[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 486-490]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             MAKING MAJORITY PARTY APPOINTMENTS--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the American people must be wondering what is 
going on in the Senate today. They frequently see us just talking. We 
do a lot of that. But sometimes they see a little action on the Senate 
floor. And, of course, other than extending the unemployment benefits, 
we have done nothing in the Senate since we reconvened at the beginning 
of this year.
  Why is that so? Why is it that we have been having this squabble on 
the floor of the Senate for the last 24 hours or so, accusing each 
other of not wanting to get on with doing the Nation's business and the 
constructing, getting on with that business?
  People have asked me: Why can't you all get along? Why can't you 
resolve what appears to be petty disputes and get on with the Nation's 
business?
  One person said: Didn't we elect you to the majority? He was talking 
about me as a Republican Senator. So I had to explain what the 
situation was. I said: Yes, as a matter of fact, last November the news 
was full of the fact that, for the first time in a long time, 
Republicans were supposedly in control. The Presidency was occupied by 
George Bush, and the Republicans were to control both the House of 
Representatives and the Senate.
  But he said: Well, then, why aren't you getting going? Why aren't you 
doing things? I said: Well, there's a little problem; that is, as you 
know, in Congress most of the work is done in committees, and the 
Democrats, who had controlled the Congress for the last year and a 
half, have been unwilling to turn over the gavels to the new Republican 
chairmen.
  My friend said: That's not possible. This is the United States of 
America. You Republicans won the election. Just take them.
  I said: Well, it's not quite that simple. It is kind of like the old 
phrase: Possession is 99 percent of the law. The Democrats are in 
possession of the gavels. They are currently considered to be the 
chairmen until we do a very simple thing in the Senate. Usually it 
takes about 10 seconds. The majority leader asks unanimous consent that 
the list of Republican Senators assigned to these committees be 
accepted, with the committee chairmen as indicated. The Democratic 
leader does the same thing for the Democrats. And then the Senate is 
considered organized. The new Senators have their committee 
assignments, the chairmen are noted, and we get to work. But that has 
been objected to on the Democratic side. They want to hold on to the 
gavel a little while longer, even though in the election last November 
they lost--supposedly lost the majority control of the Senate.
  My friend said: Well, how can they prevent change? I thought you were 
in control.
  I said: Remember that in the Senate we have a procedure called the 
filibuster, and in order to stop debate and force a vote on our 
organizing resolution--or committee resolution, it is called--it takes 
60 Senators to agree to force the vote. It only takes 51 to adopt the 
resolution, but 60 Senators are required to actually force the vote; 
otherwise, you have to just keep talking. And that is what we are doing 
right now.
  Obviously, with the Senate organized at 51 Republicans and 49 
Democrats--unless some of our Democratic friends would be willing to 
concede that the election was won by Republicans, and be willing to 
turn the gavels over to the Republican chairmen--if they want to stick 
in their partisan mode here, at 49, they can continue to keep us from 
voting on this resolution and, thus, continue to have control of the 
committees.
  Well, why is this important? Things my colleague was just talking 
about a moment ago: The budget and getting on with the President's 
economic growth package are a good illustration.
  For the first time in the history of the Senate, since the Budget Act 
of 1974, last year, when the Democrats were in control of the Senate, 
they failed to pass a budget. And the appropriations bills, except for 
the Defense bills, were not passed. That is unfinished business from 
last year we have to hurry up and do. The President would like to see 
that done before his State of the Union speech. We have to get on with 
that. We cannot do it if the Appropriations Committee cannot meet, pass 
out a resolution, and get it to the floor so we can debate it.
  We have judges who have been waiting for almost 2 years now to be 
confirmed by the Senate because they have been held up by the 
Democratic Senate. We need to get on with that. And there is other 
important business.
  The point is, we ought to get on with it and stop this squabbling. 
What is it that is really at the bottom here? What is the complaint? 
What is the Democratic objective? It is a little hard to tell.
  Part of it, I suppose, is just delay for delay's sake. But part of it 
also has been indicated by those who say: We want our fair share of 
money and office space. This may seem pretty petty to people watching, 
but it is true that both sides need to have money for their staffs and 
operations. The majority leader has been negotiating in good faith on 
that, and he says they are very close to getting that issue resolved. 
But that does not have to be resolved today. The funding resolution 
goes on until the end of February. So we could easily get the committee 
process started, exchange positions so that Republican chairmen would 
have a gavel, get on with the Nation's business in the committees, and 
continue to work to resolve the issue of funding, such as that issue 
may continue to exist.
  Democrats have talked about the comparison to the middle of the year 
switch in parties when Jim Jeffords, a Senator from Vermont, left the 
Republican side, became an Independent, and joined the Democrats. The 
day that happened, Republicans turned their gavels over to their 
Democratic counterparts to let them run the committees, recognizing the 
power had now shifted in the Senate and they were now in the majority.
  It took another several weeks to get all the funding issues resolved, 
but they were resolved. We have that same amount of time here, so we 
can go ahead and give the gavels over to the Republicans to chair the 
committees and continue to negotiate the funding issues. We have 
several weeks yet to get that done. There is no reason to continue to 
delay this process.
  So I urge my Democratic colleagues to stop the squabbling and act 
like the world's greatest deliberative body that the Senate is often 
called. Instead, we look more like some Third World country where the 
losing party did not want to turn over control to the party that won 
the election. And that is just not acceptable in the Senate of the 
United States of America.
  So I urge my colleagues to agree to turn the power over to the party 
that

