March 20, 1974
Page 7512
Mr. STENNIS. I want to make one further comment.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I will take just a few minutes, if I may be recognized, to say that I am very much impressed with the strides forward that have been made here by the various committees and its staffs in a very, very difficult situation of trying to forge a forward looking pattern for legislation that will come nearer to meeting our problems than our present procedures do.
I believe that this committee is going to have a hard go. It will have a tough assignment. It will continue to be that way until it is well established and will grow in importance and effectiveness. Certainly, in view of that, they should not be singled out to have a special rule apply to them with reference to the markup.
I am one of those who believe – say what you will, Mr. President – that the public is entitled to know. I think that what the public is interested in is getting the very best judgment it can from the Members of this body, whether divided into committees, subcommittees, or whatever it is. That is what the public is entitled to. That is, on second thought, the least they want at heart and, really, that is what they pay for when they pay their taxes – our best judgment, our seasoned consideration. Again, as I see it, in human nature, based on my experience here, to get a better product out of a Senator if he is free to sit there at that table and reason with his colleagues and exchange ideas, observations, and facts, and then, frankly, has to yield and meet conditions and go into compromises. If every element of all those considerations has got to be in public, we do not get the best we can out of it. I say that according to my observations, based on my experience, without any exceptions – and I rather think we are all very much alike in that regard.
I would certainly want to leave it where the committee would certainly have full control, without any discriminatory arrow pointing at them in any way. In fact, they will need seclusion more, I would think, than many of our established committees. This would be, in a way, like a conference committee, because members will have to confer and reach some kind of agreement from many different standpoints.
Thus, I would hope that we would leave it alone, Just leave it alone and let the committees work it out and see how it works. I am willing to leave it entirely with the way the committees have handled it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, it should be clear in the record of this debate that the amendment proposed by the distinguished Senator from Florida was included in the budget reform bill reported by the Government Operations Committee. They did so in part for the reasons which have been stated by the distinguished Senator from Illinois (Mr. PERCY).
The distinguished Senator from West Virginia (Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD) makes a persuasive case which includes, I gather, the principal point that the effect of the amendment would be to discriminate against one committee.
Why, then, did the Government Operations Committee undertake to include this requirement in the bill?
Speaking only for myself, because the committee has not taken a position on the amendment on the floor this afternoon, I think we did so first because the Government Operations Committee has had exceptionally fine experience with open markup sessions. I do not think we have had a closed session in the past year.
This rule has applied to our consideration of such legislative matters as the budget reform bill, executive privilege legislation, impoundment legislation, and so forth.
It was of interest to me that at the same time the Watergate Committee was taking testimony on the consequences which have flowed from our failure to deal with these problems, executive markup sessions on constructive legislation to correct fundamental policy got so little attention, even with the open markup sessions.
So, No. 1, because we have had excellent experience, we thought we would incorporate it in this charter for the new budget committee.
Second, this is a new committee. It is not an established committee with established rights and perquisites and feelings of autonomy. It is a new committee created to serve the Senate as a whole, and its counterpart on the House side to serve the House as a whole. This is not a standing committee in the usual sense. It is a committee whose responsibilities spread like an umbrella over all committees. Hopefully, it will be a very visible committee. Hopefully, its work will contribute to the public interest, and the beneficent consequences of that will be highly visible.
So we saw this committee as a way to symbolize the importance of opening up the legislative process, without necessarily violating whatever prerogatives other standing committees of the Senate may feel they have. It was the way to open it up.
Today, Mr. President, I read an editorial on the back page of U.S. News & World Report. It is entitled "Dropout's Lament." The editorial refers to the fact that there appear to be an unusually high number of congressional dropouts this year, Members who are not going to run again. The writer of the editorial was interested in getting the reasons why. He talked to one, a Republican whom he does not identify, a Republican who could win easily, who has won several terms, and whose successor, as yet unidentified, probably will continue to win the seat for the Republican Party.
He asked this Republican Member of Congress – he does not identify the House – Then why quit?
This was the answer, in part:
A. Two things: the system and Washington.
By the system I mean Congress, the way it has to operate. It is frustrating.
