Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 6 (Tuesday, January 14, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 14, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S268-S275]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MAKING MAJORITY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to share some memories with my
colleagues. As I watched what is going on in this body, I was trying to
think of something. I have seen this before. It is sort of a deja vu
all over again. I was thinking back to maybe 14 or 15 years ago when my
son was playing T-ball. You remember T-ball? That is the kids' game.
The kindergarteners played T-ball. They had a lot of fun. But in one
game we had a problem because after the other side was out, they had
their outs and they were finished, they wouldn't put down their bats
and go out in the field. They didn't want to play the game. They
thought that once they had been at bat they were going to stay at bat,
even though their side was out and it was time for them to leave.
The more I thought about it, the more I thought maybe that is what is
happening in the Senate today. We had an election and the people of
America sent some new Republicans, a new Democrat or two, to
Washington, and they established a 51-to-48-plus-1 majority. I mean, 51
is more than 48. It is more than 48 plus 1. It seems to me it would be
common math, it would be reasonable politics, it would be just common
civility, to say once you have a majority and the people of America
have voted for members of the Republican Party to be the leadership, to
be the majority party in the Senate, it ought to move forward.
All the time I have been here, once we have had an election we have
shifted power, if there has been a shift in power. A year and a half
ago when one of our Members switched and we lost the majority, I handed
over the gavel immediately to my ranking member and she became the
Chair. That is because this is a democracy. That is how this is
supposed to work. We are supposed to have reasonable rules.
But today I am reminded of that T-ball game when the side that was
out, they had lost but wouldn't put down their bats and go out in the
field. Guess what. The game can't go on. Everybody is a loser.
This is not a T-ball game. This is time to handle the business of
this Nation. The people of America voted for us. They voted for
Republicans and Democrats. They voted for House Members and Senate
Members because they expected us to come to Washington and be serious
about doing the people's business.
One of the defining marks of democracies in the modern day is that
there is a peaceful transition of power. The winners take over and
lead. The losers relinquish their leadership and join in the
governmental efforts. That is the rule in democracies throughout the
world.
Here is the U.S. Senate sticking out like a sore thumb, an exception
to the principle that when there is an election and there is a change
of power, the winning side takes over. This is truly regrettable when
we have so much business to be done. We have all the business that did
not get done last year. Unfortunately, I believe the leadership last
year would not let us go to a budget.
They wouldn't let us pass appropriations bills. As a result, we are
now funding 11 of the 13 appropriations bills for the jurisdictional
functions of the Federal Government based on a continuing resolution.
Things have changed. We need more money for these functions. We need to
pass appropriations bills. We are ready to move on appropriations
bills, but we can't set up a committee. We can't get the committee set
up until we pass a resolution and find out who is on the committee.
This is a serious failure to live up to our responsibility, to do the
work the people of America have a right to expect us to do. The longer
we wait, the more difficult the appropriations process is going to be,
and the more difficult it will be for us to do this year's work, which
is to do the 2004 appropriations bills.
There are a lot of things we really shouldn't even have to bother
with on the floor. The T-ball team is not just keeping the bats. They
are saying some of our people who have assumed new leadership positions
can't even get into leadership offices.
This is a new day. This is 2003. There was an election in November of
2002. The people in the United States by their votes said you as
Republicans should move forward. We can't do that. We can't do that
until we get cooperation.
This is a body that operates on common decency, respect, and
civility. It works on unanimous consent. Obviously, we can't get
unanimous consent. We haven't so far. There are a lot of arguments in
the negotiations. But the fact is we need to get on to the people's
business. I can tell you, I know our majority leader, Bill Frist. He is
a man who is more than willing to make decent provisions for the
minority, and he will do that. But nothing we say is good enough. We
can't move forward in this circumstance.
I think that is a real tragedy. We have a lot of work to do this
year. We need to confirm judges to make sure our judiciary works. We
need to pass an energy bill. We are looking at possible hostilities in
the Middle East where we face potentially a cutoff of some of our
supply of petroleum. What are we going to do about it? We haven't had
an energy policy for 9 or 10 years. Our energy policy bill last year
was blocked. This year wouldn't it be nice if we allowed the Energy
Committee to work on a bipartisan basis and report a bill out to the
floor, then vote on it, send it over to the House, work in conference,
and bring it back to vote it up or down? We ought to be doing that. But
we haven't done that.
There are some who suggest maybe the Democratic Party lost the
election because they were obstructionist. I happen to think that is
true. I happen to think that was one of the most telling arguments in
campaigns in which I participated. People of America don't want to see
obstruction, roadblocks, and red tape. There are others who say, Well,
maybe the Democrats lost because they weren't confrontational enough
and they weren't obstructionist. It looks like those people have won
the day, or at least they are calling the shots. I believe many of my
Democratic colleagues would feel the way I do. They know the election
is over. They know we have some very important work to do this year. We
have to do the basic appropriations to get the Government operating and
to fund programs. We need to do an energy bill. We have to do a highway
bill this year.
If you are worried about where we are going to get stimulus, as some
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, we need stimulus
to make sure we have a highway bill that continues funding of the
vitally important construction on our Nation's highways. That is one of
the most important bills we are going to have to pass this year. But we
can't do it when we can't even get the Senate organized.