[[Page 487]]

won. Then we can continue to try to satisfy their requirements with 
funding. We want to do the Nation's business.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from Arizona yield for a question?
  Mr. KYL. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from Arizona agree with me that, 
unquestionably, the beginning of the previous Congress was the most 
complicated situation we have had in Senate organization, having ended 
up with a 50-50 tie for the first time since the 1880s?
  Mr. KYL. Yes. The first time, I guess, since the 1880s; that is 
right.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would point out to my friend from Arizona, the 
Congress was sworn in on January 3 of 2001, the beginning of that dead-
even Senate, and 2 days later this complicated organizational 
resolution, which our friends and colleagues on the other side, in 
effect, want to continue into this Congress, was passed--2 days.
  The reason for that, obviously, is that we had known since the 
election what was going to happen and we were working long on it. We 
have known since November 5, 2002, what was going to happen. I have 
heard on the other side it was 6 weeks, but in fact there were 24 days 
after Senator Jeffords switched to get the resolution passed. But the 
chairmen switched almost immediately. I handed my gavel over to Senator 
Dodd, Senator Bennett handed his over, Senator Bond did; I believe 
everybody did, including Senator Kyl.
  We have known now for 70 days who was going to be in the majority--70 
days. It seems to this Senator that we have had adequate notice for 
quite some time who was going to be in the majority and yet we have 
killed a week in failing to address the people's business from last 
year because of an apparent unwillingness to recognize who is in the 
majority around here.
  Mr. KYL. I respond to my colleague from Kentucky that in the last 
five Congresses we have organized the Senate on January 3, January 5, 
and January 7. The very latest date was January 9. We are already a 
week beyond that, and the week has, in fact, been wasted except for a 
very quick passage of the unemployment compensation benefit, which 
shows what we can do when we get down to work here.
  The history is that we do this very quickly, even in the most 
complicated circumstances, as the Senator noted, when we were 50-50 and 
had a lot of issues to try to resolve. That gets back to my point that 
there is no reason to hold up the exchanges of the gavels, a routine 
matter that recognizes who won the election, simply because there is 
still some disagreement about whether the money is going to be split--I 
don't even know--57/43, or whatever the numbers are.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Particularly since the funding resolution goes until 
the first of March.
  Mr. KYL. Precisely the point. So unless there is some other ulterior 
motives--and I never ascribe motives to my colleagues and they can 
explain their own actions--the result of this is delay, though, and 
given the fact that we have unfinished business from last year because 
of the Democrat leader's inability to pass a budget and get 
appropriations bills passed, we are already behind schedule.
  We are in a war with terrorists. There could be a military conflict 
with Iraq. The President has an economic agenda that the American 
people are very interested in because it affects both their families 
and the economy as a whole. My constituents want Medicare reform and a 
prescription drug benefit to go along with that so we can strengthen 
and preserve Medicare. We have a lot on our agenda, and this delay is 
not helping the American people and there is no reason for it. That is 
why I, again, urge my Democratic colleagues. We are not saying this in 
anger or in a partisan tone, I hope, but it does not serve the 
interests of the American people, and it certainly blemishes the Senate 
to be unable to organize, to simply recognize which side won the 
election. Let this side chair the committees so we can get on with the 
other business of the day. That is the inevitable result of what is 
happening here.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to recognize that 
fact. It doesn't make them look good, it doesn't make the Senate look 
good, and it is bad for the American people. I hope we can get the 
resolution adopted quickly and get on with the business of the American 
people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for 
his comments. Before he leaves the floor, I will make the observation 
that in addition to not being able to address the unfinished business 
from last year, because we don't have committees approved, we have 
Senators from 11 States who have no committees at all. They were duly 
chosen in an election last November. A week ago today, they took the 
