[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 7, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S30-S33]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    RESTORING THE SENATE'S GREATNESS

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to address the state of the 
Senate and how to restore its greatness.
  Yesterday, I was sworn in as the President pro tempore. Although 
there have been some notable exceptions throughout history, the modern 
practice of the Senate has been to elect as the President pro tempore 
the most senior Member of the majority party. As one noted historian of 
the Senate has generously written, ``election of a senator to the 
office of president pro tempore has always been considered one of the 
highest honors offered to a senator by the Senate as a body.''
  I am greatly honored to have been selected for this position, but I 
am keenly aware of the great responsibilities that come with it. The 
President pro tempore of the Senate is one of only three legislative 
offices established by the U.S. Constitution, and in recent decades it 
has been occupied by true giants of the Senate. Their names, which 
include Vandenberg, Russell, Byrd, Stevens, Inouye, and Leahy, resonate 
as some of the greatest legislators ever to serve in this body.
  Beyond the President pro tempore's formal responsibilities in 
presiding over the Senate and helping ensure the continuity of 
government, this office represents a unique opportunity to assist the 
majority leader in guiding the Senate as it addresses the critical 
issues facing our Nation. In that sense, the President pro tempore 
serves as an elder statesman, sharing accumulated knowledge and lessons 
learned through long experience.
  I consider it fortuitous that the beginning of my service as 
President pro tempore coincides with the start of a new year. For many, 
the new year is a time for reflecting upon the past and reviewing 
commitments for the future. I believe we as Senators should use this 
opportunity for some much needed introspection about the state of this 
institution.
  The Senate has long been heralded as the world's greatest 
deliberative body. With so many critical challenges facing our Nation 
today, there has never been a more important time for the Senate to 
live up to its storied legacy and to fulfill its responsibilities to 
the American people.
  Central to properly understanding our responsibilities as Senators is 
to appreciate the Senate's role in our system of government. This means 
understanding both the Senate's purposes and its unique place at the 
center of our constitutional structure. It is important for us to 
consider these issues.

[[Page S31]]

  James Madison famously called the Senate the great anchor of the 
government. He described its purpose as twofold: ``first to protect the 
people against their rulers; secondly to protect the people against the 
transient impressions on to which they themselves might be led.''
  The Senate accomplishes the first goal--protecting the people against 
their rulers--by playing a crucial role in the appointment and removal 
of both judges and executive branch officers. The President's power to 
appoint is tempered by the requirement that his appointees receive the 
Senate's advice and consent. Additionally, the Senate possesses the 
power to remove from office any official that has engaged in high 
crimes and misdemeanors. The President's power to enter into treaties 
is also critically checked by the requirement that the Senate provide 
its advice and consent to a treaty before ratification.