I am very discouraged. I am very discouraged that we have run into
this problem. I hope the people who are listening or watching back home
will call, write, or e-mail. I guess you can't write anymore. You can't
write us here. You can write to our offices in our States, call, and
send faxes and messages, and tell those of us who are in the Senate it
is time for us to get to work.
All of last year I waited to bring an appropriations bill to the
floor under the good leadership of my colleague and friend who was
chairman at the time. I am still waiting to bring an appropriations
bill to the floor. It is a bipartisan bill. It is one we have worked
on. We will work on it together, and it will be a bill which we hope
reflects the

[[Page S269]]

interests of people on both sides of this aisle. But we can't do it
until the other side lets us move forward.
A lot of people do not understand the Senate is a deliberative body.
It requires unanimous consent. Most of the time I have been here, we
have been a deliberative and decent body. We are a decent body, and we
will move forward. But now we have become the world's greatest dilatory
body. We can't get anything moving until the other side lets us.
We need a stimulus bill. I will address that later.
I think the President has put forth a good plan to help families. A
typical family of four with two wage earners with a combined income of
$39,000 would receive a total of $1,100 in tax relief. The Council of
Economic Advisers said the plan would create 2.1 million jobs over the
next 3 years.
As one who has spent a lot of time since I have been here working for
small business, I can tell you this is a bill small business needs. We
in the Small Business Committee have long urged an increase in the
amount of expenses a small business can do from $25,000 to $75,000. So
the smallest of the small businesses under $300,000-plus revenue can
write off immediately and they don't have to go through depreciation
and write off against immediate income capital expenditures up to
$75,000.
Second, by bringing the reduction in individual rates forward, you
are benefiting small business. Twenty-three million small businesses
are taxed as individuals. They are set up either as proprietorships,
partnerships, or subchapter S corporations. So those 23 million small
businesses are taxed at the individual rate. Putting this money back
into their pockets will give them the money to hire workers, to invest
and to expand and grow their business.
That is an argument for the day when we actually can get to work in
the Senate and we can have committees. God bless the committee system.
Have them work and have them put out bills. They have to put them out
on a bipartisan basis. We will bring them to the floor, and we will
debate them and discuss them and work on them on a bipartisan basis.
Unfortunately and regrettably, that can't happen until this gridlock is
broken.
I call upon my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to recognize
the tremendous needs. These are more compelling needs than in previous
years because we didn't get our work done last year. Let us get over
this gridlock--this deadlock. Let us get going with the business of the
Senate.
I urge all our colleagues to come together and work on this. I hope
we can do so.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment my friend and
colleague from Missouri for his statement. I wish to make a few
additional comments as well.
This is my 23rd year in the Senate. Every 2 years we have passed an
organizing resolution within a couple of days of the House and the
Senate reconvening--almost always on the first or second day; always
within a week. Every 2 years for the last 20-some years we have done
that within a couple of days. This year we haven't because our friends
and colleagues on the Democrat side have objected. I am embarrassed by
their objection. The resolution the majority leader introduced is
basically pro forma. It should have been done on the first day. It
recognizes the newly elected Senators and the committees on which they
have chosen to serve. It also recognizes the new chairmanships as a
result of the elections.

That is only appropriate. It is only proper. It is only fitting. It
is normal course. It is standard practice. And it should have been done
by unanimous consent, without any objection.
It has happened every year I have been in the Senate--or every other
year. We do it at the beginning of every new Congress. But this year,
for whatever reason, our colleagues on the Democrat side decided to
object. They indicated they would filibuster. I urge them not to. I
urge them to keep in mind we do serve and are privileged to serve in
probably the greatest deliberative, elected body in the history of the
world. Senator Byrd may come over and talk about the Roman Senate, but
certainly this rivals the Roman Senate. But this is not our finest
hour.
If the Democrats are saying, wait a minute, we are going to insist on
maintaining chairmanship of the committees, they are really refuting
the elected will of the people which they made clear last November.
In my term in the Senate, there has been a change in leadership and a
change in committees done automatically, within a couple of days. It
happened in 1981, as a result of the 1980 elections. It happened in
1987, as a result of the 1986 elections. It happened in 1995, as a
result of the 1994 elections. It happened in the year 2000, as a result
of the Senator Jeffords switch. And it happened immediately. There was
no prolonged debate on this side, saying: Wait a minute. This is not
fair. As a matter of fact, gavels were handed over.
So it is almost as if the minority party or the Democrat Party said:
Wait a minute. We don't want to be in the minority so we are going to
delay process indefinitely. I just read an e-mail that basically said
that. It said: We will continue to chair.
I am or will be the new chairman of the Budget Committee. I scheduled
a hearing with Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to
testify today. I had to postpone that because of this embarrassment. I
am embarrassed for the Senate. I love this institution. And to see our
colleagues on the other side denigrate the reputation of the Senate, by
falsely trying to assume that they maintain chairmanships of these
committees, is ridiculous.
So I urge my colleagues--I see the assistant Democrat leader and
whip. I urge my colleagues: Enough. Let's think of the institution.
Let's think of the Senate. Let's think of the traditions of the Senate.
Let's think of regular order in the Senate. Let's think of the
reputation of the Senate and not fall down into this kind of partisan
ploy to obstruct.
And now I have read a letter that said: Well, we don't want to get
this solved until we get a certain ratio of money. You are going to get
plenty of money for committees. I think everybody knows that. Or maybe:
We don't want to do this until we have an agreement on square footage
in each office space. That is ridiculous. Those negotiations usually
take months.
Or now I see a letter that says: Well, we don't want to have an
organizational resolution until we have an agreement on the
confirmation of judges and how many will be taken up at what time. That
is, again, totally ridiculous, totally out of line, totally contrary to
the great traditions of the Senate.
We are all, I think, proud to serve in the Senate, but this is
denigrating to the Senate. We need to think of the reputation of the
Senate. We need to show other countries, which have struggling
democracies, that you can have a transition of power, and it can move
very seamlessly and very smoothly and very appropriately, and not have
something such as this lingering. What kind of example is this to set
for other countries that have aspirations for democracy to see this
kind of episode?

