[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 14, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S259-S261]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ORGANIZING RESOLUTION

  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, we are having a debate on the organizing resolution. 
We have heard a great deal. The Senator from Minnesota just spoke 
somewhat disparagingly of what he calls ``crocodile tears'' on this 
side of the aisle and said we were trying to rewrite history.
  I would like to set the record straight with a little bit of 
history--some that I know because I was directly and personally 
involved.
  We all recall that the 107th Congress was unique. It was 50-50 for 
the first time in history. The two leaders, facing that unusual 
circumstance, created an unusual solution to it. However, the question 
of who would chair the committees was never in doubt. Right from the 
very beginning, it was clearly understood that since the Republicans 
had the vote of the Vice President for organization purposes, 
Republicans would chair all of the committees.
  The fight over money has been exaggerated by those who have debated 
here. There was a protracted conversation and negotiation between 
Senator Lott and Senator Daschle over the issue of money, but there was 
never any doubt that the Republicans, with the Vice President's vote, 
would organize the committees, and work began immediately for the 
organization of the committees, with the Republicans recognized as the 
chairs.
  Now, when Senator Jeffords left the Republican Conference--crossed 
the aisle and decided he would caucus with the Democrats--I was 
chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the Appropriations 
Committee. I had a hearing scheduled to proceed with the work of the 
Appropriations Committee. Senator Jeffords made his announcement at a 
10 o'clock news conference in the morning, as I recall--I may not have 
the exact time correct. As I left the Senate Chamber following Senator 
Jeffords' announcement, I said to my staff: Put the hearing on hold 
because Senator Durbin is now the chairman of that subcommittee.
  I ran into Senator Durbin waiting for the subway in the basement of 
the Capitol, and I said to him: Dick, since you are now the chairman of 
that subcommittee, you decide whether or not we hold the hearing. He 
looked a little nonplussed but said to me: Bob, don't you want to hold 
the hearing since you have set it up? I said: No, Dick, you hold the 
hearing because you are now the chairman. He said: Oh, thank you very 
much for that courtesy.
  There were no resolutions that had to be passed, as far as I was 
concerned, because it was very clear that the power in the Senate had 
shifted and I--and I know of no other Republican--was not going to act 
as a dog in the manger and hang on to the technicality that no 
resolution had been passed in order to hold on to power for a few extra 
minutes, or a few extra days, in the face of the fact that the decision 
had been made as to who would control the Senate.
  Now we come to the present circumstance: An organizing resolution 
determining who will be chairmen of the committees has been introduced 
by the majority leader, and it is being contested by the minority 
leader and the members of the Democratic Party. We understand now that 
this is a deliberate strategy that was laid down by the Democrats prior 
to the time this Congress was organized. Prior to the time when new 
Senators were sworn in, prior to the time when we gathered to meet, the 
Democrats had met and made the decision that they would hang on to the 
committee power for as long as they possibly could. We have written 
evidence of this in the form of an e-mail sent by Ben McMakin, who is 
the legislative director to Senator Patty Murray, the previous chairman 
of the Senatorial Campaign Committee.

  Senator Murray's legislative director, in an e-mail dated January 2, 
prior to the time when we met, prior to the time anybody was sworn in, 
prior to the time when anybody was addressing these questions formally, 
made these points. He begins this by saying to his staff:

       Here is an update from Daschle staff on where we find 
     ourselves at the beginning of the 108th Congress. Democrats 
     continue to serve as chairs of all committees and 
     subcommittees until the Senate reorganizes.

  Technically, that is true. Historically, that has never been true. No 
party, when there has been a change in control from one party to the 
other as a result of the actions of the American people--those things 
called elections, which we usually pay attention to around here--but no 
party has ever tried to hang on to its control of committees when there 
was a transition of power from one party to the other. Technically, it 
is true, Democrats continue to serve as chairs of all committees and 
subcommittees until the Senate reorganizes, but that reorganization 
resolution always passes virtually immediately, and there is never an 
attempt on the part of the outgoing party to hang on to the power that 
the people have given to the incoming party.
  However, Mr. McMakin makes this point:

       Senate Democrats have leverage when the organizing 
     resolution hits the floor, as it is debatable and will 
     ultimately require 60 votes to pass.

