SENATE PROCEDURE IN THE 107TH CONGRESS
(Senate - January 05, 2001)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages S35-S42]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 SENATE PROCEDURE IN THE 107TH CONGRESS

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the resolution we have at the desk, that no amendments or 
motions be in order to the resolution, and that the Senate vote without 
any intervening action or debate at 3:30 on adoption of the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, if I can 
be assured between now and 3:30 the Senator from New Mexico has an 
opportunity to speak, but I am not sure that will occur. I would object 
to the time certain. The rest of it I will not object to.
  Mr. DASCHLE. How much time would the Senator from New Mexico be 
interested in?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to reserve 10, 15 minutes, let's say.
  Mr. DASCHLE. How much time----
  Mr. GRAMM. Ten.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator from Alaska seek recognition?
  Mr. STEVENS. I will, but I seek to follow Senator Byrd. He is my 
chairman. I will follow Senator Byrd.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, 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. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I modify the unanimous consent request 
that I made in the following manner. I ask unanimous consent that the 
following Senators be recognized in this order, and to the times 
allocated as I will suggest: Senator Byrd be recognized for 10 minutes, 
Senator Stevens be recognized for 5 minutes, Senator Gramm of Texas be 
recognized for 10 minutes, Senator Domenici be recognized for 10 
minutes, Senator Roberts be recognized for 4 minutes, Senator Bennett 
be recognized for 5 minutes, and that Senator Reid of Nevada be 
recognized for 2 minutes; that at the end of the debate the resolution 
be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the resolution by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 8) relative to Senate procedure in 
     the 107th Congress.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. To say that these are historic times would be hackneyed and 
trite. To say that the leaders of the Senate have risen to new heights 
and are acting and speaking as statesmen would be something other than 
trite.
  I first want to congratulate my leader on this side of the aisle and 
my leader on that side of the aisle. I know they have gone through some 
excruciating moments. I know, without asking, that they have lost some 
sleep. I know, without inquiring, that they have rolled and tossed on 
their pillows, having been in their shoes myself.
  When I came to the Senate, Lyndon Johnson was the majority leader. 
Politics did not prevail over statesmanship. He worked with a 
Republican President, President Eisenhower, in the best interests of 
the Nation.
  When the great civil rights debate of 1964 occurred, Everett Dirksen 
did not play politics.
  Had Everett Dirksen not worked with Lyndon Johnson and with Mike 
Mansfield, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have been written. 
Had Everett Dirksen played politics instead of acting the part of 
statesman, cloture would never have been invoked on the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964.
  When the Panama Canal treaties were before the Senate in 1977, had 
Howard Baker chose to play the part of a politician and not worked with 
Robert Byrd in the interests of the Nation as we saw those interests, 
the Panama Canal treaties would not have been approved. More lives 
would have been lost. Howard Baker acted the part of statesman. We both 
were swimming uphill. The Nation's polls showed that the people 
generally were much opposed to the Panama Canal treaties. We came 
together. Even in this past election, I still lost the votes of some 
West Virginians because of my support of the Panama Canal treaties in 
1977.
  We saw on those occasions the separation aisle here become a 
passageway to the best interests of the Nation; Senators from both 
sides joining hands and marching together.
  On the Appropriations Committee, we do not need a resolution of this 
kind. We have always worked together, Republicans and Democrats, on 
that committee. The longer I work on that committee, the better our 
members of both parties seem to work together. We have worked well 
throughout all the years I have been on that committee, when Senator 
Russell was chairman, when Senator McClellan was chairman, when Senator 
Ellender was chairman, and when Senator Hatfield was chairman, when 
Senator Stennis was the chairman.
  I say here today and now that the paradigm of cooperation, of 
statesmanship, of bipartisanship has occurred during the chairmanship 
of Ted Stevens. I am one Democrat who has absolutely no compunction 
when it comes to stating the truth about a colleague. If I have to say 
that the chairman is a better chairman than I have been, I have no 
compunctions about that. I said that several times about Slade Gorton, 
the former chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on the 
Department of the Interior. He was a superb chairman. He was a better 
chairman of that subcommittee than I ever was. That is a westerner's 
subcommittee in the main.
  Ted Stevens has been a chairman par excellence. We don't need any 
resolution. Whatever problem there is, he and I can settle it. There is 
no rivalry, none, between these two Senators. There is no party between 
these two Senators. There is only friendship and respect and trust. 
That is the way it has always been, and that is the way it is always 
going to be.
  That is the secret to getting things done in this evenly membered 
Senate in these times, a 50/50 tie: trust, mutual respect and trust. I 
am not going to go to heaven if I hate Republicans. My old mom used to 
say: ``You can't go to heaven and hate anybody, Robert.''

