[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 14, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S250-S252]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION AND THE SENATE'S BUSINESS
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I was pleased to see the minority whip and
our majority leader on the floor a few moments ago, as I was viewing
the floor from my office, hoping that an organizational resolution had
been completed, that negotiations that had been underway now for nearly
2 weeks as to the organization of the Senate might bring us to a state
where the Senate could begin to work.
Obviously, the American people have spoken very loudly in the last
several months about the need to get our work done as it relates to
both the economy, the risk of war, and certainly the ongoing business
of Government. And they spoke out loudly on November 5 as to who ought
to be running the Senate. I think they would expect that transition, in
a peaceful democratic system, would go smoothly and that we could be in
the business of running the Senate. That simply has not happened to
date.
I served, at the privilege of the majority leader, as chairman of the
Committee on Committees. My task was to call all the Senators and get
them fitted into the new committee structure and to recommend that kind
of shaping for the ongoing business of the 108th. That work was
completed well over a week ago. The majority leader urged me to get it
done as soon as possible after the first of the year. Why? Because of
the history of the Senate, that most organizational resolutions that
get our Senate working occur usually in the first week of January, so
we can be immediately at the people's business, so we can be
immediately examining budgets and spending resolutions, and begin the
work of shaping a budget for our Government to operate.
That simply has not happened. Why has it not happened?
I think the best evaluation of it appeared in the Wall Street Journal
editorial yesterday, called ``Daschle's Election Lesson.'' Mr.
President, I ask unanimous consent that editorial be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 13, 2003
Daschle's Election Lesson
So much for the theory that Democrats lost the Senate in
November because they had obstructed President Bush's agenda.
Judging by Tom Daschle's behavior so far this year, the new
Senate minority leader has concluded that the lesson of their
drubbing is that Democrats weren't obstructionist enough.
Only a week into the new Congress, the Daschle Democrats
are already in full-throated opposition, assailing every
White House idea and starting up the 2004 election campaign.
Mr. Daschle's response to the President's tax cut hasn't been
merely that it's wrong or helps ``the rich,'' but that it's
``obscene.'' (Tom, what are you going to say when you really
don't like something?)
Democrats are also already vowing to defeat Mr. Bush's
judicial nominees, even if it takes filibusters that let a
mere 41 Democrats define Senate ``advice and consent.''
Yesterday Mr. Daschle said the renomination of Charles
Pickering Sr. ``lays bare the Administration's real position
on civil rights'' and ``exposes the Southern strategy
clearly.'' Ah, racial harmony.
This same goodwill embrace is also being extended to new
GOP Majority Leader Bill Frist. Despite a bipartisan deal
last week to pass unemployment benefits by unanimous consent,
Democrats sandbagged Mr. Frist on the floor by demanding more
cash than the deal had called for. Hillary Clinton was seen
giving orders on this ambush on the Senate floor. While the
original deal ultimately passed, the vote was an omen of the
Democratic strategy.
Which seems to be to use every opportunity to bollix up the
Senate works. That
[[Page S251]]
includes even delaying the handover of their majority status.
Every new Congress requires ``organizing resolutions,'' but
Democrats have threatened to filibuster the Senate version
unless they get virtually the same committee and staff
funding as the majority.
Some of this haggling is understandable, but the demand for
50/50 funding is absurd. The historical split has typically
been two thirds/one-third regardless of the Senate breakdown.
Last Congress's division of 55/45 was the exception, because
it began with the parties split 50/50, and Democrats only got
to 51 midterm after Jim Jeffords defected to get a committee
chair. Republicans have now won an election, and Democrats
know the majority needs more funding because it has the duty
of actually running the Senate.
Conveniently, any organizing delay allows Democrats to
continue as committee chairmen, slowing the Republican start.
Joe Lieberman, who is supposed to be the former chairman of
Governmental Affairs, sent out a notice saying that he'd
preside over this week's confirmation hearing for Tom Ridge,
nominated to run the new Homeland Security Department.
This would mean a nice photo-op for the soon-to-be
Presidential candidate, but it's an insult to Maine
Republican Susan Collins, who should be running the
committee. The White House pulled Mr. Ridge at the last
minute to deny Mr. Lieberman his chance to knock the
Administration around, but this only delays Mr. Ridge's
ability to get on with the job.
No doubt the Senate will organize, but the shenanigans
portend a nasty two years. Democrats are understandably sore
about losing their majority, but rather than undertake some
introspection they're jumping right back to the barricades.
