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

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 14, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S276-S281]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MAKING MAJORITY PARTY APPOINTMENTS--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the American people must be wondering what is
going on in the Senate today. They frequently see us just talking. We
do a lot of that. But sometimes they see a little action on the Senate
floor. And, of course, other than extending the unemployment benefits,
we have done nothing in the Senate since we reconvened at the beginning
of this year.
Why is that so? Why is it that we have been having this squabble on
the floor of the Senate for the last 24 hours or so, accusing each
other of not wanting to get on with doing the Nation's business and the
constructing, getting on with that business?
People have asked me: Why can't you all get along? Why can't you
resolve what appears to be petty disputes and get on with the Nation's
business?
One person said: Didn't we elect you to the majority? He was talking
about me as a Republican Senator. So I had to explain what the
situation was. I said: Yes, as a matter of fact, last November the news
was full of the fact that, for the first time in a long time,
Republicans were supposedly in control. The Presidency was occupied by
George Bush, and the Republicans were to control both the House of
Representatives and the Senate.
But he said: Well, then, why aren't you getting going? Why aren't you
doing things? I said: Well, there's a little problem; that is, as you
know, in Congress most of the work is done in committees, and the
Democrats, who had controlled the Congress for the last year and a
half, have been unwilling to turn over the gavels to the new Republican
chairmen.
My friend said: That's not possible. This is the United States of
America. You Republicans won the election. Just take them.
I said: Well, it's not quite that simple. It is kind of like the old
phrase: Possession is 99 percent of the law. The Democrats are in
possession of the gavels. They are currently considered to be the
chairmen until we do a very simple thing in the Senate. Usually it
takes about 10 seconds. The majority leader asks unanimous consent that
the list of Republican Senators assigned to these committees be
accepted, with the committee chairmen as indicated. The Democratic
leader does the same thing for the Democrats. And then the Senate is
considered organized. The new Senators have their committee
assignments, the chairmen are noted, and we get to work. But that has
been objected to on the Democratic side. They want to hold on to the
gavel a little while longer, even though in the election last November
they lost--supposedly lost the majority control of the Senate.
My friend said: Well, how can they prevent change? I thought you were
in control.
I said: Remember that in the Senate we have a procedure called the
filibuster, and in order to stop debate and force a vote on our
organizing resolution--or committee resolution, it is called--it takes
60 Senators to agree to force the vote. It only takes 51 to adopt the
resolution, but 60 Senators are required to actually force the vote;
otherwise, you have to just keep talking. And that is what we are doing
right now.
Obviously, with the Senate organized at 51 Republicans and 49
Democrats--unless some of our Democratic friends would be willing to
concede that the election was won by Republicans, and be willing to
turn the gavels over to the Republican chairmen--if they want to stick
in their partisan mode here, at 49, they can continue to keep us from
voting on this resolution and, thus, continue to have control of the
committees.

Well, why is this important? Things my colleague was just talking
about a moment ago: The budget and getting on with the President's
economic growth package are a good illustration.
For the first time in the history of the Senate, since the Budget Act
of 1974, last year, when the Democrats were in control of the Senate,
they failed to pass a budget. And the appropriations bills, except for
the Defense bills, were not passed. That is unfinished business from
last year we have to hurry up and do. The President would like to see
that done before his State of the Union speech. We have to get on with
that. We cannot do it if the Appropriations Committee cannot meet, pass
out a resolution, and get it to the floor so we can debate it.
We have judges who have been waiting for almost 2 years now to be
confirmed by the Senate because they have been held up by the
Democratic Senate. We need to get on with that. And there is other
important business.