[[Page S36]]

  Now, there are some people on both sides of the aisle who are 
extremely partisan. There are many others who are only moderately 
partisan. I think for the most part we can say that most Members on 
both sides are moderately partisan.
  This agreement is a real accomplishment. I don't think I would have 
accomplished this, if I had been majority leader. That leader on the 
Republican side had an extremely tough way to go. Today he has risen to 
a new stature. I thought he did himself well during the impeachment 
trial. I thought my own leader set a fine example. Today these two 
leaders have set a wonderful example. But the example of statesmanship 
goes beyond these two leaders.

  I know it has been difficult for Members, particularly on the 
Republican side, to come to an agreement such as has been reached here. 
But they have been willing to give up their partisanship for the moment 
in the better interests of the Nation.
  Also, it is exceedingly important--I have already mentioned it here--
to George Bush, who will become the President of the United States on 
January 20. It is vitally important to him, if he is to expect to see 
his programs considered and adopted. And hopefully, from his 
standpoint, certainly, and from the standpoint of many others, if he is 
to see those programs succeed, he is going to have to have help. He 
can't depend on all of its coming just from his side of the aisle. He 
is going to have some help over here. Who knows, I may be one who will 
vote with him from time to time. There will be others on this side.
  This agreement is exceedingly important to him. It sets the right 
example. It should give heart and encouragement to the people of the 
Nation. I view it as a pact which will make it possible for us to rise 
above the interests of party, rise above even ourselves from time to 
time, and enable us to accomplish something worthy of remembrance in 
the pages of history.
  This can be the most difficult situation that could ever confront the 
U.S. Senate. We could just tie ourselves in knots. But there is a 
spirit of goodwill that I see emanating here that has brought about 
this agreement, which I hope will be agreed upon soon, and it is a 
unique agreement.
  I personally express my deep gratitude to Mr. Lott and to Mr. 
Daschle. I would never have thought it could be done. I viewed the 
future with a great deal of dread, but I am encouraged to believe that 
we can, indeed, accomplish something that will be in the best interests 
of both parties, be in the best interests of the Nation, and be in the 
best interests of this Senate and make this Senate, once again, the 
beacon that it has so many times shown itself to be in times of peril, 
in times of stress in the history of this great Nation.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am humbled by the statement of the 
President pro tempore and the current chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee. He and I have served together now for many years. I know he 
did not know earlier today in our conference I told the conference that 
I thought that this resolution that has been crafted by our two leaders 
was, in fact, extending a hand of friendship across this aisle based 
upon trust.
  He, in his normal way, has stated it more clearly and precisely than 
I. Senator Byrd honors us all. But we are here as senior Members. As 
our leader on this side of the aisle has said, this is a 50/50 split in 
the Senate. But it is still the Senate of the United States. Coming 
from Alaska, I know the value of the vote that comes from the Vice-
Presidency. It was the only vote that Vice President Agnew cast that 
broke the tie on the Alaska pipeline and brought our Nation billions of 
barrels of oil.

