[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 470-473]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       CONTINUING OBSTRUCTIONISM

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, ordinarily I do not come to the Senate 
floor and involve myself in a lot of the issues that are going on at 
the leadership level, but I have to say I really am disappointed the 
leaders of the Democratic Party are continuing to obstruct the 
Republicans' effort to organize and to move forward with this Nation's 
agenda.
  In the last session, we could not even pass a budget. We have 
appropriations bills that are waiting to be acted on as we move into 
this new year. My hope is we could put aside our partisan differences 
and move quickly forward with these pressing issues, deal with the 
people's business. After we finish the unfinished business of the last 
Congress, and after the State of the Union address, then we could go 
ahead and begin to move forward with the business of this new year.
  Historically in the Senate, the majority party has moved ahead very 
quickly on the organizing resolution. It has been a standard process 
where two-thirds of the funding goes to the majority party and a third 
to the minority party.
  I was interested in the reference by my colleague from Utah who 
mentioned there was an e-mail floating around, which he quoted, that 
this was actually a planned effort by the Democratic party to obstruct 
the agenda. I have been informed there have been previous e-mails that 
if the Democrat party had been in control in the Senate, they were 
planning to push the two-thirds/one-third breakout on funding because 
that has been the tradition of the Senate year after year; that is what 
has happened, the majority party has had the two-thirds and the 
minority party has been one-third.
  Now we find the majority party has tried to use last year's abnormal 
type of session--there was nothing normal about last year's session we 
can use as a standard for moving forward from this point on, but the 
fact is historically this has been a rather standard process. I hope we 
can put aside this type of partisan bickering that does not have 
anything to do with the people's business and move forward with what 
historically we have done in the Senate.
  Last year, Congress started with Republican control, then went back 
to the Democrat Party because a Republican changed parties--went from a 
Republican to an Independent. And then after this election, 
technically, we could have been back in the majority again--after the 
vote in Missouri. It was decided we would hold that aside and just move 
forward with this year's agenda.
  As we enter the second week of a new year, the second week of the 
108th Congress, the business of the Senate is once again seeing 
obstructionist politics blocking the Nation's business and our work 
from moving forward, getting something accomplished. I don't see any 
legitimate reason for this delay.
  The Senate, over its many years, has abided by the clear precedent I 
referred to earlier, with an organizing resolution quickly agreed upon, 
and then we move forward with our routine business each year. Now we 
have the Democrats wanting to change the world since they did not get 
their way in November.
  I had one of the more contested races in the Nation, in Colorado. It 
is clear to me the people of Colorado are disappointed that we did not 
pass a budget last year; that we did not get our work done in the last 
Congress.
  I don't think anyone wins with obstructionist politics. The big 
losers are the citizens of this country. We are not able to address 
their problems and move forward with real solutions. The people of the 
United States made clear whom they chose to lead the Senate. It was the 
same argument all over the country as in my race. Yet the minority 
party refuses to step aside and let the duly elected party move 
forward. We have a clear majority in this Congress to deal with the 
business of the people and the business of the country. They refuse to 
relinquish the power the people of the United States said they no 
longer wished them to hold.
  We face challenging times in our Nation. Grave threats against our 
national security continue to damage economic confidence. Spending 
bills that should have been approved last year are still pending. That 
is right, 11 spending bills that provide funding for parks and research 
failed, under the leadership of the Democrats, to proceed. And they are 
not passing now because of the Democrats' persistence in obstructionist 
politics. Last year, for the first time in decades, we did not even 
pass a budget. Yet the Democrats still want to control.
  I stand by our newly elected Majority Leader Frist and the people of 
the United States. Let our work proceed. Let the will of the people 
stand victorious and let the continuing resolution move forward 
according to the

[[Page 471]]

clear precedent that we have in the Senate.
  Newspapers across the Nation continue to report that the 
obstructionist politics of the Democrats have delayed the confirmation 
hearing of Tom Ridge, the President's choice to run the new Department 
of Homeland Security. My question is, Do my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle truly believe the people of the United States would 
rather see obstruction than move forward with the Department of 
Homeland Security, with the effort to try to restore economic growth in 
this country, to finish the unfinished business we had left over from 
the last Congress because of obstruction politics?