oath of office here at the front of the Chamber and became Senators. A 
week later, they are still not on committees.
  Now, it is almost impossible for a Senator to represent his 
constituents if he or she is not on a committee. So we have, in effect, 
disenfranchised those 11 States for a week. There is no crisis to 
address if the committee funding resolution doesn't expire for some 7 
weeks from now. There is no reason to be doing this, other than an 
apparent attempt to fail to recognize the results of last year's 
election.
  So we have, I say to my friend from Arizona, Senators from Alaska, 
Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas who have all been 
sworn in and have no committee assignments whatsoever.
  This is the United States of America. We had an election. All of 
these new Senators have been certified and they are entitled to be 
effective Members of this body representing their constituents. Our 
failure to act makes that impossible.
  There has been a lot of discussion about committee funding. Really, 
that is not the issue before us in this resolution before the Senate 
today. This is simply a resolution ratifying committee membership of 
Republican Members of the Senate. Traditionally, Democrats offer a 
similar resolution putting their members on committees. What has gotten 
all mixed up in this, apparently, is the whole question of what kind of 
committee funding ratios there are going to be. There was a very 
revealing article in Roll Call before the November election in which--
it was on October 31--a senior Democratic aide said it was ``an 
extraordinary circumstance that forced them to continue the equal 
funding.''
  I agree with that, both in the beginning of the 107th Congress and 
after the defection of Senator Jeffords. Both were extraordinary 
circumstances. Here you have a Democratic aide stating the obvious, 
with which I agree. It was an extraordinary circumstance that forced 
continuing funding at that level in the middle of a Congress when they 
suddenly became a majority. But the same aide stated that ``if we pick 
up a seat or two, I think it is without a doubt we would go back to 
two-thirds/one-third,'' which is right before the election of last 
fall. ``If we pick up a seat or two . . . we would go back to two-
thirds/one-third.'' It is quite stunning how accurate Roll Call's 
predictions were. They predicted that if the Democrats were to lose a 
seat, which is indeed what happened, they would fight for equal 
funding, which is where we find ourselves today.
  The funding issue is not before us in the Senate today. This is about 
ratifying the results of last November's election. The majority leader 
has laid down a committee resolution that would give the Republican 
Members of the Senate an opportunity to serve on committees, so that 
they can represent the people they were sent here to represent.
  I hope we will be able to resolve all of this amicably. It has gone 
on entirely too long. We have been doing this for over a week. Of 
course, it has been tougher on the majority leader than anybody else 
because he spends an endless amount of time each day discussing it. I 
hope we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel and may 
be able to resolve this matter in some kind of amicable fashion, 
hopefully before the day is out.

[[Page 488]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I can remember when I was in the House of 
Representatives, the legendary Mo Udall came to a meeting. He was 
chairman of the Franking Commission. There was a big dispute as to a 
franking issue. Members of the House paraded in and it went on for a 
long period of time. Mo Udall, in only the way he could do it, kind 
of--how would you describe how he walked? It was kind of a saunter--
sauntered in and took his place as chairman of this committee. He said:

       Everything has been said, but not everybody has said it.

  So he proceeded to say the same thing that everybody else had said. I 
have been here for 2 days and the same thing has been said over and 
over again by the majority, the Republicans, and the same thing has 
been said over and over again by the minority, the Democrats. But as Mo 
Udall would say, it hasn't been said today as many times as perhaps it 
should.
  I repeat, what the minority wants is to be treated exactly as we 
treated the minority during the last Congress.
  My friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky, has 
brought to our attention again what one Democratic aide said. I talked 
about this previously, but I will say it again because not everyone has 
heard it, I guess, and if they have, they can listen again. One 
Democratic aide said:

       If we pick up a seat or two, I think we'd go back to one-
     third/two-thirds.

