[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 477-484]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           MAKING MAJORITY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to share some memories with my 
colleagues. As I watched what is going on in this body, I was trying to 
think of something. I have seen this before. It is sort of a deja vu 
all over again. I was thinking back to maybe 14 or 15 years ago when my 
son was playing T-ball. You remember T-ball? That is the kids' game.
  The kindergarteners played T-ball. They had a lot of fun. But in one 
game we had a problem because after the other side was out, they had 
their outs and they were finished, they wouldn't put down their bats 
and go out in the field. They didn't want to play the game. They 
thought that once they had been at bat they were going to stay at bat, 
even though their side was out and it was time for them to leave.
  The more I thought about it, the more I thought maybe that is what is 
happening in the Senate today. We had an election and the people of 
America sent some new Republicans, a new Democrat or two, to 
Washington, and they established a 51-to-48-plus-1 majority. I mean, 51 
is more than 48. It is more than 48 plus 1. It seems to me it would be 
common math, it would be reasonable politics, it would be just common 
civility, to say once you have a majority and the people of America 
have voted for members of the Republican Party to be the leadership, to 
be the majority party in the Senate, it ought to move forward.
  All the time I have been here, once we have had an election we have 
shifted power, if there has been a shift in power. A year and a half 
ago when one of our Members switched and we lost the majority, I handed 
over the gavel immediately to my ranking member and she became the 
Chair. That is because this is a democracy. That is how this is 
supposed to work. We are supposed to have reasonable rules.
  But today I am reminded of that T-ball game when the side that was 
out, they had lost but wouldn't put down their bats and go out in the 
field. Guess what. The game can't go on. Everybody is a loser.
  This is not a T-ball game. This is time to handle the business of 
this Nation. The people of America voted for us. They voted for 
Republicans and Democrats. They voted for House Members and Senate 
Members because they expected us to come to Washington and be serious 
about doing the people's business.
  One of the defining marks of democracies in the modern day is that 
there is a peaceful transition of power. The winners take over and 
lead. The losers relinquish their leadership and join in the 
governmental efforts. That is the rule in democracies throughout the 
world.
  Here is the U.S. Senate sticking out like a sore thumb, an exception 
to the principle that when there is an election and there is a change 
of power, the winning side takes over. This is truly regrettable when 
we have so much business to be done. We have all the business that did 
not get done last year. Unfortunately, I believe the leadership last 
year would not let us go to a budget.
  They wouldn't let us pass appropriations bills. As a result, we are 
now funding 11 of the 13 appropriations bills for the jurisdictional 
functions of the Federal Government based on a continuing resolution. 
Things have changed. We need more money for these functions. We need to 
pass appropriations bills. We are ready to move on appropriations 
bills, but we can't set up a committee. We can't get the committee set 
up until we pass a resolution and find out who is on the committee.
  This is a serious failure to live up to our responsibility, to do the 
work the people of America have a right to expect us to do. The longer 
we wait, the more difficult the appropriations process is going to be, 
and the more difficult it will be for us to do this year's work, which 
is to do the 2004 appropriations bills.
  There are a lot of things we really shouldn't even have to bother 
with on the floor. The T-ball team is not just keeping the bats. They 
are saying some of our people who have assumed new leadership positions 
can't even get into leadership offices.

[[Page 478]]