[[Page S277]]

The point is, we ought to get on with it and stop this squabbling.
What is it that is really at the bottom here? What is the complaint?
What is the Democratic objective? It is a little hard to tell.
Part of it, I suppose, is just delay for delay's sake. But part of it
also has been indicated by those who say: We want our fair share of
money and office space. This may seem pretty petty to people watching,
but it is true that both sides need to have money for their staffs and
operations. The majority leader has been negotiating in good faith on
that, and he says they are very close to getting that issue resolved.
But that does not have to be resolved today. The funding resolution
goes on until the end of February. So we could easily get the committee
process started, exchange positions so that Republican chairmen would
have a gavel, get on with the Nation's business in the committees, and
continue to work to resolve the issue of funding, such as that issue
may continue to exist.
Democrats have talked about the comparison to the middle of the year
switch in parties when Jim Jeffords, a Senator from Vermont, left the
Republican side, became an Independent, and joined the Democrats. The
day that happened, Republicans turned their gavels over to their
Democratic counterparts to let them run the committees, recognizing the
power had now shifted in the Senate and they were now in the majority.
It took another several weeks to get all the funding issues resolved,
but they were resolved. We have that same amount of time here, so we
can go ahead and give the gavels over to the Republicans to chair the
committees and continue to negotiate the funding issues. We have
several weeks yet to get that done. There is no reason to continue to
delay this process.
So I urge my Democratic colleagues to stop the squabbling and act
like the world's greatest deliberative body that the Senate is often
called. Instead, we look more like some Third World country where the
losing party did not want to turn over control to the party that won
the election. And that is just not acceptable in the Senate of the
United States of America.
So I urge my colleagues to agree to turn the power over to the party
that won. Then we can continue to try to satisfy their requirements
with funding. We want to do the Nation's business.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from Arizona yield for a question?
Mr. KYL. I am happy to yield.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from Arizona agree with me that,
unquestionably, the beginning of the previous Congress was the most
complicated situation we have had in Senate organization, having ended
up with a 50-50 tie for the first time since the 1880s?
Mr. KYL. Yes. The first time, I guess, since the 1880s; that is
right.
Mr. McCONNELL. I would point out to my friend from Arizona, the
Congress was sworn in on January 3 of 2001, the beginning of that dead-
even Senate, and 2 days later this complicated organizational
resolution, which our friends and colleagues on the other side, in
effect, want to continue into this Congress, was passed--2 days.
The reason for that, obviously, is that we had known since the
election what was going to happen and we were working long on it. We
have known since November 5, 2002, what was going to happen. I have
heard on the other side it was 6 weeks, but in fact there were 24 days
after Senator Jeffords switched to get the resolution passed. But the
chairmen switched almost immediately. I handed my gavel over to Senator
Dodd, Senator Bennett handed his over, Senator Bond did; I believe
everybody did, including Senator Kyl.
We have known now for 70 days who was going to be in the majority--70
days. It seems to this Senator that we have had adequate notice for
quite some time who was going to be in the majority and yet we have
killed a week in failing to address the people's business from last
year because of an apparent unwillingness to recognize who is in the
majority around here.
Mr. KYL. I respond to my colleague from Kentucky that in the last
five Congresses we have organized the Senate on January 3, January 5,
and January 7. The very latest date was January 9. We are already a
week beyond that, and the week has, in fact, been wasted except for a
very quick passage of the unemployment compensation benefit, which
shows what we can do when we get down to work here.
The history is that we do this very quickly, even in the most
complicated circumstances, as the Senator noted, when we were 50-50 and
had a lot of issues to try to resolve. That gets back to my point that
there is no reason to hold up the exchanges of the gavels, a routine
matter that recognizes who won the election, simply because there is
still some disagreement about whether the money is going to be split--I
don't even know--57/43, or whatever the numbers are.
Mr. McCONNELL. Particularly since the funding resolution goes until
the first of March.
Mr. KYL. Precisely the point. So unless there is some other ulterior
motives--and I never ascribe motives to my colleagues and they can
explain their own actions--the result of this is delay, though, and
given the fact that we have unfinished business from last year because
of the Democrat leader's inability to pass a budget and get
appropriations bills passed, we are already behind schedule.
We are in a war with terrorists. There could be a military conflict
with Iraq. The President has an economic agenda that the American
people are very interested in because it affects both their families
and the economy as a whole. My constituents want Medicare reform and a
prescription drug benefit to go along with that so we can strengthen
and preserve Medicare. We have a lot on our agenda, and this delay is
not helping the American people and there is no reason for it. That is
why I, again, urge my Democratic colleagues. We are not saying this in
anger or in a partisan tone, I hope, but it does not serve the
interests of the American people, and it certainly blemishes the Senate
to be unable to organize, to simply recognize which side won the
election. Let this side chair the committees so we can get on with the
other business of the day. That is the inevitable result of what is
happening here.
I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to recognize that
fact. It doesn't make them look good, it doesn't make the Senate look
good, and it is bad for the American people. I hope we can get the
resolution adopted quickly and get on with the business of the American
people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for
his comments. Before he leaves the floor, I will make the observation
that in addition to not being able to address the unfinished business
from last year, because we don't have committees approved, we have
Senators from 11 States who have no committees at all. They were duly
chosen in an election last November. A week ago today, they took the
oath of office here at the front of the Chamber and became Senators. A
week later, they are still not on committees.
Now, it is almost impossible for a Senator to represent his
constituents if he or she is not on a committee. So we have, in effect,
disenfranchised those 11 States for a week. There is no crisis to
address if the committee funding resolution doesn't expire for some 7
weeks from now. There is no reason to be doing this, other than an
apparent attempt to fail to recognize the results of last year's
election.
So we have, I say to my friend from Arizona, Senators from Alaska,
Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas who have all been
sworn in and have no committee assignments whatsoever.
This is the United States of America. We had an election. All of
these new Senators have been certified and they are entitled to be
effective Members of this body representing their constituents. Our
failure to act makes that impossible.
There has been a lot of discussion about committee funding. Really,
that is not the issue before us in this resolution before the Senate
today. This is simply a resolution ratifying committee membership of
Republican Members of the Senate. Traditionally, Democrats offer a
similar resolution putting their members on committees.

