today to mark the passing and to celebrate the prolific
life of Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. As I have said to his family
and to his staff, and, of course, to the people of West Virginia, for
whom he has been such a champion throughout his public life, Robert
Byrd loved three things above all else during the 30 years we spent
together in this Chamber. He loved his wife Erma, he loved the State of
West Virginia, and he loved deeply the Senate. I might say that each in
turn loved him back.
Our sadness at his passing is tempered by our joy that he now joins
his beloved Erma. What a love story it was. They met in grade school.
They married in 1937, well before I was even born. They spent nearly 70
years on an incredible journey together, and even after passing a few
years ago, his love for her was apparent in everything he did.
In 1946, when Robert Byrd first ran for office, West Virginia ranked
at the bottom in nearly every economic indicator you could possibly
think of. It was a bleak landscape pockmarked by coal fields and
populated by hard-working people from hardscrabble backgrounds and
communities struggling to make ends meet.
Then a young grocer from the town of Sophia arrived on the scene,
asking his neighbors in those communities around Sophia for their votes
in his race for the West Virginia House of Delegates. As the Washington
Post noted in its obituary this morning, Robert C. Byrd met nearly
every person--I would suspect every person--in his district,
campaigning alone, with no one else, talking about the issues he cared
about and those that would affect and did affect the people he wanted
to represent; and when all else failed, wowing potential voters with
his fiddle prowess.
He won that election, as he would every single election--every single
election for which he ever ran. The people of West Virginia never could
say no to Robert C. Byrd, and he could never say no to them. As a State
legislator, a Congressman, and as a Senator, Robert C. Byrd fought for
West Virginians, and our Nation, I might add, at every single turn.
If you travel the State of West Virginia today, you will see his name
on schools and bridges and highway signs. You will perceive his
influence when you see the government buildings and research
laboratories he brought to West Virginia--investments that contributed
both to the State and to our national economy and to our Nation. But
don't just look for his name on the sides of buildings or overpasses.
Listen for it in the appreciative words of his constituents, his
extended family, and of a grateful nation for his service.
No State has ever had such a deep appreciation for the Senate
Appropriations Committee because no State has ever had such an
effective appropriator and fighter. Robert C. Byrd came to Congress
with my father, as I pointed out, in January of 1953, and they both
arrived on the same day as they had in the House, on January 3 of 1959.
In the summer of 1961, I mentioned I was a Senate page sitting on the
Senate floor. I still remember the eloquent speeches of the freshman
Senator from West Virginia.
It is incredible to imagine that he was once a freshman Senator. Even
then, he had the same gentlemanly manner; he was kind to pages, as I
recall, the same knack for triumphant oratory, and the same respect for
the rules and traditions of the Senate. But he soon became a fixture
and a mentor to new Senators as well. I expect that over the next few
days many Senators will take this floor with a Constitution in their
pockets, as I do, that they received from Robert C. Byrd. Here is my
tattered and rather worn copy signed by Robert C. Byrd: ``To my friend,
Chris Dodd, with great personal esteem. Sincerely, Robert C. Byrd.'' I
have carried this with me every day of my life for the last quarter of
a century, given to me by my colleague in this Chamber, along, I might
add, with a stern but kind lecture about Senate protocol. I have mine
right here, as I said. It is a tattered and withered copy, after this
many years.
For the past quarter of a century I have occupied some prime real
estate on the floor of the Senate. This desk right next to me today,
adorned with these flowers and this black cape, marks the seat Robert
C. Byrd sat in for many years. As have all of us, I have been awed by
his deep knowledge of this institution and his deeper commitment to
preserving its place in our legislative system.
So, in many ways, Robert Byrd's story is one of constancy, of
preservation, and of tradition. You could define his life by longevity,
I suppose--his 69 years of marriage, his 52 years of service in the
Senate, his 64 years of public service to the people of West Virginia.
But he wouldn't have wanted it that way. This country has changed over
[[Page S5470]]
the many years in which Robert C. Byrd helped to lead it and to shape
it, and he grew and changed with it, I might add. His story in so many
ways parallels the American story over these many years--the story of a
nation on a long and difficult journey, always trying to seek that more
perfect union that our Founders described more than two centuries ago.
He wouldn't have wanted us to forget about the positions and
affiliations that marked the early part of his life and career, and he
did not as well. We should learn from our mistakes, as he did, draw
inspiration from his journey, and credit him, I might add, for being
willing to admit wrong and embrace right when he had the opportunity to
do so, because, like our country, Robert C. Byrd grew wiser as he grew
older.