  We face issues all the time when we are split and have a tie. This 
time we start with a tie, but we start also with the friendships and 
the knowledge of one another that have been built up over the years. I 
think it will be an interesting experience for newcomers to witness. 
The Senate starts on the basis of trust.
  When I was a very new and appointed Senator, I asked a Senator here 
who was managing the bill on the other side of the aisle to call me 
when it came time to offer an amendment. I was tied up in a committee. 
I was surprised that the bell rang in the committee and the vote was 
going on. I came to the floor. I am not one to be shy in expressing my 
opinions, and I went to the then manager of the bill and started to 
berate him. Senator Mike Mansfield came to me and said: Senator, you 
should not use language like that on the floor of the Senate. I told 
Senator Mansfield what had happened. He, as the majority leader, looked 
at that Senator and said: Is that true? The manager of the bill said: 
That's true, but that amendment would not have passed. Senator 
Mansfield said: Have you got your amendment, Senator?
  He took the amendment from me, he stopped the vote that was going on, 
he returned the bill to second reading, and he offered my amendment. 
That amendment passed, and it has benefited my State for a long time.
  I merely state it here today to say every Senator on this floor has 
equal rights. The 50/50 that we have is the result of the voters of the 
country, but there need not be a division between this body in terms of 
the 50. We work on the basis of a majority. We can have a tie at almost 
any time, or a majority with a quorum.
  We are looking at a process where every Senator has the right now to 
understand the responsibility that comes from this agreement that has 
been reached. I congratulate the Democratic majority leader; I 
congratulate our future Republican majority leader for reaching this 
conclusion. I share the feelings of my friend from West Virginia that 
this is an act, really, of true statesmanship. I believe those who have 
not agreed should help us make it work because it will take the 
relationships that exist between myself and my great friend from West 
Virginia to make this work. I not only trust the Senator from West 
Virginia, I trust him with my life, and he knows that. We have never 
had an argument. I have served with him as chairman; he has served with 
me as chairman. We have resolved every difference we ever had before we 
came to the floor. That is what is going to happen now.
  Most of the work we do will be in committee. This resolution gives us 
the ability to work in committee on the basis of trust. I honor the two 
leaders for what they have done. I am proud of the Senate today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I begin by congratulating our two leaders. 
I personally have deep concerns about this agreement and its 
workability, but I begin my statement today by saying I intend to 
support it. I intend to do everything in my power to make it work. I 
want to make a pledge to myself and my colleagues that I hope others 
will make, at least to themselves. If it fails, it won't be because of 
me.
  I will try to explain my concerns in the few minutes that I have. 
First of all, when it became clear that we had the extraordinary result 
of an equal number of Members in both parties, I sought direction from 
the ultimate source of direction in the American democracy by turning 
to the Constitution. As Senator Lott has already pointed out, the 
founders so long ago, in a world so different than our own, not only 
thought about this potential but they wrote it into article I, section 
3 of the Constitution. In fact, they didn't wait very long in writing 
the Constitution to put it in.
  In section 1 of article I they give exclusive legislative powers to 
Congress. In section 2, they establish the House of Representatives. In 
section 3, they establish the Senate. Then they turn to exactly this 
question: ``The Vice President of the United States shall be President 
of the Senate''--the only responsibility given to the Vice President in 
the Constitution of the United States. Then they give him his only 
delegated power other than the power of succession in the event of 
death. That power is, ``but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally 
divided.''
  My basic response in following the Constitution as a guide is that we 
have reached exactly the situation that the founders recognized in 
writing the Constitution. We do not have 50 Members of the Senate who 
are Democrats and 50 who are Republicans. We have reached section 3 of 
article I of the Constitution in terms of American history, and the 
Vice President of the United States, with the Senate equally

[[Page S37]]

divided, casts the deciding vote. My reaction, in looking at this 
provision of the Constitution, was that we have a Republican majority, 
that we have 51 Republicans and 50 Democrats.