[[Page S278]]

What has gotten all mixed up in this, apparently, is the whole question
of what kind of committee funding ratios there are going to be. There
was a very revealing article in Roll Call before the November election
in which--it was on October 31--a senior Democratic aide said it was
``an extraordinary circumstance that forced them to continue the equal
funding.''
I agree with that, both in the beginning of the 107th Congress and
after the defection of Senator Jeffords. Both were extraordinary
circumstances. Here you have a Democratic aide stating the obvious,
with which I agree. It was an extraordinary circumstance that forced
continuing funding at that level in the middle of a Congress when they
suddenly became a majority. But the same aide stated that ``if we pick
up a seat or two, I think it is without a doubt we would go back to
two-thirds/one-third,'' which is right before the election of last
fall. ``If we pick up a seat or two . . . we would go back to two-
thirds/one-third.'' It is quite stunning how accurate Roll Call's
predictions were. They predicted that if the Democrats were to lose a
seat, which is indeed what happened, they would fight for equal
funding, which is where we find ourselves today.
The funding issue is not before us in the Senate today. This is about
ratifying the results of last November's election. The majority leader
has laid down a committee resolution that would give the Republican
Members of the Senate an opportunity to serve on committees, so that
they can represent the people they were sent here to represent.
I hope we will be able to resolve all of this amicably. It has gone
on entirely too long. We have been doing this for over a week. Of
course, it has been tougher on the majority leader than anybody else
because he spends an endless amount of time each day discussing it. I
hope we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel and may
be able to resolve this matter in some kind of amicable fashion,
hopefully before the day is out.

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I can remember when I was in the House of
Representatives, the legendary Mo Udall came to a meeting. He was
chairman of the Franking Commission. There was a big dispute as to a
franking issue. Members of the House paraded in and it went on for a
long period of time. Mo Udall, in only the way he could do it, kind
of--how would you describe how he walked? It was kind of a saunter--
sauntered in and took his place as chairman of this committee. He said:

Everything has been said, but not everybody has said it.

So he proceeded to say the same thing that everybody else had said. I
have been here for 2 days and the same thing has been said over and
over again by the majority, the Republicans, and the same thing has
been said over and over again by the minority, the Democrats. But as Mo
Udall would say, it hasn't been said today as many times as perhaps it
should.
I repeat, what the minority wants is to be treated exactly as we
treated the minority during the last Congress.
My friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky, has
brought to our attention again what one Democratic aide said. I talked
about this previously, but I will say it again because not everyone has
heard it, I guess, and if they have, they can listen again. One
Democratic aide said:

If we pick up a seat or two, I think we'd go back to one-
third/two-thirds.

