Transcripts For CSPAN 30 Years Of Gavel-to-Gavel Senate Coverage On C-SPAN2 20160603

The proceedings of the United States senate are being broadcast to the nation on television for the first time, not that we have operated in secret until now. Millions of americans have set in the galleries and observed Senate Debates during their visits to washington. But today, they can witness the proceedings in their own homes. We might say that the nation is tuning in late. Woodrow wilson said that the informing function of congress should be preferred to its legislative function. Today, as the u. S. Senate comes out of the communications dark ages, we create another historic moment in the relationship between congress and Technological Advancement in communications through radio and televisi. That was june 2, 1986, 30 years ago this month, the and the occasion was the first day of permanent television of the United States senate. We would use the opportunity of the 30th anniversary to look back at the senate and how it is changed in the era of television. We have two guests that have been with the senate for 40 years and their careers there, now retired and spanned the age of the television before senate and after, so they are ideally suited to help us understand how the institution adapted to the coming of Television Cameras. Alan frumin is a Senate Parliamentarian emeritus and doesnt mention, he spent 40 years in the Parliamentarian Office rising to the chief parliamentarian position. Thank you for being with us. Mr. Frumin i am delighted to be here. Don ritchie has set down at our table many times. Historian emeritus, again, 40 years in the United States senate and served as the chief historian of 2009 two 2016 and has written a number of books. Nice to see you and thank you for being with us. Mr. Ritchie thank you. The senate had been debating this idea of opening itself to cameras for some time. The house proceeded it in 1979. What took them so long to say yes . The constitution does not require the senate to do its business in public. Dayhouse had a gallery at one because they were all running for reelection. The house is really primed when television came became available. The senate is very different in the last numbers speakers just because long as they want for any occasion and they were more reluctant. It took several years to persuade the senators to go along. As soon as the broadcast media he evolved way back in 1924, some senators have the idea that putting it onto the airwaves be a great idea. What happened to the early efforts . Mr. Ritchie they have a huge microphone they were going to put into the chamber. They had an experiment on how well he was going to work. The technology was not there at the time, but as a result, members were very cautious about communicating or it numbers like to communicate to the public so whenever there is a new form of technology, often members there want to try it but there are the traditionalist that say the institution would never be the same if you brought in new equipment. One name that we be familiar is hefner. Began hese television was a member. He thought it would be a good idea to televise the proceedings. What were his contributions . He was gone from the senate by the time i arrive. Since he is the only individual who traveled from the senate and the house, that he was willing to leave the more traditionally bound institution, an institution that was much more reluctant to adopt a 20th Century Communication opportunities, that he was happy to move over to the house side, a body that was much more attuned to the popular will of the people. Somebody more willing to open that the doorded would more likely be open on the house side. I am not surprised that he traveled in that direction sense that was his attitude. A good number of the senators were against opening the doors to the cameras. Why is that . Mr. Frumin why is that . The senate is by design a reflective body. It is designed to slow things down. It is designed for contemplation, compromise. Senators number of the who have been around for a long time felt that those characteristics were not necessarily footage and i. Photogenic and that the very nature of the body might be compromised when the cameras started to roll. In 1977, the senate experimented with onetime special event coverage. The 1974 swearingin of Elson Rockefeller and then in 1978, a debate over the panama canal treaty. What was behind the shortterm experiments . Mr. Ritchie we are getting ready to impeach Richard Nixon and they did not know he was going to resign so the senate prepared for an impeachment trial. Looking over the wreckage of 1868 when they impeached andrew johnson, they realize that was the first time they handed out tickets to the galleries because everyone wanted to be there you cannot really impeach a president and not allow the American Public to watch it, so they agree to bring Television Cameras and for the president s impeachment trial at that summer he resigned. The cameras were still there in december of 1974 when Nelson Rockefeller was sworn in so that was the first event in the Senate Chamber. They immediately took the cameras out so there was no more television. And then in the late 1970s, the panama canal treaty was being debated and it was a very big issue at the time, huge amount of interest. The senate allowed National Public radio to come in and broadcast. I remember sitting in the staff gallery, right at the front was Linda Rick Meyer who was doing the playbyplay and introducing who was speaking at the time. They had senators who were speaking but nobody knew who the voices were some she would do a little introduction and then setting next to her was the woman doing sketches of the senators so they could have sketches of the evening news. Hat was very primitive after the 1980 election, republicans gained control of the senate and howard baker became the majority leader and he was so interested in televising the senate that it became first revolution he introduced as majority leader. Can you speak to the initial cameras . F bringing an mr. Ritchie he liked new technology. And they needed somebody to be the face of the party. Senator baker would have been a perfect person to present his partys agenda at the time. Reagan had just become president. That had beentors running for the last 26 years louisianator from l said it was a terrible idea, that they would not get anything done. And who knows, they will be speaking tomorrow, so you had the resistance. Senator byrd was initially one of those that was a traditionalist, institutionalist and he just did not know what the impact is going to be. I remember at that time, they sent some staff around the world to talk to parliaments that had and they went to the israeli convention that was being televised to see how it went and one of the members took him aside and said, whatever you do, do not let the cameras into your chamber because once they come in, you will never get them out. Standpoint,ocedural what was the process for the decisionmaking on cameras . Was it always having to be introduced by the majority leader . Didnt need anything more in a simple majority vote . Can you talk about the process of getting it done . Mr. Frumin 20 go back to howard baker. You mentioned when he became majority leader in 1981 he led the charge in favor of television. He loved technology. He was a camera bug and loved showing off his cameras. Interested much answer in computers as well, a handson technogeek. He want to television in the senate and of course, he had to fight with resistance on both sides of the aisle. It was left to his successor, senator dole to navigate those waters, as majority leader with senator byrd, the minority leader at the time. , more inre reluctant favor of the old senate. Dole readily embraced his predecessor bakers interest and respect for technology. They did go back and forth, and the parliamentarian at the time went back and forth, being in honest broker between the two leaders and try to satisfy their wishes that the newly Televised Senate were to occur, it would be more streamlined and there are a number of changes that were discussed and most of them were left by the wayside, the cutting room floor. The one major change that was made, major procedural concession was to take the post that had beenurs added to the rules in 1979 to reduce at 100 hours to a more manageable number. ,t the time, the two leaders what was the most number of hours used in a post closure filibuster since the rule change occurred in 1979 . 