  First, this is a Democratic aide, whoever that is. But if we are 
going to take Roll Call for gospel, then what I suggest is the whole 
article be looked at. In this article in Roll Call, a GOP leadership 
aide said:

       It will be a serious fight. It will be a series of knock-
     down drag-out talks that last a long, long time.

  Remember, he is commenting on changing the committee ratio. A senior 
GOP leadership aide said:

       It will be a serious fight. It will be a series of knock-
     down drag-out talks that last a long, long time.

  Finally, this same--or it could be a different GOP leadership aide, I 
do not know; it might be the same one--said:

       There is no way we will countenance that or stand for that.

  He said of the Democratic aide's comment about shifting parties.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield for a question without losing my 
right to the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. I think people watch these proceedings and think it is 
all very silly that the Senate cannot agree on an organizing 
resolution.
  I am trying to understand, if I can, some of the statements that have 
been made. My colleague from Kentucky said that last summer, for 
example, when the Senate went from Republican to Democratic control as 
a result of one Senator shifting from the Republican caucus to an 
Independent caucus and caucusing with the Democrats, he said the gavels 
were turned over immediately.
  As I heard that, it occurred to me that was not the case at all. 
History is history, and revisionist history is fun, but it is not 
accurate.
  Isn't it the case that last summer, for example, when the Republicans 
were in control and then one Senator moved to caucus with Democrats and 
the Democrats actually took control of the Senate, for 3 weeks the 
gavels were not turned over to the chairmen? I am not suggesting there 
is any justification for anything by making that point. My point is, 
when people come to the Chamber to talk about this, let's talk about 
what really happened, and if we can, let's talk about what is happening 
now for the moment.
  Isn't it the case that the reason the Senate is hung up is because 
the majority leader is saying: We have 51 percent of the votes in the 
Senate, and we want two-thirds of the money to run the place? Isn't 
that exactly what is hanging this up?
  Mr. REID. Yes, I say to my friend. Revisionist history is a very good 
way of projecting what has been said on the other side--revisionist 
history. The fact is, I say to my friend from North Dakota, who, I am 
sure, realizes this, when Senator Jeffords announced he was going to 
move from the Republican Party, it was about 6 weeks from the time he 
announced that to the time the actual change took place; that is, the 
reorganizing resolution.
  Technically, the Senator from North Dakota is right. Senator Daschle 
became majority leader on June 6, 2001. The organizing resolution was 
adopted on June 29, 2001. So that is a period of over 3 weeks. But the 
actual time period is 6 weeks. Let's take those 3-plus weeks we waited 
around.
  Responding to my friend from Arizona, for whom I have the greatest 
respect--and he is a fine lawyer, but sometimes lawyers make tones and 
arguments that are not as factual as they appear--he said 70 days they 
have been waiting; something should have been done during that period 
of time.
  I said it earlier and I will say it again. It is not Senator 
Daschle's fault that he was not negotiating earlier. It was the fault 
of the Republicans because they could not determine who was going to be 
their leader. Senator Daschle had some early meetings with Senator Lott 
right after the election, but those meetings were for nought because 
they got a new leader a few days ago, and Senator Daschle has been 
doing his very best to project a very simple message. That is, if the 
Senate was divided 51-49 with the Democrats controlling and the 
Republicans in the minority and there is a shift in power where the 
Republicans control and the Democrats are in the minority, let's have 
the same rules. It is simple: Let's have the same rules.
  There have been people who have come to the Chamber and said: Why 
would they argue over space? As we know, there are a number of issues 
the two leaders have to work out. They have to work out the funding, 
and they have to work out making sure that is fair, as it was last 
time, and the space is basically the same as it was last time. It has 
nothing to do with blue slips or yellow slips or green slips. There is 
another issue around here dealing with leadership space. It has nothing 
to do with that.
  It has everything to do with we, the minority, want to be treated 
just as the Republicans when they were in the minority. I am from 
Nevada. I think we have a lot of common sense in Nevada. Some people 
may not agree with some of the things we do or do not do. My friend 
from North Dakota and I have had a number of good laughs about the 
differences between Nevada and North Dakota, but the fact is common 
sense prevails in Nevada, and common sense dictates to me that if you 
have the exact same makeup of the Senate--100 Senators--but the 
majority has changed, two Senate seats have changed and now instead of 
51-49 Democrats, it is 51-49 Republicans, why shouldn't the same rules 
apply?
  That is my answer to my friend from North Dakota. Simple, factual; it 
is play by the same rules that we had during the last Congress.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield further?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield for a question without losing my 
right to the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I think people will look at this debate 
and say: What on Earth is going on here? The Senate at least ought to 
be able to organize. I listened to some of this debate. For example, my 
friend from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, said part of the reason we have to do 
this right now is because we have all this unfinished business from 
last year. In fact, Senator Daschle could not pass a budget last year, 
he said. That is true, we could not pass a budget because my friend 
from Arizona and his friends would not vote for it. That is why we 
could not pass a budget.
  The fact is, there is a lot of discussion around here surrounding 
this resolution. I, again, ask the Senator from Nevada, isn't this the 
simplest possible issue to solve, and doesn't it send a message to 
every kid in school: If you ever say fractions do not matter, come 
listen to this debate because we have a circumstance where the majority 
is now saying: We have slightly over half