First, this is a Democratic aide, whoever that is. But if we are
going to take Roll Call for gospel, then what I suggest is the whole
article be looked at. In this article in Roll Call, a GOP leadership
aide said:

It will be a serious fight. It will be a series of knock-
down drag-out talks that last a long, long time.

Remember, he is commenting on changing the committee ratio. A senior
GOP leadership aide said:

It will be a serious fight. It will be a series of knock-
down drag-out talks that last a long, long time.

Finally, this same--or it could be a different GOP leadership aide, I
do not know; it might be the same one--said:

There is no way we will countenance that or stand for that.

He said of the Democratic aide's comment about shifting parties.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield for a question without losing my
right to the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. I think people watch these proceedings and think it is
all very silly that the Senate cannot agree on an organizing
resolution.
I am trying to understand, if I can, some of the statements that have
been made. My colleague from Kentucky said that last summer, for
example, when the Senate went from Republican to Democratic control as
a result of one Senator shifting from the Republican caucus to an
Independent caucus and caucusing with the Democrats, he said the gavels
were turned over immediately.
As I heard that, it occurred to me that was not the case at all.
History is history, and revisionist history is fun, but it is not
accurate.
Isn't it the case that last summer, for example, when the Republicans
were in control and then one Senator moved to caucus with Democrats and
the Democrats actually took control of the Senate, for 3 weeks the
gavels were not turned over to the chairmen? I am not suggesting there
is any justification for anything by making that point. My point is,
when people come to the Chamber to talk about this, let's talk about
what really happened, and if we can, let's talk about what is happening
now for the moment.
Isn't it the case that the reason the Senate is hung up is because
the majority leader is saying: We have 51 percent of the votes in the
Senate, and we want two-thirds of the money to run the place? Isn't
that exactly what is hanging this up?
Mr. REID. Yes, I say to my friend. Revisionist history is a very good
way of projecting what has been said on the other side--revisionist
history. The fact is, I say to my friend from North Dakota, who, I am
sure, realizes this, when Senator Jeffords announced he was going to
move from the Republican Party, it was about 6 weeks from the time he
announced that to the time the actual change took place; that is, the
reorganizing resolution.
Technically, the Senator from North Dakota is right. Senator Daschle
became majority leader on June 6, 2001. The organizing resolution was
adopted on June 29, 2001. So that is a period of over 3 weeks. But the
actual time period is 6 weeks. Let's take those 3-plus weeks we waited
around.

Responding to my friend from Arizona, for whom I have the greatest
respect--and he is a fine lawyer, but sometimes lawyers make tones and
arguments that are not as factual as they appear--he said 70 days they
have been waiting; something should have been done during that period
of time.
I said it earlier and I will say it again. It is not Senator
Daschle's fault that he was not negotiating earlier. It was the fault
of the Republicans because they could not determine who was going to be
their leader. Senator Daschle had some early meetings with Senator Lott
right after the election, but those meetings were for nought because
they got a new leader a few days ago, and Senator Daschle has been
doing his very best to project a very simple message. That is, if the
Senate was divided 51-49 with the Democrats controlling and the
Republicans in the minority and there is a shift in power where the
Republicans control and the Democrats are in the minority, let's have
the same rules. It is simple: Let's have the same rules.
There have been people who have come to the Chamber and said: Why
would they argue over space? As we know, there are a number of issues
the two leaders have to work out. They have to work out the funding,
and they have to work out making sure that is fair, as it was last
time, and the space is basically the same as it was last time. It has
nothing to do with blue slips or yellow slips or green slips. There is
another issue around here dealing with leadership space. It has nothing
to do with that.
It has everything to do with we, the minority, want to be treated
just as the Republicans when they were in the minority. I am from
Nevada. I think we have a lot of common sense in Nevada. Some people
may not agree with some of the things we do or do not do. My friend
from North Dakota and I have had a number of good laughs about the