I am serious about public life. There are things I want for this country – things that need to be done. I came to Congress determined to make it move. I know how my people feel. I'm the guy to see to it. That's what Congress is all about.
But what am I really? I'm a pebble on a beach. I'm nothing. It's the system. I can't do anything unless I'm chairman of an important committee – and I could wait forever for that. Seniority. I've held my job 14 years and I'm a member of the minority. You can guess how long I'd have to be around to be a committee chairman.
Congress is run by a few veterans. The rest of us are just numbers. Oh, we can make a lot of noise, but who will hear us?
Q. What about Washington?
A. What is "Washington"? To most of my people it is someplace out there that raises taxes and sets the speed limit on interstate highways. It is a world series every four years when we pick a President. The rest of the time it is blah.
You take the ordinary voter. Can he tell you the name of his Congressman, or how he
stands on the minimum wage?
I am genuinely interested in people, in seeing to it that they are well served. I'd be more effective as a member of the city council in my hometown. When you talk about "of the people, by the people and for the people ," that's where government is – right there where they live and work. To those people, Washington – and everybody in it – is a big, overbearing, impersonal nothing.
That is one man's view. It is not mine, entirely. But it makes a point.
If we want to be relevant to the lives of our people – and believe me, they do not think we are at the moment – then we have to be seen by them; we have to be heard by them. They have to see the way in which we make policy. They have a right to see what results we achieve and where we stand, at those places where the decisions are made that count.
I have watched debate on the floor of the Senate during the years I have been here – now 16 – and the attendance declines with every passing year. The debate becomes less relevant to the policy that ultimately emerges from Congress with every passing year. All of us here know that increasingly the important decisions are made in the committee.
Look at this bill. This is an important fundamental reform, and it is going through here with minor controversies and a few amendments. But, by and large, the Senate is taking the judgment of two committees – the Government Operations Committee and the Rules Committee. Excellent work was done in these committees.
Incidentally, I should like to pay tribute to the outstanding work done by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia on this bill in the Rules Committee.
The decisions are made there. With the exceptions of those few committees which have begun to open up the process, the decisions are made behind closed doors. People outside do not know what the divisions were, what arguments were raised, who voted either way. This happens over and over again. So the decision making process is out of sight.
Is it any wonder that the people do not see that what we do has anything to do with the problems they face or the way they live or the prospects for the future?
I am simply giving my personal interpretation of why the Government Operations Committee included in the bill the amendment now before the Senate.
We saw this as a major new policymaking arm of Congress, which we hoped to use to make the point that these new policy decisions are going to be made, to the fullest extent possible, in public view.
The argument that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia makes is a perfectly reasonable and rational argument. I do not quarrel with him, until he gets to his conclusion; and at that point we part company, for the reasons that he has stated so well and which I have undertaken to state in my own behalf.
Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. CHILES. The Senator was responsible in the Subcommittee on Government Operations for pulling out the Harris poll on the attitudes of people toward Government. I think it was an outstanding poll. In that poll, as I recall, 74 percent of the people felt that excessive secrecy was one of the causes of Watergate, and I believe it said the same with respect to the other problems we are now facing in Government. Does the Senator recall that?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. That was a very striking finding of this poll. I believe the percentage is about, as the Senator has stated, 74 percent said that excessive secrecy was in large part responsible for the failure of Government to serve their needs. The Senator is correct. I believe that most Members of the Senate have received copies of that survey, which is a very helpful analysis of the public attitude and really underscores the comments made by the unidentified Republican in this editorial.
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. COOK. First, I should like to associate myself closely with the remarks that the distinguished Senator has just made.
I sometimes wonder why we cannot stop to realize that we create the problems we have to face.
The Senator from West Virginia said that he did not want somebody in a committee room looking over his shoulder.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. No, the Senator from West Virginia did not say that.
Mr. COOK. I make reference to the fact that the Senator from West Virginia did not want people who were going to be in every committee room
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. No; let the Senator from West Virginia state his position.
Mr. COOK. All right.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Senator from West Virginia said that he trusted the Members of this body, and he did not believe that they had to have some self-appointed watchdog looking over their shoulder, to make sure that the American people get the kind of representation they have a right to expect elected representatives.