  It is awfully easy to say it when the new Vice President is a 
Republican, but let me make it clear: If the new Vice President were a 
Democrat, I would expect the Democrats to be the majority in the 
Senate. I personally would have never contemplated that they would not 
have a majority on each of the committees because they would have the 
responsibility under the Constitution for governing.
  We have made a decision to go in the other direction. I have said 
that I will support it and I will do my part in making it work. But let 
me tell you what my concern is about it. If there is anything that we 
learn as we live and have experience, it is that the old adage about 
never giving someone responsibility without giving them authority is a 
valid adage. That is my concern about this agreement, even though I 
hope it does represent a reaching across the aisle, I hope it does 
bring in an era of bipartisanship. I am sure people back home do not 
understand why it is not so easy for us to get together.
  I have disagreements with Senator Byrd, not because I don't love 
Senator Byrd, not because I don't admire Senator Byrd, and not because 
Senator Byrd is a Democrat and I am a Republican. I have differences 
with Senator Byrd from time to time because we have a different vision 
of what we want America to be. We have a different conception of the 
problems we face. Jefferson said: Good men with the same facts are 
prone to disagree.
  My concern is that we may very well, in this process, be guaranteeing 
gridlock by giving just the responsibility to one party which clearly, 
under the Constitution, Republicans now have. Come the 20th, our leader 
will be called ``majority leader.'' I will be the chairman of the 
Banking Committee. Senator Domenici will be the chairman of the Budget 
Committee. My concern is that we should not separate responsibility 
from authority.
  I am reminded, in concluding my remarks, of the Biblical story, as 
Senator Byrd and I am sure everyone will remember, about the two ladies 
who brought a baby before Solomon and contested about whose baby it 
was. Now, Solomon could have decided: The solution here is an equal 
division. He could have cut the baby in half. But Solomon decided that 
was not right to divide the baby and fortunately, with his great 
wisdom, he figured out how to determine who was the real mother by 
feigning to cut the real baby in half in which case the real mother 
said: No, let her have it. Solomon, with his great wisdom, having 
determined the real mother, gave her the child.
  I hope that by separating responsibility and authority we have not 
cut the baby in half here today. I hope we can make this work. I think 
it is in the interests of the Nation that it work. Bipartisanship is a 
wonderful thing, and we have had it on many issues. Senator Byrd and I 
worked together on the highway bill, and every time I ride on one of 
our new highways in Texas, I rejoice that we got together and made the 
Federal Government stop stealing money out of the highway trust fund, 
and we spent the money building new highways in America so when people 
pay gasoline taxes, sure enough, the money goes for the purpose they 
are told it goes.
  There have been many great bipartisan actions taken by Congress. But 
there are times when there are differences, not because one party is 
good and the other party is bad or one party is right and one party is 
wrong--but because there are fundamental differences. When those 
occasions arise, we are going to have to work very hard to make this 
system work.
  I intend to try to make it work. I think we can make it work. I 
believe we are going to pass the President's tax bill, for example. I 
think it is going to get an overwhelming vote in the end. But I would 
say that under this system it is going to be a lot harder to make the 
Senate work.
  So in this joy from bipartisanship, I hope we are all committed to 
rolling up our sleeves and engaging in the extra effort that this is 
going to take. I commit today that I am, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does the majority leader seek recognition?
  Mr. DASCHLE. If I could just make a unanimous consent request? The 
Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, asked for 3 minutes. I ask unanimous 
consent he be recognized preceding the recognition of Senator Reid for 
3 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but 
if he is going to be able to get that, I would like to have 1 minute 
before his time.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent Senator Inhofe then be 
recognized, and Senator Carper be recognized after Senator Reid for 3 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, fellow Senators, after we had a 
Republican conference, I went to my office and, with one of my most 
helpful friends and workers in my office, I prepared some remarks. Let 
me assure you, after being part of the Senate here this afternoon, I 
don't need my remarks. But I would like to share with Senator Byrd and 
those who speak of history--I would like to share my history as a 
Senator. It will be very brief.
  I was unexpectedly elected to the Senate and I never had been a 
legislator anywhere. I was on a city council. I sit here--but I sat in 
that second-to-last seat and waited my turn. And what a long time it 
took.
  I was never blessed with the luxury, Senator Byrd, that you have been 
in your life of being on the Democratic side all of your life and 
having such huge majorities from your side of the aisle. When I 
arrived, there were only 38 of us. We didn't have to worry about this 
kind of agreement, as you know. The Democratic majority was a huge 
majority and they ran every committee. They were in charge and they got 
a lot done.
  But what I learned, so there be no mistake about it, was to work with 
Democrats. I learned to work with them when we got up to 44, and I 
learned to work with them when we got up to 46, and what a thrill when 
we finally got a majority. I still have more legislation passed here, 
there, and yon that is bipartisan. I wish to say from the very 
beginning, I pledge to try to make this work. I will do that with every 
ounce of ingenuity, wisdom, or the opposite thereof if required, to try 
to make something work.
  It is one thing to say to this Senate: Senator Harry Reid and I have 
grown to be very good friends because we serve on an appropriations 
subcommittee and we always agree on everything after we have spent some 
time disagreeing. But I would also tell you that he and I do not agree 
on policy. I note, with a big smile on my face, his policy positions 
have become more known and more pronounced since he has occupied the 
second chair on that side--which I expected of him.
  Did I have any real friends in the Democratic Party who went to 
exceptional ends to be helpful to me? Let me tell you a brief story. I 
was a pipsqueak in the Senate, and Senator Long was a very big Senator. 
I was just starting my first term. I passed only one bill. It was a big 
bill. It imposed a 10-cent gasoline tax--Senator Byrd, you remember 
that--on the users of the inland waterways. Do you remember that fight? 
It went on forever, but I won fair and square, and I went home to 
campaign. And, believe it or not, a Senator from that side of the 
aisle, in my absence--I was in New Mexico--was going to undo my victory 
because they had the votes and he had the floor. A staffer called me 
and said: You better come back, get off the campaign trail and come 
over here and defend the only legislative victory you have, of any 
significance, in the first 6 years. I was prepared to do it.
  Guess what the next call was, in about a half hour--Russell Long. I 
had defeated him on the floor in that debate. And he said: Pete, they 
won't do that.
  I said: What?
  They will not upset your victory. You won. You stay home and 
campaign.
  Think of that, telling a Republican to stay home.
  You stay home and campaign and I will take the floor in your place 
and object to what is contemplated. And the victory that you got will 
not be undone here on the floor by a Democrat.
  That is friendship, right? But, listen, I didn't agree with Russell 
Long on a