100 hours were available. They went back to the office and did some research, what is the most amount of time that has been used . And we discovered that 30 hours had been used by mark hatfield, filibustering an attempt to reinstitute the draft and that was the longest amount of time that had been used in a post closure filibuster. Said,ent back to them and 30 hours . And it has remained 30 hours since then. 1986 was when this first discussion accelerated and senator robert byrd of West Virginia is really key. He said he was in institutionalist. Can you tell us of any back story on why he changed his mind . Mr. Ritchie a number of senators were concerned that house members were more recognizable than senators were because people were watching on cspan but they cannot see the senate. Senator byrd was not a Gray Television watcher. Apparently, he did not have and one ofelevision the stories i heard was that he was traveling back to West Virginia to give a speech and he was staying in a hotel that had satellitetv and he watched the house of representatives on television and he was rather stunned because he thought they were just showing clips and he did not realize it was gaveltogavel and he was very impressed with what he saw. He began to think about what the senate would be like and begin to adjust to that. I think that combination plus the younger members coming to him and saying, look, when al gore got elected in 1984 he was the very first representative on tv in the house and now he is in the senate and not on television, so you get this pressure from the younger members to the senior members saying, time for us to modernize. The first to speak on the floor of the house of representatives when it went on camera, very technology oriented. He was one of the first senators to speak in 1986 as well, so he was pushing senator byrd. We have a bit of a story we have been telling over the years about senator byrd come up out of the eccentric home he was introduced in his home state of West Virginia as speaker of the mane of big white hair and was concerned the senate was being left in the dust. Can you verify the story . Mr. Ritchie i have heard that, too but i do not know what the what invading factor was. He still needed votes. Mentioned, there were a number of oldline senators basically saying to them, stay out of the way as we move forward. How did he get to yes . Mr. Frumin he was good at changing minds and once his mind was changed he could be very persuasive. Again, i think he realized and convinced his caucus that this was inevitable. And that in order for the senate to function, that this body conceived in the late 18th century needed to adapt to the 20th century, that it cannot simply remain hidden from the public. You asked about the vote necessary. All the solutions in the senate require a simple majority for adoption. Those that amend the standing rules of the senate require a higher number of foreclosure. Four cloture. That is more difficult to attain. With questions on the general rules it is 2 3. New they need to this number. Senator byrd can be very persuasive and centered all on his side of the aisle was very persuasive. When the votes happened, they decided on a twostep process, one with the june 2 date. They vision that is a trial period. Mr. Ritchie a month later, they would see if it really changed things and give them a chance to step back, but within the month everybody liked it so much, everybody was on camera and had changed had not changed the institution. It would have been very hard at that point to pull the plug. There are only a handful of senators better still in the body that were there in 1986. When i looked at the list one of them that surprised me is senator Chuck Grassley voted dgainst the initial trial an the permanent. He is very camera friendly. People were afraid if you gave senators Unlimited Television time they would take it and that nothing would get done. There is a sense about grandstand. The senate talks about workhorses and show horses. He spends time in the committees and get this gets things done. There are some people that spend more of their time in front of the cameras and microphones instead of committees and there was real concern that this would change the nature of the senate overtime. I think, pretty quickly on the realized they were used to tv cameras. They were in the committee rooms, the home state and was not that big of a difference to have it in the chamber. Glenn senator was john who went to the floor that day when the cameras first arrived doing a bit of display about how he thought the senate which change, makeup, cameras, resurgence of blue shirts and ties and in fact, did you see that in the chamber . Where people changing their attire and how they came to the senate floor on their arrival . Yes. Rumin i think senators realize this was a time for them to look their best. This was not a question about showing up for an interview somewhere. This is where they went to work on a daily basis and the cameras would be there in the cameras would be on them if they wish that to be the case, and so it was important that they look their best so i believe it was not proliferation of blue shirts and red ties back then, and i think to a certain extent, that remains the case. Senator glenn may have made light of the incoming area of Senate Television but he was not short of the truth. Does it ever close its session . Mr. Ritchie they can have an they can have a closed session if it is of executive nature. Nowadays, dont they moved down to the Old Senate Chambers . Mr. Frumin first of all, let me correct some nomenclature. Executive sessions are trees and nominations. The doors are open. For legislative and executive business. The proper term is closed session and the standing rules permit the doors to be closed for any purpose. Senator to make a motion to close the doors and another senator to second in and with that, the doors close. They do that in frequently. R. Frumin it is infrequent this is usually done in advance when the senators have notified the leadership why it is that they ask the doors to be close. Out, they go down to the hall of the Old Senate Chamber which is a more suitable venue for confidential business to be conducted. Senator grassley was one of the senators who voted against it and is still on the senate. Another of those was Mitch Mcconnell. He voted against the initial trial but later voted yes to make them permanent. He talked about with vast in an interview at his office recently. Lets watch. On june 2, the senate will be marking the 30th anniversary of his permanently televised sessions. There have been a couple to experiments over the years with special events, that on june 2, 1986 it became gaveltogavel coverage. Do you remember the discussions leading up to it and how contentious they were . Sen. Mcconnell i do. I remember thinking it would be a big mistake and voting against it, but i have to confess, i was the one that made the mistake. It has been extremely important. The senate televised and have cspan do that and i am sure i have made a number of mistakes in my political career by voting against having cspan televised the senate was one of them. Weree institutionalist worried the senate would change as a result of the cameras. That is what held it up for those many years. Howard baker, your predecessor it was the first piece of legislation he put in as leader but at the doctoral go anywhere for years because of the concern. Has the senate actually changed . Were the warriors correct worriers correct . Sen. Mcconnell i think our debates are a lot more civil than you would have during a reelection senate campaign. We have a civil environment and that there are a lot of intelligent people that are doing what they think is in the best interest of the country. Senate had to make any accommodations for cameras . Have you changed the rules or procedures for the Television Audience . Sen. Mcconnell you know, i do not know the answer to that but if there has been some it has been pretty moderate. There has been social media, people clipping pieces of Senate Debate and sending it out. How is that change your job . Sen. Mcconnell social media is important. There is some question about it. It does not change how i do my job but i think it certainly does involve a lot more people in what is going on. There is nothing bad about that. Mys frustration biggest frustration is of course, most coverage that we do are the things that we disagree on rather than the accomplishments that we achieve on a weekly basis for the American People. People who watch the senate calls and there are some time to time discussions on whether or not that process works in the Television Age. What is your response . Sen. Mcconnell we are having discussions about how to go forward. In the senate, everything is done on unanimous consent, so anyone senators can keep you from moving forward. We use quorum calls as fillers while we are trying to discuss going forward. I am sure it is boring for the viewer and i do not know from the cspan point of view how you deal with quorum calls, but it is not true that nothing is happening during a quorum call. If you were to change anything about Television Coverage of the senate, is there anything you would change . Sen. Mcconnell i do not have any suggestions to make on that. I think it is great that cspan covers the senate and it is an important part of keeping americans informed. Thank you very much. That is Mitch Mcconnell talking about his 1986 hesitation about cameras in the senate. One of the compromises the senate made as the house had done was at the cameras in the chamber were to be run by Senate Employees and under the control of the senate and that any News Organization could pick up that feed and use it in either short coverage or cable cspan gaveltogavel coverage and that is the way the operations remain today. John mack, one of the things i want to put on the table, so much as changed in terms of demographics. Looking at the senate and the 99th congress in 1986, here are the statistics. 