  This is a new day. This is 2003. There was an election in November of 
2002. The people in the United States by their votes said you as 
Republicans should move forward. We can't do that. We can't do that 
until we get cooperation.
  This is a body that operates on common decency, respect, and 
civility. It works on unanimous consent. Obviously, we can't get 
unanimous consent. We haven't so far. There are a lot of arguments in 
the negotiations. But the fact is we need to get on to the people's 
business. I can tell you, I know our majority leader, Bill Frist. He is 
a man who is more than willing to make decent provisions for the 
minority, and he will do that. But nothing we say is good enough. We 
can't move forward in this circumstance.
  I think that is a real tragedy. We have a lot of work to do this 
year. We need to confirm judges to make sure our judiciary works. We 
need to pass an energy bill. We are looking at possible hostilities in 
the Middle East where we face potentially a cutoff of some of our 
supply of petroleum. What are we going to do about it? We haven't had 
an energy policy for 9 or 10 years. Our energy policy bill last year 
was blocked. This year wouldn't it be nice if we allowed the Energy 
Committee to work on a bipartisan basis and report a bill out to the 
floor, then vote on it, send it over to the House, work in conference, 
and bring it back to vote it up or down? We ought to be doing that. But 
we haven't done that.
  There are some who suggest maybe the Democratic Party lost the 
election because they were obstructionist. I happen to think that is 
true. I happen to think that was one of the most telling arguments in 
campaigns in which I participated. People of America don't want to see 
obstruction, roadblocks, and red tape. There are others who say, Well, 
maybe the Democrats lost because they weren't confrontational enough 
and they weren't obstructionist. It looks like those people have won 
the day, or at least they are calling the shots. I believe many of my 
Democratic colleagues would feel the way I do. They know the election 
is over. They know we have some very important work to do this year. We 
have to do the basic appropriations to get the Government operating and 
to fund programs. We need to do an energy bill. We have to do a highway 
bill this year.
  If you are worried about where we are going to get stimulus, as some 
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, we need stimulus 
to make sure we have a highway bill that continues funding of the 
vitally important construction on our Nation's highways. That is one of 
the most important bills we are going to have to pass this year. But we 
can't do it when we can't even get the Senate organized.
  I am very discouraged. I am very discouraged that we have run into 
this problem. I hope the people who are listening or watching back home 
will call, write, or e-mail. I guess you can't write anymore. You can't 
write us here. You can write to our offices in our States, call, and 
send faxes and messages, and tell those of us who are in the Senate it 
is time for us to get to work.
  All of last year I waited to bring an appropriations bill to the 
floor under the good leadership of my colleague and friend who was 
chairman at the time. I am still waiting to bring an appropriations 
bill to the floor. It is a bipartisan bill. It is one we have worked 
on. We will work on it together, and it will be a bill which we hope 
reflects the interests of people on both sides of this aisle. But we 
can't do it until the other side lets us move forward.
  A lot of people do not understand the Senate is a deliberative body. 
It requires unanimous consent. Most of the time I have been here, we 
have been a deliberative and decent body. We are a decent body, and we 
will move forward. But now we have become the world's greatest dilatory 
body. We can't get anything moving until the other side lets us.
  We need a stimulus bill. I will address that later.
  I think the President has put forth a good plan to help families. A 
typical family of four with two wage earners with a combined income of 
$39,000 would receive a total of $1,100 in tax relief. The Council of 
Economic Advisers said the plan would create 2.1 million jobs over the 
next 3 years.
  As one who has spent a lot of time since I have been here working for 
small business, I can tell you this is a bill small business needs. We 
in the Small Business Committee have long urged an increase in the 
amount of expenses a small business can do from $25,000 to $75,000. So 
the smallest of the small businesses under $300,000-plus revenue can 
write off immediately and they don't have to go through depreciation 
and write off against immediate income capital expenditures up to 
$75,000.
  Second, by bringing the reduction in individual rates forward, you 
are benefiting small business. Twenty-three million small businesses 
are taxed as individuals. They are set up either as proprietorships, 
partnerships, or subchapter S corporations. So those 23 million small 
businesses are taxed at the individual rate. Putting this money back 
into their pockets will give them the money to hire workers, to invest 
and to expand and grow their business.
  That is an argument for the day when we actually can get to work in 
the Senate and we can have committees. God bless the committee system. 
Have them work and have them put out bills. They have to put them out 
on a bipartisan basis. We will bring them to the floor, and we will 
debate them and discuss them and work on them on a bipartisan basis. 
Unfortunately and regrettably, that can't happen until this gridlock is 
broken.
  I call upon my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to recognize 
the tremendous needs. These are more compelling needs than in previous 
years because we didn't get our work done last year. Let us get over 
this gridlock--this deadlock. Let us get going with the business of the 
Senate.
  I urge all our colleagues to come together and work on this. I hope 
we can do so.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment my friend and 
colleague from Missouri for his statement. I wish to make a few 
additional comments as well.
  This is my 23rd year in the Senate. Every 2 years we have passed an 
organizing resolution within a couple of days of the House and the 
Senate reconvening--almost always on the first or second day; always 
within a week. Every 2 years for the last 20-some years we have done 
that within a couple of days. This year we haven't because our friends 
and colleagues on the Democrat side have objected. I am embarrassed by 
their objection. The resolution the majority leader introduced is 
basically pro forma. It should have been done on the first day. It 
recognizes the newly elected Senators and the committees on which they 
have chosen to serve. It also recognizes the new chairmanships as a 
result of the elections.
  That is only appropriate. It is only proper. It is only fitting. It 
is normal course. It is standard practice. And it should have been done 
by unanimous consent, without any objection.
  It has happened every year I have been in the Senate--or every other 
year. We do it at the beginning of every new Congress. But this year, 
for whatever reason, our colleagues on the Democrat side decided to 
object. They indicated they would filibuster. I urge them not to. I 
urge them to keep in mind we do serve and are privileged to serve in 
probably the greatest deliberative, elected body in the history of the 
world. Senator Byrd may come over and talk about the Roman Senate, but 
certainly this rivals the Roman Senate. But this is not our finest 
hour.
  If the Democrats are saying, wait a minute, we are going to insist on 
maintaining chairmanship of the committees, they are really refuting 
the elected will of the people which they made clear last November.
  In my term in the Senate, there has been a change in leadership and a 
change in committees done automatically, within a couple of days. It 
happened in 1981, as a result of the 1980

[[Page 479]]