So we can remember him not only as a tremendously effective
legislator, not only as a powerful speaker, not only as a parliamentary
wizard, but also as a human being who fought for equality with the true
sense of urgency of a convert. He was a man unafraid of reflection, a
man who voted to make Martin Luther King's birthday a Federal holiday
because, as he put it--I remember him saying it so well--``I'm the only
one who must vote for this bill.''
Here was a man unafraid of progress, a man who, in one of his final
acts in the Senate, voted to overturn the don't ask, don't tell rule in
our military. Here was a man unafraid of conscience, a man who, as the
guns of war prepared to fire in 2003, delivered one of history's most
courageous and memorable pleas for peace.
So let us not remember Robert C. Byrd for how much he stayed the same
throughout his life. Let us remember him for how the years changed him,
and how he changed America for the better through so many years of his
service.
Let us remember him as West Virginia's greatest champion, the
Senate's gentlemanly scholar, Erma's husband, and above all, a true
friend to each and every one of us who knew and loved him so well.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Pennsylvania and
I would ask through the Chair--I plan to speak for about 5 minutes.
Does that leave him time to make remarks?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in 1981, after a surprising election,
the Republican leader, Howard Baker, became the majority leader of the
Senate, and the Democratic leader, Robert C. Byrd, became the minority
leader.
According to Senator Baker, he walked to Senator Byrd's office and
said to him: Bob, I will never know the Senate rules as well as you do,
so I will make you an offer. I will not surprise you if you will never
surprise me.
Senator Byrd looked at Senator Baker and said: Let me think about it.
The next morning, Senator Byrd called Senator Baker and said: It is a
deal. And that is the way they operated the Senate in those 4 years
when Senator Baker was the majority leader and Senator Byrd was the
minority leader. They operated the Senate during that time under an
agreement where Senator Byrd was careful to try to give every Senator
the right of amendment. He thought that was very important. In return,
Senator Byrd was able to get unanimous consent agreements on amendments
that many Senators thought were frivolous or unnecessary or not
germane, which permitted him and Senator Baker to have a fairly orderly
management of the Senate during that time.
Senator McConnell a few minutes ago talked about the time Senator
Byrd reexamined the Constitution and changed his mind on the first
amendment and flag burning. Senator Byrd and Senator Baker during that
time both read David McCullough's book and changed their minds on the
Panama Canal Treaty, at great political cost to both of them. I bring
this up today because I never saw Senator Byrd, after I was elected to
the Senate a few years ago, when he did not ask me about his friend and
colleague Howard Baker.
We will miss Senator Byrd's fiddling and his love of mountain music.
He campaigned in Tennessee a long time ago for Albert Gore, Sr. who was
running for the Senate and who also played the fiddle. Senator Byrd
played the fiddle at the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville and came back to
Nashville in October of 2008 and sang along with a group of fiddlers
who were playing songs at his request. I went over there with him. He
knew all the songs and all the fiddlers knew him. A few days later I
came to him on the Senate floor and talked to him about an old mountain
song called ``Wreck on the Highway'' that Roy Acuff made famous in the
1930s or 1940s, and Senator Byrd began to sing the song--he knew all
the words--so loudly that the staff was afraid the galleries would all
notice it.
We will miss his love of United States history, not just any United
States history, but in his words ``traditional American history.'' He
was the sponsor of the Teaching Traditional American History Program,
which is part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. He has
provided nearly $600 million to 1,000 local school districts to improve
the professional development of American history teachers. He and the
late Senator Kennedy and I were working on a piece of legislation which
we have introduced to consolidate all the Federal programs that support
the teaching of U.S. history, hoping that our children can grow up
learning what it means to be an American.
Senator Byrd is also responsible for the celebration of September 17
as Constitution Day and Citizenship Day.
Senator Byrd had no time for revisionists who didn't believe America
was exceptional. He believed this is one country, unified by a common
language and a few principles. He did not want our country to become a
United Nations, but always to be the United States of America. He
wanted us to be proud of where we came from, but prouder to be
American.
We will especially miss Senator Byrd's love of and understanding of
the Senate. One of the most special occasions I ever experienced was
the opportunity as a freshman Senator in 2003 to attend an
indoctrination, one might say--or orientation would be the proper
description--on what it means to be a Senator. Senator Byrd began by
saying: ``You are presently occupying what I consider to be hallowed
ground.''