96 white man, to asian men and only two women. We look at the 114th congress, 76 white man, one asian woman, 20 women overall, three hispanic men and one africanamerican male senator. How has this changed the senate . The more diversity you have in the membership, more diversity of the type of issues they push. 1986, she on her office sent pictures of each class that she served in with a group of women senators and never just to it first and up with each year, it grows which means issues of women are more front. Nd center there was a different focus on that and a different intensity about that. The same thing is true for racial diversity, ethnic diversity. The house has always been more diverse because districts are smaller and they tend to reflect more of the population. You have to run statewide. But television has helped people to identify attractive candidates and has helped to the point where we have several states that have two women senators, for instance. Another statistic on demographics. 511986, the average age was and 70 were over the age of 60. The average age has gone up little bit, 53 and 35 of senators are over the age of 60. Vision of the senate in the old days of old men with gray hair but the statistics are slighted. What is happened . Mr. Frumin the senate is designed for the long haul. I do think the people that come to the Senate Quickly learn that the nature of the body is that it is slow to act but it takes everybodys wishes into account, and that longevity tends to be in lightning in lightning ghtening and that longevity and experience are at a premium. It is difficult to be very effective right away. To be effective legislatively and effective formulating policy in the senate is generally a slow learning curve and so the smart ones, i believe recognize the nature of the institution, how it was designed and how its procedures emphasize and support the founders that this be a place for the long haul and so i am not surprised that you have people coming and staying for as long as they can. We heard the majority leader talk about the advantage of the public being able to bear witness of the great events of the time, so we thought we would do is look in broad categories at some of the things people were able to witness because of Television Cameras being in the United States senate. We wanted to start with one of duties ofmportant congress, going to war. We will start with one click in 1991 for the first gulf war and a second clip from october 3, 2002 with senator boxer talking about the decision of the iraq war. Lets watch. Gentlemen, nelson been driven into the bodies of innocent people. Cigarettes put out in open eyes. Electric wires attached to genitals. Daughters raped before their parents and executed. Horror that would challenge the imagination and get many of us in society say, why can we not continue the dialogue . If someone other than secretary james baker agrees to the mass, wont that be suspicion sufficient . Day, morepassing acceptable language of dialogue with serious negotiations and with each passing day the United States and it allies emerge as the bullies of imperialist, seeking to destroy a man who professes to be a robin hood who only wants peace and justice for his the arab nations. Soldiers like the bones of those that they butcher. America at her best has been seen as a beacon of hope not fear, an example not have might makes right but might acting right and what is right at the time like this . I believe it is laying out a path for peace, trying everything we can to avoid chaos and devastation to our own and to innocent civilians who may well be used as pawns in warfare. I felt that Madeleine Albright and dr. Henry kissinger laid out the path for peace when they spoke before the Foreign Relations committee. Unfettered about inspections and dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction. As they said, and i agree, it will not be easy. Maybe, madam president , it will be impossible, but there is no doubt in my mind that we should and try for path complete, unfettered inspections was nothing offlimits to be followed by dismantlement of those weapons. For those who say it will never work, maybe they are right. But madam president , we have never, never posed a massive aigger of our weapons on nation that is not attacked us first. Debating the american involvement in military actions. By our count thereof in five votes in the senate on authorizing the use of military force. How significant are these debates over sending our military to war . Mr. Frumin there is nothing more significant for a legislative body, for a government to decide then to send his men and women into war, to risk their lives. I find it interesting that in the senate, decisions on committing troops to battle are by and large subject to filibuster. I have had people ask me over the years, should an important decisions the on a fasttrack . But you can turn that around and say, truly important decisions such as committee our troops to battle really do require that the institution stand back and take its time to decide and so these are extremely significant. Obviously, in order for a vote to occur, all of the members must agree that a vote will occur, but that is only after the greatest a liberation and the ability of everybody to be heard. The firstchie when cameras came into the senate, many of the senators had been there for the vietnam war. How did the ghost of vietnam impact the televised age . Debated in ait was matter on the senate floor, one of the shortest and quickest, very little went into it. It was something everybody was responded to the immediate moment without the longterm consequences. Today, a similar type of resolution would take quite some time because every senator would feel the need to speak and that is important for the senators to articulate positions. Part of it is because of a lingering resentment which they felt, the senators fell the president have used it in a way that the senate had not intended. There is a long history of conflict during president s and ingress over the war powers part because the constitution is a little ambiguous on this. Congress declares war and the president is the commanderinchief. How far can they go under each of these and what is the responsibility . Televising, the senators feel the need to go on record on something as important as war and peace. One consequence of cameras. Mr. Ritchie yes. What do you sense being in the chamber for these momentous votes that Television Viewers at home cannot see . What is the atmosphere like . Mr. Frumin the atmosphere on the significant votes is electric. During the debates, the cameras must be trained on the senator who is speaking and so what the viewers at home do not see are the deliberations that are going on frequently in the cloak room, the well of the senate, the back of the chamber. Greease thate , some ofs process work that can be captured on camera but a great deal of it is not captured on camera, and so it would be nice to be a fly on the wall but i realize cspan cannot have cameras as flies on walls. The great deal of the giveandtake necessary on the senate floor in the National Arena does take place between and among the senators off of the floor or out of the glare of the camera. That is intentional on the part of the people that set this up, correct . Mr. Frumin yes. How does it affect the institution that they can do that . Mr. Frumin it relates of the functions. The senate is a 21st Century Institution conceived in the 18th century. It is trying to make the best use of the technology in the 21st century to remain true to its 18thcentury conception. Do,s a difficult thing to to forge compromise. Everybody has to give a little when you forge compromise and that is not photogenic. And so, to a certain extent the cameras both reveal the greatness of the senate but also conceal it by not being able to show these kinds of discussions taking place. Is to consider president ial nominations in particular, nominations tuesday Supreme Court. This is an interesting time with all three branches coming together, the Supreme Court, the executive branch in the senate in consideration. We have two clips, one from 1987, controversial appointments , rubber pork who was denied thomasbork and clarence who made his way to the Supreme Court with his supporter danforth. His america is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police to break down citizen doors and schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution. Writers and artists would be censored and the doors of the federal court would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is and is often the only protector of the individual rights that are at the heart of our democracy. America is a better and for your nation then he thinks. In the delicate balance of the Supreme Court, which an ideology will tip the scales of justice against the kind of country america is and ought to be. I believe that a Supreme Court justice is a living, breathing human being. That that person should be judged as a living, breathing human being. Thomas what clarence brings to the United States Supreme Court. I consider him to be a great american. I do not say that lightly. Greatider him to be a american because he has, farther fartherife he has, in his life than anyone i have ever known. Members of the senate say to me, i was poor, too . Too. Disadvantaged, there is no one that knows disadvantage then Clarence Thomas knows disadvantage. Nobody here, nobody here was born black in the segregated south. That is the senate considering the Supreme Court nominations. Thoughchie it seems as these nominations in the age the cspan viewers can see are pretty contentious with another nomination, merrick garland. Has it always been so . Mr. Ritchie these to ask him has it always been like this . I pointed out George Washington had one of his nominees ingested rejected by the senate. It has been like this from the beginning. Onesenate has powers and no is appointed to the cabinet or the courts without the senate having some approval over that. They can project. 