[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 78-81]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       CONDUCT OF A 50/50 SENATE

  Mr. DASCHLE. The other day, I quoted the writer Thomas Wolfe who 
said:

       America is not only the place where miracles happen, they 
     happen all the time.

  If the resolution I will soon introduce is not miraculous, it is, at 
the very least, historic. It is also fair and reasonable. The details 
and the spirit of this agreement, which I expect the Senate to pass 
later today, should enable us to conduct our Nation's first 50/50 
Senate in a most productive and bipartisan manner.
  I especially thank the Republican leader, Senator Lott. We will enter 
into a colloquy in a period of time to be later determined, but I must 
say, without his leadership and his sense of basic fairness, this 
agreement would not have come about. He and I have spent many hours 
over the last several months, and now weeks, and certainly in the last 
several days, negotiating the details of this agreement. He spent many 
more hours consulting with the members of his caucus about it. He and 
they deserve credit for taking this unprecedented step.
  I also thank and commend my colleagues on this side of the aisle for 
their good counsel and patience as this agreement was negotiated, and 
for their support of the finished product. I particularly thank our 
distinguished President pro tempore, Robert C. Byrd, for his advice. 
When you are making history, you can't have a better guide than the man 
who has literally written the book on the history of the Senate.
  Our negotiations involve many difficult issues and many strongly held 
opinions. Neither party got everything it wanted. Both sides made 
concessions. Both caucuses made principled compromises. That is the 
essence of democracy.
  This agreement accurately reflects the historic composition of the 
Senate. More important, I believe it reflects the political thinking of 
the American people. It calls for equal representation on Senate 
committees. Every committee would have the same number of Republicans 
and Democrats. And it specifies that Republicans will chair the 
committees after January 20. It allows for equal budgets and office 
space for both caucuses, at 50/50.
  One of the most vexing questions we struggled with during our 
negotiations was how to break ties when committees are divided equally. 
We have agreed that in the event of a tie vote, either leader can move 
to discharge a bill or nomination. The Senate will then debate the 
motion to discharge for four hours, and that time will be equally 
divided. There will then be a vote on the motion. If the motion passes, 
the bill or nomination would be placed on the calendar.
  Similarly, the resolution allows committee Chairs to discharge a 
subcommittee in the case of a tie vote and place the legislative item 
or nomination on the full committee agenda.
  We arrived at this process after much thinking and exchange of ideas. 
Senator Lott has been concerned that equal representation on the 
committees could lead to gridlock. While I do not share that concern, I 
believe this was a fair concession to get this agreement.
  As to cloture, the resolution provides that no cloture resolution 
shall be filed by either party except to end a debate, and in no case 
would cloture be filed before at least 12 hours of debate.
  This provision reflects concerns on our side of the aisle. We wanted 
to ensure that there would be an opportunity for debate before cloture 
was filed. Here, too, I believe Senator Lott and the Republicans have 
provided a fair compromise.
  The resolution provides that the majority leader shall retain his 
prerogative to obtain first right of recognition but that both leaders 
may be recognized, as is currently the case, to make motions to 
proceed; and in scheduling legislation on the floor, both leaders shall 
attempt to attain an equal balance of the interests of either of the 
two parties; and if either party achieves a true majority during the 
107th Congress, we would need to adopt a new organizing resolution.
  Senator Lott and I have discussed other ways to ensure bipartisanship 
in the Senate, from the right to offer amendments to the makeup of 
conference committees. We have pledged to work together to make the 
Senate operate in a fair and bipartisan manner, which I hope will 
enable us to demonstrate to the American people that their system of 
government is strong and sound.
  I have been asked what bipartisanship will mean in the 107th 
Congress. We cannot quantify bipartisanship. Bipartisanship is not a 
mathematical formula; it is a spirit. It is a way of working together 
that tolerates open debate. It recognizes principled compromise--such 
as today's historic agreement. Bipartisanship means respecting the 
right of each Senator to speak his or her mind and vote his or her 
conscience. It means recognizing that we must do business differently 
after an election that gave us a 50/50 Senate and almost an evenly 
divided House. Above all, it means putting the national interests above 
personal or party interests.
  Tomorrow, Congress will count the electoral ballots and officially 
recognize the results of the Presidential election. It is fitting that 
today we officially recognize the results of the Senate elections which 
gave us an even split between the parties.
  Today's agreement makes a big downpayment on the bipartisanship we

