[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 5 (Monday, January 13, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S222-S225]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SENATE REORGANIZATION
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know the majority leader is on the floor
and I will be very brief.
A couple of times this afternoon people have talked about the 11
appropriations bills that did not pass last year, but the Record should
be spread with the fact that the Senate completed its work on the
appropriations bills. We reported every bill out of committee, but even
before the summer hit the House closed down and would not send us any
bills. So that is why the appropriations bills were not passed.
We did everything we could to try to get those bills passed and the
Republicans in the House simply would send us no bills. We asked the
White House, we asked the Republican leadership and they simply would
not help us, so we were not to blame for the bills not passing. That
was something that was
[[Page S223]]
done by the Republicans in the House and in the White House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will take a moment and update Members of
the status of the committee resolution. I know we have had a discussion
and some debate of this on the floor, both in the last hour and earlier
today.
I will reassure my colleagues that we have been working in good faith
to try to resolve the outstanding issues which would allow us to go
forward and do something that is very fundamental to the operation of
this body, in fact necessary for us to go forward with the nature of
the business. It is what the Senate is all about.
We do have 11 new Senators who simply are not on committees, who do
not have the opportunity to fully participate in that process as we
look at the issues surrounding us, whether it is war, homeland
security, or the funding of the appropriations bills that were just
mentioned.
I remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that normally this
so-called committee resolution is adopted in the first day or two of
the session with very little fanfare. Again, we are talking about after
an election, when there is a clear-cut majority based on that election,
that we appoint the committees and their chairmen, which is really what
we are talking about. That allows us to proceed with the important
business before the Senate.
It was mentioned earlier in the day that the precedent has been set
to go beyond what we would like to do and that is address committee
membership so that we can begin with the hearings and the discussion.
It was mentioned that the precedent has been set that we include a
range of other issues, such as committee funding and space. I remind my
colleagues--and I have had an opportunity to do that with a number of
them today but not everybody--that the precedent in Congress after
Congress, when we begin with a clear-cut majority based on elections,
is the traditional practice of limiting these resolutions, usually
carried out in the first couple of days, of naming committee members.
Some Members have mentioned the agreements of the 107th Congress as
the precedent or the basis where we have to consider all of these other
issues. Let's not forget that the 107th Congress was a unique Congress,
unlike the Congresses before, in that in that Congress we had 50-50,
something that neither side had fully addressed or thought about
because it had not occurred in a generation or so of this body.
That being the case, and very appropriately, this committee
resolution did address other issues such as space and the other issues
that were mentioned today. But it is not 50-50 beginning this Congress.
This is not the 107th Congress; it is the 108th Congress. The American
people spoke very clearly in the most recent elections and provided for
a majority--yes, in this case a Republican majority.
Again, I hope we can proceed. I think we have made real progress in
all of our discussions, but now is the time we need to come together
and get on with the Nation's business. Therefore, I hope we can proceed
in the traditional manner that when we begin a Congress and there is a
clear-cut majority based on the elections that we pass the committee
resolution, establish the committee membership and their chairmanships
and move towards working on the issues that are important to the
American people: security of the homeland; we have important
nominations that have to do with homeland security. Until we get the
committees actually set up and established, Members, such as the Member
occupying the Chair, do not sit on any committees and cannot fully
participate. They cannot vote because they are not on that committee
yet. That applies to the appropriations bills as well.
We are trying to finish the business from the last Congress, which
because of the indecision and a whole range of issues we were not fully
able to address in the 107th Congress. Now we are working very hard, in
a bipartisan way, on these so-called appropriations bills or spending
bills. The American people at this juncture really expect no less of
us. If it is not confusing now, it is going to get very confusing as to
why we cannot even name the committees and their chairmen.
The American people do not want a continuation of an inability of
this body to function, to carefully consider the appropriations bills
and the nominations through the committee structure.
I have been keeping an open mind and in truth have really encouraged
Members on our side of the aisle to not come out and say we should move
forward because we are in the majority. I have encouraged them to sit
back and let the negotiations continue. Over the last 7 days, we have
addressed this whole range of issues and have felt obligated to extend,
at least in our discussions, beyond just naming the committee members
and chairmanships and to talk about space. We talked at length about
other committees and the way particular committees should be organized
and the space both within the Capitol and among the committees.
We have worked in good faith and we have worked productively on a
whole range of issues.
Having said that, we need to proceed with the business of the Senate,
and what I have observed today is that we are unable to adequately
address appropriations, the nominations for the Treasury which the
President has addressed and the 31 nominations of the judiciary, with
vacancies around the country, which we really cannot address until we
do something very simple, and that is appoint who is on the committees,
which we have already decided, by the way. The American people should
know we have already decided who is going to be on these committees and
who the chairmen are.