elections. It happened in 1987, as a result of the 1986 elections. It 
happened in 1995, as a result of the 1994 elections. It happened in the 
year 2000, as a result of the Senator Jeffords switch. And it happened 
immediately. There was no prolonged debate on this side, saying: Wait a 
minute. This is not fair. As a matter of fact, gavels were handed over.
  So it is almost as if the minority party or the Democrat Party said: 
Wait a minute. We don't want to be in the minority so we are going to 
delay process indefinitely. I just read an e-mail that basically said 
that. It said: We will continue to chair.
  I am or will be the new chairman of the Budget Committee. I scheduled 
a hearing with Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to 
testify today. I had to postpone that because of this embarrassment. I 
am embarrassed for the Senate. I love this institution. And to see our 
colleagues on the other side denigrate the reputation of the Senate, by 
falsely trying to assume that they maintain chairmanships of these 
committees, is ridiculous.
  So I urge my colleagues--I see the assistant Democrat leader and 
whip. I urge my colleagues: Enough. Let's think of the institution. 
Let's think of the Senate. Let's think of the traditions of the Senate. 
Let's think of regular order in the Senate. Let's think of the 
reputation of the Senate and not fall down into this kind of partisan 
ploy to obstruct.
  And now I have read a letter that said: Well, we don't want to get 
this solved until we get a certain ratio of money. You are going to get 
plenty of money for committees. I think everybody knows that. Or maybe: 
We don't want to do this until we have an agreement on square footage 
in each office space. That is ridiculous. Those negotiations usually 
take months.
  Or now I see a letter that says: Well, we don't want to have an 
organizational resolution until we have an agreement on the 
confirmation of judges and how many will be taken up at what time. That 
is, again, totally ridiculous, totally out of line, totally contrary to 
the great traditions of the Senate.
  We are all, I think, proud to serve in the Senate, but this is 
denigrating to the Senate. We need to think of the reputation of the 
Senate. We need to show other countries, which have struggling 
democracies, that you can have a transition of power, and it can move 
very seamlessly and very smoothly and very appropriately, and not have 
something such as this lingering. What kind of example is this to set 
for other countries that have aspirations for democracy to see this 
kind of episode?
  This is not our finest hour. This is an embarrassment. So I implore 
our colleagues, for the sake of the Senate, for the institution in 
which we have the pleasure and privilege to serve, for the 
Constitution, that we should work together, that we should have a 
smooth, seamless transition of power within our body, within our 
committees, and let's work together.
  This is not a good start. The tradition of the Senate is, when we 
come back from election time, and we come back from Christmas break, 
and holidays, that we are in a good spirit, and that we shake hands, 
and that we put elections behind us and say we are going to work 
together for the good of the country. And, oh, yes, maybe in the second 
year, at some point--late in the second year--we will start worrying 
about elections.
  Now it seems as if people are more worried about the elections. We 
have everybody announcing they are running for President, and 
Presidential elections are starting 2 years in advance. And the Senate 
is already somewhat in a quagmire, not even operating because some 
people think: Well, maybe we will be better off if we just obstruct. We 
will not even let the committees organize. And I read that in an e-
mail.
  That is not the way to run the Senate. That is not the way to serve 
in the Senate. So again, I implore upon my friends--and I have many 
friends on the Democrat side--let's think of what is right for the 
institution, for this body, for democracy as a whole, and let's work 
together.
  We have a lot of unfinished business to do. Maybe people do not want 
to do it, but we have 11 out of 13 appropriations bills that have not 
been passed from last year. We are already in fiscal year 2003. We have 
already finished 3 months of fiscal year 2003. We need to finish those 
appropriations bills. We need to have those amounts fixed so we can 
base that for the 2004 budget.
  We have a lot of work to do. We have international threats, certainly 
in Iraq, possibly in Korea. We have a war on terrorism. We have a lot 
of work to do that is far more important than partisan gamesmanship. We 
need to think of what is important for our country. We ought to at 
least have a grace period where we put partisanship aside and where we 
work together for the good of the country.
  I urge my colleagues, let's do what the tradition of the Senate has 
always done; let's reorganize now. Let's do it without objection. Let's 
work together. Let's finish some of our unfinished business. And let's 
work together to tackle some of the real critical problems we have 
confronting our country today.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to, before the Senator leaves, quote 
the Senator, make a couple comments, and maybe have the Senator respond 
to a question. Would that be permissible to the Senator from Oklahoma?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Oklahoma yield the 
floor?
  Mr. NICKLES. I have not yielded the floor. I would be happy to yield 
the floor.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma and I have had the 
good fortune, at least from my perspective, of working together on a 
number of items while we have served together in the Senate. We had 
served together on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee 
for a number of years. I think we did some good things for the 
institutions, both the Senate and the House. I enjoyed and have 
appreciated working with him. We also worked on the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee and, I think, did some good things for the 
country.
  So the only reason I say this is that I have great respect and 
admiration for the distinguished senior Senator from Oklahoma. I have 
very rarely known him to speak anything that was not factual, but I 
would like to just bring one thing to the Senator's attention today 
that really was not factual.
  This is not a direct quote but pretty close: Within a couple of days 
after an election there's always been a reorganization to take place--
words to that effect. My friend said he was embarrassed because there 
has not been one that has followed this tradition during the 108th 
Congress.
  I say to my friend, I know you have a good memory, so this must be 
something that you forgot, because during the 107th Congress, when we 
became the majority party, it took us 6 weeks to organize.
  Now, I do not think that Senator Frist----
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. NICKLES. That would be what year?
  Mr. REID. The year 2001.
  Mr. NICKLES. Correct me if I am wrong, but at what date did we pass a 
resolution announcing the chairmanships of the committees?
  Mr. REID. Six weeks after Senator Jeffords changed parties.
  Mr. NICKLES. No. Correct me if I am wrong, but in January of 2001, we 
passed a resolution quickly, announcing who would be committee chairs.
  Mr. REID. I don't really know that. We had a lot of negotiations 
because it was a very unique situation. We had 50-50, of which the only 
time that happened previously, that I am aware of, was in 1880.
  Mr. NICKLES. I did not serve in 1880. But I still believe that early 
in January we passed a resolution announcing who the committee chairs 
were. And I also believe--correct me if I am wrong;