This is not our finest hour. This is an embarrassment. So I implore
our colleagues, for the sake of the Senate, for the institution in
which we have the pleasure and privilege to serve, for the
Constitution, that we should work together, that we should have a
smooth, seamless transition of power within our body, within our
committees, and let's work together.
This is not a good start. The tradition of the Senate is, when we
come back from election time, and we come back from Christmas break,
and holidays, that we are in a good spirit, and that we shake hands,
and that we put elections behind us and say we are going to work
together for the good of the country. And, oh, yes, maybe in the second
year, at some point--late in the second year--we will start worrying
about elections.
Now it seems as if people are more worried about the elections. We
have everybody announcing they are running for President, and
Presidential elections are starting 2 years in advance. And the Senate
is already somewhat in a quagmire, not even operating because some
people think: Well, maybe we will be better off if we just

[[Page S270]]

obstruct. We will not even let the committees organize. And I read that
in an e-mail.
That is not the way to run the Senate. That is not the way to serve
in the Senate. So again, I implore upon my friends--and I have many
friends on the Democrat side--let's think of what is right for the
institution, for this body, for democracy as a whole, and let's work
together.
We have a lot of unfinished business to do. Maybe people do not want
to do it, but we have 11 out of 13 appropriations bills that have not
been passed from last year. We are already in fiscal year 2003. We have
already finished 3 months of fiscal year 2003. We need to finish those
appropriations bills. We need to have those amounts fixed so we can
base that for the 2004 budget.
We have a lot of work to do. We have international threats, certainly
in Iraq, possibly in Korea. We have a war on terrorism. We have a lot
of work to do that is far more important than partisan gamesmanship. We
need to think of what is important for our country. We ought to at
least have a grace period where we put partisanship aside and where we
work together for the good of the country.
I urge my colleagues, let's do what the tradition of the Senate has
always done; let's reorganize now. Let's do it without objection. Let's
work together. Let's finish some of our unfinished business. And let's
work together to tackle some of the real critical problems we have
confronting our country today.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to, before the Senator leaves, quote
the Senator, make a couple comments, and maybe have the Senator respond
to a question. Would that be permissible to the Senator from Oklahoma?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Oklahoma yield the
floor?
Mr. NICKLES. I have not yielded the floor. I would be happy to yield
the floor.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma and I have had the
good fortune, at least from my perspective, of working together on a
number of items while we have served together in the Senate. We had
served together on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee
for a number of years. I think we did some good things for the
institutions, both the Senate and the House. I enjoyed and have
appreciated working with him. We also worked on the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee and, I think, did some good things for the
country.
So the only reason I say this is that I have great respect and
admiration for the distinguished senior Senator from Oklahoma. I have
very rarely known him to speak anything that was not factual, but I
would like to just bring one thing to the Senator's attention today
that really was not factual.
This is not a direct quote but pretty close: Within a couple of days
after an election there's always been a reorganization to take place--
words to that effect. My friend said he was embarrassed because there
has not been one that has followed this tradition during the 108th
Congress.
I say to my friend, I know you have a good memory, so this must be
something that you forgot, because during the 107th Congress, when we
became the majority party, it took us 6 weeks to organize.
Now, I do not think that Senator Frist----
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
Mr. NICKLES. That would be what year?
Mr. REID. The year 2001.
Mr. NICKLES. Correct me if I am wrong, but at what date did we pass a
resolution announcing the chairmanships of the committees?
Mr. REID. Six weeks after Senator Jeffords changed parties.
Mr. NICKLES. No. Correct me if I am wrong, but in January of 2001, we
passed a resolution quickly, announcing who would be committee chairs.
Mr. REID. I don't really know that. We had a lot of negotiations
because it was a very unique situation. We had 50-50, of which the only
time that happened previously, that I am aware of, was in 1880.
Mr. NICKLES. I did not serve in 1880. But I still believe that early
in January we passed a resolution announcing who the committee chairs
were. And I also believe--correct me if I am wrong; and I am happy to
be corrected--after Senator Jeffords switched, we had an automatic
transition of who was to be committee chairmen, and I believe that
happened in June of 2001.