[[Page S38]]

lot of things--and he knew that--here on the floor of the Senate.
  I say to my Democrat friends on the other side of the aisle, all 
kinds of expressions have been used talking about what is going on: 
``We extend a hand to you'' and all those other wonderful words.
  All I can say is, I am going to do my best to work with you, and I 
hope you will do the best you can to work with me on the Budget 
Committee and get something done.
  I, too, thought we were starting this session--and it is the reason I 
was concerned about what was happening--I thought we started with the 
idea that on January 21, Vice President Cheney would be in that chair 
and he would make it no longer 50-50 but 51-50. I still believe that is 
the case.
  My thinking is he is going to be denied the right to vote on this 
issue. Maybe we ought to have a lengthy debate so he can have a vote on 
this issue.
  Our leadership has gotten together--I cannot use words of high enough 
praise to exceed the great words on the floor complimenting you, 
Senator Daschle, and my Republican leader for what you are doing.
  Those who have listened to me in our own conference and maybe some 
media person has caught a glimpse of what I was saying heretofore the 
last few days, I hope everybody understands that was my version of what 
we were stepping into, and I thought clearly from the precedents I had 
read that that event would occur in due order, and we would not be 
split 50/50.
  It is imperative we try to work together. The fact that I am going to 
try to work with my counterpart, Kent Conrad, with whom I have already 
met two times and talked with today at length about the Budget 
Committee--but I am not sure it will work--while I am going to try my 
best, I do not know whether we are going to be able to get the work of 
the American people done under a 50/50 arrangement as to the committee 
structure. I hope and pray that it will work.
  I assure my leaders that, with all our vigor and all our commitments, 
it will be tough to get our work done as to serious and contentious 
matters that are between the two parties or favor the President. It 
will be very difficult to get it done. Nonetheless, I support it. It is 
a very high-minded purpose that both of you had in mind and you 
achieved it. Our Republican leader achieved it. He will be praised for 
trying to bring not just friendliness but bipartisan effort to the 
Senate.
  My words expressing how much I hope that works are inadequate. I hope 
our praise will not be short lived and what we are praising them for 
today will not be for 2 weeks or 2 months, but maybe at the end of 1 
year, when we look back on it, we can say, in spite of the most 
difficult committee structure we have worked with in this Senate, we 
were able to work.
  I know Senator Byrd as chairman and ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee and Senator Stevens, my great friend as well 
as his, have been able to do that, but I submit to them that the 
appropriations work is a little bit different than some of the other 
committee work. Some of it will end up in our committees that have very 
philosophical, very partisan overtones. We will try to mellow those and 
get our work done as Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens have in such an 
exemplary manner.
  I close by saying I graduated along in this Senate, never serving in 
any other institutional body of legislative significance. Senator Byrd 
has frequently said that we must learn to understand and know the 
Senate, and once we have, we will love it. I have heard him say those 
words or others. I am one to whom you have said: Senator Domenici, you 
have really learned what the Senate is all about. I hope I have. I 
wanted to achieve; I wanted to bring bills to the floor that were 
contentious. I see no other way to run the Senate other than that.
  Nonetheless, again I repeat, I pledge all my energy to making this 
bipartisan arrangement work. I say to Senator Daschle, I will try. I 
say to Senator Byrd, I will try. To my distinguished majority leader, 
rest assured this Senator will try to make your excellent agreement, 
difficult agreement work. If I have reservations, I think they are 
legitimate. They are concerns about whether this institution can work 
with equal committees and without more assurance on the conference 
situation which others will discuss.
  All of the discord is gone. Senator Lott was my leader in the 
negotiations. I compliment him for the results, and I compliment the 
majority leader for his success.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from Kansas is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.
  Madam President, the motto from my home State of Kansas is ``Ad astra 
per aspera.'' Translated it means ``to the stars through difficulty.'' 
If you take a look at our pioneer past and the history of the problems 
we experienced in the West, our heritage and progress we have made as a 
free State, the motto is very appropriate. Perhaps ``to the stars 
through difficulty'' should be the appropriate motto to describe the 
challenge we face in the Senate as we begin what Senator Byrd has 
described as a very historic and a very unprecedented session. With a 
50/50 membership split, we have to proceed in a bipartisan fashion or 
we are not going to proceed.
  I thank and pay credit to the distinguished majority leader, Senator 
Daschle, and our distinguished Republican leader, Senator Lott, for 
persevering. Senator Byrd said it was excruciating, and it probably has 
been. There has been a lot of second-guessing, a lot of concern, a lot 
of frustration, a lot of worries. I have had some of those, but they 
have basically worked out what we hope will be a blueprint of Senate 
rules and procedures that will allow us to work together and avoid 
gridlock and get something done.
  Our respective leaders have said, and will speak for themselves, that 
this will not be easy. Senator Domenici and Senator Gramm have 
expressed those concerns.
  I suppose some are wondering why a worker bee or a rank-and-file 
person in the Senate should be here as opposed to the leadership and 
the distinguished chairmen of the committees, but I have a little 
history in regard to this body and the other body.
  I served 14 years as a staffer, 16 years in the House of 
Representatives, and now 4 in the Senate. That is a long time. I am the 
only member of the Kansas delegation who has ever served in the 
minority. That is rather astounding to me.
  I can remember when how legislation was considered and when it was 
considered in the House was a foregone conclusion. There were an awful 
lot of Charlie Stenholm-Pat Roberts amendments. All of a sudden, they 
became Roberts-Stenholm amendments. I can remember how that worked. In 
the Agriculture Committee, we were not that partisan.
  I have a great deal of reverence for this body. I serve on the 
Agriculture Committee. We have to get a farm bill done, tax policy 
changes, sanctions reform; we have to have an export policy that works. 
Our farmers and ranchers are still hurting. Senator Harkin and Senator 
Lugar will devise ways to get that done. We cannot hold that up.
  The distinguished chairman-to-be after January 20 and the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan have quality of life issues with 
our armed services people; we have our vital national interests to 
prioritize; we have some recruiting problems, some retention problems. 
Quite frankly, our military is stressed, strained, and hollow. We must 
address this. It is our national security. We cannot hold this up. We 
have to move ahead.
  I also serve on the Intelligence Committee. In that respect, the 
chairman-to-be, Senator Shelby, and the current chairman have to detect 
and deter and get ready for consequence management with all sorts of 
problems in regard to terrorism and homeland defense. We are talking 
about the individual freedoms and the security of the American people. 
We cannot hold that up by a filibuster or any kind of gridlock.