Mr. COOK. All right. Let me say that I am delighted to have that explanation. I understand the Senator from West Virginia.
One of the major reasons we have every pressure group in the United States, and we have more and more and more of them all the time, is purely and simply because we continue to operate behind closed doors. The reason we have all the groups that come by our offices day in and day out that are interested in this piece of legislation and that piece of legislation is that we have created the kind of atmosphere that this was their only way to make their point and try to get across what they really believe in, because they have said, "We cannot come in that room. We do not know what goes on, and we have to meet them in the hallways as we lean against the walls, as they go to committee hearings."
I do not think there is any question about the fact that we had quite a debate here on how we should have committee meetings open or closed. It worked in some committees, and I am delighted that it has. But I would say it has not functioned too well in the committees of which this Senator is a member. I say that in all honesty.
It does not take very much homework to look at the committees I serve on. As a matter of fact, the other day I witnessed with a degree of chagrin, when we were debating a very substantial piece of legislation, that out of the cold walked a young reporter, with whom I am familiar. The hearing was stopped. The chairman said, "Just a minute just a minute," and the young man left and we then pursued what we were doing. I do not think that this is the way it should operate.
I am delighted with the comment made by the Senator from Maine that one of the reasons you look at some of these amendments and get some satisfaction out of them is that this was an amendment proposed by the Senator from Florida, who is in his first term, supported and cosponsored by the Senator from Delaware, who is in his first term in the Senate, and as a first termer I was delighted to cosponsor it. Maybe we should take a look at this and start to realize the significance of the debates and arguments because we are talking about the confidence of the American people.
I would say to the Senator from West Virginia, in all fairness, the American people, if they had their choice of televising a hearing where a major piece of legislation is marked up, where they could see exactly what was going to happen as the result of legislation, they would be far more interested in seeing that process, than to have cameras in the four corners of this room to see some of the debate on the floor of the Senate.
I say that in all fairness because they are concerned about the significance of the legislation that is written, the decisions made, and the language utilized; and that is not gone into on the floor, and we all know it. Would not they be amazed if they could watch television some day and have all the school children in P.S. 97 watch the U.S. Senate when we have a debate on who makes the best chili, whether it is Texas or Arizona.
Mr. MUSKIE. Or New Mexico.
Mr. COOK. Or New Mexico, with all due respect.
Let us face up to the issue that we do go behind closed doors and come up with major legislation of paramount significance in the United States.
I do not have the floor in my own right – the Senator from Maine does – but I could not be more pleased with the remarks of the Senator from Maine because this is truly the issue. The issue is whether we, as a body, not worrying about the Presidency and its 28 percent, but whether we, as a body, can rise above 21 percent, and in doing so whether we can say to the American people, "Here is how it was done."
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. COOK. I yield.
Mr. DOMENICI. As a freshman Senator, for my own reasons I probably could have been confused by that same reporter and rather candidly expressed frustrations. I have not made up my mind on this bill, but let me ask the Senator from Kentucky a few questions.
When the young reporter came into the closed meeting, I take it that the Senator from Kentucky was aware of the fact that under the existing rule he could have requested that the meeting be made open, and had he been joined by a majority, it would have been open. I do not argue that that is the best rule, but I wonder if the Senator would address himself to that.
Does the Senator think that even though that portion of the rule exists that it is not operative? Before the Senator answers, I would say that even at this point in time I have not found a meeting I personally wanted open, or where someone came to me and said that he wanted to be there, I never found one where I requested that it be open that it was not opened.
I wonder if the Senator does not think that will work or if there is something inhibitive about the committee or seniority that does not let it work.
Mr. COOK. I thought about that at the time, and I thought it unfortunate we did not discuss the situation there. Members might have left and we would have accomplished nothing because I knew the significance of what would occur. I am at least that familiar with that committee and its attitude in that respect. Second, when the Senator talks about how it works in the seniority system, I never will forget the first year I was here. There was a particular bill our office was vitally interested in and our legislative staff worked until almost 3 o'clock in the morning to prepare amendments. The next day I went to the committee and I had five amendments in my hand. I proceeded to say I had these five amendments to bring up. The acting chairman said, "Let's get the bill out of here and on the calendar." I said, "I have these five amendments we have been working on half the night. I would like to take them up." He said. "Go ahead and take them up. I have all the proxies for everyone who is not here. We will vote them down and get on our way."