Mr. REID. From the time he switched to the time we, in effect, were
able to go forward on the basis of the new majority, it took 6 weeks.
Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield, again, I think he announced
he was switching, but I think he delayed it until we passed the tax
bill. As a matter of fact, if memory serves me correctly--and I am
stretching it--I believe Senator Jeffords announced his intentions to
switch, and some of us tried hard to dissuade him from that. I believe
he also said his switch would not be effective until after we passed
President Bush's tax bill, which took a few weeks, which we did pass;
and I believe shortly after the conclusion of passing that bill, he did
announce his affiliation as an Independent but his alignment with
Democrats; and I believe--I may well be corrected--shortly after that,
not when he announced his intention, but after he announced he would do
that, after we passed the tax bill, there was a transition of power
almost immediately in all the committees.
In the Jeffords case, it was a little different because that wasn't
an election, that was a switch, and that was not as a result of
elections, that was a unique scenario. This is not a unique scenario.
We have had 108 Congresses, and every Congress, until now, to my
knowledge, after convening at the beginning of the Congress, has
elected its chairmanships and assigned committee members. We have 10
new Senators--11, if you count Senator Lautenberg who haven't even been
formally assigned to committees. I was scheduled to have a hearing with
Chairman Greenspan. I will have seven new members on the committee, and
we could not have them sit in on that hearing. How absurd is that?
I urge my colleague--I will refresh my memory on the Jeffords case,
but let us work together. This is so unlike the tradition of the
Senate. I see my colleague from Maryland here who I know has a love for
this institution. This is denigrating to this institution and sending a
terrible signal to those other countries that have fledgling
democracies, to say, wait a minute, there was an election and a change
in power but the Democrats are not relinquishing that power.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator from Nevada yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I am happy to.
Mr. SARBANES. Since my colleague from Oklahoma is drawing me into
this matter.
Mr. REID. If the Senator will withhold for a moment, I would like to
respond to the statements made by the Senator from Oklahoma.
First of all, I agree; I think it would be tremendous if we could
have this reorganization resolution passed 20 minutes from now. But it
is more than chairmen appointing members to committees. I think
turnabout is fair play. As Senator Durbin said, the golden rule should
apply here, and that is that we have the same status as when the Senate
was 51-49 Democrats. It is now 51-49 Republicans. We will take the deal
that we gave them, the same deal. We want the same makeup as when we
were 51.
I agree that we should do something about appropriations bills. I
agree that we should not have Presidential campaigns as long as they
are. But the issue before the Senate is not that. The issue is, why
can't we have the same rules that were in effect 3 months ago in effect
today? Simply because the roles are reversed and we have a new
majority, that doesn't mean the new minority has to take a lot less.

I yield to my friend from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding that what is holding up the
organizing resolution is a difference in the course of organizing, how
we allocate resources, and that all this side of the aisle is seeking,
now that it is in the minority, is that we be treated the same way the
other side of the aisle was treated in the last Congress when they went
into the minority; is that not correct?
Mr. REID. The Senator from Maryland is absolutely correct. This
matter

[[Page S271]]