[[Page S279]]

differences between Nevada and North Dakota, but the fact is common
sense prevails in Nevada, and common sense dictates to me that if you
have the exact same makeup of the Senate--100 Senators--but the
majority has changed, two Senate seats have changed and now instead of
51-49 Democrats, it is 51-49 Republicans, why shouldn't the same rules
apply?
That is my answer to my friend from North Dakota. Simple, factual; it
is play by the same rules that we had during the last Congress.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield further?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield for a question without losing my
right to the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I think people will look at this debate
and say: What on Earth is going on here? The Senate at least ought to
be able to organize. I listened to some of this debate. For example, my
friend from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, said part of the reason we have to do
this right now is because we have all this unfinished business from
last year. In fact, Senator Daschle could not pass a budget last year,
he said. That is true, we could not pass a budget because my friend
from Arizona and his friends would not vote for it. That is why we
could not pass a budget.
The fact is, there is a lot of discussion around here surrounding
this resolution. I, again, ask the Senator from Nevada, isn't this the
simplest possible issue to solve, and doesn't it send a message to
every kid in school: If you ever say fractions do not matter, come
listen to this debate because we have a circumstance where the majority
is now saying: We have slightly over half of the Senate, 51 Members;
you have almost half of the Senate, 49, but we want two-thirds of the
money. The next time a kid says fractions do not matter, go talk to the
folks who say it is true, we have just a little over a half but we want
two-thirds of the money with respect to the Senate.
My point is, I assume this could be resolved this afternoon, and, in
my judgment, it should be resolved this afternoon by doing exactly what
was done in the last Congress. In the last Congress, we had 51 votes on
the Democratic side and 49 votes on the Republican side. So there was
an apportionment of the money, about half and half, with a slight
increase for the administration of those who ran the committees.
Now there are 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats. It seems to me the
easiest solution is to use the same rule we had in the last session,
just reverse it because that would be the fairest way to deal with the
circumstances in which there is a 51-49 split. Just reverse the parties
and use exactly the same functioning mechanism that was used in the
last Congress.

The reason I say that is this ought to be the easiest possible thing
to solve. It ought to be done this afternoon. We have a lot of work to
do. Those colleagues who have been talking about the need for this
Congress to get to work are sure right about that. We have an economy
that is faltering. I am sure as we speak today there are perhaps
thousands of people prepared to go home tonight to tell their spouse
they lost their job. There were 88,000 last month.
Mr. REID. One hundred and one thousand.
Mr. DORGAN. So they go home and say, I lost my job. This economy is
not working. This economy is contracting, not expanding. Should we do
something about that? Sure, we ought to be working on that.
We have homeland security issues. We have appropriations bills. We
have a lot of work to do, so let's resolve this.
The simplest possible way to resolve it is for the majority leader to
understand he ought to use the same formula for this Congress as the
Democrats used when they were in control in the last Congress.
It seems to me that is the fair way to do it, and it seems to me it
ought to be done this afternoon. Most people would look at this and say
this is silly, just do this and get it done now.
Mr. REID. Let me respond to my friend. When I was a young boy, I
could not run very fast. I was never fast afoot. So I participated in
games where it did not matter how fast you could run. I loved tug of
war because I was as good as anybody. I would dig in my heels and it
would take a lot to move me.
I want everyone within the sound of my voice to know my heels are dug
in. The Democratic caucus' heels are dug in. We will win this tug of
war. They can put us to the test and have a series of votes to see if
we can proceed. They can have all the votes they want on the motion to
invoke cloture, but we are not going to bend. The Democrats in the
Senate are dug in and we are not going to bend.
The resolution of this is going to be the same as it was in the last
Congress because that was fair. We were fair to the Republicans and we
expect them to be fair to us. If they want to get to the issues my
friend from Arizona brought up--Iraq, Medicare reform, prescription
drugs--let them do it. They can do it 15 minutes from now. Organize the
way we organized; otherwise, they can wait because they are holding it
up; we are not.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I heard an impassioned plea by the
Democratic assistant leader on the other side of the aisle, whom I
greatly admire and respect. I am not sure whether he considers himself
the assistant majority leader now or the assistant leader, but I would
point out some facts that maybe should be filtered out of the
smokescreen of dialogue that has taken over.
The facts are these: The resolution before the Senate is a resolution
to appoint majority members to committees so our new Members can be
confirmed to committees and so the majority can take the chairmanships
of the committees of the Senate. That is the resolution before the
Senate. That is the resolution which has always come to the Senate.
This resolution does not address the issue of funding. The issue of
funding has not actually come up from the standpoint of needing to be
done until sometime in February. It does not address the issue of
space, because the issue of space has never been addressed in this type
of resolution. This resolution is the prototypical resolution that
comes before a Senate every time a Senate organizes. Under the
constitutional form of government we have in the United States, after
elections the party that takes the majority organizes the Senate,
appoints the members to the committees and has members of the
committees become chairmen as a result of being in the majority party.
The Senator from Nevada, who I respect, has decided to cloud this
issue of appointments to the committees with the issue of funding. I
guess they see this as a point of leverage which they can use to
question the funding through addressing the issue of membership to the
committees.
What is the practical effect of the actions of the Democratic
membership of the Senate today? The practical effect is they are
denying the proper transfer of power that proceeds after an election.
They are essentially saying the election last fall does not matter;
that they remain chairmen of the committees in the Senate, even though
they are in the minority party.
Earlier today, I had a discussion with a Member of the Democratic
leadership in the sense that he was chairman of the Banking Committee,
and he represented he still considers himself to be chairman. Yet he
also acknowledges, as I think anybody does who is fairminded about
this, that he presently is in the minority.
How can one be chairman of the committee in our form of government if
they are in the minority? They cannot. They are usurping the rights of
the people of this country who have elected a majority in the Senate.
The majority has the right to chair the committees of the Senate, and
yet the Democratic membership has decided to deny that right to the
American people, the right which they put forward when they voted in
November.
I suppose if I were a Member of the Democratic side of the aisle, I
would have been frustrated by that election.