With respect to the Senator's reference as to why I did not attempt to enforce the rule, maybe I should admit guilt. Maybe I should have then urged on the spot on that occasion that that be done. Maybe I would be better off if I had done so. I think I have a very good idea what would have occurred. But I am not going to argue the semantics of that particular point or whether this was the opportunity that could have presented itself.
I am just saying that major pieces of legislation that are subject to being marked up by the Senate can be marked up in public view, with those interested in attendance. It would not hurt that structure. It would not hurt the ability to mark up bills.
I admit to the Senator from West Virginia that we should not parrot what is done in the House. I wish to say to my Democratic colleague from Kentucky that when Representative CARL PERKINS can mark up the HEW Corporation bill on the House side in a public meeting of that committee and get it done, and he now has gotten it done for 2 years, that takes the greatest amount of ability to mark up that legislation which represents an appropriation bill as emotional as any that faces the Congress of the United States.
And he has been able to accomplish that in the committee. He has been able to do it, and to his credit as a Democrat, this Republican says he should be given credit for it.
Mr. DOMENICI. May I say to the Senator from Kentucky I really did not ask the question of why he did not move that the meeting be open to put the Senator on the spot. I think I could summarize – tell me if I am correct – that he really does not believe that, in the overall functioning of the committees in which the Senator operates, that option on the part of the majority is really a very good mechanism for accomplishing what the amendment of the Senator from Florida would do. It really has some hangups in the Senator's opinion, as one who alas been here for some 5 years. Is that correct?
Mr. COOK. The hangup comes in this way, and it is a very real one, may I say to the Senator from New Mexico. As the Senator remembers, when the resolution was adopted, it is quite true that it was adopted by a vote of 91 to 0, but just before that the amendment of the Senator from Florida had lost by only 8 or 9 or 10 votes. Perhaps that is why the resolution was agreed to so rapidly by a vote of 91 to 0, because there was a real movement at that time that this would not be a negative approach to hold these committees open or closed, but would be a positive one.
Mr. DOMENICI. The point I make for the Senator's observation and comment is that probably he is saying that we really are not going to get concrete examples on the floor of the Senate as to why that part of the rule is not working. Senators are not going to come before the Senate and say, "I have tried four times to get a markup session open and I failed." As a matter of fact, it is the Senator's observation it is not even being tried in many cases; they just remain closed. Is that the Senator's observation?
Mr. COOK. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. One last question: The Senator mentioned that pressure on Senators from special interest groups would be alleviated if we had markup sessions that are now closed opened, and if we changed the rule accordingly.
I have not, in my short 1 year and 2 months, had many witnesses who wanted to be heard or who wanted an opportunity to go to the markup. I have not heard from them in any numbers where they really wanted that and were denied it, but I understand also it is part of the concern of the Senator from Kentucky that there are people who, because they cannot go in, choose other ways to find out and have an influence on legislation. Is that one of the Senator's positions?
Mr. COOK. May I say I think there are some rather remarkable stories that can be told by Senators on the floor, where they have been to markups on major pieces of legislation. I can give the Senator one example myself. There was a major markup on a piece of legislation and I felt there was a very discriminatory matter in the bill, and I expressed myself. We had a dinner party at our home that evening, and I must have received 10 long-distance telephone calls from interested people in my State asking me why I had a hangup and why the bill did not get out of committee. Next day I found out that one of the majority staff members had let that information out. That is the way things get to Jack Anderson and other columnists here.
I am convinced that there are many reporters around here who make their living that way, rather like the bootlegger looking for the one on whom he can make his best shot. Many of our rather substantial reporters make a living from what goes on off the floor and behind closed doors, and would have it be that way rather than have it take place in open meetings, where they would lose the benefit of the squealers and individuals who give them this information.
We have a number of such people on the standing committees of the Senate of the United States, and I think the Senator from New Mexico knows of it – it is not hard to find out what went on in the markups. It all depends on whom one can call and discuss things with. One finds out all of a sudden that he has a horrible reputation.