  As such, the President does not have unfettered power to fill up 
executive offices, pack the courts or make agreements with foreign 
nations. He cannot staff agencies with corrupt, incompetent or 
ideologically extreme cronies unless the Senate allows him to do so. He 
cannot conclude treaties that will harm American interests unless the 
Senate gives its assent. In selecting life-tenured judges to apply the 
Constitution and laws of the land, the President cannot act unless the 
Senate confirms his nominee. In all of these settings, the Senate 
serves as a crucial check against executive abuse.
  The Senate accomplishes the second of Madison's goals--protecting 
against temporary shifts in popular opinion--through its character and 
its institutional structure. In contrast to the large, transient House, 
the Senate is small, more stable, and therefore, it has the opportunity 
to be more thoughtful. Four hundred thirty-five Members inhabit the 
House, and only 100 fill this Chamber. The entire House stands for 
election every 2 years. Naturally, reelection is constantly on 
Representatives' minds. Senators, by contrast, have 6-year terms and 
only one-third go before the voters each election. Even with the 
pressures of modern campaigns, these divergent characteristics produce 
fundamentally different institutions.
  But the Framers designed the Senate to do much more than merely check 
transient and occasionally intemperate impulses. They created the 
Senate to refine the public's will and to give more wisdom and 
stability to the government. The Framers chose the Senate's relatively 
small size to enable more thorough debate and to provide individual 
Members greater opportunity to improve legislative proposals. Longer, 
staggered terms would give Members greater flexibility to resist 
initially popular yet ultimately unwise legislation. They would also 
guard against temporary majorities. A fluke election may produce 
significant majorities for one party that 2 years later disappears. 
This can lead to wild swings in the law as each new majority seeks to 
enact a vastly different agenda during its brief period of power. 
Overlapping terms help to avert this danger.
  Finally, statewide constituencies require Senators to appeal to a 
broader set of interests--including the concerns of the State 
governments themselves--than do narrow, more homogenous House 
districts.
  To these constitutional characteristics, the Senate has added a 
number of traditions--some formal and others informal--that have 
enhanced its deliberative character. These include the right to 
extended debate, an open amendment process, and a committee system that 
gives all Members--from the most seasoned chairmen to the newest 
freshmen--a hand in drafting and improving legislation.
  The late Senator Byrd liked to say 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 protects liberty by giving each Senator an active role in 
the legislative process. This multiplies the checks against bad laws 
and expands the universe of individuals working to make good laws 
better. It erects what Madison called a necessary fence against hasty 
and unwise government action. It enables each Senator to bring his or 
her own wisdom and considered judgment to bear on pressing national 
issues.
  When the Senate functions properly, it is a truly deliberative body 
in which all Senators work to identify the common good and the best 
means to achieve that common good. The Federalist describes the common 
good as the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. This is 
to be distinguished from the individual good, which may vary from 
person to person and which may not result in the Nation's benefit.
  Much like the Senate is designed to protect against transient shifts 
in public opinion, it is also designed to enable Senators to pursue the 
common good. Senators are able to prioritize achieving the correct 
results over doing what is politically convenient. The best answers do 
not always immediately present themselves nor are they always easily 
explained. Longer terms give Senators more time to investigate, to 
analyze, to reconsider, and to recalibrate, and so do robust debate and 
an open amendment process. These are critical elements of our 
deliberative pursuit of the common good.
  Another crucial component of our pursuit of common good is prudence. 
Aristotle called prudence the legislative science because it concerns 
the best means of achieving the most good in practice. Prudence 
restrains us from seeking immediate and complete vindication of a 
single abstract principle. Instead, it counsels us to work within our 
existing circumstances to vindicate the enduring principles upon which 
our liberty depends.

  While we should remain true to our principles, we must also recognize 
that we operate in an imperfect world where we do not control all of 
the levers of power. We cannot simply charge forward blind to present 
realities. To do so is to jeopardize our hopes for achieving any 
meaningful success, because in the messy world of politics, adopting an 
all-or-nothing strategy usually produces only the latter--nothing.
  Politics is the art of the possible. Ideology is important, and 
rhetoric is captivating. But at the end of the day, when the campaign 
is over, the American people sent us here to govern. We are here to 
protect their liberties and to protect and improve their lives. When we 
grandstand or hold out for impossible demands, we do nothing but a 
disservice. The Framers gave us staggered, extended terms so that we 
could use our independent judgment to get things done. We should try to 
get to it.
  An astute commentator observed that the Senate stands at the 
crossroads of our constitutional system. It shares power with the other 
branches of the Federal Government. It ensures temperance in the 
legislative branch. It must consent or not consent to the President's 
treaties and appointments, and it plays a critical role in appointments 
to the Supreme Court.
  But it also--and this is unique among the branches of the Federal 
Government--embodies the interests of federalism and State power at the 
national level.
  The Framers created the Senate to be much more than a simple 
legislative body. The Senate is uniquely positioned to mediate both 
among the Federal branches of government and between the Federal and 
State governments. As such, the Senate truly embodies the role 
described by one wise commentator as the sober guardian of the 
Republic.
  Our responsibilities as Senators follow directly from the Senate's 
constitutional role. As the people's representatives and as envoys of 
our individual States' interests, we are accountable to our States and 
to our Nation. We do not serve any one party or principle, or any 
particular ideology or faction. We may align ourselves into certain 
groups--Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal--for purposes 
of organization and cooperation, but we are Senators first. Other 
labels are secondary.
  Civility and statesmanship must be our constant ideals. Madison once 
instructed that ``the Senate is to consist in its proceeding with more 
coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular 
branch.'' A key purpose of this body is to calm the passions that arise 
from the heat of political discourse. As such, we must always be 
courteous in our communications one with another, both formal and 
informal, on the floor and off, face-to-

