[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 461-462]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I had the great honor of being elected 
by the people of Alabama to a second term this year. I traveled hard 
all over the State. I travel to every county every year in my State. I 
was out this past year talking with the American people and listening 
to what they had to say. I have a sense of what they are concerned 
about, what they want to see done, what they thought their vote meant.
  They were, I believe, tired of politics as usual, political logjams, 
obstructionism. They wanted us to move forward, work together, and put 
the interest of the United States and the people first. They think we 
focus too much on parties and political interests. Certainly, sometimes 
what may appear to individuals as a petty political party dispute 
really has significant policy impact for the country and the world, but 
the truth is that many times that is not so. Many times, the American 
people are correct that politics interferes and overcomes our 
responsibility to serve the people of the United States. Sometimes the 
debates we have here are indeed ``insider baseball,'' as some would 
say. It reveals personal pique, pride, and sometimes plain 
obstructionism.
  After the election, when the majority changed in the Senate, just 
ordinary people would grab my arm as I went about and they would say to 
me--and I have told others this, and they have said it in almost these 
same words--Jeff, maybe you can get something done now.
  I think the message of this election was the American people wanted 
us to get the work done. I believe that strongly.
  I was a Federal prosecutor for a number of years. I know the 
Presiding Officer has been a lawyer for a number of years. I remember 
the story--it has different versions--about a jury that had been out a 
couple of days. The judge was getting a little worried about them. He 
asked them how they were doing, and they reported: Fine, Your Honor, we 
just elected a foreman.
  How much time do we have to piddle around with organizing 
resolutions? The situation with which we are struggling today is 
critical. We must pass an organizing resolution for this Senate. It is 
important because nothing much is going to happen in this body until we 
do. New Senators cannot even be assigned to committees until this 
organizing resolution is adopted. We can do better.
  The Senate has been in session over a week. We still have not adopted 
the organizing resolution. The new majority leader, Senator Bill Frist 
from Tennessee, has a reputation of working across the aisle, of being 
able to bring together people with different views, and he is a good 
and nice person. He desires a bipartisan resolution that is fair to 
everyone, but I think it would be a mistake for Members of this body to 
believe that because he desires to be fair and he desires to reach 
across the aisle, he is just vulnerable to being pushed around; that 
they can insist no changes occur in their vision of how this body ought 
to be organized, and they will just sit back and refuse to let the 
business of the Senate go forward until that happens. I believe that is 
wrong.
  The majority leader is going to be open, but he will not capitulate 
and change the historic procedures that have guided the Senate over the 
years. Frankly, there is a reason on the financial end of this 
organizing resolution for the majority party to have additional 
resources. That reason is the majority has to chair the committees, and 
the chairman has to move the agenda of the committee. Not only does the 
chairman have to chair the committee, but each committee has 
subcommittees. Armed Services, of which I am a member, and Judiciary, 
of which I am a member, have four, five, six subcommittees, and each 
one of those subcommittees the last 2 years has been chaired by 
Democratic chairmen, as well as the chairman of the committee being 
Democratic. Now those subcommittees will be chaired by Republicans who 
have the burden of moving the legislation forward and moving an agenda 
forward.
  It is historic that the chairmen and the majority on the committees 
have had a higher degree of financial support than the minority.
  There is a lot of work for us to do. This last Congress, which I 
suggest raised obstructionism to a high art form, was a failure by any 
objective analysis. It is little wonder its failure led to a change in 
the majority in this body.
  For example, for the first time in nearly 30 years, we did not pass a 
budget. This was a signal failure that symbolized the ``my way or no 
way'' attitude of the past Congress leadership.
  We failed to pass a prescription drug plan. Why? Because the 
Democratic leadership insisted on a bill that would spend twice what we 
had budgeted the year before. We had budgeted $300 billion for a 
prescription drug plan. But, oh, no, it had to be twice that. Some 
suggested that had to do with politics. Some suggested there was a 
concern on behalf of the leadership--and I hope this is not true--that 
if a bill passed, the President would get credit and the Republicans 
would get credit, and they did not want them to get credit. I hope that 
is not true.
  I do know I was prepared to vote for a bill that even exceeded that 
$300 billion which would have created a prescription drug plan that had 
tripartisan support, but it never went forward to be passed.