  The New York Times reported that until Senators adopt a so-called 
organizing resolution, committee chairmanships will rest with the 
Democrats despite the November elections that gave Republicans a 1-vote 
majority. The impasse creates delays in the Senate business, not only 
of Mr. Ridge's confirmation but also the confirmation of John Snow as 
Treasury Secretary, as well as consideration of the appropriations 
bills left over from last year. In addition, the 11 freshman Senators 
cannot receive their committee assignments until the dispute is 
settled. Obstructionist politics of the 107th Congress continue: No 
committee assignments, no chairmen; newly elected Members of the Senate 
remain without the right to participate in discussions because of heavy 
obstructionism.
  In my view, we must end the stalemate and get back to work. I come to 
the floor to reemphasize how important it is that we move forward and 
get the Senate's business accomplished.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry: Are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Are we allowed 10 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
a situation that is evolving with reference to who is going to run the 
Senate and who are going to be chairmen of committees and how are we 
going to pay our staffs. I don't think the American people understand 
this debate, so we ought to explain it quite a few times.
  The election occurred. There has been a lot of talk in the country 
about what happened. The conclusion was: Republicans won the Senate.
  Now I will go back in time to the day that the distinguished Senator 
from Vermont formally decided to leave this side of the aisle and 
become independent and was ready to vote with that side of the aisle, 
giving them a 1-vote majority. Before that day was up, the gavels were 
handed to the Democrats to run the committees. So as I had been 
chairman of the Budget Committee, I was no more. And Kent Conrad, who 
had not been chairman, was chairman. So if any meetings were called or 
hearings held, the agenda was prepared by him, not me.
  Now we win an election, we come into session, we convene the Senate, 
and guess what: Democrats maintain they are still entitled to run the 
committees. I believe this borders on nonsense, but to the Democrats it 
must mean something. Perhaps they think they win elections by delaying 
what we do, by not letting us do work. Last time, they did that, we got 
nothing done, and they lost. Maybe we should do nothing and stay in 
this stalemate. Maybe we will win and they will lose again. But we 
don't think that way. We think we ought to get on with the business 
that is not yet done from last year.
  Remember, we were not running things last year. I am not casting 
aspersions, but they ran the Senate and we got nothing done. As a 
matter of fact, we had 11 appropriations bills that we will be debating 
perhaps for weeks that were last year's appropriations bills. They are 
not finished. The year started out when that gavel was switched from 
Domenici to Conrad and he became chairman. The Democrats never produced 
a budget resolution last year either.
  Again, some people do not want Senators from this side of the aisle 
to lay blame on anyone, but a budget resolution was not passed and it 
is supposed to be. The answer that was given was: We do not have the 
votes; or: It is too hard. I passed a lot of them. We did not have the 
votes, and they were too hard, and yet I got them done because that was 
my job.
  I am not saying every Senator who is chairman of the Budget Committee 
should produce a budget. I am saying it should have been done last 
year. And then we probably would have completed our appropriations 
bills. We probably would have gotten the appropriations bills done. Now 
we do not have them, 11 of them, and the other side of the aisle is 
waiting for something to happen other than the election, which we won, 
to give us the gavel so we can start to work at the Senate. Frankly, I 
know people are probably saying: You can't be telling us the truth. 
This can't be the case.
  It is the case. It is the case. I am chairman of the Energy Committee 
now. I have been told if I want to call a meeting, I am not chairman. 
But I am chairman. Certainly the Democrat is not chairman. They say 
they are, I guess, because we have not passed a resolution saying how 
we are going to pay the committees. Frankly, that is another issue, how 
much do we allot to the Democrats and how much to the Republicans to 
run these committees. Frankly, I didn't think, having a brand new 
majority leader, the first thing that would be given to him to solve is 
this issue. I thought we would see him down here helping us get the 
appropriations bills finished and get on with what we think we were 
asked to do by the American people in the last election.
