On the recordJanuary 14, 2003
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?
Source
govinfo.gov