[[Page S32]]

face or on a video screen. When we disagree we need to do so with 
dignity and respect, acknowledging the sincere motives and passions of 
even our most firm adversaries.
  Statesmanship connotes public spiritedness and a willingness to 
compromise in pursuit of broader goals. Petulance and unilateralism 
accomplish nothing in this body. Any Senator who would choose the glow 
of the camera over the prospect for meaningful achievement seriously 
misunderstands their role as a Senator.
  Next on the list of practices Senators must follow are prudence and 
considered judgment. I have already spoken about prudence. It is a 
habit of mind that focuses on present realities and achievable goals--
not pie-in-the-sky pipedreams. Prudent lawmakers make experience--not 
theory--their guide, and they recognize that success in a republic 
requires harmonizing competing values.
  Considered judgment is closely tied to prudence. Prudence is not 
rash. It requires deliberation and thoughtful analysis. Our 
constituents sent us here because they trusted our judgment and favored 
the general outlines we presented in our campaigns. Now that we are 
here, it is time to put our plans into action. We do this by studying 
problems, investigating proposals, and carefully choosing solutions 
that best cohere with our principles. Exercising judgment is an 
individual matter. Colleagues and opinion leaders may guide our 
deliberations, but the ultimate choice of policy is one which we each 
must make on our own.
  The final two obligations I wish to highlight are our 
responsibilities: first, to seek the common good through earnest 
deliberation, and second, to achieve consensus to the extent possible.
  As I explained, the Framers designed the Senate so that Members would 
be able to seek the common good encumbered by few political 
constraints. Because we stand for election only every 6 years, we are 
less susceptible to swings in public opinion. We have the independence 
to value long-term impact over short-term politics. And because we are 
a small body--relatively speaking--all Members are able to participate 
fully in the legislative process and to add their voice of praise, 
warning or suggestion to each proposal that we consider. We deliberate 
not to score points or to craft sound bites but because we believe that 
in the contest of opposing views, the best answers will win out.
  I mentioned consensus. Although much of our day-to-day operations are 
conducted by unanimous consent, obviously we do not do everything 
around here by consensus. We are 100 fiercely independent legislators. 
Even at the end of a lengthy debate with numerous opportunities for 
amendment, we may remain sharply divided about a bill's wisdom or the 
objective it seeks to achieve. But that does not mean consensus should 
not be our goal. We should take counsel from past legislative victories 
which show that broad victories produce lasting reform, whereas narrow 
partisan power plays tend to yield only rancor and repeated attempts to 
repeal.
  For 38 years I have had the extraordinary privilege of serving in the 
Senate. During that time, I have witnessed it at its best and, more 
recently, at its worst. My experience throughout the last four decades 
has confirmed to me the wisdom of the first Adlai Stevenson, then Vice 
President, who in his 1897 farewell address captured the essence of the 
Senate:

       In this Chamber alone are preserved without restraint two 
     essentials of wise legislations and good government: the 
     right of amendment and of debate. Great evils often result 
     from hasty legislation; rarely from the delay which follows 
     full discussion and deliberation.

  In recent years these foundations of the Senate's unique character--
meaningful debate and an open amendment process--have come under 
sustained assault by those who have prioritized scoring political 
points over preserving the Senate's essential role in our system of 
self-government.
  Rather than simply bemoan this recent institutional damage, we have a 
duty to use this new Congress to restore the Senate. By returning to 
regular order and committee work, promoting robust debate, and enabling 
a deliberative amendment process, we can make the Senate work again--
both Democrats and Republicans.
  First, robust debate. Senators' ability to engage in meaningful, 
substantive debate is at the core of the Senate's identity. Through 
robust discussions and inclusive deliberation, Senators examine all 
sides of an issue. We air opposing views and ensure that in haste we do 
not make worse the problems we are trying to solve.
  When individual Senators have the right to debate a matter fully, it 
engenders confidence that the final legislation produced represents the 
best possible bill upon which the Senate can agree. Many pieces of 
legislation that seemed imperfect passed this way and have gone on to 
benefit the Nation greatly. For over 200 years, the Senate has provided 
each Member broad prerogative to debate and discuss the critical issues 
of the day. In the early years of the Republic, visitors flocked to the 
Senate gallery to hear Senators such as Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and 
John C. Calhoun, just to mention three, to hear them expound upon 
matters of national concern.
  It was in this body that some of our Nation's most important debates 
over taxation, slavery, expansion, and foreign affairs took place. For 
many years, free-flowing debate was so intertwined with the identity of 
the Senate that no effective cloture mechanism to cut off debate even 
existed until well into the 20th century.
  While the need to end debate in certain circumstances is clear, we 
have strayed too far from this important deliberative tradition. In 
particular, the practice of filing for cloture at the very same time a 
bill is brought up for consideration has proliferated to a disturbing 
degree. When a full and robust debate has occurred, invoking cloture is 
often appropriate. But we must not abuse this power by reflexively 
seeking to cut off debate before it even begins. Let us return to a 
system where all Senators have a say in what the Senate does and are 
able to express their views without getting cut off.
  The second Senate hallmark we must restore is an open amendment 
process. The reason for an open amendment process is to improve 
legislation. No single Member can foresee all contingencies that may 
arise or identify all of the potential pitfalls.
  There is a reason there are 100 Senators, not just 1. More eyes mean 
more mistakes caught and more opportunities for improvement. An open 
amendment process also facilities consensus. One amendment may resolve 
a particular Senator's concern, allowing him to support what he or she 
once opposed. Another may make a bill politically palatable to Senators 
who support the bill in principle but not in its current form.
  Amendments may also achieve buy-in as Senators who successfully amend 
a bill find themselves more committed to final passage. When Senators 
retain the ability to amend legislation, such input can establish a 
wide and lasting base of support that crosses partisan and ideological 
lines. Indeed, an open and honest amendment process has frequently 
enabled diverse coalitions to find important areas of agreement.
  I even found that the former Senator from Massachusetts, the late Ted 
Kennedy, the famed liberal lion of the Senate, a man I came to 
Washington to battle, could be a productive partner. In the process, he 
became one of my closest friends, even if we widely disagreed on a lot 
of things. I miss him personally. We were able to do things that would 
not have been done had it not been for the work we did together.
  Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Senate's 
traditionally open amendment process has come under increasing attack. 
For the sake of shielding electorally vulnerable Senators from tough 
votes, we have emasculated one of this institution's critical 
characteristics. It is time to stop manipulating Senate rules to 
prevent amendments. It is time to stop blocking amendments for fear of 
tough votes. It is time to return to healthier ways of doing things, 
where we work together to improve legislation rather than doing all we 
can to keep Members out of the process.
  The third hallmark we must restore is a vigorous and productive 
committee system. Although perhaps not as moribund as our amendment 
process, the role our committees play in drafting and refining bills 
has indeed suffered in recent years. For centuries Senate