[[Page 489]]

of the Senate, 51 Members; you have almost half of the Senate, 49, but 
we want two-thirds of the money. The next time a kid says fractions do 
not matter, go talk to the folks who say it is true, we have just a 
little over a half but we want two-thirds of the money with respect to 
the Senate.
  My point is, I assume this could be resolved this afternoon, and, in 
my judgment, it should be resolved this afternoon by doing exactly what 
was done in the last Congress. In the last Congress, we had 51 votes on 
the Democratic side and 49 votes on the Republican side. So there was 
an apportionment of the money, about half and half, with a slight 
increase for the administration of those who ran the committees.
  Now there are 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats. It seems to me the 
easiest solution is to use the same rule we had in the last session, 
just reverse it because that would be the fairest way to deal with the 
circumstances in which there is a 51-49 split. Just reverse the parties 
and use exactly the same functioning mechanism that was used in the 
last Congress.
  The reason I say that is this ought to be the easiest possible thing 
to solve. It ought to be done this afternoon. We have a lot of work to 
do. Those colleagues who have been talking about the need for this 
Congress to get to work are sure right about that. We have an economy 
that is faltering. I am sure as we speak today there are perhaps 
thousands of people prepared to go home tonight to tell their spouse 
they lost their job. There were 88,000 last month.
  Mr. REID. One hundred and one thousand.
  Mr. DORGAN. So they go home and say, I lost my job. This economy is 
not working. This economy is contracting, not expanding. Should we do 
something about that? Sure, we ought to be working on that.
  We have homeland security issues. We have appropriations bills. We 
have a lot of work to do, so let's resolve this.
  The simplest possible way to resolve it is for the majority leader to 
understand he ought to use the same formula for this Congress as the 
Democrats used when they were in control in the last Congress.
  It seems to me that is the fair way to do it, and it seems to me it 
ought to be done this afternoon. Most people would look at this and say 
this is silly, just do this and get it done now.
  Mr. REID. Let me respond to my friend. When I was a young boy, I 
could not run very fast. I was never fast afoot. So I participated in 
games where it did not matter how fast you could run. I loved tug of 
war because I was as good as anybody. I would dig in my heels and it 
would take a lot to move me.
  I want everyone within the sound of my voice to know my heels are dug 
in. The Democratic caucus' heels are dug in. We will win this tug of 
war. They can put us to the test and have a series of votes to see if 
we can proceed. They can have all the votes they want on the motion to 
invoke cloture, but we are not going to bend. The Democrats in the 
Senate are dug in and we are not going to bend.
  The resolution of this is going to be the same as it was in the last 
Congress because that was fair. We were fair to the Republicans and we 
expect them to be fair to us. If they want to get to the issues my 
friend from Arizona brought up--Iraq, Medicare reform, prescription 
drugs--let them do it. They can do it 15 minutes from now. Organize the 
way we organized; otherwise, they can wait because they are holding it 
up; we are not.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I heard an impassioned plea by the 
Democratic assistant leader on the other side of the aisle, whom I 
greatly admire and respect. I am not sure whether he considers himself 
the assistant majority leader now or the assistant leader, but I would 
point out some facts that maybe should be filtered out of the 
smokescreen of dialogue that has taken over.