500 cabinet offices, less than 5 have been rejected by the senate because they are relatively shortterm appointments, not lasting longer than the president S Administration but Lifetime Appointments to the courts, the federal courts are a different story and the senate has 3 of all of the1 Supreme Court nominations that have come forward. The two speeches we just heard were pivotal, one by ted kennedy denounce any that announcing brork. Its at the tone for the debate and made it a national issue, that it was not just the senators but Interest Groups across the country that he rallied as part of the speech and is one of the most famous speeches that was delivered in the last half of the 20th century. And then the speech by John Danforth in favor of Clarence Thomas was also very significant because danforth was a highly respected senator from missouri and he was a chief sponsor of Clarence Thomas who had once worked in his office and because danforth was so well respected and regarded, that was on was a speech you could hear given from the open at some point. That speech carried some votes which was a very close some nation, the closest nomination vote of any of them so every vote counted at that point in danforth extended his proceedings. Senators have been putting their necks on the line since the George Washington area but they have always insisted that is the role of the senate, to decide whether someone is fit to serve a lifetime commitment of the court. What can you add to this understanding of Supreme Court nominations and television . Mr. Frumin what he said about danforths role in that Clarence Thomas nomination vote. Senator danforth, i do not think there was one senator who had a level of respect that John Danforth commanded among his colleagues on both side of the aisle. I am not a vote counter in that was so my job that it would not surprise me if the margin of victory for Clarence Thomas was based on John Danforths support. Watching nominations and the level of contention has been a in theof some distress Parliamentarian Office. What has evolved in the last decade or so is the issue of filibustering nominations, not so much whether a nominee has majority support, which in most butances, the nominee does, what is the legitimate role of the Senate Minority in filibustering and preventing a vote on nominees . Perhaps one of the most her medical moments, both visually and historically since the arrival of Television Cameras was the impeachment of president clinton in 1999. I want to show again, a bit of video from that time and then we will talk about how the senate prepared for it and what the senate as an institution went through during the process. This question is from senators kohl and edwards. To whom is it addressed . Oh, to the house managers. Throughout this trial, both sides of spoken in absolutes. That is that the president engaged in misconduct. Prosecutors safety must be convicted while the president s lawyers argue such conduct is impeachablean offense. Let me ask you this, even if the president engaged in the alleged conduct, can reasonable people disagree with the conclusion that as a matter of law you must be convicted and removed from office . Yes or no . Absolutely. Case in as a hard couple of areas and i think it is an easy case in many areas. The constitution reads that upon conviction the person shell be removed shall be removed. You have to put it in context. When you apply the same Legal Standard to the body on crimes and misdemeanors to the fact that a judge who was convicted of perjury was removed by the body and you conclude and you mind that this president committed perjury, you have a dynamic you have to work through. He says there is perjury and then there is perjury. I would suggest to you that the allegations of perjury and justice are not trivial. It is not about a speeding ticket or a trivial matter. It is about the activity of the aesident when he was defendant of a lawsuit in a Sexual Harassment lawsuit when he was told by the Supreme Court, you have to play fairly. If you determine that he committed a crime of perjury and you determine that he committed the crime of instructional president ased on the of the senate, i think you would have a hard time saying under the situation of this case, that is not a high crime but i would be the first to admit that the constitution on this question about whether or not every high crime has resulted in removal and if i was sitting where you are at, i would probably get down on my knees before him a that decision because the impact on society is going to be real either way. That was house member and later senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina who had the task of managing the trial for the republicans of the impeachment of thenpresident bill clinton. The senate has not been called upon to be involved in the peach of proceeding very often and certainly, not at the level of the president. What was it like preparing for this . Mr. Frumin it was extremely nerveracking. Opportunity for those of us in the Parliamentarian Office to get to meet the chief justice and his staff who could not have been more professional, and you had the kind of presence that was essential for maintaining the dignity of these proceedings. Chief Justice Rehnquist had written about impeachment. He had studied this long before the events were brought to before the senate to the presiding office. The nation was very fortunate to have him and his attorneys and his chief of staff who were absolutely incredibly dedicated that the trial be a fair trial. We did have moments toward the end of the trial where the conflict between the cameras in the institution arose. Under the Senate Impeachment rules, the case is laid out in public but deliberations take place in private. Deliberations take place with the door closed and there were senators who were pressing their respective leadership, and this came from both sides of the aisle, who opened the doors during deliberation and there was actually an attempt to convict the chief justice convinced the chief justice that he ruled that the doors should be open. The rules, however were clear that the doors should be closed during deliberation and it was a fascinating back and forth between the leadership of the senate who want to be doors closed for deliberation. Some members on both sides and the chief justice who we shell ll say was amenable to both arguments. Last inong the trial the people for whom this is a historic artifact, what was the outcome . Mr. Ritchie also, who was there. You notice in the picture, the room was packed. The senate used to be crowded before denver tv cameras because senators hung around to hear what was happening and now they can watch it on cspan in their offices so they do not go there so it was such a change for me to go into the Senate Chamber is the every seat taken, including the press gallery which was absolutely packed. In house represented impeachment is just like an indictment. They determine whether the person should be removed. In those cases, the judges and other positions, the Vice President can preside, but in the case of a president ial impeachment, the chief justice presides because of course, the Vice President is next in line to become president and there may be some reason to hope that the job opens up for them so they wanted to make it a more neutral situation. Also, in the house you only need a simple majority vote to indict. In the senate you need a two thirds vote. That means anything that is done is goingely partyline to have a hard time convicting somebody of the senate. We have had in recent years in peach and convicted and for not an office, several federal judges but they were in peach overwhelmingan majority. To do something on a partyline vote in one house and a bipartisan vote in another is not plausible, and in fact, that is what happened in president clintons situation which went on for some time and they voted eventually and there was not a two thirds vote some essentially it was acquitted. I remember the day they voted, being outside, there were demonstrators on the plaza and then there was a bomb scare in the building had to be evacuated. The atmosphere was like mardi gras almost. There was such a relief on the part of the senate, not to be involved or settle this particular issue and to have moved on. You are watching a discussion on the senate in the Television Age on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of cameras coming into the senate permanently to televise the proceedings. Thetwo guests have been on staff of the senate for many years, each about 40 years, one of the Parliamentarian Office and the other in the Senate Historian office and we are appreciative