Having said this, I need to put everyone on notice that if an
agreement is not reached shortly--and we will be working through this
evening as we have throughout the course of today--if we do not reach
an agreement shortly--and by that I mean very soon, very soon--I will
be moving forward with the committee resolution. The resolution is
simple: That is, who is on the committees, which has already been
decided, who those chairmen are.
This may or may not delay the consideration of the appropriations
package of fiscal year 2003. My goal had been that we do what is
normally done in the Congress in the first several days: Appoint
committee chairmen and systematically address the appropriations bills
left over from last year. Now we are 1 day into this week and we have
not made progress sufficiently in negotiations to be able to appoint
those committees. I am beginning to think we are not going to be able
to complete those appropriations bills this week--again, business left
over from the last Congress.
In any event, the Senate will not adjourn for a recess next week
unless and until the Senate completes these two items. The very basic
one, appointing who is on committees, that has already been decided.
Again, we need to come to that very quickly. The other item is the
appropriations. Great progress has been made. But until we have the
committee structure in place, we have a chairman at that juncture and
we have 11 Senators, who have been duly elected, able to participate in
that process, as I have said previously, we will remain in session to
get our work done. What we will do if we do not make adequate progress
is return next week, on Tuesday, after the holiday and remain in
session each day and evening until we can complete both of these must-
do items.
I yield to my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the distinguished Republican
leader, the majority leader's explanation to the Senate as to the
current circumstances involving the organizing resolution. I have been
through a number of these resolutions over the time that I have had the
good fortune to be leader. I share his view that oftentimes these
matters do not require a great deal of attention. I wish this would not
require the time that it has. I am very hopeful we can resolve these
matters. He and I have talked. Our staffs have talked. He has consulted
with his chairs. I have consulted with 9 Democrat ranking members,
currently the chairs, because they are the chairs until a new
resolution has been incorporated. I have said on several occasions, to
him personally as well as to my colleagues, that I will do all I can
[[Page S224]]
to see if we can find a way to resolve the matter.
Let me respond to a couple of things on which the distinguished
majority leader commented. First of all, while there have been
occasions when a two-thirds/one-third funding breakdown has been the
order of the organizing resolution, in the last Congress, in the 107th
Congress, there were 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans. As he noted, it
started at a point where there were 50 and 50. As we negotiated the
resolution under a 50-50 Senate, we attempted to address what happens
when you have membership in committees that is equal. We came to the
conclusion that there is a significant budgetary, a significant
practical space consideration to be given when you have membership on
committees that close. There are times when, obviously, the disparity
between the two parties and membership would reflect a need that also
is commensurate budgetarily and in space, but with a 51-49 or a 50-50
Senate, clearly the budgetary, the staffing, the space questions become
more relevant. That was really what our discussions were when we moved
from 50-50 to 51-49 last spring. In fact, I would say as I negotiated
with, I believe, five senior members of the Republican caucus, the
issue of funding and the issue of space were not even at question. At
that point, it was more a question of a blue slip and a number of other
what I call extraneous matters that we attempted to resolve: How do we
deal with judgeships? How do we deal with the question of a blue slip;
that is, a Senator's prerogative to sign off on a nominee before it
comes before the committee. That was the subject of discussion--not the
funding, not the space.
So it was after several weeks of negotiation--and I emphasize weeks,
not days--that we had to move back the time that officially we became
the majority on committees by about 6 weeks. During that time,
obviously, I would have preferred to have moved much more quickly, but
we were unable to do that--again, not because of space and not because
of budget but because of the question of blue slips.
When we did pass the resolution with a 51-49 breakdown in the Senate,
we passed it with a recognition that those budgets and that space and
those questions pertaining to membership on committees were as relevant
with 51 Senators as they were when we had 50 Senators.
So the Senate established a precedent that was practical, that was in
keeping with the functional responsibilities of the two parties and
each committee. Again, I would emphasize, it passed unanimously, 51 to
49, virtually equal budgets, with an administrative bonus for the
chairman to be allocated as that particular chair and ranking member
saw fit. We lived under that resolution. It worked.
Now we have the reverse, the mirror image of that, 51-49, the same
breakdown we had just a month ago. Yet some of our Republican
colleagues are saying they want a budget that is dramatically
different, a huge disparity, once again, between the Republican funding
and the Democratic funding. If it was good for both parties in the last
Congress with 51-49, we are simply saying it is good for this Congress.
We are prepared to go to work tomorrow. We are prepared to move this
legislation, and I want very much to work with my Republican colleagues
and the majority leader to take up these priority matters. In fact, I
said last week to the President, we do not need a new organizing
resolution to do the work of the Senate. Sure, it would accommodate the
new Senators, and we would like very much to get that done. But the
Senators heard what I heard from the President just last week at our
meeting. The President said it is urgent we move these nominations. It
is urgent we take up some of these priorities. I indicated at that time
we would be more than happy to move these nominations.