  In regard to what we have to do, let us follow the example of 
President-elect Bush. He has said: Let us unite. I am a uniter; I am 
not a divider. We can do that. We can follow his example. We have 
reached out with a hand of friendship and trust, as described by 
Senator Stevens. We ought to seize that opportunity.

[[Page S39]]

  I know there are some who say we are going to get a slap in the face 
in return. It will not be a slap in the face in return to anybody in 
this body or from a partisan standpoint; it will be a slap in the face 
to the American people, and they will understand that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 
additional seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I talked to a respected and veteran newspaper 
editorialist of the Washington Post, Bob Kaiser, just a couple days 
ago. He said: Pat, you have been around here quite a while. Is this 
possible? 50/50, will it work in the Senate? Can you avoid the partisan 
bickering and all that that encompasses?
  I said: I don't know, Bob, but we've got a shot. We have an 
opportunity. Borne out of necessity, we must do this.
  Senator Lott and Senator Daschle, and our leadership team, thank you 
for arranging this possibility. It is now up to us. We have the 
responsibility, and, yes, both of us now have the authority. Let's see 
if we can get it done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I had not realized when I came down to 
the floor that this was going to turn into a history class. But I have 
a little history to add to it myself, and I hope that it is 
appropriate.
  During our conference today, we talked about a previous situation 
where the Senate was close to this circumstance. The Senator from 
Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles, and I had an exchange about the facts in that 
situation. He had it different than I had it. So naturally, under those 
circumstances, you go check it out. I found out we were both right. So 
I would like to recite that to perhaps give us a historical setting of 
where we are.
  I have only served in this body for 8 years. But as I have indicated 
on the floor on other occasions, as a teenager I sat in the family 
gallery while my father served here. And this will perhaps shock 
everybody, but that was before Strom Thurmond was sworn in. I was in 
the Senate Chamber before Strom Thurmond was, if you can believe that. 
And it is true.
  The Republicans had just won the historic election of 1952. Dwight 
Eisenhower was the President. The Republicans won the Senate by the 
narrowest of margins, 49/47. Then, very quickly, Robert Taft was the 
majority leader. I still have memories, sitting in the family gallery, 
of watching Robert Taft--a man whose face is now in the lobby as one of 
the five greatest Senators in American history--prowling around in the 
back of this Chamber.
  One of the interesting things about it is that the Chamber looked 
exactly the same then as it does now, except that Trent Lott has now 
changed the color of the walls, I think wisely, in the television age.