could be resolved, as I indicated a few minutes ago, in 10 minutes. The
only thing we want is the same rule that applied when the Senate was
51-49 Democrats.
Mr. SARBANES. In other words, all we are seeking is that the majority
now accord us as a minority the same treatment that we accorded to them
when they were in the minority and we were the majority. That seems to
me an eminently reasonable and fair thing to be seeking. I cannot, for
the life of me, understand why we cannot quickly reach an understanding
on that basis and move the organizing resolution.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I respond to my friend because here is what
they have done. They have a resolution before the Senate now that says
what we want to do is appoint chairmen and members of the committees
and we will leave the rest to further negotiations.
The Senator from Maryland is much more experienced than I. But the
Senator from Maryland and I both know that if the chairmen and members
are placed on the committees, this is all over with and the committees
will wind up with far less resources and the ranking members will not
be treated as we treated theirs. It will be a totally different ball
game. We want to have the same ball game and the same rules as were
applied when we were in the majority. That seems fair.
Mr. SARBANES. I say to the Senator, my understanding is that we have
treated the organizing resolution as encompassing the allocation of
resources in the past.
Mr. NICKLES. No, we have not.
Mr. SARBANES. We certainly did so in the 107th Congress. In the 107th
Congress, when it came to that question and we became the majority, we
accorded, I think, a very fair and eminently reasonable treatment to
the minority, and that is all we are seeking in the current
circumstance. I don't understand what the problem is or the difficulty
in accepting that arrangement. That is what I don't understand.
Mr. REID. I will also interrupt and say this to my friend: One of the
reasons this is going on--and we kind of beat around the bush and dance
around it--the majority had a really serious problem after the
election; that is, they were having trouble finding out who was going
to be the Republican leader. Prior to Senator Lott stepping down,
Senator Daschle and Senator Lott had a number of communications and
conversations and meetings as to how they would proceed. That took
weeks and weeks after Senator Lott gave the speech we all know about
now, and just recently they chose a new leader. It has put us behind.
It is not our fault.
All we want is to be treated exactly the same--not one iota
differently--as we treated them; that is, let's use the last 18 months
during the 107th Congress as the model for how we should be treated
today.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to the Senator without losing my right
to the floor.
Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding that there was, in a sense, a
delay on the Republican side in terms of choosing their leader and then
being in a position to discuss these issues with our leader, Senator
Daschle. I have not raised the issue about that being a factor in the
delay, but obviously it is part of the matter. But now that that has
been resolved, it seems to me we ought to be able to reach a fairly
quick agreement here if we simply abide by the concept of reciprocal
treatment.
It seems to me that we tried very hard in the last Congress to be
fair about this. I think we were fair and eminently reasonable. It
seems to me a fair and eminently reasonable request now that the same
treatment be accorded to us in the minority that we accorded to the
minority in the last Congress. If we could accept what I think is an
almost elementary principle, this matter could be settled, and could it
not be settled in very short order?
Mr. REID. In a matter of minutes. The resolution before the body
today makes the appointments for Republican members of the committees.
That is all it does. It doesn't take into consideration all the other
things that make this complicated body function, which is through the
committee system. As anybody reading the basic text of how the Senate
works knows, we operate through the committee system. We are not a
committee of the whole. We work through committees.
We have tried to establish fairness in the distribution of resources
and certainly membership on the committees. When there is such a close
division between the majority and minority, one of which was caused by
the death of Senator Paul Wellstone--he was killed, unfortunately--as a
result of the very closeness of the Senate, 51 to 49, which it was just
last year, why shouldn't we have the same rules dealing with committees
now as we did then? That is the whole point.
I am happy to yield to my friend. I have the floor.
Mr. NICKLES. I yielded to my colleague.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will be happy to give him the floor.
Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator would.
Mr. REID. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I have a couple comments. One, I am going
to be very strict when people start engaging in dialog and not going
through the Chair. The Senate is a great institution. It is not a
little chat club. I am warning my colleagues, they should go through
the Chair.
To say that when we do a Senate reorganizing resolution, we are
supposed to solve staffing allocations, room allocations, and now blue-
slip policies on appellate court judges, that is absurd. It has never
been done.
In the last Congress, after the Jeffords switch, there was a
reorganizing resolution. It did mention staff, and it should not have.
Mr. REID. Should or should not?
Mr. NICKLES. Should not have. That was the breaking of a precedent in
every Congress of never mentioning the funding resolution.
Mr. President, 1977 was the first time funding was ever raised, and I
do not believe it was part of the reorganizing resolution. It did say
the minority should get one-third.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. NICKLES. I will not yield.
Mr. SARBANES. Just for a question.
Mr. NICKLES. I will not yield. My point being, the tradition of the
Senate has always been to adopt a resolution announcing the individuals
serving on committees and that this person or that person will be
chairman of a committee. That has always been the tradition of the
Senate.
We broke tradition last year, and it was a terrible precedent to set
because now if we are going to do a reorganization now, we have to
negotiate wages, staff allotment, space allotment, and now people are
trying to bring in blue slips. They are trying to drag in all kinds of
issues so basically they can obstruct the Senate. That is absurd.
Let's pass the resolution as we have done for the last 200-some years
in the Senate, and say: Here is the organizing resolution; here are the
committees on which you will serve.
I have been in the Senate for 22 years, and that is what we have done
in at least 21 out of the 22 years, and I would venture to say we did
it 22 out of 22 years. The aberration being in the middle of last year
after the Jeffords switch in 2001. I believe that was a mistake.
Obviously, it was a mistake because we can have the Senate tied up in
knots for weeks discussing all kinds of trivial issues that, frankly,
should be decided by the Rules Committee, not by the Senate, not by
reorganization.
Reorganization is assigning individuals as chairmen and new members
of a committee so they can serve on their committees; so we can staff
the committees; so we can have hearings; so we can have Chairman
Greenspan today; so we can have hearings on nominees; so we can get our
work done; so the chairman of the Appropriations Committee can bring
forward the unfinished business; so we can move on and discuss space
allotment.

We can discuss staff allotment, and we can discuss blue-slip policy
in committees which have their work cut out to work on those issues. It
should not be in a reorganization resolution. That was a mistake last
year, in my opinion. It was the first time we did it, I believe--this
is now my 23rd year--for 22

[[Page S272]]