I wish to ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
following my remarks the remarks of Senator Byrd at the orientation of
new Senators on December 3, 1996.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. Senator Byrd served long enough to know that, as he
put it:
As long as the Senate retains the power to amend and the
power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will
remain secure.
He believed that when he was lecturing Republicans in 2005 who were
trying to change the rules when there was a controversy about President
Bush's appointees to the Federal judiciary, and he said the same thing
to young Democrats who grew impatient this year and wanted to change
the rules to limit unlimited amendment and unlimited debate.
Perhaps his last Senate appearance was before the Rules Committee on
May 19, 2010, where his opening statement on the filibuster and its
consequences warned against a rules change.
I ask unanimous consent to have that statement printed in the Record
following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I was 12 years old when Senator Robert
Byrd was elected to the House of Representatives. I was a senior in
Maryville, TN, when he was elected to the Senate. When I came here as a
Senate aide 42 years ago, he had just been elected to his second term
and was working his way up the party leadership.
He was an imposing man. He had a wonderful photographic memory. But,
after one got to know him especially, he was a kind man.
All of us can be replaced, but it is fair to say the Senate will
never be the same place without Robert C. Byrd.
I yield the floor.
[[Page S5471]]
Exhibit 1
Remarks by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd at the Orientation of New
Senators, December 3, 1996
Good afternoon and welcome to the United States Senate
Chamber. You are presently occupying what I consider to be
`hallowed ground.'
You will shortly join the ranks of a very select group of
individuals who have been honored with the title of United
States Senator since 1789 when the Senate first convened. The
creator willing, you will be here for at least six years.
Make no mistake about it, the office of United States
Senator is the highest political calling in the land. The
Senate can remove from office Presidents, members of the
Federal judiciary, and other Federal officials but only the
Senate itself can expel a Senator.
Let us listen for a moment to the words of James Madison on
the role of the Senate.
`These [reasons for establishing the Senate] were first to
protect the people against their rulers: secondly to protect
the people against the transient impression into which they
themselves might be led. [through their representatives in
the lower house] A people deliberating in a temperate moment,
and with the experience of other nations before them, on the
plan of government most likely to secure their happiness,
would first be aware, that those charged with the public
happiness, might betray their trust. An obvious precaution
against this danger would be to divide the trust between
different bodies of men, who might watch and check each
other. . . . It would next occur to such a people, that they
themselves were liable to temporary errors, through want of
information as to their true interest, and that men chosen
for a short term, [House members], . . . might err from the
same cause. This reflection would naturally suggest that the
Government be so constituted, as that one of its branches
might have an opportunity of acquiring a competent knowledge
of the public interests. Another reflection equally becoming
a people on such an occasion, would be that they themselves,
as well as a numerous body of Representatives, were liable to
err also, from fickleness and passion. A necessary fence
against this danger would be to select a portion of
enlightened citizens, whose limited number, and firmness
might seasonably interpose against impetuous councils.
[emphasis added]
Ladies and gentlemen, you are shortly to become part of
that all important, `necessary fence,' which is the United
States Senate. Let me give you the words of Vice President
Aaron Burr upon his departure from the Senate in 1805. `This
house,' said he, `is a sanctuary; a citadel of law, of order,
and of liberty; and it is here--it is here, in this exalted
refuge; here, if anywhere, will resistance be made to the
storms of political phrensy and the silent arts of
corruption; and if the Constitution be destined ever to
perish by the sacrilegious hand of the demagogue or the
usurper, which God avert, its expiring agonies will be
witnessed on this floor.' Gladstone referred to the Senate as
`that remarkable body--the most remarkable of all the
inventions of modern politics.'
This is a very large class of new Senators. There are
fifteen of you. It has been sixteen years since the Senate
welcomed a larger group of new members. Since 1980, the
average size class of new members has been approximately ten.
Your backgrounds vary. Some of you may have served in the
Executive Branch. Some may have been staffers here on the
Hill. Some of you have never held federal office before. Over
half of you have had some service in the House of
Representatives.
Let us clearly understand one thing. The Constitution's
Framers never intended for the Senate to function like the
House of Representatives. That fact is immediately apparent
when one considers the length of a Senate term and the
staggered nature of Senate terms. The Senate was intended to
be a continuing body. By subjecting only one-third of the
Senate's membership to reelection every two years, the
Constitution's framers ensured that two-thirds of the
membership would always carry over from one Congress to the
next to give the Senate an enduring stability.