  Understand, this is not Mr. McMakin's idea. This is Mr. McMakin's 
report to his staff of the position of the Daschle staff. He simply was 
taking notes of what the minority leader staff was telling him and the 
other legislative directors. I will read that sentence again:

       Senate Democrats have leverage when the organizing 
     resolution hits the floor, as it is debatable and will 
     ultimately require 60 votes to pass.

  If ever there was a clear statement that prior to the time the 
Congress even met, Senator Daschle and his

[[Page S260]]

staff were planning to filibuster the organizing resolution, there it 
is.
  Again, the attitude that was on the Republican side when Senator 
Jeffords walked across the aisle, I handed the gavel to Senator Durbin 
that afternoon. I handed it to him without any resolution. I handed it 
to him without any action, without any thought that there would be a 
filibuster or clinging to power because I recognized the power had 
changed in the Senate, and that meant if we were going to have orderly 
activity on the people's business, the power had to change in 
committees.
  Here is the reality of where we are today. The Democrats are saying: 
We cannot allow the organizing resolution to pass until the funding 
issues are resolved. The funding issues are not up for resolution until 
the end of February because of the disarray with which we ended the 
last Congress, with funding resolutions and appropriations bills not 
passed. The funding of committees was passed in the last Congress that 
carries over to the end of February. We have no dispute on funding at 
the moment. We will have at the end of February.
  We can organize the Senate and allow the committees to go forward 
this afternoon without disrupting the present funding circumstance. We 
do not need to tie the two together. The majority leader has offered 
the resolution just to allow the Republicans to take the gavels, 
nothing else. The negotiations over funding can still continue. The 
arguments over percentages can still go forward. And the Democratic 
leader is saying: No, we are going to hang on to the gavels; we are 
going to hang on to our technical power that is a residue of the last 
Congress; we are going to continue to say the election did not make any 
difference week after week for as long as we can.
  We come to another very interesting statement by Mr. McMakin in this 
e-mail on January 2. He says:

       January 20th recess. Daschle staff says highly unlikely 
     that we will recess that week due to standoff over organizing 
     resolution and delay in addressing outstanding appropriations 
     measures.

  Before the Congress even met, Senator Daschle knew there would be a 
filibuster on the organizing resolution and knew that would carry over 
3 weeks, 4 weeks, on in to cancelling the January 20 recess which had 
been previously scheduled with, I understand, the approval of the 
Democratic schedulers. No, no, Daschle's staff is alerting other 
Senators' staffs that the recess will not take place because we will 
still be haggling over the organizing resolution.
  I do not know how you can be more specific about a determined plan 
laid out in the beginning to slow down the work of the Senate, to 
obstruct the people's business, to make sure the effect of the election 
is delayed as long as possible than you have in this e-mail from Mr. 
McMakin.
  There is one item on here I find of interest. While most of the e-
mail does deal with the fact that the Democrats intend to filibuster 
the organizing resolution and slow down, delay as long as possible the 
Republicans' ability to take over the Senate and manage it, under the 
heading ``Other Legislative Issues,'' Mr. McMakin has this very 
interesting sentence:

     UI fight to resume again on first day.

  Those of us who were here on the first day understand ``UI'' stands 
for unemployment insurance. That the first item out of the box when the 
new majority leader offered a bill, which he thought had been agreed 
upon by both sides and, therefore, was a simple matter of asking 
unanimous consent, in fact, the Democrats were lying in wait to begin 
the fight over again; that the unanimous-consent request would be 
objected to, as it was--objected to by one of the Senators who had 
entered into the agreement forming it in the first place. Ultimately, 
that got taken care of, but the strong message laid in advance by the 
Daschle staff, as they talked to other legislative directors, was: We 
are going to begin fighting the Republicans at every step on every item 
the first day--the first day.

