[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Page 7530]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       ANOTHER LANDMARK TORN DOWN

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise to voice my objection to 
another blow committed by this majority against the Senate. I wish to 
express my dismay with the majority leader's decision, of which I first 
learned in Monday's Roll Call, summarily to fire the Senate 
Parliamentarian because of his advice on a number of budget-related 
issues.
  This action appears to be yet another unfortunate turn in the 
majority's heavy-handed efforts to transform the Senate into another 
House of Representatives. And I fear that the real victim of this 
latest purge will be the rules and traditions of this great body. Bob 
Dove has borne the brunt of the majority's latest outburst, but I fear 
that the Senate, too, will suffer.
  Let me begin by noting that I, as others, have had my share of 
disagreements with Bob Dove during his time as Parliamentarian. I 
suspect that most Senators who have devoted any time to learning the 
Senate's rules will find points on which they differ with the 
Parliamentarian. But in the practice of law that is Senate procedure, 
the Parliamentarian plays the role of the judge. It is before the 
Parliamentarian that staff and even Senators make their arguments and 
state their cases, much as advocates before a court.
  It is in the nature of judging that a judge cannot please all 
litigants, and it is in the nature of having a Parliamentarian that the 
Parliamentarian's advice to the Presiding Officer cannot always please 
all Senators.
  Were it not so, we would not have a Parliamentarian. If the 
Parliamentarian cannot advise the Chair what the Parliamentarian truly 
believes that the law and precedents of the Senate require, then the 
office of the Parliamentarian ceases to exist.
  If the Parliamentarian merely says what the majority leader wishes, 
then the majority leader has taken over the job. And in that case, the 
Senate has become less a body governed by rules and precedent and more 
a body that proceeds according to rule and precedent only when it 
pleases, in effect at the whim of the majority leader.
  That the Senate rules constrain the majority has been one of its 
strengths. It is oft-recounted lore that when Jefferson returned from 
France, he asked Washington why he had agreed that the Congress should 
have two chambers. ``Why,'' replied Washington to Jefferson, ``did you 
pour that coffee into your saucer?'' ``To cool it,'' said Jefferson. 
``Even so,'' said Washington, ``we pour legislation into the senatorial 
saucer to cool it.''
  It is the Senate's rules that allow legislation to cool. It is the 
Senate's adherence to its precedents and not to a rule adopted for this 
day and this day only that distinguishes the Senate from the House of 
Representatives. The Parliamentarian is a vital link in that chain of 
precedents. It is the Parliamentarian's advice to the Chair that makes 
this a body governed by rules.
  The Senate has had an officer with the title of Parliamentarian since 
July 1, 1935, when the Senate changed the title of the journal clerk, 
Charles Watkins, to Parliamentarian and journal clerk. Since then, only 
four other men have occupied the office: Floyd Riddick, Murray Zweben, 
Bob Dove, and Alan Frumin. These five Parliamentarians held that office 
for an average of more than 12 years each. By comparison, during the 
same time, the Senate has had 14 different majority leaders.
  As Justices sit on the Supreme Court, though Presidents will come and 
go, so Parliamentarians have maintained the rule of precedent, through 
changes in political majority. Removing a Parliamentarian because a 
majority leader disagrees with a decision is akin to a President's 
attack on the Supreme Court. History has roundly decried President 
Franklin Roosevelt for seeking to pack the Court. I predict that 
history will also roundly decry the majority leader's man-handling of 
the Senate's rules.
  This majority has torn down another ancient landmark that our 
predecessors had set up. Once again, this majority has removed another 
boundary stone that once marked how far we could go. We are left today 
more bereft of rules, a body less governed by law, and unfortunately 
more governed by the wishes and ambitions of men and women.
  The new Parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, has, as I have said, served as 
Parliamentarian before. I hope this time he can serve for a good long 
time.
  I have always known Alan to be a man who calls them as he sees them. 
I hope that the majority leader will allow Alan to continue to do so. 
For only by allowing the Parliamentarian to follow his or her best 
judgment will the office of the Parliamentarian continue to be able to 
play its important role in preserving the Senate rules, and, thus, in 
preserving the Senate itself.

                          ____________________