The Senate and, therefore, Senators were intended to take
the long view and to be able to resist, if need be, the
passions of the often intemperate House. Few, if any, upper
chambers in the history of the western world have possessed
the Senate's absolute right to unlimited debate and to amend
or block legislation passed by a lower House.
Looking back over a period of 208 years, it becomes obvious
that the Senate was intended to be significantly different
from the House in other ways as well. The Constitutional
Framers gave the Senate the unique executive powers of
providing advice and consent to presidential nominations and
to treaties, and the sole power to try and to remove
impeached officers of the government. In the case of
treaties, the Senate, with its longer terms, and its ability
to develop expertise through the device of being a continuing
body, has often performed invaluable service.
I have said that as long as the Senate retains the power to
amend and the power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the
people will remain secure.
The Senate was intended to be a forum for open and free
debate and for the protection of political minorities. I have
led the majority and I have led the minority, and I can tell
you that there is nothing that makes one fully appreciate the
Senate's special role as the protector of minority interests
like being in the minority. Since the Republican Party was
created in 1854, the Senate has changed hands 14 times, so
each party has had the opportunity to appreciate firsthand
the Senate's role as guardian of minority rights. But, almost
from its earliest years the Senate has insisted upon its
members' right to virtually unlimited debate.
When the Senate reluctantly adopted a cloture rule in 1917,
it made the closing of debate very difficult to achieve by
requiring a super majority and by permitting extended post-
cloture debate. This deference to minority views sharply
distinguishes the Senate from the majoritarian House of
Representatives. The Framers recognized that a minority can
be right and that a majority can be wrong. They recognized
that the Senate should be a true deliberative body--a forum
in which to slow the passions of the House, hold them up to
the light, examine them, and, thru informed debate, educate
the public. The Senate is the proverbial saucer intended to
cool the cup of coffee from the House. It is the one place in
the whole government where the minority is guaranteed a
public airing of its views. Woodrow Wilson observed that the
Senate's informing function was as important as its
legislating function, and now, with televised Senate debate,
its informing function plays an even larger and more critical
role in the life of our nation.
Many a mind has been changed by an impassioned plea from
the minority side. Important flaws in otherwise good
legislation have been detected by discerning minority members
engaged in thorough debate, and important compromise which
has worked to the great benefit of our nation has been forged
by an intransigent member determined to filibuster until his
views were accommodated or at least seriously considered.
The Senate is often soundly castigated for its
inefficiency, but in fact, it was never intended to be
efficient. Its purpose was and is to examine, consider,
protect, and to be a totally independent source of wisdom and
judgment on the actions of the lower house and on the
executive. As such, the Senate is the central pillar of our
Constitutional system. I hope that you, as new members will
study the Senate in its institutional context because that is
the best way to understand your personal role as a United
States Senator. Your responsibilities are heavy.
Understand them, live up to them, and strive to take the
long view as you exercise your duties. This will not
always be easy.
The pressures on you will, at times, be enormous. You will
have to formulate policies, grapple with issues, serve the
constituents in your state, and cope with the media. A
Senator's attention today is fractured beyond belief.
Committee meetings, breaking news, fundraising, all of these
will demand your attention, not to mention personal and
family responsibilities. But, somehow, amidst all the noise
and confusion, you must find the time to reflect, to study,
to read, and, especially, to understand the absolutely
critically important institutional role of the Senate.
May I suggest that you start by carefully reading the
Constitution and the Federalist papers. In a few weeks, you
will stand on the platform behind me and take an oath to
support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; to bear true faith
and allegiance to the same; and take this obligation freely,
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and to
well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
which you are about to enter: So help you God.'
Note especially the first 22 words, `I do solemnly swear
that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies foreign and domestic . . .'
In order to live up to that solemn oath, one must clearly
understand the deliberately established inherent tensions
between the 3 branches, commonly called the checks and
balances, and separation of powers which the framers so
carefully crafted. I carry a copy of the Constitution in my
shirt pocket. I have studied it carefully, read and reread
its articles, marveled at its genius, its beauty, its
symmetry, and its meticulous balance, and learned something
new each time that I partook of its timeless wisdom. Nothing
will help you to fully grasp the Senate's critical role in
the balance of powers like a thorough reading of the
Constitution and the Federalist papers.