They apparently figure they can obstruct Mr. Bush's agenda
and voters will blame Republicans who are supposed to be in
control.
Maybe, but we seem to recall that's similar to the argument
they made last year. Max Cleland and Jean Carnahan can
testify from private life to how well it worked.
Mr. CRAIG. What the editorial in the Wall Street Journal said was
apparently the former majority leader had not learned a lesson, that in
the obstructionist character by which he operated the Senate for the
last 18 to 20 months--that lost him the majority in the Senate, that
denied us a budget and 11 appropriations bills, that denied us Medicare
and prescription drugs, that denied the American people a great many
things that not only was the President promising but the Senate and the
House were working under--he should have learned a lesson; that he
should be here helping facilitate the process of helping this Senate to
move forward.
That has not happened. Why? I guess they don't realize they lost the
majority; that somehow they are now in the minority, and it is the
responsibility of them, in this Democratic process, to work with us to
make our Government function appropriately. It has always happened that
way in the past, but it isn't happening that way today.
Over the last week, the negotiations, which I have not been a part of
but certainly which have been reported to me, largely say: We want
everything we had last year. But they were in the majority last year.
Are they entitled to everything they had last year? No. There is a
clear historic precedent that said the majority always got two-thirds
of the funding to operate the committees and to cause this system of
the Senate to function, and the minority got one-third.
It changed during the 107th because of the 50-50 relationship. And
certainly, when I was asked, I would say that in a relationship like we
have today, 51-49, with 1 independent, we could be more flexible than
just 66 or one-third, two-thirds. But to suggest that they have
everything they had last year, in helping set the agenda of the Senate,
if that is what their position is, then the tactics they used in the
last Senate, that gave them the minority in the new Senate, are being
employed once again.
I know why they are doing it and why they think they can get away
with it in this business, because it is inside ball, it is inside
politics. The American public does not register with them. When we
start talking about committee funding and staffing, that is of little
interest to an American who is out of work, to a senior who is paying
$400 or $500 a month for his or her prescription drugs. They want those
problems solved and they want them solved now. And while, in many
instances, we cannot move that quickly, it certainly is our
responsibility to move.
The Presiding Officer at this moment is the new chairman of the
Appropriations Committee. He and his staff have been working for weeks
to move the 11 appropriations bills that fund Government through this
system, and it has not happened. Why? Because he has not been given the
authority, even though he is in the majority, to do it. Why? Because
the former majority leader, now the minority leader, has simply blocked
it.
The editorial I put in the Record from the Wall Street Journal, I
thought, said it well in the closing paragraph:
No doubt the Senate will organize--
and we will. And we may see that debate over a final resolution begin
today--
but the shenanigans--
some that I have just referred to--
portend a nasty two years. Democrats are understandably sore
about losing their majority, but rather than undertake some
introspection they're jumping right back to the barricades.
They apparently figure they can obstruct Mr. Bush's agenda
and voters will blame Republicans who are supposed to be in
control.
Maybe, but we seem to recall that's similar to the argument
they made last year.
And then they go on to talk about certain Senators who lost their
election. Maybe that message was not as obstructed from the American
people as some of us might have believed it was.
The Senate is not working today. And the reason the Senate isn't
working is because the minority leader, the Democrat leader, is doing
everything he can to block it from working. It is simple. It is
straightforward. And I believe my comments are very honest.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.
Mr. GREGG. I think the Senator is making an excellent point, and it
goes beyond just the question of the operation of the Senate. It really
goes to the constitutional form of government we have.
We have a constitutional democracy in this country. One of the key
elements of constitutional democracy is that after there is an election
in which one party is succeeded by another party in power, that
transfer of power occurs smoothly and seamlessly. That has been the
tradition in this country for over 200 years. Yet now we see the other
side of the aisle insisting on maintaining their chairmanships after
they have lost the majority. That flies in the face of the concept of a
constitutional form of government, does it not?
Mr. CRAIG. I think the Senator from New Hampshire is straight on.
What we are talking about is that peaceful transition of power, when
you are no longer in the majority and it is the responsibility of the
new majority to form a Congress, and that is what you do every 2 years
with a new Congress.
This is the 108th Congress that we are now forming. I think the point
of the Senator is made, which is that the Democratic Party is now in
the minority and are still holding chairmanships and therefore refusing
to allow committees to function on the whole, and to allow the
majority--now Republicans--to shape the committees, bring staff on
board, and establish the agendas. And what is most critical at this
moment is to finish the work that was left undone in the last Congress.
