(3 of 10)
Byrd has an intense devotion and dedication to the Senate, and for nearly 20 years he has worked tirelessly and uncomplainingly in its service. In many ways, he personifies its transformation and that of the entire Congress: its insistence on staying free from the Executive Branch's control, its new sense of self-importance and its anxiety about how it is regarded by the American public. Because Byrd shows little interest in ideology or the formulation of policy, his leadership allows the Senators, who traditionally have been more individualistic than the Representatives, to follow their own convictions and accentuates the independence of the 95th Congress.
To some degree, what many members of Byrd's Senate and the House describe as independence is not high-minded statesmanship but an old-fashioned desire to take positions that will play well in their districts. With elections coming up in November, a lot of members will be more cautious this session, particularly since there is no national consensus on many key issues. Experts forecast only a moderately productive session, with a number of important matters—among them, national health insurance and reform of the tax and welfare systems—postponed in a rush to adjourn by Oct. 1 so that legislators can concentrate on campaigning. Says House Republican Leader John Rhodes of Arizona: "Nobody wants to get into those morasses this year. If we don't adjourn, we'll just stay around in Washington and do a lot of dumb things."
Today's members may be as anxious about getting re-elected as their predecessors, but there is no denying that Congress has changed drastically. Many political scientists fear that Congress may eventually become unmanageable by its leaders. The old constraints of party allegiance and obedience to elders have largely been shaken off. Says Byrd: "When I entered politics 31 years ago, all we talked about was voting the straight party ticket. Now there is a growing spirit of 'doing one's own thing and of resisting the established way of doing things."
In the old days, many members of Congress leaned heavily on their leaders for guidance and usually voted as they were told. Often, when the House took up a bill, a committee chairman would spell out its provisions in debate to an almost empty chamber. Then, as the bells rang for a vote and members rushed into the chamber, the doorkeeper shouted the leaders' instructions to them, "The vote is aye, the vote is aye." Or, conversely,
"The vote is no, the vote is no." Now most members conscientiously find out for themselves what is in a bill and make up their own minds about how to vote.
Congress in many respects has become more democratic. Because of rules changes, crucial committee decisions last year, like the horse-trading on the final version of the bill raising Social Security taxes, were made before press and public, not in secret as they previously would have been. The seniority system has been weakened, eliminating many of the old, autocratic committee chairmen who could block important legislation on a whim. Chairmen, who are now elected by members of the majority in each chamber, have become more responsive to the rank and file.