Now I would like to turn for a moment to the human side of
the Senate, the relationship among Senators, and the way that
even that faced of service here is, to a degree, governed by
the constitution and the Senate's rules.
The requirement for super majority votes in approving
treaties, involving cloture, removing impeached federal
officers, and overriding vetoes, plus the need for unanimous
consent before the Senate can even proceed in many instances,
makes bipartisanship and comity necessary if members wish to
accomplish much of anything. Realize this. The campaign is
over. You are here to be a Senator. Not much happens in this
body without cooperation between the two parties.
In this now 208-year-old institution, the positions of
majority and minority leaders have existed for less than 80
years. Although the positions have evolved significantly
within the past half century, still, the only really
substantive prerogative the leaders
[[Page S5472]]
possess is the right of first recognition before any other
member of their respective parties who might wish to speak on
the Senate Floor. Those of you who have served in the House
will now have to forget about such things as the Committee of
the Whole, closed rules, and germaneness, except when cloture
has been invoked, and become well acquainted with the
workings of unanimous consent agreements. Those of you who
took the trouble to learn Deschler's Procedure will now need
to set that aside and turn in earnest to Riddick's Senate
Procedure.
Senators can lose the Floor for transgressing the rules.
Personal attacks on other members or other blatantly
injudicious comments are unacceptable in the Senate. Again to
encourage a cooling of passions, and to promote a calm
examination of substance, Senators address each other through
the Presiding Officer and in the third person. Civility is
essential here for pragmatic reasons as well as for public
consumption. It is difficult to project the image of a
statesmanlike, intelligent, public servant, attempting to
inform the public and examine issues, if one is behaving and
speaking in a manner more appropriate to a pool room brawl
than to United States Senate debate. You will also find that
overly zealous attacks on other members or on their states
are always extremely counterproductive, and that you will
usually be repaid in kind.
Let us strive for dignity. When you rise to speak on this
Senate Floor, you will be following in the tradition of such
men as Calhoun, Clay, and Webster. You will be standing in
the place of such Senators as Edmund Ross (KS) and Peter Van
Winkle (WEST VIRGINIA), 1868, who voted against their party
to save the institution of the presidency during the Andrew
Johnson impeachment trial.
Debate on the Senate Floor demands thought, careful
preparation and some familiarity with Senate Rules if we are
to engage in thoughtful and informed debate. Additionally,
informed debate helps the American people have a better
understanding of the complicated problems which besiege them
in their own lives. Simply put, the Senate cannot inform
American citizens without extensive debate on those very
issues.
We were not elected to raise money for our own reelections.
We were not elected to see how many press releases or TV
appearances we could stack up. We were not elected to set up
staff empires by serving on every committee in sight. We need
to concentrate, focus, debate, inform, and, I hope, engage
the public, and thereby forge consensus and direction. Once
we engage each other and the public intellectually, the tough
choices will be easier.
I thank each of you for your time and attention and I
congratulate each of you on your selection to fill a seat in
this August body. Service in this body is a supreme honor. It
is also a burden and a serious responsibility. Members' lives
become open for inspection and are used as examples for other
citizens to emulate. A Senator must really be much more than
hardworking, much more than conscientious, much more than
dutiful. A Senator must reach for noble qualities--honor,
total dedication, self-discipline, extreme selflessness,
exemplary patriotism, sober judgment, and intellectual
honesty. The Senate is more important than any one or all of
us--more important than I am; more important than the
majority and minority leaders; more important than all 100 of
us; more important than all of the 1,843 men and women who
have served in this body since 1789. Each of us has a solemn
responsibility to remember that, and to remember it often.
Let me leave you with the words of the last paragraph of
Volume II, of The Senate: 1789-1989: `Originally consisting
of only twenty-two members, the Senate had grown to a
membership of ninety-eight by the time I was sworn in as a
new senator in January 1959. After two hundred years, it is
still the anchor of the Republic, the morning and evening
star in the American constitutional constellation. It has had
its giants and its little men, its Websters and its Bilbos,
its Calhouns and its McCarthys. It has been the stage of high
drama, of comedy and of tragedy, and its players have been
the great and the near-great, those who think they are great,
and those who will never be great. It has weathered the
storms of adversity withstood the barbs of cynics and the
attacks of critics, and provided stability and strength to
the nation during periods of civil strife and uncertainty,
panics and depressions. In war and in peace, it has been the
sure refuge and protector of the rights of the states and of
a political minority. And, today, the Senate still stands--
the great forum of constitutional American liberty!'