[[Page 79]]

owe our country. Democrats and Republicans made significant 
concessions, putting the national interest first and putting party 
aside. It is my hope and my expectation we are witnessing only the 
beginning of a cooperative and productive 107th Congress. This 
certainly sets a mark.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wouldn't say this is my preferred result, 
but I think it is a reasonable one with a serious dose of reality. We 
have work to do and we need to begin it now, not in a week or two or 
three or four. We need to conclude the assignment of our Members to the 
all important committees that will be having hearings on the nominees. 
We need to go forward with the confirmation hearings on the President's 
nominations to the Cabinet, not in 2 weeks or 3 weeks but right away, 
as soon as possible, as soon as the necessary paperwork has been 
completed and the schedule has been agreed to by the senior members of 
the committees.
  As soon as the Inauguration, we need to have in place a Secretary of 
the Treasury, a Secretary of State, a Secretary of Defense, perhaps a 
Secretary of Commerce--as many as we can get--so that this new 
administration will be ready to begin work the morning of Monday, 
January 22.
  More important than these rules agreements or the organization 
resolution and the hearings of the nominees is, what are we going to do 
with it? What are we going to do about the concerns of the American 
people? Will we be able to come together and do what needs to be done 
to improve the quality, availability, accountability, and safety of our 
schools in America? I think we can.
  But if we in this Chamber wrestle over finite details of the rules--
while they do make a difference, rules do affect substance--I think the 
American people will say: What is this talk of bipartisanship? Why 
aren't you coming together, agreeing on this, and moving to the agenda 
of education and dealing with the problems of our defense needs in 
America, dealing with the problem of readiness of the defense of our 
country, confronting the needs of our people on Medicare and what we 
are going to do about prescription drugs and Social Security reform?
  That was a big item in this campaign. To the credit of our President-
elect, George W. Bush, he had the courage to step up and say we need to 
take a look at this.
  The last discussion I had with the Senator from New York, Mr. Pat 
Moynihan, in this aisle was what we should do about reforming Social 
Security, how it could be done, and just with two or three actions, we 
could secure Social Security for 70 years. By the way, he also talked 
about how he believes there should be some opportunity for individuals 
to invest some of that money.
  Social Security, Medicare, prescription drugs, defense, education, 
tax relief for working Americans that keeps the economy growing--that 
is the agenda. We are going to have tough debates. We will have 
different approaches, but we will find a way to come together and get a 
result because the American people are expecting that of us--the 
Republicans, the Democrats, President George W. Bush, all of us.
  I would prefer to have a clear advantage on every committee and a 
clear advantage number-wise on everything. While that is preferable, it 
is not the reality. There are those in this Chamber who will not agree 
with me that we are going to support this resolution. There are those 
in this Chamber who probably will not agree with Senator Daschle that 
this is enough. Some will say it is too much; others will say it is not 
enough. Who is to say?
  The day may come when we will say: Well, yes, we didn't do that 
right; we didn't figure some of the things that might happen or the way 
the rules might be used or abused. If that happens, then we will have 
to deal with it. Senator Daschle and I will have to go to the Member on 
his side of the aisle or my side of the aisle and say: That is not in 
good faith. That is not what we intended. Or, when we make a mistake, 
change it. We have done that. One of the last actions we did this past 
session was to put back in place a rule dealing with scope coming out 
of conference that we changed a few years earlier. We finally realized 
it was not right, and we changed it.
  What we have here, as difficult as it may make life for us, as 
difficult as it may be for our committee members and our chairmen and 
ranking members to make this situation work, it is going to require 
additional work, but it can be done. It is going to force us to work 
together more than we have in the past. No doubt. I do not think that 
is bad. I think this is a framework for bipartisanship. There has been 
a lot of talk about that word, and I am sure there are some people in 
this city, in this Chamber, who smirk at that, laugh at that. People 
across America are saying: I have heard enough of that; let's get some 
results here.
  It is a framework to see if we really mean it. It can force us to 
live up to the truest and best meaning of that word--nonpartisanship, 
Americanship, that is what we ought to call it--to find a way to get to 
these issues.
  The President has repeatedly talked about how he is going to be a 
uniter, not a divider; he is going to reach out. Be conservative, yes; 
he was elected because he is, but he also is compassionate about it.
  The Government can be involved and be helpful in certain areas. It 
can be a big problem in a lot of others. I guess I am of the school 
that follows the latter part of that more than the former, but there 
are clearly some roles for the Federal Government. I do not have to 
list them--defense, national transportation, health care concerns in 
America. This is America. We cannot leave any child behind. We cannot 
leave any mother or grandmother unattended. We have to be in a position 
to do something about those situations.
  We should follow the President-elect. Shouldn't we follow him? He has 
laid down a marker. He has talked about coming together and getting 
results. Should we do no less?
  This is a classic case of extending the hand of friendship, of good 
faith. Will it lead to tremendous accomplishments or will that hand of 
friendship be bitten or the posterior kicked by one side or the other? 
It could, but we have to start from a position of good faith and reach 
out and say we are going to make this work.
  If it does not work, then the American people will see. If these 50/
50 committees do not function, then we can talk about obstructionism, 
and one way or the other, the American people will know who is trying 
to make it work and who is stalling it. If we come to this floor and 
have a debate on a tax bill and it passes this Senate by whatever 
number and does not get to conference or is tied up in conference or is 
killed in conference, do you think the American people are going to 
stand for that? I do not think so. We cannot let that happen.
  I have been here 28 years, in the House and Senate. I was here during 
the eighties. I watched Speaker Tip O'Neill. I had quite a relationship 
with him. On the floor, we fought like tigers. I even had his words 
taken down one time. He never uttered a word to me about that. He never 
held it against me. Privately, he could not have been any friendlier.
  In instance after instance, even though he controlled the Rules 
Committee, he had the power to stop the Reagan agenda. He did not do 
it. He would not do it. He said: No, this is the President. He was 
elected. He has a right to have his program considered and voted on. 
And the Speaker fought him like a tiger.
  I remember going to former Congressman--the Senator from Texas was 
there--Ralph Hall from Texas. I stood on the Democratic side of the 
aisle, and the Speaker came up and said: Ralph, you can't vote for this 
Reagan budget. I said to my friend, Ralph--actually, it was Sam Hall, 
not Ralph. Ralph Hall is a good man also.
  Mr. GRAMM. That was the deciding vote.
  Mr. LOTT. Sam, this is a chance where you can make a difference for 
history. We can control spending some,