[[Page 462]]

  Then there was the homeland security issue, really an amazing issue. 
The President of the United States, in response to an attack on the 
homeland of the United States and after careful evaluation, concluded 
we needed to reorganize our Government to get those departments and 
agencies that function to protect our homeland security together in one 
agency so they could work together in an effective way to be more 
efficient and more productive in protecting our homeland.
  It was a big deal. He proposed that resolution, and what happened? 
Some of our Government union friends--and I used to be a Government 
employee; I know and respect many of those members--wanted to use the 
homeland security bill as leverage to maneuver into the law provisions 
providing benefits to their workers that were not even in current law. 
When, in fact, we were trying to create an agency that was more like a 
military agency--with a higher degree of responsiveness required than 
the normal agencies--no, they wanted to make sure there were even 
greater protections than existed at the time for workers.
  The President said: What I need is flexibility, please, Senate. His 
bill passed the House. He said to the Senate: Please give me some 
flexibility; I have to move people; I have to be able to protect and 
defend the homeland of America. Don't tie this up by politics of 
special interest. He urged us not to do so. We debated and debated, and 
it was obstructed week after week, and then we took his case to the 
American people on election day, and the American people spoke. They 
said: We are tired of obstructionism. We want a bill. We want homeland 
security, and we want it now. A few weeks ago in December when we were 
in a lame-duck session, the homeland security bill passed quickly, and 
the leadership on the other side of the aisle capitulated to the 
changes the President wanted. It was a complete victory for the 
President because the American people spoke on that issue.
  Another one of the more amazing failures of this past Congress was 
our utter inability to pass the appropriations bills. This Government 
cannot function; no Government agency can spend a dime that has not 
been appropriated by the Congress. So each year we have a burden to do 
our jobs before the beginning of the fiscal year in October and pass 
appropriations bills. We work on that every year. Sometimes we do pass 
them on time, and sometimes we are a few weeks late and have to do a 
continuing resolution, but we normally get the appropriations bills 
done. Not this year. By October 1, we had not done our job. By the time 
we recessed and by the time the Senate reconvened in a lame-duck 
session in December, we still had not passed 11 of the 13 
appropriations bills necessary to organize this Government. And they 
still have not been passed.
  We need to be moving on those bills now. In fact, what we really need 
to be doing right now is preparing for the 2004 fiscal year that will 
begin in October. That is what we should be doing. But what are we 
doing? We are still working on those appropriations bills that did not 
pass last year. It is a historic failure because of the obstructive 
tactics that occurred in this Chamber. We should have done better. 
There is no excuse for that failure. But I really overstate the matter. 
We are not formally working on that now in any significant way because 
we do not even have committees. We do not have committees because the 
other side thinks just like they did with homeland security; that going 
forward and moving the agenda is so important they can demand and 
extract from Senator Frist concessions they would not otherwise get 
under these circumstances. I do not believe that is healthy.
  I hope Senator Frist will reach across the aisle and do what he can 
to accommodate legitimate concerns, but I do not think he should be 
pushed beyond what he thinks is right. I do not think he should be 
shoved around where he concedes things that are not part of the 
historic traditions of this Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I do not know if they have mules in 
South Carolina. I suspect they still do. I conclude by these remarks: 
It is said that one way to get the attention of a mule is a 2 by 4 
across the head.
  We had an election this past year, and I believe a critical part of 
that election dealt with the question of obstructionism in the Senate. 
The 2 by 4 has been delivered. I was proud to be sworn in, as I know 
the present occupant of the Chair was proud to be sworn in as the 
successor to Senator Strom Thurmond from South Carolina. There were 35 
Senators sworn in. Twenty-two of them were Republicans. That is a 
pretty good 2 by 4 against those who believe obstructionism is the 
proper tactic.
  Some on the other side think their lack of success in this election 
was not due to obstructionism. They think their lack of success was 
they were too cooperative, and they are being encouraged to fight even 
harder this time. If that is so, we are in for a long, difficult year, 
and that is why I am troubled by this extraordinary delay. It has gone 
on day after day, everybody thinking day after day it will be settled. 
It has not been settled yet.
  So are we going to now start a year of partisanship and 
obstructionism on every issue? I hope not. I believe we need to settle 
this matter now, and I want to be clear and say I think Senator Frist 
is doing everything possible to be fair and to work out this 
difficulty, and that once that is done we will move forward and we will 
have a successful Senate term.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

                          ____________________