[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.

                          ____________________