  But very quickly in the Eisenhower administration, Wayne Morse found 
that his differences with President Eisenhower were irreconcilable, and 
he announced himself an independent. So you had 48 Republicans, 47 
Democrats, and 1 Independent.
  Senator Morse insisted that he would not take his committee 
assignments from either party, he would take them from the Senate as a 
whole, and very quickly discovered that that kind of a stance meant he 
got no committee assignments, period. So he began caucusing with the 
Democrats with whom he was more ideologically aligned.
  Then Robert Taft died. He contracted cancer. He yielded the majority 
leader's position to Senator Knowland of California. Senator Taft 
fought the cancer gallantly for months, and then he died. There was a 
Democratic Governor in the State of Ohio, and Robert Taft was replaced 
by a Democrat. It suddenly became 48 Democrats, and 47 Republicans, 
with 1 Independent.
  That was the position Senator Nickles was trying to explain to me 
during the conference, and he was right. My memory was the first 
circumstance, and that was right. The difference was, we had had a 
death in there that I had forgotten.
  Now this was the situation: Because the Republicans had organized the 
Senate with 49 Senators to begin with, they had organized it with a 
Republican majority on every committee. They held that Republican 
majority on every committee until Senator Taft died, and it switched. 
At that point, Senator Morse--this I do remember--said, A, he had been 
elected as a Republican and, B, the Republicans controlled the 
administration and, therefore, in order to prevent the new President 
from being frustrated in his opportunities to get things through, he 
would, even though he had denounced his Republican party membership, 
vote with the Republicans on organizational issues, giving the 
Republicans 48, the Democrats 48, and with Richard Nixon in the chair 
giving the Republicans 49.
  Here is the key point. Under those circumstances, the Democrats said: 
We will not ask for a realignment of the committees. We will allow the 
majority that was there on the committees to be maintained through the 
balance of this Congress.
  So it was 48 Democrats, 47 Republicans, and 1 Independent, with the 
Independent vowing to vote against any organizational resolution the 
Democrats might bring forward, and of course Vice President Nixon would 
vote also that way, so the Republicans, even though they had only 47 
seats, in a 96-seat Senate, maintained the chairmanships and a 1-vote 
margin on every committee.
  Now we are in a different situation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
proceed for an additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Now we are in a different situation in that we come into 
it even, 50/50. This time, the Democrats have not been so shy about 
saying, we will automatically give up control on each committee. And 
they have been very firm about saying that the committee ratios must be 
exactly the same. If I were in their shoes, frankly, I would probably 
be arguing exactly the same way.
  On the other hand, the Constitution has been cited here by the 
Senator from West Virginia, by the majority leader, and others, saying 
that the Republicans have the ultimate right to break the tie through 
Vice President Cheney after January 20.
  This creates what is sometimes called an immovable object facing an 
irresistible force, with both sides digging in and saying: This is what 
we absolutely have to have. And with the power of the filibuster, both 
sides have a nuclear weapon.
  To have come up with a resolution that is producing the kind of 
rhetoric we are now hearing on the floor this afternoon demonstrates 
the wisdom, the intelligence, and the skill of our respective leaders. 
I, for one, want to go on record congratulating them both and all of 
the Members of the Senate who are lining up behind it, even though 
there are those on both sides of the aisle who are terribly unhappy 
with the ultimate result. The fact that we have one that is now going 
to pass by unanimous consent is a tribute to our leadership. I wanted 
to express that here today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, while I do not disagree with anything 
that has been said here, I do feel compelled to make a statement. While 
I was not on the floor, there was a unanimous consent request 
propounded successfully, so that this is automatically going to become 
a reality without a vote. That is fine. That is going to happen. But I 
have to say, I was not here on the floor, as 75 percent of the Senators 
were not here.
  I am not criticizing the majority leader or any Member of this 
Senate. But I have to say, I agree with Senator Byrd that--I think he 
probably recited it, even though I was not here--section 3 of Article I 
of the Constitution says:

       The Vice President of the United States shall be President 
     of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally 
     divided.