of all of their information on the discussion. One area that is of particular importance to the senates approval of treaties. What if the constitutional responsibility of the senate in this area . Mr. Frumin the senate alone has the authority to advise and consent to the ratification of treaties and to do so on a vote of two thirds. These are enormously important deliberations. I believe that the consideration in the senate, well, before the cameras were rolling, on a regular basis, the panama canal depth of the concern brought out by the deliberations on those treaties was remarkable. These are questions of how is the United States going to function in the world and who speaks for the United States . President s enter treaties but only with the advice and consent of the senate. It is not well understood that the senate has the ability to amend the treaty, and so the senate can qualify its consent to the ratification of treaties based on the subsequent adoption of amendments. The senate does not simply rubberstamp by the senate gets to impose conditions on treaties that bind the United States and other countries. This is an enormous invaluable tool given to the senate and they take it quite seriously. The clip we have chosen is from october of 1999. You will recognize the senator on the floor who is speaking about the comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that was under consideration. I heard and closing in the last comment i will make, my friend said, our allies will lose confidence in us if we ratified this treaty. Tony blair called today and to paraphrase, for godss sake, do not defeat this treaty. He is the Prime Minister of england, our number one ally. The german chancellor said, please, ratify in an open letter. The president of france says, please ratify. Gentlemen, larry eagleburgers conclusion is the one we should all be with. In conclusion, which i will record, i asked for consent that it be entered into the record since my time is running out. Without objection. The whole point from the American Perspective is to get other nations to stop their testing activities and locked in the overwhelming u. S. Advantage. There is no other way to interpret the vote as in favor of Nuclear Testing of other nations. As i used to say in a former profession, i rest my case but in my former profession i was assumed i was going to win. I know i am going to lose here but i will be back. I will be back. Then senator later Vice President , joe biden who is right, the treaty went down 5148. Don ritchie when we look at the historian page, since the cameras came income of the Senate Considered 2500 treaties. They do this a lot but only a few of them rise to this level. What is the deciding thing on the importance . Mr. Ritchie many of them are minor issues and they are just between two countries trying to straighten out their affairs. ,ome of these are major issues environmental debates. Or Something Like the genocide treaty that was on for a decade. He is to bring it up on a regular basis, every week, giving a speech about a genocide treaty which they eventually did pass. Build anaties have to enormous consensus behind them to get a two thirds vote in the senate. Those are the big pressing issues that will become the law of the land by agreeing to the treaty and they will affect the relations with other nations. They reflect the selfimage of the nation. The penama canal treaty was reduced to the issue, we built it so we should keep it. As other side, keeping it is causing us to have poor relations with pretty much every nation in latin america and we need to resolve this issue, so we have to decide what combination we were. Eventually, by arguments, debating, articulating the issues, the senators can go above the coalition to get it through. Senator biden said, i will be back. The treaty will be up again, again and again. Lets move on to the next area which is major pieces of legislation. What we chose here was the passage of the president S Health Care law which we know as obamacare or the Affordable Care act. These are clips from march 24, 2010, senator Barbara Mikulski speaking in favor and senator tom coburn who has left the Senate Speaking against the Affordable Care act. Where i am also very excited playedored is the role i in making sure that we ended the punitive practices of Insurance Companies toward women. For too long into many ways in too many ways, they treated being a woman as a preexisting condition. 0 ey charged us 30 or 4 more to get insurance and then they would have the punitive practices of denying Us Health Insurance for a preexisting condition. In eight states, Domestic Violence was viewed as a preexisting condition. To talk about being abused, you were abused by her husband that you were abused by your insurance company. Well, we are not going to be battered anymore by these companies. This is undoubtedly the greatest insult on liberty this country has ever had. It is not direct. It is indirect. It is what the senate from New Hampshire talked about. We are going to decide for you what you get. What the American People still do not understand in this bill is there a three areas in this bill that in the next five years will put the government in charge of everybodyS Health Care. Senator Barbara Mikulski is leaving the senate after 30 years. Both supporters and opponents of the Affordable Care act described it as the largest Domestic Legislation sense the Civil Rights Era of the johnson legislation. What goes into considering legislation this momentous . Mr. Frumin the issue that swirled around health care was whether or not it could be filibustered or whether it derived a fasttrack. There are expedited procedures provided under a number of different statues, the most notable the budget act which provides for a process called reconciliation and reconciliation bills cannot be filibustered. There has always been a push on proponents of major legislation to see if they cannot shoehorn it into a reconciliation bill that cannot be filibustered. Our limitary in office pushes back against that impetus, going back into the early 90s. From a procedural standpoint, we advise the leadership on both sides of the aisle that a measure of this comprehensive nature was not appropriate for the reconciliation fasttrack process and that basically what the majority needed to do was build a coalition sufficiently large to get cloture. The coalition on health care have been rumbling around since the Clinton Administration when Hillary Clinton was involved to advance that president s proposal. What can you speak about the Senate Getting to yes on this. Happenshie nothing quickly unless there is a national catastrophe. Most of the staff would tell me it take about seven years before you can enact a good idea into law. You had to go to the different states, different interests, have a sympathetic president , all of these issues and it required longevity which is why we talked about senators staying in office. You really could get much done wouldixyear term as you like to. It takes longer to get these through. Something as complicated and profound as National Healthcare has been debated. Harry truman had a major bill while he was president. Lyndon johnson brought in medicare. It is not surprising under the circumstances historically that Something Like this would take a long time. Example, 19 Century Institution operating with 21st expectations. Bondyou watch the publics , a public that demands youantaneous news, how do respond to the public reaction . They tend to react when there is a big corruption erruption. They werent interested in stories about the bill getting to the full committee. They only wanted to know in the final vote. The last two minutes of the ask a ball game. At least cspan allows people to watch it the whole way. Those people have been following it no few things happen very quickly. Most of the public pays attention when there is a big for asr a big fight, senator mcconnell said, when we are in dispute as opposed to agreeing with each other. The senate does a huge amount of its business for unanimous consent. Little things, helping each other out. Passing whole bills. Sometimes, that can whiz by. Even people in the gallery dont. Ealize nobody even voted because there was agreement. Much of the process is hard to follow and understand. It is not surprising the public is often unhappy. At least they have a better chance if they are interested. We close out the section with a bit of video from september 12, 2001. The senator from north carolina. I ask unanimous consent, that permitted to deliver my remarks seated at my desk. Without objection. The have tried to count number of senators who were even 1941. On december 7, there are not many of us left. Many of us, i hate to say i am a party to it, were not even born. Was aroundrman for the war of 1812, i think. Sunday, i came out of church. Heard about the bombing of pearl harbor. In front of the editors of the carolina, itnorth prevailed upon the i prevailed upon the publisher to put out an extra. Newspaper last extra without in the state of north carolina, to my knowledge. I remember we sold 12,000. That pleased to the management of the newspaper. That, i went three blocks up the street to the post office and the Navy Recruiting section. I volunteered. Well except they turned me down because of my hearing