[[Page S280]]

It was the first time in recent memory--or maybe ever--that a sitting
President actually won control of one of the bodies of Congress in an
off-year. It was startling. I thank President Bush for his efforts, and
I thank those folks who subscribe to his view of the way we should
govern. Obviously, I am very appreciative of the fact that as a result
of that election we ended up going into the majority on the Republican
side. Granted, it was only by one vote, but that is all it takes. All
it takes in our constitutional form of government is one vote to be in
the majority. We do not function under a super majority for the
purposes of organizing the Senate. We do not have to have 60 votes to
organize the Senate. We have to have a 1-vote majority. When one gets
that 1-vote majority after an election, in a two-party system,
involving a constitutional form of government, which is what we
function under, then the new minority which used to be the majority is
supposed to transfer power over to the majority peacefully and without
resistance.
What are we seeing today? Resistance. We have heard the assistant
leader--who may consider himself to be assistant majority leader or the
assistant minority leader, I am not sure, but the assistant leader say
his heels are dug in and we could be here, I suppose, until Lake Powell
freezes over before we are going to get a change from their side of the
aisle.
That fundamentally undermines the concept of constitutional
government after an election in a two-party system.
They may have a legitimate concern over funding. I happen to think
they do not. I believe the majority leader has made very reasonable
offers in this case and, in fact, when it becomes public I think the
public will feel they were extremely reasonable offers, but they have
no reasonable argument for holding up the proper transfer of power in a
constitutional government. They are doing fundamental damage to the way
we govern if they continue down this road.
There are Members on their side--in fact, all of the Members on their
side--who I greatly respect, but there are some Members on their side
who have an immense history and strength on the issue of the integrity
of the process in the Senate. I cannot believe those Members are not
cringing at the thought we have not transferred responsibility in an
orderly way in the Senate.
The resolution before the Senate does not deal with space. It deals
with who is the majority party. It is totally inappropriate for Members
from the other side to be chairing committees and claiming
chairmanships of committees when they are no longer in the majority
position. It frustrates not only our side of the aisle but, more
importantly, it frustrates the intent and purpose of our form of
government. It is a serious matter. And the Senator from Nevada has dug
his heels in. So be it.
Speaking as one Senator on this side, I find this issue to be of such
significance that I don't know how we can back off of our request that
the majority be the majority, that the chairmanships go to the
majority, that the memberships of the committees be given to the
majority. If we did, what would have been the purpose of the last
election? We would be fundamentally undermining that election.
What happens in the future? Do we move into a government where
elections are reasonably irrelevant if they are close? No. Close
elections happen in America. Presidents are elected by the electoral
college without winning the popular vote. But the fact is they were
elected under the constitutional form of government. Majorities take
control of the Senate when more Members of one party arrive in the
Senate than from the other party. We have received certification from
the Secretaries of State across the country who have established beyond
question that the Republican Party presently holds the majority in the
Senate. And, as such, the Republican Party has the right to and must
claim the chairmanships of the committees of jurisdiction in the
Senate. If we fail to do that, we fail our responsibility to the
electorate.
It is very hard to understand how the other side of the aisle can
attempt to undermine this most fundamental exercise of the transfer of