Exhibit 2
Statement of Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), Senate Rules and
Administration Committee, May 19, 2010
The Filibuster And Its Consequences
On September 30, 1788, Pennsylvania became the first state
to elect its United States senators, one of whom was William
Maclay. In his 1789 journal Senator Maclay wrote, ``I gave my
opinion in plain language that the confidence of the people
was departing from us, owing to our unreasonable delays. The
design of the Virginians and of the South Carolina gentlemen
was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill
passed.''
Our Founding Fathers intended the Senate to be a continuing
body that allows for open and unlimited debate and the
protection of minority rights. Senators have understood this
since the Senate first convened.
In his notes of the Constitutional Convention on June 26,
1787, James Madison recorded that the ends to be served by
the Senate were ``first, to protect the people against their
rulers, secondly, to protect the people against the transient
impressions into which they themselves might be led . . .
They themselves, as well as a numerous body of
Representatives, were liable to err also, from fickleness and
passion. A necessary fence against this danger would be to
select a portion of enlightened citizens, whose limited
number, and firmness might seasonably interpose against
impetuous councils.'' That ``fence'' was the United States
Senate.
The right to filibuster anchors this necessary fence. But
it is not a right intended to be abused.
During this 111th Congress in particular the minority has
threatened to filibuster almost every matter proposed for
Senate consideration. I find this tactic contrary to each
Senator's duty to act in good faith.
I share the profound frustration of my constituents and
colleagues as we confront this situation. The challenges
before our nation are far too grave, and too numerous, for
the Senate to be rendered impotent to address them, and yet
be derided for inaction by those causing the delay.
There are many suggestions as to what we should do. I know
what we must not do.
We must never, ever, tear down the only wall--the necessary
fence--this nation has against the excesses of the Executive
Branch and the resultant haste and tyranny of the majority.
The path to solving our problem lies in our thoroughly
understanding it. Does the difficulty reside in the construct
of our rules or in the ease of circumventing them?
A true filibuster is a fight, not a threatt or a bluff. For
most of the Senate's history, Senators motivated to extend
debate had to hold the floor as long as they were physically
able. The Senate was either persuaded by the strength of
their arguments or unconvinced by either their commitment or
their stamina. True filibusters were therefore less frequent,
and more commonly discouraged, due to every Senator's
understanding that such undertakings required grueling
personal sacrifice, exhausting preparation, and a willingness
to be criticized for disrupting the nation's business.
Now, unbelievably, just the whisper of opposition brings
the ``world's greatest deliberative body'' to a grinding
halt. Why?
Because this once highly respected institution has become
overwhelmingly consumed by a fixation with money and media.
Gone are the days when Senators Richard Russell and Lyndon
Johnson, and Speaker Sam Rayburn gathered routinely for
working weekends and couldn't wait to get back to their
chambers on Monday morning.
Now every Senator spends hours every day, throughout the
year and every year, raising funds for re-election and
appearing before cameras and microphones. Now the Senate
often works three-day weeks, with frequent and extended
recess periods, so Senators can rush home to fundraisers
scheduled months in advance.
Forceful confrontation to a threat to filibuster is
undoubtedly the antidote to the malady. Most recently, Senate
Majority Leader Reid announced that the Senate would stay in
session around-the-clock and take all procedural steps
necessary to bring financial reform legislation before the
Senate. As preparations were made and cots rolled out, a deal
was struck within hours and the threat of filibuster was
withdrawn.
I heartily commend the Majority Leader for this progress,
and I strongly caution my colleagues as some propose to alter
the rules to severely limit the ability of a minority to
conduct a filibuster. I know what it is to be Majority
Leader, and wake up on a Wednesday morning in November, and
find yourself a Minority Leader.
I also know that current Senate Rules provide the means to
break a filibuster. I employed them in 1977 to end the post-
cloture filibuster of natural gas deregulation legislation.
This was the roughest filibuster I have experienced during my
fifty-plus years in the Senate, and it produced the most-
bitter feelings. Yet some important new precedents were
established in dealing with post-cloture obstruction. In
1987, I successfully used Rules 7 and 8 to make a non-
debatable motion to proceed during the morning hour. No
leader has attempted this technique since, but this procedure
could be and should be used.