  I think they were unhappy, at least enough to swing the election, 
because the other side of the aisle delayed incessantly the passage of 
the homeland security bill--incessantly. In fact, I should have asked 
how many days that bill was delayed on the floor and in committee 
because certain Senators on that side of the aisle did not like it the 
way it was. That is their prerogative. They wanted to delay it. That is 
their prerogative. They succeeded in delaying it. But we succeeded, 
with the help of a Democrat Senator who suggested to his own people: Is 
there a higher calling than the security of our country, even if it is 
a special interest bill? Ask the Senator from that side of the aisle. 
That spread like wildfire. That is why a couple of Senators on that 
side of the aisle lost: Delay, delay, special interests on the homeland 
bill. We barely got it finished. But we didn't get appropriations 
finished.
  Do you know what that means? If the American people understood what 
that means, more telegrams and whatever they send to us would be here 
on the laps of the Senators than you could ever imagine. It means 
literally we have not funded education, roads, all of the bills on HUD, 
on defense, on nuclear bombs, nuclear programs--defense we have done; 
all the others we have not. We have not passed the annual 
appropriations bills. They are operating at last year's funding levels. 
What they got was for 1 year. We said we didn't get our work done so 
just operate the same way you did last year. That is why some money is 
not being spent on education, because it has not been appropriated. 
They have not been allocated the new moneys. Up and down the 
appropriations bills, that is the mess we are in. And we sit here and 
argue about how many dollars are we going to give to the staff on the 
Democrat side of the Energy Committee and how much to the staff of the 
Republicans on the Energy Committee? I cite that because I happen to 
chair that committee.
  All I know, fellow Senators, is that in all of modern history, 
whichever party was ahead--by one vote or 10 votes or 12 votes or two 
votes--that is, however many more Senators elected on their side, they 
got two-thirds of the money for staff. And the side that had a 
minority--whether it was a three-vote minority, a six-vote minority, a 
10-vote minority, which we were

[[Page 472]]

in sometimes--we were in an 18-vote minority sometimes--the minority 
got one-third, the majority got two-thirds.
  This year we are one vote ahead. It seems to me the rule has been 
that the party that is in the majority gets two-thirds, the other one-
third. I don't think the rule said: but only if you are ahead by five 
votes, if you have five more Senators. What if it were two? Would that 
be enough to apply the rule? It has been six, it has been eight. But 
now it is one, but one doesn't work? It's not a majority?
  Because when we were even--remember, we were even at one time. We 
thought we should be running the Senate because the Vice President gave 
us an extra vote. It didn't work out that way. We had to concede. And 
we split the money 50-50, or at least we said we will not force a 
reduction.
  To me, the dollars involved in that are important, but clearly not as 
important as doing the public's business. They are not as important as 
recognizing they lost and we won, and we ought to be in control. We 
ought to be chairmen. Clearly, our leader is the majority leader. He is 
not the ``maybe majority leader''. If you call a meeting to have a 
serious hearing tomorrow or the next day, whoever the Republican on 
that committee who has been designated by the Republicans as chairman, 
is chairman.
  Why we sit here and let the appropriations for all of our Government 
languish while we argue this issue is beyond this Senator. I truly 
believe the Democrats are not going to win by this tactic. I urge them 
to get this resolved. The American people do not want them delaying 
this. They want us getting on with work together. They don't want us 
bickering. But how can you not have an argument when the facts are what 
I have just said? Apparently, unless they get the same amount of money 
as we had agreed upon when we were not in the majority, they believe 
they are not going to let us run the business of the Senate.
  I think it can be worked out. It should be two-thirds/one-third, just 
as it was through all of history, but at least we ought to work it out 
some way--60-40? Some way, so we can get on with our work. One hundred 
Senators, many new ones, are here ready to get on with their work. How 
surprised they must be, the new ones, ready to go to work and here we 
are, arguing about who is entitled to the gavel. I don't know if all 
those new Senators thought that was what their work was about, but here 
we are.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before the Senator departs, we have had 
the privilege of sitting next to each other for some period of time 
right there in the Senate. I, of course, admire him as one of the elder 
statesmen and pillars of this institution. I think, if people were 
asked what are the hallmarks because of which we have such strong 
admiration for the Senator from New Mexico, it would be because of his 
ability to reach across the aisle and work as he has always done these 
many years in the Senate.