in my left ear. Recall i was so disappointed. Over the corner was the chief eddie officer of the navy. I think that i never saw achieve eddie officer of the navy who talked anyway except of the side of his mouth. He said, come over. I went. He said, you want to be in the navy . I said, yes sir. He had someound out friends. I thought he was pulling my leg. It turned out he wasnt. Two months later, i received a waiver. Perl, san diego, for 23 months training. That is the side of the point except to say the recruiting station that day was filled with young men. They all wanted to defend their country. A lot of them didnt know where or what pearlas harbor was. But they came anyhow because they realized their country had been attacked. Unfairly. Thats the reason we won the war. The was a time when accepted policy of the u. S. Was to seek out and find and when necessary destroy the leaders of forces resorting to violence harm to the American People. Ont policy was in effect december 7. Following, or years circlesthe political t decided to substitute a twofisted warning. I was encouraged to hear the president of the United States last evening and again this morning saying in effect, we are. Oing to get them they are not going to get away with it. In 1941,the attitude when franklin roosevelt, and i am the only one present in the. Ate to hear it him say it day that will live in infamy. Yesterday was a day that better live in infamy. September 12, 2001. Ol atere in the capit that time. There was a time when people in the buildings understood them to be targets. What was the atmosphere . The surprising thing was we came to work. Most of the city was shut down. I had to come into work because the senate wanted to be in session. It was a very emotional day. You heard that and senator helmss remarks. He is comparing that from what he remembers to pearl harbor. It is a moment that brings people together. National catastrophe, crisis, political issues get thrown out and there was a great sense of unity. That is what the senators were trying to show. Wanted to show it was still operational . They wanted to demonstrate that an convene at 11 00 that morning. They did so in violation of their rules. They had no order to convene that day. They have a Standing Order to convene every day. There was no authority to meet at 11 00 when the leaders wanted to meet. When the senate gaveled itself in, they said, we may convene at this hour. Emergency times often require emergency processes. It was very important both bodies indicate washington was ready to do business. Section, wext wanted to demonstrate some of the procedural drama that our viewers have been party to watching over the years. The first clip is from 1988. We are going to watch this and have you talk about what is happening. This happened at 3 00 in the morning. Robertn exchange between byrd and alan simpson, the minority leader. Lets watch and then we will learn more about what is happening. The facts speak for themselves. Senators were not here. They were not here. They didnt stay on the job. They had their own order of the senate. Senator,single out any any conduct of this unworthy being a senator. I didnt impute any senators character, integrity, or any such. I am sorry the senator took that position. When i walkedze the floor, things were going to be said about this. May. I i yield. Mr. President when i was making my remarks, i was here. As i said, the majority leader was there. You were right there. Senator. t hear the i know but you are in the chamber. I would like to finish my explanation. I have the floor. We can go back and forth all night long. When i spoke, you were on this floor. I asked for the regular order. Thisenator addressed person any third person. I always do that. I do that when im in the chair and outside the chair. I said, mr. President , i want to finish my remarks. 3 00 in the morning, the exchange between those two bank senators. Why are they arguing over how senator should be addressed . I would like to thank you for some of my to relive moments of filibusters. Substantialhen matters are stalled, they fight over process and procedure. There are a couple of things going on. Senator byrd is taking umbrage at senator simpson referring to him in the second person. Rules address are they address each other through the the third person. It is the senator from West Virginia. Remarks are not supposed to be personal remarks. They are supposed to be institutional remarks. Of course, this was an allnight filibuster. Everybodys nerves are frayed. In the absence of a quorum, senate rule six authorizes the the sergeantuest absent. To recall those in the absence of a quorum, a motion is designed to produce a quorum. Lets it does not produce a quorum. It then authorizes a motion to arms tohe sergeant at compel the attendance. What does compel mean . It means arrest. That is what had happened earlier that evening. Sergeant a motion the and arrestpelled warrants were prepared in my office. Seniorby the secondmost democrat. The Vice President at that time, george h. W. Bush, would not have been interested in signing them. Democrat was not available. He signed arrest warrants. The sergeant at arms was sent in absentg in all cap republican spirit how often does that happen . Not often. It used to happen during some of the long civil rights filibusters. In the 1940s, the majority leader had the senators arrested. Senator fromnior tennessee. He was so upset about being arrested, he didnt speak to berkeley for years even though sat next to each other. One advantage is i used to go home at a regular time in the evening. Around 11 00, i would turn on cspan and i would see alan still sitting at the desk. The clerks in the chamber are there whenever the senate is in session, whether it is 11 00 at night or 11 00 in the morning or 3 00 in the morning. You can see from the atmosphere these senators are getting testy. Senator byrd knew those rules inside out. He was a stickler for the way in which the senate should proceed. He is pointing out he did not name any specific senator. He did not break any rules. Colleague he his should have done it well byrd was on the floor. Insisting the senate operate the way the procedures and norms had been since the beginning. Is used to the fact that the senate often changes leadership. It is not often the change hasens when the Senate Already convened and is in session. It did happen in 2001. Had been the contested president ial election. Tensions high. A slim majority of republicans. What happened next . What happened is one of the senators, jim jeffords of anmont, chose to become independent but to caucus with the democrats. That meant the democrats had a onevote majority over the republicans. The numbers had been 5050 up to that point. With the Republicans Holding the majority because the Vice President was a republican. Now the democrats had the edge. This is the only time in the history of the institution the Party Majority changed in the middle of a congress. There have been instances before in which one Party Started out with the majority and the other wild up with a majority, but there had never been a device to switch the chairmanships of committees. In the beginning of this congress, the leaders sat down and worked out an arrangement that said, we are 5050. If one of us gets the majority, we will organize it that way. I dont think anyone anticipated when they signed that agreement it would be the democrats becoming the majority. Everybody assumed if anybody switched, there would be an additional republican. All of the changes before had been democrats becoming republicans. This was a historically unique moment. All of the Committee Chairs changed. Republicans stepped down. Is from 2001e have when the new majority leader, tom daschle, is at the podium. Lets listen. Senator daschle finally, there was another person who deserves special recognition. That is senator jeffers. Last week, i was deeply touched by his courageous decision. His elegant words eloquent words. The senator has always commended bipartisan respect because of the work he does. Regardless of where he sits in the chamber, that is work that will continue. America will be better for it. Indeed is a humbling moment for me. I am honored to serve as majority leader. But i also recognize the majority is slim. Mostis still one of the closely divided senates in history. We have just witnessed something that has never before happened in all of senate history. During aof power session of congress. There is the new majority leader talking about the nature of it. What i would like to have you keepabout, i think we reminding you of these challenging moments, what it had been like operating with a 5050 senate and then what happened when they gained a one seat majority. It was fascinating operating with a 5050 senate. The identity of the Vice President is what tips the balance. The Senate Leadership is not elected by the senate. The two parties elect their leaders. There is no action the senate takes to ratify that. They simply acknowledge and take notice of the fact that tom daschle is the leader because he sits in the chair. Trent lott was the leader because he sat in the republican chair. Who is the majority leader depends on how you count noses. It was clear at the outset that there were 50 immigrants and 50 republicans. They worked out a powersharing