[[Page 480]]

and I am happy to be corrected--after Senator Jeffords switched, we had 
an automatic transition of who was to be committee chairmen, and I 
believe that happened in June of 2001.
  Mr. REID. From the time he switched to the time we, in effect, were 
able to go forward on the basis of the new majority, it took 6 weeks.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield, again, I think he announced 
he was switching, but I think he delayed it until we passed the tax 
bill. As a matter of fact, if memory serves me correctly--and I am 
stretching it--I believe Senator Jeffords announced his intentions to 
switch, and some of us tried hard to dissuade him from that. I believe 
he also said his switch would not be effective until after we passed 
President Bush's tax bill, which took a few weeks, which we did pass; 
and I believe shortly after the conclusion of passing that bill, he did 
announce his affiliation as an Independent but his alignment with 
Democrats; and I believe--I may well be corrected--shortly after that, 
not when he announced his intention, but after he announced he would do 
that, after we passed the tax bill, there was a transition of power 
almost immediately in all the committees.
  In the Jeffords case, it was a little different because that wasn't 
an election, that was a switch, and that was not as a result of 
elections, that was a unique scenario. This is not a unique scenario. 
We have had 108 Congresses, and every Congress, until now, to my 
knowledge, after convening at the beginning of the Congress, has 
elected its chairmanships and assigned committee members. We have 10 
new Senators--11, if you count Senator Lautenberg who haven't even been 
formally assigned to committees. I was scheduled to have a hearing with 
Chairman Greenspan. I will have seven new members on the committee, and 
we could not have them sit in on that hearing. How absurd is that?
  I urge my colleague--I will refresh my memory on the Jeffords case, 
but let us work together. This is so unlike the tradition of the 
Senate. I see my colleague from Maryland here who I know has a love for 
this institution. This is denigrating to this institution and sending a 
terrible signal to those other countries that have fledgling 
democracies, to say, wait a minute, there was an election and a change 
in power but the Democrats are not relinquishing that power.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator from Nevada yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to.
  Mr. SARBANES. Since my colleague from Oklahoma is drawing me into 
this matter.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will withhold for a moment, I would like to 
respond to the statements made by the Senator from Oklahoma.
  First of all, I agree; I think it would be tremendous if we could 
have this reorganization resolution passed 20 minutes from now. But it 
is more than chairmen appointing members to committees. I think 
turnabout is fair play. As Senator Durbin said, the golden rule should 
apply here, and that is that we have the same status as when the Senate 
was 51-49 Democrats. It is now 51-49 Republicans. We will take the deal 
that we gave them, the same deal. We want the same makeup as when we 
were 51.
  I agree that we should do something about appropriations bills. I 
agree that we should not have Presidential campaigns as long as they 
are. But the issue before the Senate is not that. The issue is, why 
can't we have the same rules that were in effect 3 months ago in effect 
today? Simply because the roles are reversed and we have a new 
majority, that doesn't mean the new minority has to take a lot less.
  I yield to my friend from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding that what is holding up the 
organizing resolution is a difference in the course of organizing, how 
we allocate resources, and that all this side of the aisle is seeking, 
now that it is in the minority, is that we be treated the same way the 
other side of the aisle was treated in the last Congress when they went 
into the minority; is that not correct?
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Maryland is absolutely correct. This 
matter could be resolved, as I indicated a few minutes ago, in 10 
minutes. The only thing we want is the same rule that applied when the 
Senate was 51-49 Democrats.
  Mr. SARBANES. In other words, all we are seeking is that the majority 
now accord us as a minority the same treatment that we accorded to them 
when they were in the minority and we were the majority. That seems to 
me an eminently reasonable and fair thing to be seeking. I cannot, for 
the life of me, understand why we cannot quickly reach an understanding 
on that basis and move the organizing resolution.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I respond to my friend because here is what 
they have done. They have a resolution before the Senate now that says 
what we want to do is appoint chairmen and members of the committees 
and we will leave the rest to further negotiations.
  The Senator from Maryland is much more experienced than I. But the 
Senator from Maryland and I both know that if the chairmen and members 
are placed on the committees, this is all over with and the committees 
will wind up with far less resources and the ranking members will not 
be treated as we treated theirs. It will be a totally different ball 
game. We want to have the same ball game and the same rules as were 
applied when we were in the majority. That seems fair.
  Mr. SARBANES. I say to the Senator, my understanding is that we have 
treated the organizing resolution as encompassing the allocation of 
resources in the past.
  Mr. NICKLES. No, we have not.
  Mr. SARBANES. We certainly did so in the 107th Congress. In the 107th 
Congress, when it came to that question and we became the majority, we 
accorded, I think, a very fair and eminently reasonable treatment to 
the minority, and that is all we are seeking in the current 
circumstance. I don't understand what the problem is or the difficulty 
in accepting that arrangement. That is what I don't understand.
  Mr. REID. I will also interrupt and say this to my friend: One of the 
reasons this is going on--and we kind of beat around the bush and dance 
around it--the majority had a really serious problem after the 
election; that is, they were having trouble finding out who was going 
to be the Republican leader. Prior to Senator Lott stepping down, 
Senator Daschle and Senator Lott had a number of communications and 
conversations and meetings as to how they would proceed. That took 
weeks and weeks after Senator Lott gave the speech we all know about 
now, and just recently they chose a new leader. It has put us behind. 
It is not our fault.
  All we want is to be treated exactly the same--not one iota 
differently--as we treated them; that is, let's use the last 18 months 
during the 107th Congress as the model for how we should be treated 
today.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to the Senator without losing my right 
to the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding that there was, in a sense, a 
delay on the Republican side in terms of choosing their leader and then 
being in a position to discuss these issues with our leader, Senator 
Daschle. I have not raised the issue about that being a factor in the 
delay, but obviously it is part of the matter. But now that that has 
been resolved, it seems to me we ought to be able to reach a fairly 
quick agreement here if we simply abide by the concept of reciprocal 
treatment.
  It seems to me that we tried very hard in the last Congress to be 
fair about this. I think we were fair and eminently reasonable. It 
seems to me a fair and eminently reasonable request now that the same 
treatment be accorded to us in the minority that we accorded to the 
minority in the last Congress. If we could accept what I think is an 
almost elementary principle, this matter could be settled, and could it 
not be settled in very short order?
  Mr. REID. In a matter of minutes. The resolution before the body 
today