  So I listened carefully to what my colleague had to say. It was not 
easy for you to say some of the remarks you did. You feel strongly 
about it, as do I. Here we are with a new Republican leader and we just 
want the work of the institution to go on, on behalf of the people of 
this Nation who entrusted to us the awesome power that resides in this 
Senate--the institution regarded as perhaps the most powerful 
legislative body, not only just here in the United States in comparison 
to the legislatures of our States, but, indeed, the world.
  I thank my friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the majority has 
expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for 1 additional minute.
  Mr. WARNER. Would the Chair advise the Senate with regard to the 
parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for morning business was to be 
equally divided. The minority party has 41 minutes left. The majority 
party's time has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. I see. I do not at this time know--I'm not entirely sure 
how we say majority or minority here in this situation.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That's right.
  Mr. WARNER. I do not see where there is someone from the other side 
of the aisle seeking recognition, so the Senator from Virginia would 
ask for 7 minutes to proceed as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what is the 
time allocation? The Democrats were allotted equal time with the 
Republicans. What is the time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 40 minutes remaining. The 
time for the majority party has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We were asking for a few minutes because the Senator 
was not here. He was going to use some time.
  Mr. WARNER. Then, Mr. President, I will put again before the Chair 
the request on behalf of the Senator from Virginia to proceed as in 
morning business for, say, 6 minutes?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to agree to that. Forty minutes takes us until 
12:30, when the time is up.
  What I ask is that the time be extended past 12:30 for the Democrats 
by the 5 or 6 minutes, if that is what the Senator wants.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I am sorry, I simply did not hear.
  Mr. REID. I have no objection to that. I only ask the time from 12:30 
to whatever time the Senator takes, 7 minutes or whatever it is, be 
given to the Democrats so that would be until approximately 12:40.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Nevada.
  I thought I would bring to this series of comments some experience I 
have been privileged to have in this institution. I mark a quarter of a 
century of service beginning this week in which I have been privileged 
to serve the people of Virginia and the people of the United States in 
this venerable institution. I just draw on some of my own experience, 
particularly as it relates to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Currently, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, my very good 
friend, Mr. Levin, remains as chairman of the committee. We are 
actively carrying forward the work of the committee irrespective of 
some of the difficulties we are facing on the floor as it relates to 
other matters. But that is the way Chairman Levin and I have operated 
through our years since we came together. Both of us mark a quarter of 
a century of service beginning this week in the Senate.
  I am very respectful of the distinguished majority leader, Senator 
Frist, Senator Daschle, and the respective whips in their efforts to 
try to negotiate a resolution to this unique situation--unique in some 
respects but in other respects I feel that elections are held in 
America and the results are announced to the people of our Nation. I 
know of no contest going on with regard to any of the 100 Senate seats, 
and most particularly those of the class who were just elected, or 
reelected in my case to a fifth term in the Senate. I don't know of any 
contest anywhere in the States in this Nation but such contest as this 
which most unfortunately remains here in this Chamber.
  But this is the way that I have conducted myself and as others have 
conducted themselves in these 25 years that I have been here as it 
relates to the Committee on Armed Services.
  I suppose if I were to say what some of the great lessons are that I 
have had as a Senator it would have been my service with men--and in 
some instances several women but most particularly the men--on the 
Armed Services Committee. I say women because when I was Secretary of 
the Navy I appeared before Margaret Chase Smith of Maine, an absolutely 
brilliant Senator and stalwart member of the Armed Services Committee. 
But Senator Stennis was chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, who followed in the tradition of Richard Russell. I really 
stood in awe to testify before Russell when I was Secretary of the Navy

[[Page 473]]

at the time I knew him in that period of time. When I joined the 
committee, Senator Stennis really took me under his wing and just sort 
of treated me almost like an adopted younger brother. It was a 
marvelous experience. He gave me a variety of special assignments when 
I first came to the Senate to serve him and the other members of the 
committee.