agreement that was to be effective unless one party obtained a majority of all the senators. I think what they thought might might be athere death. They were concerned possibly someone like senator thurman who was approaching 100 years old might has to way. They did not want a reduction from the party ranks to tip the balance. They wanted there to be a firm majority with one party. It wasnt sufficient that there would be 50 democrats and 49 republicans. The leadership wanted there to be an absolute majority of the number. With that, the jeffers switch caused great consternation. And initially, senator jeffers simply wanted to leave the Republican Caucus and not affiliated with the democrats, there would be 50 democrats, 49 republicans, and a jeffers. That was not enough to turn the majority to the other party. Senator jeffers was ultimately convinced he would identify quotef as an independent caucusing with the democrats. Qualifier identified him as a democrat, giving the democrats in our mind 51 votes and the advice to the presiding officer lotthe day before, senator was the leader. After the switch, the chair would address sender daschle as the leader. This was an enormous change. Very significant change. Our time is going to evaporate quickly. Im going to move on to another procedural one. In the age of harry reid, we kept hearing the threat to invoke the socalled Nuclear Option. When they refer to that, what do they mean . Forcing a matter of ruling the senators would vote on that would in a sense establish a precedent that would overturn a rule or contradict a rule. Nuclear the word because it is so controversial, they compare it to a Nuclear Explosion. The one thing people worry about is after a Nuclear Explosion what be left standing . Leftthe institution be able to function . Both parties have been on both sides of this issue. These are nominations we were talking about here, getting bottled up. The senator first proposed it. It did not happen. A gang of 14 senior senators got together and came up with a solution. When the democrats who oppose the Nuclear Option became the majority, they found the situation equally intolerable. They eventually detonated it although they detonated it in a slightly different manner than had been proposed. Now that the republicans are back in, they havent changed it. Im not sure how the two parties will deal withsenator mitch mcce the vote and then Patrick Leahy announces the vote. Lets watch and we will come back. Just think about it. The majority leader promised, he agained over and over that he would not break the rules of the senate to change them. Promise. Not an agent july 14, we depressed press, he said we are not touching judges. We are not touching judges. Then there are the double standards. When democrats were in the minority, they argued for the very thing they now say we will have to do without. Namely, the right to extended debate on Lifetime Appointments. In other words, they believe one said of rule should apply to and another set to everybody else. He may as just as well have said if you like the rules of the senate, you can keep him. If you like the rules of the senate, you can keep them. The senate will be in order. The senate will be in order. Are there other senators who wish to vote . If not on this vote, the yeas are 52. He nays the decision is not sustained. I make a point of order. Nominations are fully debatable have chosen to bring debate to a close. Under the president just set by the senate, cloture is invoked. I appeal the ruling and asked for the as and nays. The chair has not yet ruled. Under the precedent set by the , november 21, the threshold for cloture on nominations, not including those to the Supreme Court of the u. S. , is now a majority. That is the ruling. I appeal the ruling and ask for the yeas and nays. The republican leader appeals the decision to the chair. Now, show thes decision stand to the judgment of the senate . Is there a sufficient second . There is. The as and nays will call the role. Senate into see the all its procedural glory in a debate over a procedural rule. What should we know about this . Flex process change is not so much by rules change but president s precedents. When thehange ruling of the chair, based on my successors advice, was the correct answer. Theure requires 3 5 of duly sworn. Ie\ senator reid appealed the ruling. That appeal could not be filibustered, there had to be an immediate vote. Requires athe chair majority. Acquired 48air only votes. Senator reid appealed the ruling. He had the votes. Appeala nondebatable and with that, he was able to alter senate for siege or, not by changing the language of the cloture rule but by changing the manner in which the language is interpreted area to you are giving us this explanation, i am froming back to a speech robert byrd. Very early in the age of Senate Television. Cspan was there. I recall him saying, mastery of the rules can impact the outcome. Senatoris what made byrd and effective leader. He knew and he could quickly respond. Nervoushis opposition because he knew the rules inside out every there is a big, rick volume. He was one of the editors of. Senate received your. Over 1000 pages. He said, every congress i read through this volume again and i underline sections i think are important. This is that a book party. I was standing behind another senator who whispered, this is a senator who never reads the volume. Are there any institutionalists any sender who are masters of the rules like senator byrd . I have been out four years. I would have to think about that. At the moment, nobody comes to mind. It is possible if we have a dialogue here and either of you want to suggest someone from among the current membership, some but he will stand out. We do tend to look at the leadership for procedural expertise. I would start there. I believe both senders reid and mcconnell senator reid and mcconnell are institutionalist. I believe their staff spends time in the Parliamentarian Office. Even senator byrd did not come to the senate. It took him years to acquire the knowledge. There may be some junior senators, if they are going to byrd,e as long as senator who will master the rules the way he did. Discussionl point of is on theral drama filibuster. We have talked about it frequently. We are going to do the opposite of a filibuster, show you a one 21 hourlip of a filibuster. Senator ted cruz. It is referred to as the green aches and ham filibuster. Greenr cruz say, i like eggs and ham. I like them, sam i am. And in eat them any boat a goat. I will eat them with a box and with a fox. I will leave them in a house and with a mouse. I will eat them your or are here or there. I do so like green eggs and ham. Thank you, sam i am. I want to say to my angels, i love you with all my heart. His bedtime. Say your prayers. Daddy is going to be home soon to read to you in person. That certainly couldnt have happened before Television Cameras, a personal message to children. The popular image of a filibuster was in the 1940s movie mr. Smith goes to washington. What are real filibusters like . What are the rules about how long one person must stand . There is no technical definition of a filibuster. I do think that mr. Smith goes to washington was a fairly accurate rendition of what mona fide oneman filibuster is. Hegets recognized and says will keep the floor until he can no longer stand physically. We dont see that very often. That to me is what a filibuster is. Practice, filibusters are not necessarily conducted by one individual. If the votes are not there for cloture, that means you have at least 41 senators who do not want a vote to occur on something. They can take turns holding the floor, in which case a filibuster doesnt have to be a lone wolf activity. It could be a concerted effort i 41 people, in which case holding the floor is not that difficult. They can hold the floor, go around the clock if they wish. Bewonder senator will inconvenienced. The staff sits at the desk. It is difficult for them. Them talk filibusters, in essence, would be a tech team of as many as 41 senators coming to the floor and taking turns. I presume people watching cloture means the vote to cut off debate. How have filibusters been affected in the age of television . Ofthere are two kinds filibustered. One is the kind designed to stop a vote from happening. It is what southern senators used to do to stop civil rights legislation. There is one called holding the senate all night long, to draw attention to whatever the issue is the senator is concerned about. We have seen a number of senators who have adopted this in recent years. Alfonse damato used to do this. Filibuster. The next morning, it would be over with. Senator cruz did it read senator sanders. Lots of them have done it for one night. Reporters would say, why are they doing this . Will write, so you the story. It is to draw attention to an issue they consider is important and they fear people wont Pay Attention to. Minutes, wenal 10 will show you personal or emotional moments. September 7, 1995. Bob packwood and announcing he is leaving the senate. Here,r packwood some senator byrd, some in my age group remember general macarthurs final speech at west point. Duty, honor, country. Duty to resign. It is the honorable thing to do. For this country. For the senate. So i now announce i will resign