[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 459-461]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION AND THE SENATE'S BUSINESS

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I was pleased to see the minority whip and 
our majority leader on the floor a few moments ago, as I was viewing 
the floor from my office, hoping that an organizational resolution had 
been completed, that negotiations that had been underway now for nearly 
2 weeks as to the organization of the Senate might bring us to a state 
where the Senate could begin to work.
  Obviously, the American people have spoken very loudly in the last 
several months about the need to get our work done as it relates to 
both the economy, the risk of war, and certainly the ongoing business 
of Government. And they spoke out loudly on November 5 as to who ought 
to be running the Senate. I think they would expect that transition, in 
a peaceful democratic system, would go smoothly and that we could be in 
the business of running the Senate. That simply has not happened to 
date.
  I served, at the privilege of the majority leader, as chairman of the 
Committee on Committees. My task was to call all the Senators and get 
them fitted into the new committee structure and to recommend that kind 
of shaping for the ongoing business of the 108th. That work was 
completed well over a week ago. The majority leader urged me to get it 
done as soon as possible after the first of the year. Why? Because of 
the history of the Senate, that most organizational resolutions that 
get our Senate working occur usually in the first week of January, so 
we can be immediately at the people's business, so we can be 
immediately examining budgets and spending resolutions, and begin the 
work of shaping a budget for our Government to operate.
  That simply has not happened. Why has it not happened?
  I think the best evaluation of it appeared in the Wall Street Journal 
editorial yesterday, called ``Daschle's Election Lesson.'' Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent that editorial be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 13, 2003]

                       Daschle's Election Lesson

       So much for the theory that Democrats lost the Senate in 
     November because they had obstructed President Bush's agenda. 
     Judging by Tom Daschle's behavior so far this year, the new 
     Senate minority leader has concluded that the lesson of their 
     drubbing is that Democrats weren't obstructionist enough.
       Only a week into the new Congress, the Daschle Democrats 
     are already in full-throated opposition, assailing every 
     White House idea and starting up the 2004 election campaign. 
     Mr. Daschle's response to the President's tax cut hasn't been 
     merely that it's wrong or helps ``the rich,'' but that it's 
     ``obscene.'' (Tom, what are you going to say when you really 
     don't like something?)
       Democrats are also already vowing to defeat Mr. Bush's 
     judicial nominees, even if it takes filibusters that let a 
     mere 41 Democrats define Senate ``advice and consent.'' 
     Yesterday Mr. Daschle said the renomination of Charles 
     Pickering Sr. ``lays bare the Administration's real position 
     on civil rights'' and ``exposes the Southern strategy 
     clearly.'' Ah, racial harmony.
       This same goodwill embrace is also being extended to new 
     GOP Majority Leader Bill Frist. Despite a bipartisan deal 
     last week to pass unemployment benefits by unanimous consent, 
     Democrats sandbagged Mr. Frist on the floor by demanding more 
     cash than the deal had called for. Hillary Clinton was seen 
     giving orders on this ambush on the Senate floor. While the 
     original deal ultimately passed, the vote was an omen of the 
     Democratic strategy.
       Which seems to be to use every opportunity to bollix up the 
     Senate works. That includes even delaying the handover of 
     their majority status. Every new Congress requires 
     ``organizing resolutions,'' but Democrats have threatened to 
     filibuster the Senate version unless they get virtually the 
     same committee and staff funding as the majority.
       Some of this haggling is understandable, but the demand for 
     50/50 funding is absurd. The historical split has typically 
     been two thirds/one-third regardless of the Senate breakdown. 
     Last Congress's division of 55/45 was the exception, because 
     it began with the parties split 50/50, and Democrats only got 
     to 51 midterm after Jim Jeffords defected to get a committee 
     chair. Republicans have now won an election, and Democrats 
     know the majority needs more funding because it has the duty 
     of actually running the Senate.
       Conveniently, any organizing delay allows Democrats to 
     continue as committee chairmen, slowing the Republican start. 
     Joe Lieberman, who is supposed to be the former chairman of 
     Governmental Affairs, sent out a notice saying that he'd 
     preside over this week's confirmation hearing for Tom Ridge, 
     nominated to run the new Homeland Security Department.
       This would mean a nice photo-op for the soon-to-be 
     Presidential candidate, but it's an insult to Maine 
     Republican Susan Collins, who should be running the 
     committee. The White House pulled Mr. Ridge at the last 
     minute to deny Mr. Lieberman his chance to knock the 
     Administration around, but this only delays Mr. Ridge's 
     ability to get on with the job.
       No doubt the Senate will organize, but the shenanigans 
     portend a nasty two years. Democrats are understandably sore 
     about losing their majority, but rather than undertake some 
     introspection they're jumping right back to the barricades. 
     They apparently figure they can obstruct Mr. Bush's agenda 
     and voters will blame Republicans who are supposed to be in 
     control.
       Maybe, but we seem to recall that's similar to the argument 
     they made last year. Max Cleland and Jean Carnahan can 
     testify from private life to how well it worked.