  Another Senator on the committee at that time was Scoop Jackson of 
the State of Washington. For those few of us here in the Chamber who 
had the opportunity to serve with him, he touched our lives very 
deeply.
  These men not only carefully operated under the rules of the Senate, 
but there was so much tradition and unwritten sort of rules of the 
Senate that they conveyed to us.
  Following Stennis, Senators Gore and John Tower; and then my longtime 
valued friend, Senator Nunn--I served as ranking on the committee under 
Senator Nunn as I do now under Carl Levin.
  But I thought I would go back and just describe how we handled the 
transition when Senator Jeffords made his decision, which decision was 
an incalculable blow to the Republicans who served with him in this 
institution because there had never really been a precedent at any time 
when the change of power in the Senate shifted other than by elections. 
It was unprecedented.
  But on May 24, the declaration of independence statement was made by 
Senator Jeffords. And from May 26 to June 3, the Senate was in recess. 
On June 5, 2001, Senator John Warner, acting as chairman, presided over 
an Armed Services Committee nominating hearing. At the close of the 
business on June 5, the Democrats became the majority party in the 
Senate when Senator Jeffords switched formally his party affiliation 
from Republican to Independent. On June 6, Senator Carl Levin was 
designated chairman of the Committee of Armed Services. On June 7, 
Senator Levin, as chairman, presided over the Armed Services Committee 
nominating hearing and other business of the committee.
  There it is. I had waited some 20 years through this procession of 
seniority. Then we have an election process in our conference. I became 
chairman and served in that 2-year period--some 18 months, whatever it 
worked out to be--after 20-some-odd years of training and preparation 
to take on that awesome responsibility. In less than 24 hours, I stood 
up as I was trained as a military man and handed the gavel to Senator 
Levin, and the business of the committee went on.
  That is sort of the transition, and that is the sort of spirit we 
have in that great committee on which I serve. We try to keep to a very 
minimum questions of partisanship because we have the responsibility 
for the men and women of the Armed Forces and, indeed, the security 
policies in terms of oversight of this Nation. We take that 
responsibility very seriously. As such, I am proud to say that I think 
Senator Levin and I have continued the traditions of those men who we 
deem great, great chairmen of this committee.
  I hope this casts some light on the negotiations that are being 
undertaken on our behalf by the leadership because I certainly value 
it. We took our blow when Senator Jeffords made his switch. But I think 
to the man and to the woman on this side of the aisle we did it, and we 
did it swiftly and in recognizing that the leadership in this Nation 
should never be in doubt.
  If I could just reminisce on one story that I remember so well. I was 
working on the staff of the Vice President of the United States, 
Richard Nixon. I was traveling with him in 1960--as we call it, an 
``advance man.'' I had the last assignment of taking him to California 
that night when the nationwide election was held. The following morning 
I made the arrangements to convey the Vice President back to 
Washington. The election was still not fully decided in the minds of a 
number of people, primarily because of the celebrated block of votes in 
Chicago allegedly under the control of the then-mayor, the father of 
the current mayor, Richard Daley. But, in any event, we proceeded to 
the airport. I put the Vice President's plane on the end of the runway 
because we wanted to try to remove ourselves as much as possible from 
the clamor of the press watching the final results of that election 
unfold.
  There was a mechanic who had come out to make certain the plane was 
operative before we departed. We loaded all the staff. I then escorted 
the Vice President and Mrs. Nixon out, and one or two of his senior 
associates. The mechanic had a small radio that was blaring about these 
10,000 votes. I watched the Vice President at that time instruct one of 
his aides to call in and say that he would not contest those votes 
because at no time did he feel there should ever be a doubt in the 
minds of the American people or in the minds of the world of the 
ability of the elections of this country to decide the change of power.
  Right there at the end of that airstrip when that decision was made, 
it was conveyed back to President Eisenhower, and that was it. That 
night, we came back to Washington and he formally conceded that 
election. I think that is an interesting precedent.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the minority has until 12:40; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

                          ____________________