from the senate. Institution not with malice, but with love. Good luck, god speed. We need to convey to our viewers senator packwood had been enormously powerful. He was obviously not taking his leave on his own schedule. What do we need to know . Is a senator leaving under a cloud. Worried if he didnt leave, his colleagues would be forced to vote to expel him. Ist you get from that speech the tremendous emotion of a person who has devoted a large portion of their career to serving in the senate. Leaving under a cloud or for whatever reason is difficult. Thinking, if only we had cspan in the 19th century to alhouns speech. I think we would hear the same emotion and capture the humidity. Humidity, coupled with rules. Senator packwood resigned sexual of accusations of impropriety. I wanted to ask about ethics. How have they changed in the past 30 years, under the glare of television . I dont believe any formal changes have occurred in terms of the ethics of the senate. I think in the modern era, when communications, the communications industry, is operating 24 7, everything a senator does in the senate, on the floor, in a hearing, in that , they are Office Public people. Every action they take is subject to public scrutiny. For better or worse, members know that. They have to conduct themselves with a level of propriety possibly unheard of in a previous era. I think that is a good thing. Our next televised moment occurred in 2009. You will watch then senator john kerry in a testament to ted kennedy. Kerry i want to thank the majority leader and minority leader for the time they have set aside to remember ted kennedy, our beloved colleague. My senior senator for nearly a quarter of a century. And had, the man i met a great influence in 1962 when as a young, about to be college about to work i had the privilege of working in his campaign for the senate. To look at his desk now, the a deskand the roses, from which he championed so many causes, from which he regaled us, educated us and were friends us for so many years. Even more difficult for us to think of this chamber, our nations capital, without him. On many occasions in the senate, he was the indispensable man. On every occasion in this chamber and out, he was a man whose heart was as big as heaven. Whose optimism could overwhelm any doubter. Whose joy for life was a wonderfully contagious and irresistible thing. A tribute to senator kennedy. I wanted to use this closing piece of video to talk about senators as human beings. We often see them in their public role and at odds with one another because the nature of politics is a blood sport. You see these people in a different light. He was a moment when the cameras capture that. Ty the senate is a personali driven institution. They spend a good deal of time together and they used to state even more time together. They got to know each other as individuals. They had to cross the aisle to work out arrangements. Sender kennedy was superb at finding republicans to be cosponsors of his legislation. Building the kind of russians needed to get legislation through. They also remembered him with his dogs. Moments ineally nice their careers where the politics didnt make as much difference as the personality. Memorialout in these addresses. This has been consistent throughout history. When senators have died, senators come to make reference and they are compiled in volumes. We find them useful because they tell you a lot about the character of the individuals. You could hear senator kerrys voice breaking. Practically every senator stood up to commemorate ted kennedy. He was such a towering figure. I am also thinking about a moment when senator kirkwood suffered a stroke. His emotional return to the senate, climbing slowly to come back. Will you talk about senators as people . Me tople frequently ask talk about the standing rules. Think about the 100 standing, sitting, breathing rules. The institution despite the rules that say you should not personalize, it is deeply personal. Rules mean you are dealing with 100 personalities. Everybody is empowered in the senate. What that means is it is a community of 100 equals. Some more equal than others but 100 equals. It is impossible not to reach out to these people as people. Successful senators become that way because they understand who their colleagues are as people. Kirk was senator helped up the stairs. By a democrat from West Virginia. He is a republican of illinois. Different parties, different states, different arts of the country. I think that was a fabulous window into the soul of the senate. Its people. Yes, they represent their states. The Human Element is essential. The construct of this and its processes. We are closing our discussion of 30 years. The clips we have shown are gathered in a special website page on cspan. Org. You can find it easily. Weve got all these clips and other bits of historical information. In the age of television, not only does cspan do gaveltogavel, but there are regular clips of the senate in session. When people are seeking to run for the senate, they will often use clips from the senate floor to mount their campaigns. Senators are clipping video and tweeting it out on their twitter feeds. What is the effect on the institution of all this video coverage . It is a more open institution, more than when i came there in the 1970s. In ways that the senators of that era would be shocked to see how available and accessible it all is. It has not been an easy transition. I remember once, senator ted stevens became furious when he felt he was ambushed by someone who is trying to videotape him with a cell phone. Whereare rules about cameras can be. It takes a lot of adjustment. What you can do and cannot read it takes generational changes. We have the younger senators coming in who are much more adept at the newest technology. Institution continues. It has a form, a structure. The members have to adjust to the Institution Just as much as the institution has to adjust to the new generation. We have had galleries since 1795. They have gotten larger and gone worldwide. For more people can have access than ever before. I always tell people the senate is an acquired taste. Greater exposure will allow more people to acquire that taste, that is a good thing. With younger members, is there a push for more openness . Increasing the camera angles . You noticed in the first the camel was looking down at him. Now they have been adjusted. The technology adjusts itself to the institution. Find better ways of operating. Im sure that there will be all sorts of devices that will come on. The members of Congress Really do want their constituents to know what they are doing. Their own cellng phones . No, there are no Electronic Devices in the chamber. You can blame thomas jefferson. He said, you cant read a newspaper well the other member is speaking. They have said, a laptop or cell phone is not much different. You are supposed to listen to the person who is speaking and e them your attention. They are different than the house in that regard. The senate is the upper body. With that note, let me say thank you to don ritchie. The parliamentarian of the senate emeritus. Also, the historians office. Browningown dr. Robert at the cspan archives. Thank you, gentlemen for being with us. As we close, one last clip. We are going back to where we started. Senator bob dole, then the majority leader on the first day talking about the historic nature of this. Is no doubt there about it, today is historic in many ways. It is exciting in many ways. I would guess now that tv in the senate is here, and of the , ilic has an opportunity doubt we will never be without television in the senate except we pulley plug and see what we might do to correct certain areas. Today we sort of in effect catch century. He 20th we have been the invisible half of the congress. We have watched house colleagues with interest, at least i have with interest with the tv coverage of members of our colleagues in the house. In my view, this is a challenge. Times iet a number of have reservations. All of us either publicly or privately have reservations. We are going public. We will be watched by a friends and by people across the country and i would hope, as i have said that the senate may change. Not as an institution, but maybe become a more efficient body. If you missed any of our look back at 30 years of senate tv coverage, we will be repeating the program in its entirety tonight at 11 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan. Cspan, created by americas Cable Television companies and brought to you as a Public Service by your Cable Television provider. Watch the journal, live every day with news and politics issues that impact you. Friday, u. S. Immigration policies and their impact on the policy and national security. And then Andrew Maloney will talk about their efforts to have Congress Approved the justice against sponsors of terrorism. Legislation, countries would lose their right to sovereign immunity from lawsuits. Chief for u. S. Customs and Border Protection will discuss the role of the u. S. Border patrol. Be sure to watch washington journal. Join the discussion. This week on q and a, the u. S. Senate historian betty koe d. Brian betty koed, historian of the United States senate if you had to choose a character that you have studied over the years in