[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.

                          ____________________