years we always adopted a resolution that said: Here are the
committees.
Now people are trying to put on more bells and whistles: Before we do
committees, we have to get this. That is absurd. That is designed to
fail. That is designed to obstruct. That is designed to say: We are not
going to let you chair this committee unless you give us our way on
blue-slip policy. Now we are going to give Senators vetoes on circuit
court appellate judges which we have never had? It is a case of maybe
the minority not wanting to relinquish their majority or wanting to
pretend they are the majority just to obstruct the majority that is
trying to get some work done. It is really indefensible.
Again, I implore my colleagues who love this institution, let's work
together. Let's adopt this reorganizing resolution. It does exactly
what my colleague from Nevada said. It says: Here are the committee
chairs; here are the members of the committees. The minority needs to
adopt the same resolution: Here are the members of the committees. Then
let's go to work.
The funding issue is not that big an issue. It is very close to being
solved. The space allotment is not that big of an issue. It is close to
being resolved. But it should not be resolved as part of this
resolution.
This resolution says who will be committee chairs, and we should
adopt it today. There is a lot of serious work that needs to be done.
Let the Rules Committee do its work. That is what the Rules Committee
is for, to divvy up space and work on allotments.
I worked with my colleague from Nevada, and I am very interested in
being fair on space and being fair on committee allotments, but that
should not be done now. What should be done now is to adopt this
resolution so we can have a confirmation hearing on the nominee for
Treasury Secretary and so we can have a hearing on the nominee for the
Department of Homeland Security, so we can have Chairman Greenspan
testify before the Committee on the Budget about the economy so we can
move our Nation's business forward, so we can take up the
appropriations bills and try to get caught up on some of the work on
which we are behind.
It is absurd to tie it to getting this and that; we did it last year.
Last year was unique, and maybe we did not solve it right. Let's look
back at the tradition of the Senate and at all those struggling
democracies around the world. They look to us with great pride. When
they visit the United States, they love to come to the Senate. They
want to see a functioning democracy.
In my years in the Senate, we changed power, we changed chairmen
several times and always did it smoothly and seamlessly, but this year
we are not, and that is not a very good example for us to set.
I urge my colleagues, let's step back a little bit. Let's move off
this partisan excitement in which people are engaged, and together
solve some of these other problems behind closed doors, as we usually
do, in a way that is satisfactory to all. We can do that. To say we are
going to filibuster this resolution and you can never be chair until we
do such and such--frankly, I find it demeaning to the Senate. I do not
want to say that. I do not want it to happen. I love this institution,
and this situation is denigrating to this great institution. I yield
the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I listened with great care to my
colleague from Oklahoma, and I certainly agree with his point about
seeking to sustain, maintain, and enhance the institution of the
Senate. But I say to my colleague from Oklahoma, I am going to be the
ranking member now of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Committee. That is a consequence of the elections that took place in
November, and I recognize that. But our ability to do our job in the
committee is closely related to receiving adequate resources and staff
resources with which to carry out our responsibilities.
Unfortunately, that issue has been put in some question. I do not
quite know why this has happened, although I understand there are some
on the other side who want to really do a very radical shift from the
allocations in the previous Congress when the margins were so close. Of
course, that has created a lot of concern and apprehension about the
ability then of the minority to meet and carry out its
responsibilities.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we cannot in short order
reach an agreement that would be encompassed in this organizing
resolution that the allocation of resources to what is now the minority
would parallel the allocation that was made by this side of the aisle
when it was a majority to the Republican minority in the last Congress.
I do not understand what the difficulty is with that position. Of
course, the fact that there seems to be some difficulty only increases
the degree of concern in terms of what lies in wait.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SARBANES. And only reaffirms what is perceived as a need to work
this matter out in the course of organizing for the 108th Congress.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a comment?
Mr. SARBANES. I yield for a question without losing my right to the
floor.
Mr. NICKLES. I do not want to get into the funding because I do not
believe it belongs in this resolution, but my understanding is that the
offer the majority leader has made is that the committee is going to be
held whole, that the amount of staff money for the Banking Committee
would still be there for the next Congress, so there would not be a
radical shift; there would be ample funds. I wanted to make sure the
Senator was aware of that.
I ask the Senator if he is aware of the fact, not counting the last
Congress, that in every Congress going all the way back to 1993,
Banking traditionally had a two-thirds/one-third, but the majority
leader is not talking about going back to two-thirds/one-third; he is
basically talking about giving the same amount of money that was
allocated last year.
Mr. SARBANES. Let me say to my colleague, as a consequence of what
occurred in the 107th Congress and the very close divisions that took
place, and indeed the assertion by what was then the Republican
minority of the necessity of protecting their staff positions, we
developed a new understanding with respect to the allocation of
resources, something that many Members have been arguing for over a
number of years. So the position that is being advocated by this side
is simply reciprocity on the basis of what was done in the 107th
Congress.
In fact, I ask my distinguished assistant leader, am I correct that
what is now being sought by the minority is reciprocity in terms of
being treated in the 108th Congress as we treated the minority in the
107th Congress? Is that correct?
Mr. REID. The Senator is absolutely factually correct.
I further say to my friend from Maryland that my friend from Oklahoma
talks about blue slips. We just attended almost a 2-hour conference and
there was no decision made that this would be part of the organizing
resolution. There is an issue going on about leadership space, but that
has nothing to do with this organizational resolution.
So in answer to my friend, all this stuff about blue slips and space
has nothing to do with the organizational resolution. All we want is to
be treated the same way we treated the minority when we were in the
majority--simple, direct, factual.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. SARBANES. I yield for a question.
Mr. GREGG. Is it not true that the resolution before the Senate has
nothing to do with money either; that it simply deals with the
appointment of Members to the committees and the chairmanships of those
committees?
Mr. SARBANES. That is what the resolution is, and that is the basis
of the complaint. It is our assertion that the organizing resolution
ought to at least encompass the allocation of staff resources and that
the minority now should receive a treatment on that issue comparable to
and paralleling what the other side of the aisle received when they
were in the minority in the 107th Congress.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.

[[Page S273]]