  As we think back over the election, with all of the punditry that 
goes into analyzing it, we find that different pundits come to 
different conclusions. Some have said the Democrats lost because they 
did not have a clear message. Others have said the Democrats lost 
because they obstructed everything the President tried to do and the 
voters punished them for that obstruction. And then others said the 
Democrats lost because they did not obstruct enough; they were not 
tough enough; they did not show themselves with enough backbone.
  From this memo and from the actions since this memo, it becomes clear 
to me the Democratic leadership in the Senate has decided the third set 
of pundits is correct: That they lost the election because they did not 
obstruct the President enough, and so this time, they are not only 
going to try to trip him up on unanimous-consent agreements that 
Republicans think have been cleared in advance, they are not only going 
to lay traps for the majority leader when he thinks the path is clear, 
they are even going to go to the point of trying to hang on to the 
gavels as long as they can to prevent the Republicans from organizing 
the committees and moving forward with the committee work as long as 
they can so that perhaps at the end of the Congress, they can say: You 
see the disarray the Republicans were in, you see how difficult it was 
for us to have Republicans in charge; they could not get anything done.
  Filibustering the organizing resolution, demanding 60 votes before 
the Republican chairmen can even pick up the gavels, and then 
complaining, as the Senator from Minnesota did, that the Republicans 
are shedding crocodile tears because things are not being done the way 
the Democrats want--Mr. President, this is unprecedented, and I hope it 
is unique. I hope in every successive session in the history of this 
Republic, when the Senate gathers, the party which won the control of 
the Senate through the election is allowed to take control of the 
gavels in the committee as soon as the Senate gathers.
  That is what I thought democracy was all about. That is how I behaved 
when Senator Jeffords changed the power in the Senate and, as far as I 
know, that is how every other Republican chairman behaved. We handed 
over the gavels without protest.
  We handed over the gavels with an attempt to make sure the work of 
the Senate went forward smoothly. We did not haggle and complain. We 
just said, the Democrats are now in charge. Good luck. We will do the 
best we can to help.
  When Senator Jeffords crossed the aisle, funding issues took weeks to 
resolve. That is a different question. Funding issues can go until 
February and they will not affect anybody. To tie the two of them 
together and to slow down, indeed prevent, the majority party from 
exercising majority control over funding issues that can and should be 
resolved at some point in the future is, in my view, irresponsible and 
ultimately, in the eyes of the American people, unforgivable.
  I am sure there will be those in the media who will say the Democrats 
are just asking that the Republicans be fair. They got 49 votes, they 
should have 49 percent of the money.
  Let me take a few moments and explain that one. If we do not deal in 
percentages but we deal in dollars, what is it the Republicans are 
offering the Democrats in funding? Forget the percentages; talk about 
the dollars. We are offering, as I understand it, the same dollars they 
had in the last Congress. What we are asking for is a few more dollars 
on the Republican side. That brings the Republican percentage of the 
total dollars up to 60, which is down from the target Senator Daschle 
set prior to the election when he was asked what the funding levels 
would be. He said the funding levels would be two-thirds to one-third, 
67 percent for the Democrats, 33 percent for the Republicans, if the 
Democrats took clear control in the election. That was his plan if he 
had control as majority leader.
  Now when he is not majority leader, he is saying they have to have 49 
percent of the total funding. Using their power in the filibuster, they 
will give the Republicans a little bit of an administrative kicker but 
will not allow the Republicans to get enough additional administrative 
money so the total pot is divided 60/40. They have to have the 
Republicans under 60. That is the demand, as I understand it.
  If we had a fixed amount of dollars we were debating and we were 
saying

[[Page S261]]

we give the Democrats X percent of that fixed amount, maybe their 
argument for fairness might have some validity. But the fixed amount is 
the same amount they had been getting under the 107th Congress when 
they were in the majority, and we are saying we are going to add on the 
Republican side enough administrative dollars so the total percentages 
go up to 60, and the Democrats are objecting to that.
  I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. So this is where we are. This is not a fight over money. 
This is not a fight over fairness in funding. This is a deliberate, 
predetermined, precongressional attempt to prevent the Republicans from 
being successful. This is deliberate obstruction, planned and 
announced, at least among their own troops, prepared for and carefully 
scripted. For the Democratic leader, through his staff, to be able to 
predict in advance of the Congress meeting that a recess scheduled 3 
weeks later would not occur is a clear demonstration he is prepared to 
obstruct every step of the way, even if it means denying the party that 
was chosen by the people as the majority party its proper majority 
status.
  So let us not get carried away in percentages. Let us not get carried 
away in false arguments about fairness. What is on the table is an 
organizing resolution that deals nothing with money. What is on the 
table for discussion is a funding resolution that gives the Democrats 
every bit as much money as they had in the 107th Congress.

  Simple fairness to the American people who made their choice in 
November demands we get on with this; that the Republicans be given the 
gavels; that the Congress be organized, the Senate be organized; and 
that we move ahead to the people's business instead of to partisan 
monkey business.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. We are in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________