1 The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign ...

fierce guardian secretary, Martha, who was extraordinarily protective – even possessive.
The great art was to get through her or around her, but that was easily done. In the end, as
we knew each other better, trust between us developed and Martha and I became very
good friends – the Senate was a very good place to work, staffs of the senators worked
very closely with the staffs of their senate offices and their committees. The Senate was a
wonderful place to work. Each senator was accorded full sovereignty and dignity and
rights. The senators saw themselves as independent, but as equals as well. Senator’s staffs
were accorded the same rights, respect and dignity in due measure of course. All 100
senators had the access to all of the parts of the institution as did their staffs. Everything
was open. There was no place except one in the Senate that I couldn’t go with ease - no
badges, no x-raying madness. There was only one place which was out of bounds, which
was the “Baths”, the Senate swimming pool. That was reserved for senators. If you were
not a senator, you couldn’t even approach it.
For me, the Senate was a great learning experience about my own country. I really saw
America in all its variety. The people came fro all over the country, with their petitions,
they came with their grievances, they came with their hopes, and every senate office was
open to our people. Cooper, particularly, loved to see his constituents. I remember one
occasion where a group of Catholic nuns came from Louisville – Cooper was a
Presbyterian – he said, “I love nuns. They’re so pure,” and he would take them into his
office and take enormous pleasure in just listening to them and sort of beam. Of course,
his schedule would go out the window with them. That was when I learned, that the most
important skill for a democratic leader is to listen to your people, hear their concerns and
don’t worry about scheduling.
On substance: the substantive work of the Senate was organized around the legislative
schedule put together by agreement of the leaders both Democratic and Republican.
When I came to the Senate in 1967, the leaders were Mike Mansfield and Hugh Scott.
Mansfield and Scott decided what would be taken up on the floor and what would be
coming up, the bills. Cooper expected me to learn everything in my area of foreign policy
and defense issues, and more, everything. I wrote speeches, I did the research, I prepared
the hearings. I sat on the floor of the Senate when speeches I had written were given by
Senator Cooper, sitting on an appropriately smaller chair next to Senator Cooper as he
gave his speeches. It was like being in a special club. I spent as much time as possible on
the floor of the Senate with my more knowledgeable colleagues. I was welcome in the
cloak rooms of both parties. In time, I came to know all 100 senators and their staff. We
were all very close. It was a way of life that was full and enriching at that stage, perhaps
because the issues were so compelling and pervasive, not only Vietnam, which was really
about the power of making of war – the question of who makes war? For many of us, that
became the overriding conceptual and intellectual issue. At that time, what we called
framework legislation was very much the most important legislative work to be done. We
were contending with issues such as the efficacy of the Constitution’s war-making
provision. If it is not adequate or too vague, for present conditions, how do you write
legislation that doesn’t violate or abridge the constitution, but strengthens it? The Gulf of
Tonkin issue, the whole problem of executive orders, of secret commands given by the
77