[[Page 481]]

makes the appointments for Republican members of the committees. That 
is all it does. It doesn't take into consideration all the other things 
that make this complicated body function, which is through the 
committee system. As anybody reading the basic text of how the Senate 
works knows, we operate through the committee system. We are not a 
committee of the whole. We work through committees.
  We have tried to establish fairness in the distribution of resources 
and certainly membership on the committees. When there is such a close 
division between the majority and minority, one of which was caused by 
the death of Senator Paul Wellstone--he was killed, unfortunately--as a 
result of the very closeness of the Senate, 51 to 49, which it was just 
last year, why shouldn't we have the same rules dealing with committees 
now as we did then? That is the whole point.
  I am happy to yield to my friend. I have the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yielded to my colleague.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will be happy to give him the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator would.
  Mr. REID. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I have a couple comments. One, I am going 
to be very strict when people start engaging in dialog and not going 
through the Chair. The Senate is a great institution. It is not a 
little chat club. I am warning my colleagues, they should go through 
the Chair.
  To say that when we do a Senate reorganizing resolution, we are 
supposed to solve staffing allocations, room allocations, and now blue-
slip policies on appellate court judges, that is absurd. It has never 
been done.
  In the last Congress, after the Jeffords switch, there was a 
reorganizing resolution. It did mention staff, and it should not have.
  Mr. REID. Should or should not?
  Mr. NICKLES. Should not have. That was the breaking of a precedent in 
every Congress of never mentioning the funding resolution.
  Mr. President, 1977 was the first time funding was ever raised, and I 
do not believe it was part of the reorganizing resolution. It did say 
the minority should get one-third.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. I will not yield.
  Mr. SARBANES. Just for a question.
  Mr. NICKLES. I will not yield. My point being, the tradition of the 
Senate has always been to adopt a resolution announcing the individuals 
serving on committees and that this person or that person will be 
chairman of a committee. That has always been the tradition of the 
Senate.
  We broke tradition last year, and it was a terrible precedent to set 
because now if we are going to do a reorganization now, we have to 
negotiate wages, staff allotment, space allotment, and now people are 
trying to bring in blue slips. They are trying to drag in all kinds of 
issues so basically they can obstruct the Senate. That is absurd.
  Let's pass the resolution as we have done for the last 200-some years 
in the Senate, and say: Here is the organizing resolution; here are the 
committees on which you will serve.
  I have been in the Senate for 22 years, and that is what we have done 
in at least 21 out of the 22 years, and I would venture to say we did 
it 22 out of 22 years. The aberration being in the middle of last year 
after the Jeffords switch in 2001. I believe that was a mistake. 
Obviously, it was a mistake because we can have the Senate tied up in 
knots for weeks discussing all kinds of trivial issues that, frankly, 
should be decided by the Rules Committee, not by the Senate, not by 
reorganization.
  Reorganization is assigning individuals as chairmen and new members 
of a committee so they can serve on their committees; so we can staff 
the committees; so we can have hearings; so we can have Chairman 
Greenspan today; so we can have hearings on nominees; so we can get our 
work done; so the chairman of the Appropriations Committee can bring 
forward the unfinished business; so we can move on and discuss space 
allotment.
  We can discuss staff allotment, and we can discuss blue-slip policy 
in committees which have their work cut out to work on those issues. It 
should not be in a reorganization resolution. That was a mistake last 
year, in my opinion. It was the first time we did it, I believe--this 
is now my 23rd year--for 22 years we always adopted a resolution that 
said: Here are the committees.
  Now people are trying to put on more bells and whistles: Before we do 
committees, we have to get this. That is absurd. That is designed to 
fail. That is designed to obstruct. That is designed to say: We are not 
going to let you chair this committee unless you give us our way on 
blue-slip policy. Now we are going to give Senators vetoes on circuit 
court appellate judges which we have never had? It is a case of maybe 
the minority not wanting to relinquish their majority or wanting to 
pretend they are the majority just to obstruct the majority that is 
trying to get some work done. It is really indefensible.
  Again, I implore my colleagues who love this institution, let's work 
together. Let's adopt this reorganizing resolution. It does exactly 
what my colleague from Nevada said. It says: Here are the committee 
chairs; here are the members of the committees. The minority needs to 
adopt the same resolution: Here are the members of the committees. Then 
let's go to work.
  The funding issue is not that big an issue. It is very close to being 
solved. The space allotment is not that big of an issue. It is close to 
being resolved. But it should not be resolved as part of this 
resolution.
  This resolution says who will be committee chairs, and we should 
adopt it today. There is a lot of serious work that needs to be done. 
Let the Rules Committee do its work. That is what the Rules Committee 
is for, to divvy up space and work on allotments.
  I worked with my colleague from Nevada, and I am very interested in 
being fair on space and being fair on committee allotments, but that 
should not be done now. What should be done now is to adopt this 
resolution so we can have a confirmation hearing on the nominee for 
Treasury Secretary and so we can have a hearing on the nominee for the 
Department of Homeland Security, so we can have Chairman Greenspan 
testify before the Committee on the Budget about the economy so we can 
move our Nation's business forward, so we can take up the 
appropriations bills and try to get caught up on some of the work on 
which we are behind.
  It is absurd to tie it to getting this and that; we did it last year. 
Last year was unique, and maybe we did not solve it right. Let's look 
back at the tradition of the Senate and at all those struggling 
democracies around the world. They look to us with great pride. When 
they visit the United States, they love to come to the Senate. They 
want to see a functioning democracy.
  In my years in the Senate, we changed power, we changed chairmen 
several times and always did it smoothly and seamlessly, but this year 
we are not, and that is not a very good example for us to set.
  I urge my colleagues, let's step back a little bit. Let's move off 
this partisan excitement in which people are engaged, and together 
solve some of these other problems behind closed doors, as we usually 
do, in a way that is satisfactory to all. We can do that. To say we are 
going to filibuster this resolution and you can never be chair until we 
do such and such--frankly, I find it demeaning to the Senate. I do not 
want to say that. I do not want it to happen. I love this institution, 
and this situation is denigrating to this great institution. I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I listened with great care to my 
colleague from Oklahoma, and I certainly agree with his point about 
seeking to sustain, maintain, and enhance the institution of the 
Senate. But I say to my colleague from Oklahoma, I am going to be the 
ranking member now of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
Committee. That is a consequence of the elections that took place in 
November, and I recognize that. But our