  Mr. CRAIG. What the editorial in the Wall Street Journal said was 
apparently the former majority leader had not learned a lesson, that in 
the obstructionist character by which he operated the Senate for the 
last 18 to 20 months--that lost him the majority in the Senate, that 
denied us a budget and 11 appropriations bills, that denied us Medicare 
and prescription drugs, that denied the American people a great many 
things that not only was the President promising but the Senate and the 
House were working under--he should have learned a lesson; that he 
should be here helping facilitate the process of helping this Senate to 
move forward.
  That has not happened. Why? I guess they don't realize they lost the 
majority; that somehow they are now in the minority, and it is the 
responsibility of them, in this Democratic process, to

[[Page 460]]

work with us to make our Government function appropriately. It has 
always happened that way in the past, but it isn't happening that way 
today.
  Over the last week, the negotiations, which I have not been a part of 
but certainly which have been reported to me, largely say: We want 
everything we had last year. But they were in the majority last year. 
Are they entitled to everything they had last year? No. There is a 
clear historic precedent that said the majority always got two-thirds 
of the funding to operate the committees and to cause this system of 
the Senate to function, and the minority got one-third.
  It changed during the 107th because of the 50-50 relationship. And 
certainly, when I was asked, I would say that in a relationship like we 
have today, 51-49, with 1 independent, we could be more flexible than 
just 66 or one-third, two-thirds. But to suggest that they have 
everything they had last year, in helping set the agenda of the Senate, 
if that is what their position is, then the tactics they used in the 
last Senate, that gave them the minority in the new Senate, are being 
employed once again.
  I know why they are doing it and why they think they can get away 
with it in this business, because it is inside ball, it is inside 
politics. The American public does not register with them. When we 
start talking about committee funding and staffing, that is of little 
interest to an American who is out of work, to a senior who is paying 
$400 or $500 a month for his or her prescription drugs. They want those 
problems solved and they want them solved now. And while, in many 
instances, we cannot move that quickly, it certainly is our 
responsibility to move.
  The Presiding Officer at this moment is the new chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee. He and his staff have been working for weeks 
to move the 11 appropriations bills that fund Government through this 
system, and it has not happened. Why? Because he has not been given the 
authority, even though he is in the majority, to do it. Why? Because 
the former majority leader, now the minority leader, has simply blocked 
it.
  The editorial I put in the Record from the Wall Street Journal, I 
thought, said it well in the closing paragraph:

       No doubt the Senate will organize--

and we will. And we may see that debate over a final resolution begin 
today--

     but the shenanigans--

some that I have just referred to--

     portend a nasty two years. Democrats are understandably sore 
     about losing their majority, but rather than undertake some 
     introspection they're jumping right back to the barricades. 
     They apparently figure they can obstruct Mr. Bush's agenda 
     and voters will blame Republicans who are supposed to be in 
     control.
       Maybe, but we seem to recall that's similar to the argument 
     they made last year.

