[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 71 (Thursday, May 17, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S3274]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMPORTANCE OF SENATE BIPARTISANSHIP
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, over this past weekend, while reading the
News Journal, Delaware's only statewide newspaper, I came across a
column written by my good friend and our former colleague, Ted Kaufman.
He was writing about an issue that is troubling to me and to many of
our colleagues--the narrowing scope of bipartisanship in the U.S.
Senate today.
As you know, Mr. President, our longtime colleague Senator Richard
Lugar faced a difficult primary contest last week in Indiana. While he
put up a good fight, he ultimately lost the primary to someone who
openly espouses an aversion to bipartisanship. In recent days a number
of our colleagues, including Senators Durbin and Kerry, have stood in
this Chamber to lament the parting of Senator Lugar. Like them, I, too,
am disappointed that Senator Lugar will not be part of the Senate in
the future.
Though I haven't always agreed with him on every issue, Senator Lugar
has been and remains a deeply respected colleague and statesman. He
understands that national unity and patriotism should always trump
partisan bickering, and he believes that working with colleagues on
both sides of the aisle is critically important for the welfare of our
country.
In his article last weekend, Ted Kaufman wrote, ``If candidates like
Mike Castle and Richard Lugar are defeated because they are willing to
consider bipartisan solutions, the gridlock can only get worse.'' I
couldn't have said it better myself. Dick Lugar is the type of Senator
we need more of, not less of. With his departure, the Senate will lose
someone who was willing to put progress ahead of party and willing to
favor compromise over conflict.
Senator Lugar, as mayor of Indianapolis and as Senator from Indiana,
you have served your State and your country with distinction. I have no
doubt that as this Congress and your time in the Senate come to a close
later this year, you will choose to finish strong. I expect that as you
do, my colleagues and I will have the opportunity to work with you, in
a bipartisan way, on a number of critically important issues for our
country. There will be much work to do, together.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the text of Senator Kaufman's article as a testament to the importance
of bipartisan cooperation in the Senate.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the News Journal, May 12, 2012]
Lugar Proved `Bipartisanship' Serves Principles Well
(By Ted Kaufman)
I have spent the last 40 years of my life working in and
teaching about the U.S. Senate. Right after then-Senator
Biden and I came to Washington, he told me something I have
always kept in mind when dealing with its members. ``There is
a reason the citizens of each state picked each individual
senator,'' Senator Biden said, ``and it is worth looking for
what that is.''
The Senate has always been a partisan place. The arguments
are fierce. Strongly held beliefs collide. No matter how much
I disagreed with the positions taken by senators on the other
side of the aisle, I could respect and even admire nearly all
of them.
One of the senators I disagreed with on many issues but
came to greatly admire was Richard Lugar. Last week, in the
Indiana Republican primary, he lost his bid for a sixth term.
He will be sorely missed in the next Senate.
For many years, I watched as he and Senator Biden passed
the gavel back and forth on the Foreign Relations Committee,
where they traded positions as chair or ranking member. As
partisan a conservative Republican as he was on most domestic
issues, Senator Lugar deeply believed in the approach to
foreign policy articulated in the early 1940s by Michigan's
Republican Sen. Arthur Vandenberg: ``To me, bipartisan
foreign policy' means a mutual effort, under our
indispensable, two-party system, to unite our official voice
at the water's edge so that America speaks with one voice to
those who would divide and conquer us and the free world.''
Throughout his Senate career, Senator Lugar was a driving
force in maintaining this approach to foreign policy. He did
not grandstand. In his quiet, intelligent way, he became one
of our most knowledgeable experts on an issue that wins few
votes but is literally a matter of life-and-death for the
planet--nuclear proliferation.
Perhaps his greatest accomplishment was the joint effort
with former Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn that established the
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which provides U.S.
funding and expertise to help former Soviet countries
safeguard and dismantle their nuclear and chemical arsenals.
The program has deactivated thousands of nuclear warheads,
chemical weapons, and their delivery systems. It has
eliminated all the nuclear weapons in Ukraine, Kazakhstan,
and Belarus. Senator Lugar, as much as any single person
alive, is responsible for greatly reducing the threat of
nuclear proliferation into the terrorist world.
There were many reasons why Senator Lugar lost his bid for
re-nomination. But among the criticisms raised against him by
his opponent was that he supported the Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty. It is hard to understand how this vote
could be characterized as anti-Republican when Lugar was
joined in his support of START by the Secretaries of State
for the last five Republican Presidents.
I smile when I see Senator Lugar being portrayed in the
media as a ``moderate.'' His voting record on domestic issues
has been consistently conservative. The American Conservative
Union gives him a 77 percent lifetime rating. But that, it
seems, is not conservative enough. His victorious opponent,
Richard Mourdock, ran a campaign that was openly dismissive
of any kind of bipartisanship. Right after Mourdock won the
nomination, he explained, ``I have a mindset that says
bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the
Republican point of view.''
Wherever I go, the most common thread in talks I have with
many different groups of people is their frustration with the
lack of compromise and gridlock in Washington. If candidates
like Mike Castle and Richard Lugar are defeated because they
are willing to consider bipartisan solutions, the gridlock
can only get worse.
I could not agree more with what Senator Lugar said in his
typically thoughtful concession speech: ``Bipartisanship is
not the opposite of principle. One can be very conservative
or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mindset. Such a
mindset acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic
and may have some good ideas. It acknowledges that national
unity is important, and that aggressive partisanship deepens
cynicism, sharpens political vendettas, and depletes the
national reserve of goodwill that is critical to our survival
in hard times.''
____________________