As a matter of fact, there is a Senator on the other side of the aisle who woke up one day and read the headlines in newspapers in his State as to what he had said in the committee, and he found out it came from a staff member who was disappointed in the position he had taken on a piece of legislation and decided this was the way he would get even with the Senator and get him in line.
May I say to the Senator, I would rather have everybody there when we markup a bill, so everybody's position will be known and no one may misinterpret what he said. I would rather they get it there than get it second hand or third hand.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
Mr. COOK. I thank the Senator from Maine for yielding, and wish to say I think the sooner we start in this direction, the better. May I say that sometimes we have to start with one committee before we can move to another. Sometimes we start in one place, and as a result of having started with that, we move on and realize the wisdom of what we have done on a small scale, so we can go on to a larger scale.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a communication from Jack T. Conway, president of Common Cause, be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
COMMON CAUSE,
Washington, D.C.,
March 7,1974.
DEAR SENATOR: The Congressional Budgetary Procedures Act of 1973, S. 1541, as reported by the Senate Government Operations Committee contained an anti-secrecy provision for the newly proposed Budget Committee. This provision was successfully sponsored in the Committee by Senators Percy and Muskie. The Senate Rules Committee, however, deleted the section in its consideration of the legislation. When the Budget bill comes to the floor next week, Senator Chiles will move to restore this vital anti-secrecy provision. We urge your support for this amendment. With its inclusion, we believe the budget bill represents an important step forward in improving the Congressional budgetary powers.
The proposals end secrecy in Congress' consideration of the budget. It would require the new Budget Committee to hold all of its meetings in public, limiting closed meetings to reasons of national security, personal privacy and other legitimate matters. This is a reasonable and workable proposal.
The budget bill contains a second key provision sponsored by Senator Percy which would grant citizen access to general budget information obtained for Congress by the new Congressional Office of the Budget. This provision would provide citizens with the opportunity to obtain important information without imposing any unreasonable burdens on the Congress. We urge your opposition to any efforts to delete or weaken this provision.
On March 6, 1973, you voted for the open committee markup proposal that would have established a presumption for all Senate committee meetings to be held in public. There is now a history of open meetings in the Congress: three Senate Committees, Government Operations, Interior and Banking have adopted open meetings rules; under Senator Jackson's and Senator Metcalf's leadership, open conference committee meetings were held on the Emergency Energy Bill; and the House now conducts the overwhelming majority of its business in open markups. Openness works!
If Congress is to win public support for tax measures and public expenditure programs, it must be prepared to provide citizens with clear, understandable information through a budget process that is open to public view and participation.
Sincerely yours,
JACK T. CONWAY, President.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall take only a very few minutes. The distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) referred to an article that has appeared in U.S. News & World Report. It might more properly have been entitled "A Retiree's Lament." It happened to be a Republican, but it could very well have been a Democrat. In any event, it was an unidentified retiree from Congress who was voicing his lament concerning the "system."
I dare say there could be many stories written based on statements by retirees from Congress who would not echo the criticism that was embodied in this particular article. And yet one retiree's lament goes out to 2½ million readers, or whatever the number may have been.
This is one reason why Congress has a 21-percent rating today. So Members of Congress are running down the institution of which they are a part. This retiree was a sorehead – a man of little faith.
One of the American poets has said, "Learn to labor and to wait." This retiree did not learn to labor and to wait. Milton said:
They also serve who only stand and wait.
One does not have to be the chairman of a committee, one does not have to be the ranking member of a committee, one does not have to serve in the leadership to make his impact upon the history of this country and to leave his influence and his "footprints on the sands of time." This man, referred to in the article, had lost his guts and his enthusiasm. He did not have the determination and the willpower and the patience to labor and to wait.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator pardon an interruption?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. If I may just continue, and so he was disappointed because he did not have his hands on the ball and he decided to grumble and to go home. He was a quitter.
I believe in the system. I have worked in the legislative system for 28 years. And if I were never to become a committee chairman, if I had never been elected to a position of leadership, I would still believe in and uphold and defend the system.
