[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 466-467]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I was listening with some amazement to the 
discussion last night and earlier today about the reorganization, who 
is to blame, and who has the interests of the American people at heart. 
I have been kind of astonished at the reworking of the present reality 
and the past history by my Republican colleagues.
  I am reminded that when I arrived at the Senate 2 years ago, I waited 
for 5 weeks to receive my committee assignments. We had, as others have 
said, a 50-50 split then, and the Republicans, because of the Vice 
President, had the majority. But it was unprecedented. So there was 
some reason for this delay. But then when Senator Jeffords moved over 
to caucus with our party in June of that year, I lost my committee 
assignments for the next 6 weeks while once again this agreement was 
negotiated.
  Contrary to what I have heard from others across the aisle, it is my 
understanding that an agreement was reached for when the Senate was 50-
50, and we had a provision that the agreement would end if and when the 
majority in the Senate moved to one side--not that it would remain the 
same for that entire session of Congress.
  I had no committee assignments for 6 weeks while this split of 51 to 
49 was being renegotiated, despite years of precedence and how we were 
told the Senate should be organized and how funds were distributed when 
the Senate was in clear majority by one side or another.
  Those who are today shedding crocodile tears for their colleagues who 
are denied committee assignments certainly were not at all visible 2 
years ago when I was waiting for those 6 weeks for my committee 
assignments to be reinstated.
  I don't propose that our side should act as irresponsibly as others 
did 2 years ago. In fact, I am told that many of the chairs and ranking 
members of the various committees, as they will be reestablished under 
Republican leadership, have already reached their agreement about how 
they are going to allocate funds--either 50-50 or 60-40--along the 
lines of what they agreed to 2 years ago. It seems to me that those who 
are able to behave responsibly have already come to their own 
agreements regarding their committees and what we are left with are 
those who are holding out with insistence that they are going to have 
their two-thirds share.
  I am reminded of my mother, when I was a child growing up with my 
brother and sisters, who said when we were squabbling over who was 
going to get this or that: Well, until you can work it out among 
yourselves, none of you will have it. It was amazing how, back then, it 
was possible for my brother and sisters at very young ages to work 
these things out, knowing that until we got it resolved, none of us 
could have what we wanted. So I think that would be a good admonition 
for my colleagues who are complaining today about the lack of 
organization.
  I am reminded also that when we arrived here a week ago, our new 
colleagues were sworn in and the next day the Republican caucus wanted 
to adjourn to have a conference. In fact, we on the Democrat side 
wanted to stay in session. Senator Clinton had an amendment to 
reinstate unemployment benefits for those who lost them in December. We 
asked for 30 minutes equally divided to debate that amendment and to 
have a vote. We were told we couldn't have that; there was not time. 
The Senate was adjourning to the next day so the Republican caucus 
could go out and have their conference.
  We came back on Thursday. The Republican leader--the majority leader, 
now acknowledged by everybody and recognized as representing the 
majority caucus, the Republican caucus--told us on Thursday afternoon 
that there would be no votes on Friday, no votes until Monday at 5 
o'clock. We had a long 4-day weekend and came back. I came back 
yesterday. I understood that we were going to have a hearing this 
morning--right at this hour, in fact--to confirm the nomination in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee of Governor Ridge as the new Secretary 
of the Department of Homeland Security.
  I met last week with Governor Ridge. I told him he had my support. I 
met with the Secretary of the Navy last week, Mr. England, who will be 
the Deputy Secretary. I said I hoped we would have a hearing this week 
on his nomination, as well, so we could pass that--I expect virtually 
unanimously, or if not unanimously, on a bipartisan basis.
  Yesterday afternoon, I was told that the committee meeting for today 
had been canceled--not by the Democrats, who were fully prepared to 
convene today, but by our Republican colleagues from each State who in 
turn would be asking questions of Governor Ridge. I cannot believe that 
any of us are going to have any objections to this outstanding American 
and public servant taking over this helm as rapidly as possible. He 
certainly has my full support.
  But the committee hearing was canceled, I suspect more for the fact 
that the present chairman has expressed over the weekend some ambitions 
of seeking the Presidency than anything else because, as I say, last 
week, when Governor Ridge and Secretary England came to my office to 
meet with me, they understood we were having a hearing this week--the 
Governor did--and certainly understood that the arrangement was as it 
was.
  Of even greater concern to me is the fact that we had a briefing on 
national security scheduled for this afternoon, a top secret briefing 
for Members of the Senate, with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the 
Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Deputy Secretary of 
State, about the international situation in Iraq and North Korea.
  We have been back a week. We have not had that briefing. I am a 
member of the Armed Services Committee. I have not had that briefing. 
At 2 o'clock this afternoon we were supposed to receive the 
information, of which we are certainly entitled as Members of this body 
in which the American people elected us to represent their interests, 
and that briefing was canceled. Whether by the administration or the 
majority leader, I do not know, but it was not canceled by the 
Democratic caucus, I can assure you.
  So when we talk about preventing this body from doing the business of

[[Page 467]]

the American people, representing the interests of the American people, 
I think those of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should 
look in the mirror.
  Frankly, for someone such as myself, and my position in seniority, 
this argument over funding for committees--two-thirds/one-third--gets 
to be a little bit surreal: Who should have a car, who should have a 
driver. I do not even have a car in Washington. I certainly do not have 
a driver. I get to work just fine every day.
  If the American people knew what one-third of this budget or 
committee actually was, I think they would be astonished that anybody 
could not operate effectively on one-third of what we are talking 
about. In fact, I would propose, if we are really concerned about the 
taxpayers, as we profess, we should establish a precedent of one-third 
of the committee budgets for the Republicans and one-third of the 
committee budgets for the Democrats, and give one-third back to the 
American taxpayers. Give it to some needy food shelves around the 
country. Let's establish that for the President to follow.
  Precedents get established and reestablished all the time. That would 
be a good one, to have the same funding for the Democrats and 
Republicans, regardless of who has the majority, and giving one-third 
back to the American people. And then let's proceed.
  I might also point out that the majority leader has also announced, 
even if we do have an organizational resolution this week, we are going 
to be in recess next week. In other words, we were in session last week 
for a couple days, and will be in session this week for a few days, and 
then we are going to go off for a week. Lots of us have ideas of what 
we are going to do back in our States around the country, but the fact 
is, as others have said, we have the people's business before us.
  I was delighted to see the Republican leader say that based on his 
priorities we would be dealing with prescription drug coverage for 
seniors in the very near future. I understood that was his first order 
of business, in fact. I thought that was just exactly the right 
priority for the American people.
  So I suggest to the majority leader that, given these delays, let's 
get this organizing resolution resolved and then let's stay in 
Washington next week. Let's do the business of the people. Let's not 
leave Washington. Let's not go away for a weekend. Let's not go away 
for a week. Let's stay here in session until we get passed prescription 
drug coverage for seniors. If he kept all of us to the task, denying us 
our recess until we completed the business of American senior citizens, 
I guarantee you we would have something done sooner rather than much 
later.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have the opportunity to 
finish my remarks with an additional 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, might I 
inquire as to how many additional minutes we are talking about?
  Mr. DAYTON. I have 5 more minutes approximately, I say to my 
colleague, and I would ask for an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. BENNETT. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DAYTON. I thank my colleague and the Chair.

                          ____________________