[[Page 482]]

ability to do our job in the committee is closely related to receiving 
adequate resources and staff resources with which to carry out our 
responsibilities.
  Unfortunately, that issue has been put in some question. I do not 
quite know why this has happened, although I understand there are some 
on the other side who want to really do a very radical shift from the 
allocations in the previous Congress when the margins were so close. Of 
course, that has created a lot of concern and apprehension about the 
ability then of the minority to meet and carry out its 
responsibilities.
  I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we cannot in short order 
reach an agreement that would be encompassed in this organizing 
resolution that the allocation of resources to what is now the minority 
would parallel the allocation that was made by this side of the aisle 
when it was a majority to the Republican minority in the last Congress.
  I do not understand what the difficulty is with that position. Of 
course, the fact that there seems to be some difficulty only increases 
the degree of concern in terms of what lies in wait.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SARBANES. And only reaffirms what is perceived as a need to work 
this matter out in the course of organizing for the 108th Congress.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a comment?
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield for a question without losing my right to the 
floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. I do not want to get into the funding because I do not 
believe it belongs in this resolution, but my understanding is that the 
offer the majority leader has made is that the committee is going to be 
held whole, that the amount of staff money for the Banking Committee 
would still be there for the next Congress, so there would not be a 
radical shift; there would be ample funds. I wanted to make sure the 
Senator was aware of that.
  I ask the Senator if he is aware of the fact, not counting the last 
Congress, that in every Congress going all the way back to 1993, 
Banking traditionally had a two-thirds/one-third, but the majority 
leader is not talking about going back to two-thirds/one-third; he is 
basically talking about giving the same amount of money that was 
allocated last year.
  Mr. SARBANES. Let me say to my colleague, as a consequence of what 
occurred in the 107th Congress and the very close divisions that took 
place, and indeed the assertion by what was then the Republican 
minority of the necessity of protecting their staff positions, we 
developed a new understanding with respect to the allocation of 
resources, something that many Members have been arguing for over a 
number of years. So the position that is being advocated by this side 
is simply reciprocity on the basis of what was done in the 107th 
Congress.
  In fact, I ask my distinguished assistant leader, am I correct that 
what is now being sought by the minority is reciprocity in terms of 
being treated in the 108th Congress as we treated the minority in the 
107th Congress? Is that correct?
  Mr. REID. The Senator is absolutely factually correct.
  I further say to my friend from Maryland that my friend from Oklahoma 
talks about blue slips. We just attended almost a 2-hour conference and 
there was no decision made that this would be part of the organizing 
resolution. There is an issue going on about leadership space, but that 
has nothing to do with this organizational resolution.
  So in answer to my friend, all this stuff about blue slips and space 
has nothing to do with the organizational resolution. All we want is to 
be treated the same way we treated the minority when we were in the 
majority--simple, direct, factual.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield for a question.
  Mr. GREGG. Is it not true that the resolution before the Senate has 
nothing to do with money either; that it simply deals with the 
appointment of Members to the committees and the chairmanships of those 
committees?
  Mr. SARBANES. That is what the resolution is, and that is the basis 
of the complaint. It is our assertion that the organizing resolution 
ought to at least encompass the allocation of staff resources and that 
the minority now should receive a treatment on that issue comparable to 
and paralleling what the other side of the aisle received when they 
were in the minority in the 107th Congress.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
  Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.
  Mr. GREGG. Is it not true that the resolution, as brought forth by 
the majority leader, is consistent with all the resolutions that have 
been brought forward in the last 10 Congresses relative to the language 
in that resolution specifically applying only to the membership of the 
committee?
  Mr. SARBANES. It is not consistent with the resolutions brought 
forward in the 107th Congress when we first encountered this very close 
division between the two sides of the aisle.
  Second of all, even if it is inconsistent, it seems to me, given what 
we are hearing in terms of what at least some Members on the other 
side--not all of its Members, as I understand it, but what some of its 
Members intend to do in terms of staff allocation, it seems to me 
perfectly reasonable, since our ability to carry out our 
responsibilities as a minority is closely related to that question, for 
us to seek an understanding and an agreement right at the outset on 
that very important issue.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further 
question?
  Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.
  Mr. GREGG. Is it not only the tradition but the legally appropriate 
action that in a constitutional democracy, where there are two major 
parties, when a majority takes control of a body within that 
constitutional democracy, the committees be chaired by the majority 
party?
  Mr. SARBANES. Under our constitutional system, we recognize the rule 
of the majority but we protect the rights of the minority. That is a 
fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution, and indeed it has been 
a fundamental principle in the operations of our various institutions 
under the Constitution.
  No one is arguing the proposition of who will become chairman of the 
committees, I recognize that, but we are asserting that in the course 
of making that decision, we need to make also the decision with respect 
to the allocation of resources for staff, which is an important 
dimension of both the majority and the minority being able to discharge 
their responsibilities in the operations of this institution.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield for a question.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Maryland raises a most important issue. 
When I speak to townhall meetings and especially when I speak to 
government classes--high school, even elementary school, and college 
classes--whenever I am asked about the Constitution, I always say what 
my friend from Maryland said--that the Constitution was not written to 
protect the majority; the Constitution of the United States was written 
to protect the minority. The majority can always protect itself. Rules, 
regulations, and laws that flow from this little document are so 
devised to protect the minority, and that is what this is all about.
  That is why I felt so at ease during the last Congress--because we 
protected the minority; we did not run over the minority. In fact, 
their resources were allocated almost identically to what ours were 
because the Senate was divided 51 to 49. As the Senator from Maryland 
has said several times today, that is all we want. We want to make sure 
that the resources are allocated just like they were in the last 
Congress.
  Mr. SARBANES. In fact, when the Senator from Oklahoma was speaking, 
he was making the point how people would come from other countries, 
particularly fledgling democracies, to see the Congress of the United 
States, particularly the Senate, and how we wanted them to draw the 
right lessons from