[[Page 80]]

we can give the people a little tax relief in a way that will help the 
economy grow.
  He stood there with the two of us looking at him, took out his voting 
card, stuck it in the box, and voted for it. That required an act of 
courage. Did the Speaker get mad at him? Did the Speaker rough him up 
or punish him? No. He said: I am going to fight you, President Reagan, 
but as two good Irishmen, we will get together at the end of the day, 
we will have a good discussion, we will have a little fun, and we will 
talk about America.
  That is what is going to happen here. There will not be 
obstructionism. If there is, it will be clear who is doing it, if it is 
on our side, one way or the other, or on the other side. This is not a 
prescription for inaction. It could be a prescription for action beyond 
our wildest imaginations.
  We are going to talk a little bit more about what is in it. I will 
not go into all the details here. The resolution will be read. It is 
relatively short, relatively simple. In instance after instance, 
Senator Daschle and I discussed points, argued about points. When we 
could not come to agreement, we said we would deal with the rules as 
they are. So we got it down to what really matters.
  Yes, we are going to have 50/50 on the committees, but remember the 
Senate is 51/50, it is not 50/50. It is 51/50. The Constitution very 
clearly provides for this. Our forefathers were brilliant. They were 
brilliant. They could not have seen this exact situation, and while it 
is not unprecedented, it is rare that we have had these ties of 50/50, 
or in one instance I think it was 48/48, maybe one time 38/38. It has 
been relatively rare in 200 years, but they provided for this. It is in 
the Constitution. Senator Byrd carries his around. Mine is not quite as 
tattered as his, but I have referred to it quite a few times in my 
life.
  Article I, section 3:

       The Vice President of the United States shall be President 
     of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally 
     divided.

