[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 89-90]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       ORGANIZING A 50/50 SENATE

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join the number of colleagues who have 
spoken on the floor with respect to this agreement. I share both the 
respect and admiration that have been expressed for the leadership for 
the work they have done in order to bring us here.
  Particularly, I know the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, worked 
hard within his caucus and had to be particularly persuasive in order 
to reach this accord.
  I think this agreement respects the outcome of the election this 
year. It is a reflection of the closeness of the division in the 
Presidential race. It is, in my judgment, a fair and accurate 
reflection of what happened in the Senate itself with the losses that 
took place on one side of the aisle and a result that ended up with 50 
Senators in both parties.
  I have argued since day one that the only fair way, and the only 
sensible way, to try to bring the country together and set the stage to 
be able to reach the compromises we needed to reach was to reflect the 
representation of the Senate as a whole in the committee structures.
  Some on the other side argued for some period of time that that is 
not the way it should work. We heard some people talking a few moments 
ago about how, if you are responsible for driving the train, you then 
need the extra vote in order to be able to guarantee that you can drive 
the train.
  The problem with that argument all along is, that is not what the 
representation of the Senate itself reflects.
  The second problem with the argument is that it relied essentially on 
the notion that, by having an extra vote, you somehow have an added 
power beyond the power of compromise, beyond the power of logic, beyond 
the power of the merits of your argument, that you have a power of the 
extra votes simply to drive your will through. We have seen that in 
operation in the last few years in the Senate, frankly. I think for 
many of us it has been a very negative and, frankly, a very 
unproductive experience.
  The last few years saw us avoiding the rules of the Senate in order 
to drive through by virtue of the fact that there were more votes on 
one side. In the end, you may be able to do that on occasion, whether 
it is the reconciliation rules that allow you to do that, or it is a 
particular conference rule, or the Rule XXVIII issues we have had over 
the last years. Those allowed you to do it.
  But I know the distinguished Senator from West Virginia would give 
the most eloquent argument in the Senate for the fact that that didn't 
necessarily serve the interests of the Senate nor even the interests of 
the country.
  What we have achieved today I believe stands to set the stage for the 
ability of the Senate to serve the interests of the country.
  Is there something of a sense of loss for some by virtue of this 
agreement? I think yes. I think that is reflected in the sort of 
difficulty that was presented in getting here to this moment. But in 
the end, I think the logic was simply so powerful that 50/50 on both 
sides means you divide the Senators and their committees according to 
that number.
  I admire and respect the Senator from Texas, who is one of the 
brightest and most articulate people in the Senate and who read from 
the Constitution about the powers of the Vice President to cast a vote 
to break a tie. Indeed, that is absolutely true. But I think most 
constitutional experts would tell you that is sort of the vote of last 
resort--that it never contemplated that the Vice President of the 
United States is somehow going to be represented on every single 
committee, and then he is going to go to each committee and cast a 
vote. It contemplates, if there is a tie and ultimately there is the 
inability of the Senate to work its will of compromise, that in that 
case the Vice President has the ability to cast his vote. Now the Vice 
President will still have that ability. That is respected in this 
agreement.
  What this agreement achieves, which I think is perhaps the most 
important missing ingredient of the Senate, was reflected in the 
comments of the Senator from West Virginia, our former leader and 
President pro tempore, who turned to his colleague on the 
Appropriations Committee and talked about trust. He talked about 
respect. Those committees that work the best in the Senate don't need 
this resolution. Those chairmen of either party who want to make their 
committee work effectively don't need a resolution to know the best way 
to get something through the Senate and through the House is to be 
inclusive, not exclusive.
  So, in fact, we in the minority were remarkably forbearing in the 
last year or two in not pressing the full advantage of the rules that 
we might have pressed in order to stop the Senate cold in its tracks in 
order to disrupt in the many ways possible, using the rules of 
parliamentary procedure, to require our colleagues to be repeatedly on 
the floor of the Senate to vote. In many ways, we were acquiescent, and 
some might blame us for having been so. I think it was out of respect 
for the process and out of the belief that there is a better way to get 
business done here.
  What I believe this agreement now does is set the stage for us to be 
able in the Senate to grow the respect and the trust about which the 
Senator from West Virginia talked. It gives Members the opportunity and 
requires Members in committee to look to the other side of the aisle to 
try to build the consensus necessary.
  We all understand in that process we will never necessarily get 100 
of our colleagues or 99 of our colleagues, but we can build enough of a 
consensus that we can send legislation to the floor with votes of 16-4 
or 18-0 or of a sufficient number at least to recognize that there has 
been a respect for the views of both sides rather than a willingness to 
simply write a piece of legislation in conference without even 
including one Member of the Senate of the other side of the aisle and 
then bring it to the floor and expect people to be happy and expect to 
pass something that doesn't invite a veto or that somehow has the 
consent of the American people.
  The American people are why we are here, all of us. I think this 
agreement today respects what the American people said on election day. 
I think it respects this institution. I think it gives everyone an 
opportunity, long awaited, to do a better job of being Senators and 
allowing this body to be the great deliberative entity that it is 
supposed to be.

[[Page 90]]

  In the end, this resolution and the words that comprise it in its 
three pages are not going to do the job. Any Senator who is 
sufficiently disgruntled by this agreement, who figures that they will 
go their own path, has the ability to continue to do things as we have 
done them in the last few years. But I think this is a message to all 
Members that we have an opportunity to try to legislate in the best 
sense of the word, to find the compromise. There is no way this will 
work without that compromise. All Members need to understand that.
  I hope in the next days the American people will see the Senate set 
the example that we all want, and I know we can.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, let me express my appreciation to the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. He is a Senator of enormous 
ability and great talents. One of those talents is the capability of 
elocution in such an impressive and persuasive manner. I want to thank 
him for his words today.
  The President-elect can be very grateful to the two leaders of this 
body today and to the Senators who have acceded to the needs and the 
requirements of the moment to give up a little; everyone gives up a 
little. We are waiving some rules; we are temporarily changing some 
rules in this resolution. In the interests of going forward in the 
Nation and in the interests of making it possible for this institution 
to rise to the expectations of the American people and accede to their 
will, this resolution is really a unique instrument.
  As the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has just said, this 
resolution makes it possible for the Senate to work its will; and 
achieve legislative goals; it only makes it possible. We, the Members 
on both sides of the aisle, have to make it work. I am constrained to 
hope--yea, even believe--that we are going to make it work. The things 
I have heard said on this floor today make me believe that.
  I thank the distinguished Senator. I have known him for a long time. 
I thank him for his contribution today.
  Mr. President, if I may speak just for a few minutes, I ask unanimous 
consent I may address the Senate on another matter for not to exceed 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________