[[Page 483]]

seeing the Senate. One of the most important lessons they need to draw 
in the fledgling democracies is the necessity of respecting the rights 
of the minority. In instance after instance, they have been prepared to 
exercise the majority rule but they are unwilling in these emerging 
democracies to accord proper respect to the minorities within them 
which, of course, are also an essential part of making a democracy 
work. That essentially is all we are seeking to do in this instance.
  I repeat what I said before. For the life of me, I cannot understand 
why we cannot reach agreement in short order since what this side of 
the aisle is seeking is simply reciprocity, seeking to be treated now 
as the minority the way we were willing to treat the other side when 
they were in the minority in the last Congress.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
  Mr. SARBANES. I will yield for a further question.
  Mr. GREGG. It will be the last one. I agree with the purposes of 
protecting the minority. That obviously is one of the core elements of 
our structure of government. My question is this: Under a 
constitutional government that has a two-party system, when there is an 
election, is it not appropriate and, in fact, an obligation of a 
majority which loses its majority to turn over the chairmanships of the 
committees which operate that government and operate that house to the 
party which has taken the majority? And is it not the sole purpose of 
this resolution to accomplish that goal, to establish the committees, 
and thereby establish the majority party as having the chairmen of 
those committees? And why is the minority not respecting this 
understanding of our form of government? Why deny the ability of people 
who assume the chairmanships of the committees as majority Members of 
the party?
  Mr. SARBANES. It is very simple. We think the compass within the 
organizing resolution would be an assurance of what is now the minority 
in terms of the allocation of resources so we will be able to meet our 
responsibilities. We are not asserting the majority will not assume the 
chairmanships of the committees. Obviously they will do so. In fact, I 
stood out here a little while ago and said I recognize now I was on my 
way to being the ranking member instead of the chairman of the Banking, 
Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.
  We are simply saying, and it goes right to the point the Senator 
raised about the workings of the institution, part and parcel workings 
of the institution is to include within the organizing resolution an 
understanding with respect to the allocations, particularly since 
Members of the majority--not all Members, but some Members of the 
majority--have been very outspoken in asserting a position that would 
significantly deny to the minority adequate resources to meet its 
responsibility and which is directly counter and in marked conflict 
with the way the majority was treated in the last Congress when they 
were a minority.
  Mr. GREGG. Would the Senator state to me, at this time is the Senator 
the ranking member of the Banking Committee or is the Senator the 
Chairman of the Banking Committee?
  Mr. SARBANES. At the moment I am still the chairman because we have 
not passed the organizing resolution. I am quite happy to pass an 
organizing resolution which will make me the ranking member, but I want 
that organizing resolution to contain in it an understanding with 
respect to the allocation of resources so I can be certain we will be 
able to meet our responsibilities; furthermore, an allocation of 
resources comparable to what is now the majority received in the 
previous Congress when they were a minority.
  I don't understand why the other side of the aisle will not accord to 
us now the same treatment, the same fairness, and the same equity which 
they received in the previous Congress. Why won't you do that? I ask 
that question. Why won't they do that? If they were to do that, we 
could conclude an organizing resolution in very short order.
  In fact, I ask our assistant leader, is it not the case if we were 
able to receive the same treatment on this allocation of resources 
issue we extended in the last Congress when we were the majority, that 
we would be able to wrap up the organizing resolution in short order?
  Mr. REID. Ten or 15 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield for one last question, the 
Senator from Maryland has now declared himself the chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield, I didn't declare myself; it 
is still the operating premise since we have not passed a new 
organizing resolution.
  Mr. GREGG. Is the Senator from Maryland in the majority party in this 
body?
  Mr. SARBANES. I am no longer in the majority party, but the 
organizing resolution to reflect that fact has not yet been passed.
  Mr. GREGG. You made my point.
  Mr. SARBANES. I have been careful in the committee not to exercise 
authorities as chairman.
  But I repeat my question that goes to fairness and equity. I cannot 
for the life of me understand why what is now the majority in this body 
will not extend to the minority the same treatment we were prepared to 
extend when we were the majority and the other side was in the minority 
in the 107th Congress. That is all we are seeking--reciprocity. If we 
could obtain that, we could conclude this organizing resolution in 
short order.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I wish to make a few observations after 
listening to this debate.
  When I came to the Senate and watched procedures and arguments, I 
came fairly quickly to the conclusion I never wanted to become 
accustomed to the way people think in Washington. In listening to this 
debate and wondering why we cannot vote on Senate Resolution 18, which 
very simply states who the chairmen are of the various committees and 
also determines who the Members are from each party on those 
committees, not an unfair but a very fair allocation of committees and 
spaces and seats on the committee based upon proportional 
representation. It is 51-48 plus 1, so, one extra seat, for the 
majority, the Republicans.
  What is getting missed is representative democracy. Being from the 
Commonwealth of Virginia, the home of James Madison, who wrote and 
authored the Constitution of the United States, to listen to the 
assertions of some on the floor from the other side of the aisle about 
the Constitution and all of their arguments in thwarting the vote on 
chairmanships and committee assignments so we can go forward on issues 
that matter to the real people in the real world in America, they say 
it is the Constitution that protects minority parties over majority 
parties.
  George Washington's farewell address warned against political 
parties. The Constitution was not created to protect political parties. 
James Madison, and our Founding Fathers, put forward the Constitution 
to protect the rights of the people, to protect their God-given rights. 
To talk about the Constitution as a defense for this obstructionism and 
this delay and dilatory practice would have James Madison stating this 
is a shameless, dilatory dilemma. It is holding up the business of the 
people of America. People recognize there are issues and ideas and 
measures that should have been acted upon last year--whether they were 
funding bills, or whether they were a variety of other issues. You can 
talk about improving Medicare with the prescription drug plan. It may 
be we need greater--and I agree we need greater--energy independence. I 
believe we need to make sure we have a more prosperous economy with tax 
policies and regulatory policies that allow more people to get work and 
get jobs for themselves and their families.