The Snow papers just arrived today, so it is not the fault of the
Congress that we have not been able to hold hearings or confirm the
Snow nomination. But with regard to all nominations, the Ridge
nomination was supposed to be the subject of hearings tomorrow. I
understand that was canceled. I am disappointed, in spite of the
urgency expressed by the administration; their unwillingness to move
ahead with the hearings sends a conflicting message with regard to just
how urgent it is. We are prepared with whatever circumstances to deal
with the nomination and to deal with these issues.
It is hard for me to understand the logic or the rationale for
reversing what was done unanimously not once but twice in the 107th
Congress, which was done in a way that reflected the balance in
committees, reflected the functional and practical needs of the
committees. That is all we are asking now. If it was good enough for a
51-49 Senate a month ago, it ought to be good enough for a 51-49 Senate
today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would say to my good friend, the
Democratic leader, I was one of those five Republican Members who were
appointed by Senator Lott to discuss with you how we would go forward
in the wake of Senator Jeffords' decision to leave us and to come over
to your side. Your recollection is entirely correct. The reason for the
delay was a discussion of how to handle the judges and the whole blue
slip policy.
But on the issue of staffing, my recollection is the reason we had
almost no discussion of that is that we didn't want to, in the middle
of a Congress, disrupt the lives of a number of staff members on both
sides who had signed on for 2 years. I think we all believed this was
such an extraordinary circumstance, we didn't want to be sending out
pink slips a mere 5 or 6 months into a new Congress since a lot of
people had been hired for the Congress and were depending on this for a
livelihood.
So my recollection of the reason we spent little or no time talking
about changing the staffing was the compassionate decision, bipartisan
compassionate decision, not to disrupt the lives of a great many
members. I had no recollection that we discussed this to be sort of a
permanent notion about how we would handle a 51-49 Senate at the
beginning of a Congress. I have no recollection of that.
I just thought I would add my own thoughts to the Democratic
leader's, having been a part of that discussion.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I could just respond quickly, and I
don't want to belabor this, but I would say actually that was my
belief, too--that we wanted to hold our Republican colleagues harmless,
if you will, if that is the right phrase; in other words, to
accommodate their staff.
But I think that the logic, again, ought to be extended. If that was
the case, that we wanted to show some compassion for staff, we wanted
to send a clear message about our intent to work in a meaningful and a
bipartisan way, it would seem to me under a 51-49 Senate last time we
made the decisions that the Senator from Kentucky has noted; we did so
with an understanding about the disruption it would cause.
That isn't my first concern in this case, but it is a concern. I
would think those staff would have every bit as much of an expectation
now that they had a year ago--I guess it would be 2 years ago, in May--
that certainly some continuity, some degree of certainty under these
circumstances could be expected, given what we did before.
So I appreciate very much the Senator commenting. We will have more
to say about it as time goes on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am ready to close. Let me yield 3 minutes
to my colleague from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would just like to ask a question.
We are sitting here talking about percentages and funding of
committees. Why can't we just agree to set up the committees, appoint
the chairmen, let them function, and decide on the percentages later?
The people of America deserve for us to do their business. We have been
organized for a week, but we don't have committees functioning and we
don't have chairmen. The idea that we would sit here and hold the
entire Senate, all the employees here, when we cannot have committee
meetings and begin to do the work, just doesn't pass the smell test. I
mean it is just ridiculous.
So I would ask the distinguished leaders on the Democratic side if
they would allow us to draw up a resolution tonight--we could do it in
30 minutes--
[[Page S225]]
organize the committees, let us appoint the chairmen, and we can talk
about the funding later. We can agree that we will go forward. Since
the appropriations bills have not been passed and the legislative
branch is operating on the 2002 budget, let's go forward and organize,
and we can deal with the money later. That is what I ask.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I just want to close and say that we have
worked together, both sides of the aisle, aggressively over the last
week. I do believe it is time for us to, as much as possible, bring
this to a close, at least in terms of getting our committees set up and
running.
I am ready to close unless my colleague has anything to add.
Mr. REID. I would just briefly say to the leader--I appreciate his
courtesy in allowing me to speak--we waited 6 weeks last time. I was
part of the wait. I understand how long it took. It may have been over
blue slips or something else, but still the organizational resolution
was held up for 6 weeks. I hope that isn't the case this time. I hope
we can work it out more quickly. There has been a lot of debate on both
sides. It has clearly been spread on the record of the Senate what the
respective positions of both sides are.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in closing, we have a lot of work to do. We
got off to a good start last week with the unemployment insurance. We
are making progress in terms of negotiations. But--and I mentioned this
a few moments ago--the two issues that we have to address, as we look
forward to this potential recess 8 or 9 days from now, are: The basic
organization of the Senate, simply getting the committee assignments
made; second, appropriations: And if we do not complete them, we will
be back during the week, after the holiday.
____________________