[[Page S33]]

committees have served as the primary forum for critical deliberation 
and amendments in this body.
  Bills introduced in the Senate are referred to the relevant 
committees where Members have the opportunity to consider, debate, and 
amend the bill at length. Committees are the workhorses of the Senate 
or at least should be. On the floor we can do only one thing at a time. 
But any number of committees and subcommittees may operate 
simultaneously, allowing Senators to work out language and make 
compromises on multiple bills at the same time.
  Committees also perform a crucial investigative function. They hold 
hearings, call witnesses, and solicit expert opinions on a wide variety 
of issues, enabling Members to expand their understanding and to better 
fine-tune individual bills. Lately, however, we have witnessed a 
disturbing trend of bypassing the committee process altogether by 
bringing bills directly to the floor for votes.
  This practice undermines committee work and frustrates Members who 
diligently seek to move their legislative priorities through the 
committee. It also deprives bills of the benefits of committee review, 
which include more search and consideration of language, opportunities 
for comment by outside experts, and the ability to address support for 
amendments without tying up precious floor time.
  A healthy committee process is essential to a well-functioning 
Senate. This body is not a fiefdom. We do not convene merely to give 
our assent to immutable messaging bills. We are supposed to work 
together to write, amend, and pass important legislation. When Senators 
bring up for consideration bills they have written without input from 
other Members, manipulate Senate procedure to prevent floor amendment 
on those bills, and then simultaneously file cloture to cut off debate, 
they act as autocrats rather than agents of democracy.
  Let's return this body to one that operates by consensus, not 
dictate. Let's return the committee process to its proper place in our 
legislative landscape, as the first line of review rather than an utter 
irrelevancy. Let's restore the Senate to its proper role in our 
constitutional system by restoring the traditions that have made this 
body so great: robust debate, an open amendment process, an active, 
meaningful committee process.
  Equipped with these tools, the Senate historically never shied away 
from taking on what everyone agreed were the toughest issues of the 
day. Yes, we had to take tough votes. Yes, we could not rush 
legislation through as fast as we sometimes would have liked. Yes, we 
sometimes felt deep disappointment when proposals we championed fell 
short. But while the Senate's rules can be frustrating and politically 
cumbersome, they are what allowed the Senate to serve the country so 
well for so very long.
  Restoring the Senate in this manner will not be easy. After years of 
bitter partisan tension, we cannot expect a complete change to come 
overnight. But by reestablishing our historic aims and reinstituting 
our designing modes of operation, including robust debate, an open 
amendment process, and regular order through committee work, the Senate 
can once more be about the peoples' business and observe the title of 
the world's greatest deliberative body.

                          ____________________