The Senator from New Hampshire and I know, and certainly the Senator
from Alaska who is in the chair at this moment knows, one of the single
most important tasks we do every year is pass 13 appropriations bills
to fund the Government. That is the budget of the U.S. Government. It
is not just dollars and cents. It is policy--where you spend it, how
you spend it, how much you spend, what it gets, programs that are
discontinued, programs that are expanded. A budget is absolutely
critical, and the funding of that budget is, in essence, the operations
of the Government.
Yet last year the Congress was not able to perform, not able to pass
those 13 appropriations bills. Why? Because of this Senate denying the
Congress the time and the opportunity to move forward to get that done.
We had hoped we could come back in and, during the month of January,
move expeditiously to complete those 11 appropriations bills left
undone, get those policy messages and spending messages out to the
agencies that are clearly affected so that Government would run as we
are expected to ask it to run. Of course, that is really what is being
denied at
[[Page S252]]
this moment by our inability to organize, the inability of the chairman
of the Appropriations Committee--now presiding--to move forward. Yes,
we have been working.
Right now, we should not be debating an organizational resolution on
the floor or hoping we can debate it; we ought to have the omnibus
appropriations bill on the floor with those 11 bills in it. That is
what the debate of the day and the work of this week ought to be.
I hope the minority leader and the Democrats who serve in the Senate
recognize that the game they play may be inside politics, but more and
more of us are going to be talking outside the inside trying to reflect
to the American people that, as the Wall Street Journal said, the
shenanigans being played are to man the barricades and use
obstructionist tactics to stop the Senate from moving and--I think the
Senator from New Hampshire said it so clearly--in essence deny us the
democratic process.
Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield further.
Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
Mr. GREGG. This is a significant point. We have had a number of
extraordinarily enlightening discussions on this floor involving the
history of the Senate and the history of the Senate in the context, for
example, of the Roman Senate. If you look at the history of this Senate
and at the history of legislative bodies similar to the Senate, when
there has been a sliding away from the traditional transfer of power as
a result of an election; when there has been a sliding away from that,
that is when crisis has occurred. I know the Senator who was often
giving us extraordinary statements and information on the issue of the
Roman Senate, and he would probably have to concede that the Roman
Senate--if I may refer to that body as the precursor of ours--really
fell into disrepair and became a nonfunctional body when Caesar refused
to abide by the Roman Senate and stepped on the authority of the Roman
Senate and took away its authority and didn't acknowledge its elective
role.
The only time in our history when we have not had a transfer of power
that has occurred as a result of an election, when the right of an
election has been superseded, was in the Civil War, and there were
extenuating circumstances for why that occurred. It occurred in the
Maryland Legislature, to be specific. So this decision by the other
side of the body to retain their chairmanships in the face of an
election which has removed them from them, because the majority has
shifted, sets a precedent which has immense impact, potentially, on the
way this body functions as a reflection of a democratic government.
So before the Democratic side of the aisle continues down this
course, I think they need to think about what they are doing. Are they
damaging the integrity of our process, of the elective process, by
continuing to insist that they remain in power when they have lost
power through the election? That is what this is about. They want to
retain power even though they lost power through the elective process.
I think the Senator has touched the issue rather effectively. I suppose
it can be understated, but I don't think it is.
Mr. CRAIG. Let me conclude because I see another colleague on the
floor who wishes to speak. I am going to serve on the Judiciary
Committee this year, along with several colleagues, for a lot of
reasons, but primarily to move judges into our Federal court system
that now lacks 150 seats. That third branch of Government isn't
functioning largely because of the denial to move the President's
nominees through in this past 18 to 20 months. We have seen that going
on. Yet we are now being told that 41 Senators will filibuster, and
that that simply won't happen if they don't get what they want.
The role of the Senate and the Judiciary Committee in this instance
fits well into that advise and consent role that we play with the
executive. My colleague from New Hampshire was talking about
constitutional authority and constitutional responsibility and the
transition, if you will, in a democratic process. Our job is to advise
and consent. Our job is to review the President's nominees, and I hope
we can bring every one of them to the floor for an open-ended debate--
not to filibuster; that would be precedent-setting, but to have a
debate and have an up-or-down vote. That is what the American people
expect of us and they should demand it, and I hope the hue and cry from
the hinterland becomes very loud in the next few months if the
processes are denied simply by an obstructionist tactic of refusing to
give up power when the electorate has spoken.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). The Senator
from Alabama is recognized.
____________________