Mr. GREGG. Is it not true that the resolution, as brought forth by
the majority leader, is consistent with all the resolutions that have
been brought forward in the last 10 Congresses relative to the language
in that resolution specifically applying only to the membership of the
committee?
Mr. SARBANES. It is not consistent with the resolutions brought
forward in the 107th Congress when we first encountered this very close
division between the two sides of the aisle.
Second of all, even if it is inconsistent, it seems to me, given what
we are hearing in terms of what at least some Members on the other
side--not all of its Members, as I understand it, but what some of its
Members intend to do in terms of staff allocation, it seems to me
perfectly reasonable, since our ability to carry out our
responsibilities as a minority is closely related to that question, for
us to seek an understanding and an agreement right at the outset on
that very important issue.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further
question?
Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.
Mr. GREGG. Is it not only the tradition but the legally appropriate
action that in a constitutional democracy, where there are two major
parties, when a majority takes control of a body within that
constitutional democracy, the committees be chaired by the majority
party?
Mr. SARBANES. Under our constitutional system, we recognize the rule
of the majority but we protect the rights of the minority. That is a
fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution, and indeed it has been
a fundamental principle in the operations of our various institutions
under the Constitution.
No one is arguing the proposition of who will become chairman of the
committees, I recognize that, but we are asserting that in the course
of making that decision, we need to make also the decision with respect
to the allocation of resources for staff, which is an important
dimension of both the majority and the minority being able to discharge
their responsibilities in the operations of this institution.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SARBANES. I yield for a question.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Maryland raises a most important issue.
When I speak to townhall meetings and especially when I speak to
government classes--high school, even elementary school, and college
classes--whenever I am asked about the Constitution, I always say what
my friend from Maryland said--that the Constitution was not written to
protect the majority; the Constitution of the United States was written
to protect the minority. The majority can always protect itself. Rules,
regulations, and laws that flow from this little document are so
devised to protect the minority, and that is what this is all about.
That is why I felt so at ease during the last Congress--because we
protected the minority; we did not run over the minority. In fact,
their resources were allocated almost identically to what ours were
because the Senate was divided 51 to 49. As the Senator from Maryland
has said several times today, that is all we want. We want to make sure
that the resources are allocated just like they were in the last
Congress.
Mr. SARBANES. In fact, when the Senator from Oklahoma was speaking,
he was making the point how people would come from other countries,
particularly fledgling democracies, to see the Congress of the United
States, particularly the Senate, and how we wanted them to draw the
right lessons from seeing the Senate. One of the most important lessons
they need to draw in the fledgling democracies is the necessity of
respecting the rights of the minority. In instance after instance, they
have been prepared to exercise the majority rule but they are unwilling
in these emerging democracies to accord proper respect to the
minorities within them which, of course, are also an essential part of
making a democracy work. That essentially is all we are seeking to do
in this instance.
I repeat what I said before. For the life of me, I cannot understand
why we cannot reach agreement in short order since what this side of
the aisle is seeking is simply reciprocity, seeking to be treated now
as the minority the way we were willing to treat the other side when
they were in the minority in the last Congress.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
Mr. SARBANES. I will yield for a further question.
Mr. GREGG. It will be the last one. I agree with the purposes of
protecting the minority. That obviously is one of the core elements of
our structure of government. My question is this: Under a
constitutional government that has a two-party system, when there is an
election, is it not appropriate and, in fact, an obligation of a
majority which loses its majority to turn over the chairmanships of the
committees which operate that government and operate that house to the
party which has taken the majority? And is it not the sole purpose of
this resolution to accomplish that goal, to establish the committees,
and thereby establish the majority party as having the chairmen of
those committees? And why is the minority not respecting this
understanding of our form of government? Why deny the ability of people
who assume the chairmanships of the committees as majority Members of
the party?

Mr. SARBANES. It is very simple. We think the compass within the
organizing resolution would be an assurance of what is now the minority
in terms of the allocation of resources so we will be able to meet our
responsibilities. We are not asserting the majority will not assume the
chairmanships of the committees. Obviously they will do so. In fact, I
stood out here a little while ago and said I recognize now I was on my
way to being the ranking member instead of the chairman of the Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.
We are simply saying, and it goes right to the point the Senator
raised about the workings of the institution, part and parcel workings
of the institution is to include within the organizing resolution an
understanding with respect to the allocations, particularly since
Members of the majority--not all Members, but some Members of the
majority--have been very outspoken in asserting a position that would
significantly deny to the minority adequate resources to meet its
responsibility and which is directly counter and in marked conflict
with the way the majority was treated in the last Congress when they
were a minority.
Mr. GREGG. Would the Senator state to me, at this time is the Senator
the ranking member of the Banking Committee or is the Senator the
Chairman of the Banking Committee?
Mr. SARBANES. At the moment I am still the chairman because we have
not passed the organizing resolution. I am quite happy to pass an
organizing resolution which will make me the ranking member, but I want
that organizing resolution to contain in it an understanding with
respect to the allocation of resources so I can be certain we will be
able to meet our responsibilities; furthermore, an allocation of
resources comparable to what is now the majority received in the
previous Congress when they were a minority.
I don't understand why the other side of the aisle will not accord to
us now the same treatment, the same fairness, and the same equity which
they received in the previous Congress. Why won't you do that? I ask
that question. Why won't they do that? If they were to do that, we
could conclude an organizing resolution in very short order.
In fact, I ask our assistant leader, is it not the case if we were
able to receive the same treatment on this allocation of resources
issue we extended in the last Congress when we were the majority, that
we would be able to wrap up the organizing resolution in short order?
Mr. REID. Ten or 15 minutes.
Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield for one last question, the
Senator from Maryland has now declared himself the chairman of the
committee.
Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield, I didn't declare myself; it
is still the operating premise since we have not passed a new
organizing resolution.

Mr. GREGG. Is the Senator from Maryland in the majority party in this
body?
Mr. SARBANES. I am no longer in the majority party, but the
organizing resolution to reflect that fact has not yet been passed.
Mr. GREGG. You made my point.