  That is the solution. If it is 50/50, the Vice President breaks the 
tie. It is equally divided. We will have a way to deal with it.
  My concern about doing 50/50 was: It just cannot work, Senator 
Daschle. If we are killing a nominee or a bill in the subcommittee or 
in the full committee, there has to be a way to have that matter 
considered by the full Senate. Do my colleagues think if we had a 
Supreme Court nominee killed on a tie vote in the Judiciary Committee 
that the American people would stand for that or that the full Senate 
would be satisfied with that? No.
  So we labored and we labored, and we tried a lot of different 
innovative ideas--some I suggested, some Senator Daschle suggested--and 
most or all of them were not liked by both caucuses. Neither side liked 
them.
  We finally came up with what I think is a further extrapolation of 
what the Constitution provides, and that is, if there is a tie by a 
unique procedure, a discharge petition, a superdischarge petition, if 
you want to call it that, a discharge action, the matter could be 
brought to the floor, debated, yes, but not blocked on a unanimous 
consent request, not filibustered, but to get it on the calendar, 
whether it is the Legislative or Executive Calendar. At that point, all 
the rules of the Senate apply. When we go forward from there, all 
rights and prerogatives are preserved. It could be filibustered.
  A lot of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, when I talked 
about what the rules already were, were shocked. Most people do not 
realize you can filibuster a Federal judge. Sure, you can filibuster. 
We had one last year the Democratic side filibustered, and then they 
said: Oops, we don't think that is a good idea; that is not something 
we want to start doing around here, and backed away from it. We did; 
they did. We are going to fix that. The rider is there.
  On bills, sure, you can filibuster the motion to proceed, you can 
object to this, that, or the other and filibuster the bill. Nothing has 
changed on that. It will still be protected. I think we should try to 
find a way to do less of that, less filling up of the tree, no filling 
up of the tree, if at all possible. I don't intend to make that a 
practice, and I want to make it clear, and I will clarify it even 
later.
  We should not have situations where we filibuster every bill and have 
to file cloture in every instance. We ought to have a full and fair 
debate on both sides and move on and have a vote. We can do that.
  Different times call for different actions. Last year is history. It 
was an election year. It was an unusual election year. It rendered an 
unusual result. What are we going to do with it? Are we going to make 
this Republic work and produce for the people or are we going to argue 
over part B of rule XII of the Senate? It is important; I do not 
diminish it at all, but I think the American people expect more of us 
than that. This resolution may haunt me, but it is fair, and it will 
allow us to go on with the people's business.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho sought recognition 
first, and I will allow him to be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will be brief. Others of our colleagues 
have come to the floor. The hour is late and snow is falling.
  We gather here today in the full recognition that elections have 
consequences. There is no question that the November election changed 
the character, the makeup of the Senate. We have heard now both of our 
leaders talk about the agonizing effort they have gone through for the 
last several weeks to understand the consequence in light of the rules 
of the Senate and the way we must govern in the coming months.
  I am not quite sure if we can yet determine whether the glass is half 
full or whether the glass is half empty, but we know that somewhere 
right about at the middle, it is divided, and that it is in that 
division we must work out our differences to govern. That is what our 
two leaders have attempted to do.
  The resolution before us this afternoon speaks to that line that we 
are attempting to draw and that we as Senators are attempting to 
understand.
  I could tell you what I believe the election meant, but I am not 
quite sure that my opinion is any more accurate than anyone else's.
  But I do know one thing that the American people will expect of us in 
the coming months. They will expect us to give a new President an 
opportunity to lead. They will expect us to allow a new President to 
form his Cabinet in the way he has chosen, for the purpose of 
developing that leadership and for the purpose of shaping his policies 
for us and the Nation, to evaluate and form those policies ultimately 
for us to be governed.
  We have a responsibility in the Senate. We are going to start 
hearings on those nominees to that new Cabinet in the very near future. 
I hope, in the atmosphere of bipartisanship, and the kind of 
cooperation we see here today, the hearings will be fair, the hearings 
will be probative, but, most importantly, that in the end it is not the 
choice of an obstructionist to deny a new President his opportunity to 
lead and, therefore, his opportunity to form a new Cabinet. That is 
part of what our leaders struggled over: How do we sift that out and 
create that kind of fairness in the process?
  Time will tell. And that is exactly what Leader Lott has just said. 
Some of us on our side are very hesitant at this moment. We have worked 
with the other side, but we have also seen an element of what we would 
call obstructionism over the course of the last year. But that was last 
year. Since that time, an election has passed. We are now in the 
business of shaping a new Congress, with a new administration, to 
accomplish new goals for the American people. I hope we can work 
cooperatively to accomplish that.
  Shall we live in interesting times? a Chinese proverb might say. I 
would say to whomever crafted that Chinese proverb, I have lived in 
enough interesting

[[Page 81]]

times. Two years ago at this time we were talking about the procedures 
of the Senate for trying the impeachment of a President--interesting 
times. Following the November election, our Constitution hung in the 
balance for 36 long days--interesting times, historic times. And now, 
in a very historic way, the Senate attempts to govern itself in a 50/50 
representation.
  For this Senator, enough history. Now let's get on with leading and 
governing for the sake of the American people and for this great 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln). The majority leader.

                          ____________________