power after an election in a constitutional government.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from New Hampshire said some nice
things about me that I am grateful for because the feelings are
certainly mutual. I have great admiration and respect for his public
service. I don't know what he did before he came to the House of
Representatives, but he served there representing his State admirably.
He left the House and became Governor of the State and then came to the
Senate. That is a great public service career. I am surprised I have
heard him talk more the last day or so. He is not one who spends a lot
of time on the floor. When he does speak, I always listen because he is
very direct and does not beat around the bush. I have not only great
respect for what he has accomplished but also his style as a
legislator.
Having said that, however, this is not undermining the election.
Regarding the chairmanships, we do not dispute who should be chairman.
No one disputes that. Senator Sarbanes said that today. We recognize we
are now in a minority, 51-49, just like the Republicans were in a
minority a few months ago. What are we talking about? They say all this
resolution does is allow us to be a chairman and appoint members of the
committee. That is the problem. That is all it does.
We could settle this matter, as I told Senator Sarbanes, in less than
15 minutes if, in addition to changing the chairmen and appointing the
members of the committee, there would be an agreement the staff would
remain as it was last year. That is, whatever the minority had last
year, we would still have, and that the same space the minority had,
the committee staff we are talking about, would be the same as it was
last year--simple as that.
Now, assume that I am wrong: Illogical, unreasonable, not factual.
Say that I am wrong. It seems to me what would happen if the majority
would go along with the rules we had last time, the chairmanships would
take place immediately, the members of the committees would be
appointed immediately, and the only thing they would have some concern
about--because we agree with that--is they gave us too much space and
they gave us too much of the financial resources to the committees.
I heard Senator Nickles, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, who I also
am very fond of, earlier today state this has nothing to do with
committee resources. Well, if it doesn't, what are we arguing about? We
agree they should be chairmen. We agree they should be able to appoint
the committees. Why not go one step further and keep the same
resources--because Senator Nickles said this battle was not about
resources--the same resources as we had last year.
I might be having trouble comprehending, but like a lot of people
here I think I understand the procedures of the Senate. I understand
the resolution directed and dictated what we did last time. Why not do
the same thing? What is wrong with that? If the matters before the
country are important--and I recognize they are; I realize we have
problems, as the Senator from Arizona talked about--we need to have
some discussion about Iraq, and we need to have a discussion about
health care delivery in this country--the committees should be
functioning better than they are.
The committees, instead of having a total of 89 Members, should have
100 Members. Let's go to work and do that. That is all we are asking.
We are not asking for any advantage. We are only asking we be treated
the way the Republicans were treated when we were the majority.

If the matters to come before the country are that important, the
majority party, the party that controls the House, the White House,
what in the world do they fear from having the same committee structure
as we had last time with the same resources allocated? What is there to
fear? If there were ever the ability to exercise authority and power in
the United States, it is from the White House, which is Republican,
from a Senate that is Republican, and from the House of Representatives
that is Republican.
That is why we believe we are not being treated fairly, and the
resolution

[[Page S281]]

before this body is inadequate and incomplete. Until it is adequate and
complete, we are going to hang in for the same rule that applied during
the 107th Congress.

____________________