[[Page S274]]

Mr. SARBANES. I have been careful in the committee not to exercise
authorities as chairman.
But I repeat my question that goes to fairness and equity. I cannot
for the life of me understand why what is now the majority in this body
will not extend to the minority the same treatment we were prepared to
extend when we were the majority and the other side was in the minority
in the 107th Congress. That is all we are seeking--reciprocity. If we
could obtain that, we could conclude this organizing resolution in
short order.
Mr. REID. 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. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I wish to make a few observations after
listening to this debate.
When I came to the Senate and watched procedures and arguments, I
came fairly quickly to the conclusion I never wanted to become
accustomed to the way people think in Washington. In listening to this
debate and wondering why we cannot vote on Senate Resolution 18, which
very simply states who the chairmen are of the various committees and
also determines who the Members are from each party on those
committees, not an unfair but a very fair allocation of committees and
spaces and seats on the committee based upon proportional
representation. It is 51-48 plus 1, so, one extra seat, for the
majority, the Republicans.
What is getting missed is representative democracy. Being from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the home of James Madison, who wrote and
authored the Constitution of the United States, to listen to the
assertions of some on the floor from the other side of the aisle about
the Constitution and all of their arguments in thwarting the vote on
chairmanships and committee assignments so we can go forward on issues
that matter to the real people in the real world in America, they say
it is the Constitution that protects minority parties over majority
parties.
George Washington's farewell address warned against political
parties. The Constitution was not created to protect political parties.
James Madison, and our Founding Fathers, put forward the Constitution
to protect the rights of the people, to protect their God-given rights.
To talk about the Constitution as a defense for this obstructionism and
this delay and dilatory practice would have James Madison stating this
is a shameless, dilatory dilemma. It is holding up the business of the
people of America. People recognize there are issues and ideas and
measures that should have been acted upon last year--whether they were
funding bills, or whether they were a variety of other issues. You can
talk about improving Medicare with the prescription drug plan. It may
be we need greater--and I agree we need greater--energy independence. I
believe we need to make sure we have a more prosperous economy with tax
policies and regulatory policies that allow more people to get work and
get jobs for themselves and their families.
I very much support the President's ideas as far as the job creation
and economic growth packages. There are other ideas on education, on a
variety of issues, including partial-birth abortion. It is all being
stopped because of this delay.
We talk about elementary civics with the school groups that come up
and watch, people from around the world. They see the peaceful
transition of power in this country. They see the people in the several
States of the Union elect Senators and, as a result, there are a
majority of Republicans. Now the people of this country expect a new
leadership to go forward on a variety of issues, as I talked about,
whether it is jobs, or health care matters, budgetary matters, or
funding.

We are a representative democracy and people have seen the transition
of power from the local level of mayors and boards of supervisors on up
to State legislators to Governors, to Presidents. This is a very
unfortunate situation, that we sit here idly, worrying about some of
these very picayune procedures.
I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let's have a vote
on S. Res. 18. I would like to see a vote because then those who vote
will take whatever stand they want to take on it. They can say: I
didn't want to be in favor of it because, whether it is office space or
funding for staff, that can get worked out in the future; let's get
moving with the business of the American people. What they want us to
do is move forward on a variety of pressing issues, from national
security to economic security, that affect the lives of real people in
the real world. Bickering over such petty things as office space and
staff allocations is beneath the dignity and the importance and the
authority that is granted to us by the people of this country.
Mr. President, let's act. Let's move forward. Stop the dilatory
practices and let's act in a responsible manner.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, the Senate has under consideration S. Res.
18.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10
minutes in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, perhaps before I do, I should indicate I
am a little bit perplexed about the debate going on here on the floor
of the Senate on the funding or the reorganization resolution dealing
with the 108th Congress, and especially the Senate. It seems to me the
question of how much money shall be allocated to committees to run the
operations of the Senate around here ought not be difficult to resolve.
In the last Congress we had 51 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and we had
an even split with a slight differential for administration.
Now we have 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats. It seems to me we ought
to have exactly the same split as we did in the last Congress, just in
reverse. I don't understand why the majority now will not do for the
minority as we did last year when we were in the majority for the
Republican side. It doesn't make any sense to me. This ought not be
rocket science trying to put this together. It is about fairness. We
ought to have exactly the same circumstance we gave to the Republicans
in the last Congress.
It is unseemly to me we are having this lengthy debate about it. We
have foreign policy questions and challenges in Iraq and Korea and
elsewhere. We have very significant challenges with respect to the
economy in this country. Now we are being told by the majority: Unless
you agree to conditions we would have considered unfair--speaking now
for them--in the last Congress, we will not move forward on a
resolution that funds the committees of this Congress.
Our side simply says: Why don't you do for us what we did for you? Is
that unfair? I wouldn't think so. Do unto others? Do we understand
about this? All we are asking is we have the same kind of agreement we
had in the last Congress. For whom is that unfair? Who decides that is
unfair?
It was fair in the last Congress for the Republicans who were in the
minority. It was fair to them because we made sure it was. Now they are
saying they need more than that now they are in the majority. They will
not give us the same deal we gave them.
We have a lot of problems and a lot of challenges. It seems to me the
new majority leader would be well advised to come to the floor and
provide the same kind of agreement we had in the last Congress. That is
all we are asking. If it was fair for them when we did it to them--and
it was--then it ought to be fair for us, and we ought to suggest that
is the resolution to bring to the floor of the Senate.
I know there is a lot of genuflecting around here about this. There
is a lot of background noise about it. The fact is, we ought to get
this done, get it

[[Page S275]]

done fairly as we did a year and a half ago, and then move on to the
other business of the Senate.

____________________