  The facts are these: The resolution before the Senate is a resolution 
to appoint majority members to committees so our new Members can be 
confirmed to committees and so the majority can take the chairmanships 
of the committees of the Senate. That is the resolution before the 
Senate. That is the resolution which has always come to the Senate.
  This resolution does not address the issue of funding. The issue of 
funding has not actually come up from the standpoint of needing to be 
done until sometime in February. It does not address the issue of 
space, because the issue of space has never been addressed in this type 
of resolution. This resolution is the prototypical resolution that 
comes before a Senate every time a Senate organizes. Under the 
constitutional form of government we have in the United States, after 
elections the party that takes the majority organizes the Senate, 
appoints the members to the committees and has members of the 
committees become chairmen as a result of being in the majority party.
  The Senator from Nevada, who I respect, has decided to cloud this 
issue of appointments to the committees with the issue of funding. I 
guess they see this as a point of leverage which they can use to 
question the funding through addressing the issue of membership to the 
committees.
  What is the practical effect of the actions of the Democratic 
membership of the Senate today? The practical effect is they are 
denying the proper transfer of power that proceeds after an election. 
They are essentially saying the election last fall does not matter; 
that they remain chairmen of the committees in the Senate, even though 
they are in the minority party.
  Earlier today, I had a discussion with a Member of the Democratic 
leadership in the sense that he was chairman of the Banking Committee, 
and he represented he still considers himself to be chairman. Yet he 
also acknowledges, as I think anybody does who is fairminded about 
this, that he presently is in the minority.
  How can one be chairman of the committee in our form of government if 
they are in the minority? They cannot. They are usurping the rights of 
the people of this country who have elected a majority in the Senate.
  The majority has the right to chair the committees of the Senate, and 
yet the Democratic membership has decided to deny that right to the 
American people, the right which they put forward when they voted in 
November.
  I suppose if I were a Member of the Democratic side of the aisle, I 
would have been frustrated by that election. It was the first time in 
recent memory--or maybe ever--that a sitting President actually won 
control of one of the bodies of Congress in an off-year. It was 
startling. I thank President Bush for his efforts, and I thank those 
folks who subscribe to his view of the way we should govern. Obviously, 
I am very appreciative of the fact that as a result of that election we 
ended up going into the majority on the Republican side. Granted, it 
was only by one vote, but that is all it takes. All it takes in our 
constitutional form of government is one vote to be in the majority. We 
do not function under a super majority for the purposes of organizing 
the Senate. We do not have to have 60 votes to organize the Senate. We 
have to have a 1-vote majority. When one gets that 1-vote majority 
after an election, in a two-party system, involving a constitutional 
form of government, which is what we function under, then the new 
minority which used to be the majority is supposed to transfer power 
over to the majority peacefully and without resistance.
  What are we seeing today? Resistance. We have heard the assistant 
leader--who may consider himself to be assistant majority leader or the 
assistant minority leader, I am not sure, but the assistant leader say 
his heels are dug in and we could be here, I suppose, until Lake Powell 
freezes over before