Over the years, I have proposed a variety of improvements
to Senate Rules to achieve a more sensible balance allowing
the majority to function while still protecting minority
rights. For example, I have supported eliminating debate on
the motion to proceed to a matter (except for changes to
Senate rules), or limiting debate to a reasonable time on
such motions, with Senators retaining the right to unlimited
debate on the matter once before the Senate. I have authored
several other proposals in the past, and I look forward to
our committee work ahead as we carefully examine other
suggested changes. The Committee must, however, jealously
guard against efforts to change or reinterpret the Senate
rules by a simple majority, circumventing Rule XXII where a
two-thirds majority is required.
As I have said before, the Senate has been the last
fortress of minority rights and freedom of speech in this
Republic for more than two centuries. I pray that Senators
will pause and reflect before ignoring that history and
tradition in favor of the political priority of the moment.
[[Page S5473]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, since hearing this morning about the
passing of Senator Byrd--he died shortly after 5 a.m.--I have been
reflecting on the man I knew.
Those who have the great privilege to serve in the Senate have
occasion to meet and interact with great people. The expression
``giant'' is used not too frequently about Senators. It certainly would
apply to Senator Byrd, but I believe it is insufficient. Searching my
own mind for a more apt term, ``colossus'' might better fit Robert
Byrd.
His career in the Congress of the United States was extraordinary,
really astounding. To think that he was elected in 1952 and was sworn
in while Harry Truman was still President of the United States and has
served since that time, with many things that happened, during the
administrations of President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, President
Johnson, President Nixon, President Carter, President George H.W. Bush,
President Ronald Reagan before, President George W. Bush, President
Clinton, and now President Obama.
One of the distinctions he made early on was the fact that in the
Senate, we serve with Presidents; we do not serve under Presidents. I
think that was a calling card by Senator Byrd as a constitutionalist on
the separation of powers. He was a fierce fighter for that separation
of powers.
When the line-item veto was passed, he took up the battle to have it
declared unconstitutional as an encroachment on article I powers in the
U.S. Congress on appropriations. The bills which we present to the
President have a great many provisions, and Senator Byrd was looking
upon the factor of the President perhaps taking some provisions he did
not like too well in order to take the whole bill. I am sure on Senator
Byrd's mind was the largess which came to the State of West Virginia.
That is part of our Federal system, part of our democracy, part of our
Constitution of the advantage of seniority, where Senator Byrd had been
elected and reelected on so many occasions.
I recall Senator Byrd and his swift action shortly after the 1986
election. I was on the Intelligence Committee at that time. Senator
Byrd stepped into the picture to see to it that the witnesses who
testified on what was later known as the Iran Contra controversy were
placed under oath. He had a sense that there was a problem that had to
be investigated by Congress, again, under the doctrine of separation of
powers.
I recollect his position on the impeachment proceeding as he stood at
this chair and recited the provisions of the Constitution, about the
impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, and then started to talk
about the action of the respondent in the case, President Clinton, and
the charges which were levied. He came to the conclusion that the
constitutional standard had been met and then voted not guilty--with a
sweep on the conclusion, a judgment of a higher principle involved that
President Clinton had not lost the capacity to govern, and he ought to
stay in office.
I recall in October of 2002 we debated the resolution authorizing the
use of force for President Bush. The resolution did not say force would
be used but gave the President the authority to use force as he decided
it appropriate.
I was concerned about that. The scholars who had written on the
subject for the most part said it would be an inappropriate delegation
of constitutional authority for the Congress to say to the President:
You may start a war at some future date.
The starting of a war depended on the facts and circumstances at hand
when the decision was made. Senator Byrd and I discussed that at some
length and finally concluded there ought to be some flexibility. Both
of us voted for that resolution on the ground that empowering the
President without authority, we might have the realistic chance of
avoiding a war.
While serving with Senator Byrd on the Appropriations Committee, I
recall 1 year when he chaired the Appropriations Committee--I think in
the late 1980s--the allocations made were not in accordance with the
budget resolution which had been passed. Some of us on the
Appropriations Committee thought we ought to have those allocations in
accordance with what Congress had set in the budget resolution. Senator
D'Amato, Senator Kasten, and I staged a minor revolution. It did not
last too long. The vote was 26 to 3. But we expressed ourselves.