[[Page 484]]

  I very much support the President's ideas as far as the job creation 
and economic growth packages. There are other ideas on education, on a 
variety of issues, including partial-birth abortion. It is all being 
stopped because of this delay.
  We talk about elementary civics with the school groups that come up 
and watch, people from around the world. They see the peaceful 
transition of power in this country. They see the people in the several 
States of the Union elect Senators and, as a result, there are a 
majority of Republicans. Now the people of this country expect a new 
leadership to go forward on a variety of issues, as I talked about, 
whether it is jobs, or health care matters, budgetary matters, or 
funding.
  We are a representative democracy and people have seen the transition 
of power from the local level of mayors and boards of supervisors on up 
to State legislators to Governors, to Presidents. This is a very 
unfortunate situation, that we sit here idly, worrying about some of 
these very picayune procedures.
  I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let's have a vote 
on S. Res. 18. I would like to see a vote because then those who vote 
will take whatever stand they want to take on it. They can say: I 
didn't want to be in favor of it because, whether it is office space or 
funding for staff, that can get worked out in the future; let's get 
moving with the business of the American people. What they want us to 
do is move forward on a variety of pressing issues, from national 
security to economic security, that affect the lives of real people in 
the real world. Bickering over such petty things as office space and 
staff allocations is beneath the dignity and the importance and the 
authority that is granted to us by the people of this country.
  Mr. President, let's act. Let's move forward. Stop the dilatory 
practices and let's act in a responsible manner.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, the Senate has under consideration S. Res. 
18.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, perhaps before I do, I should indicate I 
am a little bit perplexed about the debate going on here on the floor 
of the Senate on the funding or the reorganization resolution dealing 
with the 108th Congress, and especially the Senate. It seems to me the 
question of how much money shall be allocated to committees to run the 
operations of the Senate around here ought not be difficult to resolve.
  In the last Congress we had 51 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and we had 
an even split with a slight differential for administration.
  Now we have 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats. It seems to me we ought 
to have exactly the same split as we did in the last Congress, just in 
reverse. I don't understand why the majority now will not do for the 
minority as we did last year when we were in the majority for the 
Republican side. It doesn't make any sense to me. This ought not be 
rocket science trying to put this together. It is about fairness. We 
ought to have exactly the same circumstance we gave to the Republicans 
in the last Congress.
  It is unseemly to me we are having this lengthy debate about it. We 
have foreign policy questions and challenges in Iraq and Korea and 
elsewhere. We have very significant challenges with respect to the 
economy in this country. Now we are being told by the majority: Unless 
you agree to conditions we would have considered unfair--speaking now 
for them--in the last Congress, we will not move forward on a 
resolution that funds the committees of this Congress.
  Our side simply says: Why don't you do for us what we did for you? Is 
that unfair? I wouldn't think so. Do unto others? Do we understand 
about this? All we are asking is we have the same kind of agreement we 
had in the last Congress. For whom is that unfair? Who decides that is 
unfair?
  It was fair in the last Congress for the Republicans who were in the 
minority. It was fair to them because we made sure it was. Now they are 
saying they need more than that now they are in the majority. They will 
not give us the same deal we gave them.
  We have a lot of problems and a lot of challenges. It seems to me the 
new majority leader would be well advised to come to the floor and 
provide the same kind of agreement we had in the last Congress. That is 
all we are asking. If it was fair for them when we did it to them--and 
it was--then it ought to be fair for us, and we ought to suggest that 
is the resolution to bring to the floor of the Senate.
  I know there is a lot of genuflecting around here about this. There 
is a lot of background noise about it. The fact is, we ought to get 
this done, get it done fairly as we did a year and a half ago, and then 
move on to the other business of the Senate.

                          ____________________