I say we ought to quit running down this institution. Those of us who want to retire, let us retire and get out. If we cannot swim here, let us get out. But every Member who comes to this body and the other body can make a contribution. Whether he ever becomes the chairman of a committee, he can make a great contribution. If he will work and sweat, he can serve. What greater privilege is there than to serve? That is what we ask to do when we ask the people to send us here. What greater privilege is there than to work for the people of the United States?
It has been said in the debate that the "reason why we have pressure groups is that we operate behind closed doors." Yet, the Senate of the United States operated behind closed doors for 5 years at the beginning of its history.
When the constitutional framers – that illustrious gathering of our forebears – sat down in Philadelphia in 1787, the first thing they did was to close the doors of the Constitutional Convention. It did not cause pressure groups and lobbyists to spring up everywhere.
I am for open hearings. But times do come when closed meetings of committees are necessary. To say that only a majority can close a meeting puts the onus on a single member to stand up and say, "We should have closed hearings." That member will be subjected to criticism for moving that a meeting be closed.
I want this system. We run down the system. No wonder only 21 percent think the system is working. The rest are running us down instead of working in the system. This system has worked very well for 185 years, operating under the rules, 19 of which were originally adopted. We have opened up sessions of the Senate. Senate Resolution 69 opened up the sessions, making it possible for committees to open up their sessions.
All I am asking the Senate to do today is to stick with the rules – not to single out one committee and say that the rules shall not apply to that committee; not to deprive a majority of the members of that one committee, once they have been appointed, from determining what rules the majority of them wish to follow. If the majority of that committee wish to have open markup and voting sessions, let them provide that the session shall be open. Well and good. I have no complaint about that. A majority of that committee, under paragraph 7(b) of standing rule XXV can make that determination.
Let us leave it to the majority of the Budget Committee to make that determination. Let us not chip away a little here and a little there and discriminate against that committee before it is even created.
What I have said about the committee is not in criticism of any Senator. It is not directed to what the Senator from Maine said about the editorial. The editorial is there for all to see. But we are living in a time when Congress and all institutions have suffered. One reason why Congress has suffered is that so many Members of Congress leave Congress and then run Congress down when they leave. They run the institution down. I think it is about time some of us stood up for the institution, for Congress, and for the system.
Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, I think we have had a good debate on the amendment. And no Senator is better in debating a point than the distinguished junior Senator from West Virginia. I think he has made some very good points.
We had a sunshine law proposed in Florida. It took about 6 or 8 years before it passed. I have heard every one of these arguments time and time again. And I for one felt, in Florida, that if we could only operate freely in committees for once, if they were open, then people would understand that government can still work. At first, when I was a Florida State legislator, I felt, as the distinguished Senator from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS) feels whom I respect very much.
And I think some people in the Government Operations Committee believed at first what he believes so sincerely. Because when we made a motion to open up that committee, the same argument was made. But we tried opening up meetings and now I do not think anyone would want to go back to the closed sessions. I only wish we could try open sessions with the Committee on the Budget.
I believe in the system, too. I believe in a governmental system that is based upon the principle of democracy – a democracy properly informed. That is the kind of democracy I believe is going to make the right decision. That is the right rationale on which government should work.
Once there was a theory that only the aristocracy could rule; that they were the only people who could make the right decisions. There have been, throughout history, governments ruled by divine rule, by unenlightened rulers, by despotic rulers, but our system set up nearly 200 years ago was unique. It called for rule of the people and of the people's duly elected representatives.
But our democracy rests on two requirements. They are, first, the majority of the people; and second, a properly informed citizenry. I think that what we are talking about here is that through this amendment we are going to give the people an opportunity to be informed about major decisions – about budgetary priorities. I believe and trust in the rationale of our system through which we believe a majority of the, people, if they are properly informed, will make the right decisions.
I know that the Senate has been operating for over 185 years. I think that in most ways we are operating in the very same way we did 185 years ago. I think we have to do something if we want to be a coequal branch of Government, if we want to carry out our responsibility under a system of checks and balances if we want to reassert our constitutional power. But I think we have to come up to the 20th century in the procedures we have.
No Senator can say that he loves the Senate more than any other Senator. But we all listen to our own drum, our own instinct that tells us what is right.