I recall hearing Senator Byrd and participated in a discussion with
him on the Senate floor about the right to retain the floor, whether
you could yield to someone or whether you had to have an order of
consent before you retained your right to the floor. Discussing or
debating Senator Byrd on procedural issues was indeed an education. He
was always regarded as the foremost expert on Senate procedure and the
rules of this body.
His service--most recently in coming in ill, in a wheelchair for a
series of cloture votes at 1 a.m.--historians, I think, will write
about the passage of the comprehensive health care bill and the cloture
votes and passage in the Senate on Christmas Eve early in the morning--
finally, we had a concession we would not vote at 11:59 on Christmas
but would vote earlier in the day. Even the objectors wanted to leave
town. Senator Byrd came here performing his duty, although he certainly
was not well and it was a tremendous strain on him. He came and made
the 60th vote.
It is a sad occasion to see a black drape on Senator Byrd's desk and
flowers. I am sure in days to come there will be many comments, many
eulogies about Senator Byrd. He leaves a great void. But reflecting on
the experiences I have had with him, there is much to celebrate in his
life. He was a great American, a great Senator. We will all miss him
very much.
In the absence of any other Senator on the floor seeking recognition,
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, early this morning, our country lost an
icon and a national treasure. Our friend and colleague, Senator Robert
C. Byrd, became a legend in his own time. And in many ways, he came to
embody the institution of the Senate.
As a leader, and as a guardian of Senate procedure and tradition,
Senator Byrd was without equal. For more than half a century, he helped
shape federal policy, and guided the course of a nation.
But on the day he was born, in 1917, this unique place in history was
far from assured.
Raised in the coal country of West Virginia, few could have predicted
that this intelligent but unassuming young man would rise to the very
highest levels of our democracy. He was an avid fiddle player, and
valedictorian of his high school class. But he could not afford to go
to college until many years later. So as a young man, he found work as
a meat cutter, a gas station attendant, and a store owner. And the
store owner is very dear to me because our family were store owners,
and I know how tough that business is. He welded Liberty and Victory
ships during the Second World War, and several years later entered
politics at the State level.
That is where Robert Byrd found his true calling: public service.
He was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1952, and has
served the people of West Virginia in this Chamber since 1958. Over the
course of his extraordinary career, he worked alongside 11 Presidents.
He served in Congress longer than anyone in American history, cast more
than 18,000 votes, and was elected to more leadership positions than
any other Senator.
Most recently, he assumed the role of President pro tempore of the
Senate, ranking him third in the line of Presidential succession. At
every turn, he dedicated himself to the sanctity of our Constitution,
and fought to uphold its principles and the weight of Senate tradition.
[[Page S5474]]
It is difficult to measure the vast impact he has had on the lives of
every single American.
No, he was not right on every issue. His past was not without
mistakes and errors in judgment. But it is a credit to Senator Byrd
that, over the years, he gained the wisdom to recognize the moments
when he strayed from the right path. It is the mark of greatness that
he worked hard to overcome these errors and set America on course for a
more prosperous, more inclusive future.
In recent years, Senator Byrd raised his voice against the unilateral
invasion of Iraq.
He fought to preserve the filibuster, ensuring that the voice of the
minority will always have a place in this august Chamber. He offered
his support to a young Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama, as he
fought to become the first African-American President of the United
States.
Senator Byrd's historic tenure spanned 11 administrations, thousands
of bills, and more than half a century. Thanks to his leadership, and
the leadership of others he has inspired and mentored over the years,
we live in a very different world today.
The year he launched his first campaign for the House of
Representatives, gas cost about 25 cents a gallon, Winston Churchill
was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and I was only 15 years old.
Senator Byrd has left an indelible mark on this Nation, and for that
we will be forever grateful.
But today, as we remember and celebrate the contributions he has
made, we also offer our condolences to his friends and loved ones in
this time of mourning. We offer our sympathies to the people of West
Virginia, who have lost a staunch advocate. We offer our fervent hope
that a new generation of Americans, liberal and conservative; Black and
White; from all races and religions and backgrounds.
We hope that a new generation will take up the legacy of patriotism
and service that was left to us by Senator Byrd; that today's young
people will inherit his fierce loyalty to the Constitution, and
recognize their responsibility to confront every challenge we face.
So I ask my colleagues to join with me in honoring the life of our
dear friend, Senator Robert Byrd.
And I call upon every American to learn from the example set by this
son of the West Virginia hills who overcame poverty, lack of education,
and the prejudice of his times to become one of the greatest public
servants in our history.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________