  And then they go on to talk about certain Senators who lost their 
election. Maybe that message was not as obstructed from the American 
people as some of us might have believed it was.
  The Senate is not working today. And the reason the Senate isn't 
working is because the minority leader, the Democrat leader, is doing 
everything he can to block it from working. It is simple. It is 
straightforward. And I believe my comments are very honest.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. GREGG. I think the Senator is making an excellent point, and it 
goes beyond just the question of the operation of the Senate. It really 
goes to the constitutional form of government we have.
  We have a constitutional democracy in this country. One of the key 
elements of constitutional democracy is that after there is an election 
in which one party is succeeded by another party in power, that 
transfer of power occurs smoothly and seamlessly. That has been the 
tradition in this country for over 200 years. Yet now we see the other 
side of the aisle insisting on maintaining their chairmanships after 
they have lost the majority. That flies in the face of the concept of a 
constitutional form of government, does it not?
  Mr. CRAIG. I think the Senator from New Hampshire is straight on. 
What we are talking about is that peaceful transition of power, when 
you are no longer in the majority and it is the responsibility of the 
new majority to form a Congress, and that is what you do every 2 years 
with a new Congress.
  This is the 108th Congress that we are now forming. I think the point 
of the Senator is made, which is that the Democratic Party is now in 
the minority and are still holding chairmanships and therefore refusing 
to allow committees to function on the whole, and to allow the 
majority--now Republicans--to shape the committees, bring staff on 
board, and establish the agendas. And what is most critical at this 
moment is to finish the work that was left undone in the last Congress.
  The Senator from New Hampshire and I know, and certainly the Senator 
from Alaska who is in the chair at this moment knows, one of the single 
most important tasks we do every year is pass 13 appropriations bills 
to fund the Government. That is the budget of the U.S. Government. It 
is not just dollars and cents. It is policy--where you spend it, how 
you spend it, how much you spend, what it gets, programs that are 
discontinued, programs that are expanded. A budget is absolutely 
critical, and the funding of that budget is, in essence, the operations 
of the Government.
  Yet last year the Congress was not able to perform, not able to pass 
those 13 appropriations bills. Why? Because of this Senate denying the 
Congress the time and the opportunity to move forward to get that done. 
We had hoped we could come back in and, during the month of January, 
move expeditiously to complete those 11 appropriations bills left 
undone, get those policy messages and spending messages out to the 
agencies that are clearly affected so that Government would run as we 
are expected to ask it to run. Of course, that is really what is being 
denied at this moment by our inability to organize, the inability of 
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee--now presiding--to move 
forward. Yes, we have been working.
  Right now, we should not be debating an organizational resolution on 
the floor or hoping we can debate it; we ought to have the omnibus 
appropriations bill on the floor with those 11 bills in it. That is 
what the debate of the day and the work of this week ought to be.
  I hope the minority leader and the Democrats who serve in the Senate 
recognize that the game they play may be inside politics, but more and 
more of us are going to be talking outside the inside trying to reflect 
to the American people that, as the Wall Street Journal said, the 
shenanigans being played are to man the barricades and use 
obstructionist tactics to stop the Senate from moving and--I think the 
Senator from New Hampshire said it so clearly--in essence deny us the 
democratic process.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield further.
  Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. This is a significant point. We have had a number of 
extraordinarily enlightening discussions on this floor involving the 
history of the Senate and the history of the Senate in the context, for 
example, of the Roman Senate. If you look at the history of this Senate 
and at the history of legislative bodies similar to the Senate, when 
there has been a sliding away from the traditional transfer of power as 
a result of an election; when there has been a sliding away from that, 
that is when crisis has occurred. I know the Senator who was often 
giving us extraordinary statements and information on the issue of the 
Roman Senate, and he would probably have to concede that the Roman 
Senate--if I may refer to that body as the precursor of ours--really 
fell into disrepair and became a nonfunctional body when Caesar refused 
to abide by the Roman Senate and stepped on the authority of the Roman 
Senate and took away its authority and didn't acknowledge its elective 
role.
  The only time in our history when we have not had a transfer of power 
that has occurred as a result of an election,

[[Page 461]]

when the right of an election has been superseded, was in the Civil 
War, and there were extenuating circumstances for why that occurred. It 
occurred in the Maryland Legislature, to be specific. So this decision 
by the other side of the body to retain their chairmanships in the face 
of an election which has removed them from them, because the majority 
has shifted, sets a precedent which has immense impact, potentially, on 
the way this body functions as a reflection of a democratic government.
  So before the Democratic side of the aisle continues down this 
course, I think they need to think about what they are doing. Are they 
damaging the integrity of our process, of the elective process, by 
continuing to insist that they remain in power when they have lost 
power through the election? That is what this is about. They want to 
retain power even though they lost power through the elective process. 
I think the Senator has touched the issue rather effectively. I suppose 
it can be understated, but I don't think it is.
  Mr. CRAIG. Let me conclude because I see another colleague on the 
floor who wishes to speak. I am going to serve on the Judiciary 
Committee this year, along with several colleagues, for a lot of 
reasons, but primarily to move judges into our Federal court system 
that now lacks 150 seats. That third branch of Government isn't 
functioning largely because of the denial to move the President's 
nominees through in this past 18 to 20 months. We have seen that going 
on. Yet we are now being told that 41 Senators will filibuster, and 
that that simply won't happen if they don't get what they want.
  The role of the Senate and the Judiciary Committee in this instance 
fits well into that advise and consent role that we play with the 
executive. My colleague from New Hampshire was talking about 
constitutional authority and constitutional responsibility and the 
transition, if you will, in a democratic process. Our job is to advise 
and consent. Our job is to review the President's nominees, and I hope 
we can bring every one of them to the floor for an open-ended debate--
not to filibuster; that would be precedent-setting, but to have a 
debate and have an up-or-down vote. That is what the American people 
expect of us and they should demand it, and I hope the hue and cry from 
the hinterland becomes very loud in the next few months if the 
processes are denied simply by an obstructionist tactic of refusing to 
give up power when the electorate has spoken.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). The Senator 
from Alabama is recognized.

                          ____________________