[[Page 490]]

we are going to get a change from their side of the aisle.
  That fundamentally undermines the concept of constitutional 
government after an election in a two-party system.
  They may have a legitimate concern over funding. I happen to think 
they do not. I believe the majority leader has made very reasonable 
offers in this case and, in fact, when it becomes public I think the 
public will feel they were extremely reasonable offers, but they have 
no reasonable argument for holding up the proper transfer of power in a 
constitutional government. They are doing fundamental damage to the way 
we govern if they continue down this road.
  There are Members on their side--in fact, all of the Members on their 
side--who I greatly respect, but there are some Members on their side 
who have an immense history and strength on the issue of the integrity 
of the process in the Senate. I cannot believe those Members are not 
cringing at the thought we have not transferred responsibility in an 
orderly way in the Senate.
  The resolution before the Senate does not deal with space. It deals 
with who is the majority party. It is totally inappropriate for Members 
from the other side to be chairing committees and claiming 
chairmanships of committees when they are no longer in the majority 
position. It frustrates not only our side of the aisle but, more 
importantly, it frustrates the intent and purpose of our form of 
government. It is a serious matter. And the Senator from Nevada has dug 
his heels in. So be it.
  Speaking as one Senator on this side, I find this issue to be of such 
significance that I don't know how we can back off of our request that 
the majority be the majority, that the chairmanships go to the 
majority, that the memberships of the committees be given to the 
majority. If we did, what would have been the purpose of the last 
election? We would be fundamentally undermining that election.
  What happens in the future? Do we move into a government where 
elections are reasonably irrelevant if they are close? No. Close 
elections happen in America. Presidents are elected by the electoral 
college without winning the popular vote. But the fact is they were 
elected under the constitutional form of government. Majorities take 
control of the Senate when more Members of one party arrive in the 
Senate than from the other party. We have received certification from 
the Secretaries of State across the country who have established beyond 
question that the Republican Party presently holds the majority in the 
Senate. And, as such, the Republican Party has the right to and must 
claim the chairmanships of the committees of jurisdiction in the 
Senate. If we fail to do that, we fail our responsibility to the 
electorate.
  It is very hard to understand how the other side of the aisle can 
attempt to undermine this most fundamental exercise of the transfer of 
power after an election in a constitutional government.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from New Hampshire said some nice 
things about me that I am grateful for because the feelings are 
certainly mutual. I have great admiration and respect for his public 
service. I don't know what he did before he came to the House of 
Representatives, but he served there representing his State admirably. 
He left the House and became Governor of the State and then came to the 
Senate. That is a great public service career. I am surprised I have 
heard him talk more the last day or so. He is not one who spends a lot 
of time on the floor. When he does speak, I always listen because he is 
very direct and does not beat around the bush. I have not only great 
respect for what he has accomplished but also his style as a 
legislator.
  Having said that, however, this is not undermining the election. 
Regarding the chairmanships, we do not dispute who should be chairman. 
No one disputes that. Senator Sarbanes said that today. We recognize we 
are now in a minority, 51-49, just like the Republicans were in a 
minority a few months ago. What are we talking about? They say all this 
resolution does is allow us to be a chairman and appoint members of the 
committee. That is the problem. That is all it does.
  We could settle this matter, as I told Senator Sarbanes, in less than 
15 minutes if, in addition to changing the chairmen and appointing the 
members of the committee, there would be an agreement the staff would 
remain as it was last year. That is, whatever the minority had last 
year, we would still have, and that the same space the minority had, 
the committee staff we are talking about, would be the same as it was 
last year--simple as that.
  Now, assume that I am wrong: Illogical, unreasonable, not factual. 
Say that I am wrong. It seems to me what would happen if the majority 
would go along with the rules we had last time, the chairmanships would 
take place immediately, the members of the committees would be 
appointed immediately, and the only thing they would have some concern 
about--because we agree with that--is they gave us too much space and 
they gave us too much of the financial resources to the committees.
  I heard Senator Nickles, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, who I also 
am very fond of, earlier today state this has nothing to do with 
committee resources. Well, if it doesn't, what are we arguing about? We 
agree they should be chairmen. We agree they should be able to appoint 
the committees. Why not go one step further and keep the same 
resources--because Senator Nickles said this battle was not about 
resources--the same resources as we had last year.
  I might be having trouble comprehending, but like a lot of people 
here I think I understand the procedures of the Senate. I understand 
the resolution directed and dictated what we did last time. Why not do 
the same thing? What is wrong with that? If the matters before the 
country are important--and I recognize they are; I realize we have 
problems, as the Senator from Arizona talked about--we need to have 
some discussion about Iraq, and we need to have a discussion about 
health care delivery in this country--the committees should be 
functioning better than they are.
  The committees, instead of having a total of 89 Members, should have 
100 Members. Let's go to work and do that. That is all we are asking. 
We are not asking for any advantage. We are only asking we be treated 
the way the Republicans were treated when we were the majority.
  If the matters to come before the country are that important, the 
majority party, the party that controls the House, the White House, 
what in the world do they fear from having the same committee structure 
as we had last time with the same resources allocated? What is there to 
fear? If there were ever the ability to exercise authority and power in 
the United States, it is from the White House, which is Republican, 
from a Senate that is Republican, and from the House of Representatives 
that is Republican.
  That is why we believe we are not being treated fairly, and the 
resolution before this body is inadequate and incomplete. Until it is 
adequate and complete, we are going to hang in for the same rule that 
applied during the 107th Congress.

                          ____________________