  I often say that one of the few qualifications I have for this office 
is that I am not an attorney. So when I read the Constitution, I know 
what it says. So

[[Page S40]]

after the 20th, we will be a majority party.
  While I chair two subcommittees, the rule that we are adopting here, 
the resolution, says that even though I chair that subcommittee, if it 
is an equal vote--it is a tie vote--it goes on to the full committee. I 
do not think that is right. For that reason, I just want to make sure 
the Record does reflect I do oppose the resolution. I would like to 
have the Record reflect that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Virginia is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. May I say, I congratulate the 
Presiding Officer for assuming the chair. I assume this is her first 
opportunity.
  Madam President, I was among the class of chairmen to hold out for 
the one-vote majority, not for any reason personal against my 
distinguished friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle but 
because of the enormity of the annual bill of the Armed Services 
Committee on which our distinguished colleague from West Virginia 
serves and my distinguished chairman from Michigan serves.
  That bill last time was brought to the floor with about 450 pages. It 
grew to 900 pages. It took us 5 weeks. Therefore, with that type of 
responsibility, whether I am the chairman or others are chairman or, 
indeed, on this side of the aisle, should it occur on a split, you need 
the authority to do the job. Then you have to accept the 
responsibility.
  I fought the battle along with others. My distinguished leader, Mr. 
Lott, gave me every opportunity to express my views. The decision was 
made within our conference. I accept that decision, and I today 
publicly commit to make it work. We have to make it work. We have an 
obligation to 281 million people to make it work.
  Our great Republic, three branches, coequal in authority, has gone 
through one of the great chapters of American history, a hard-fought 
election by the contenders in the executive branch, that decision then 
thrust upon the judicial branch, finally decided by the Supreme Court 
of the United States. Now to the legislative branch is posed a 
challenge to make it work. That we will do.
  I say to my friends in the Senate, we will draw from that treasure 
that we have in this institution called personal friendships and 
relationships. They are not well known publicly, but I am blessed, I 
say with humility, to have so many close, personal relationships 
throughout this Senate, ones in which I pose great trust and 
confidence.
  If I may be personal to my good friend from West Virginia, or my good 
friend, Senator Reid, and Senator Levin, we shall make this work in the 
interest of our country. Because the other two branches are going to 
make it work, we will. The legislative agenda of President Bush will 
rotate around the axle of the Senate--no disrespect to the other body. 
This split will be the axle around which it rotates, and we will make 
it work and move forward in the interest of this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the chairman of 
the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, be recognized for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for this time.
  We have an agreement. I believe it reflects well on both sides of the 
aisle and the leadership on both sides of the aisle. I think neither 
side of the aisle is fully satisfied. There are problems in this 
agreement, as there are problems in any agreement, but it is a very 
good first start.
  The hard reality is that the elected membership of this body is split 
50/50. The elected membership, Senators, are split 50/50. So one would 
anticipate that the membership of the committees would be split 50/50. 
This is a result of an election. The people of our country have spoken. 
They have chosen who serves here, who represents them in this Chamber, 
and it is their decision that has determined the result.
  There has been much discussion of the Constitution and the Vice 
President's role. It is absolutely the case that under our Constitution 
the Vice President breaks ties. Those are ties on the floor of the 
Senate. The Vice President doesn't break ties in committees. So I think 
the arrangement that has been worked out between the two leaders is the 
only logical conclusion to which one could come.
  As a member of the Budget Committee and the lead Democrat on the 
Budget Committee, let me say that the Budget Committee will be among 
the first places to test this new arrangement. Senator Domenici, who 
will chair the Budget Committee after January 20, which I have the 
privilege of chairing for the next 2 weeks, has said he will give it 
his best effort to make this work. I come to the floor to say I make 
the same pledge, that I will give my best effort to make this 
arrangement work.
  What I mean by that is what I have just had the opportunity to say to 
the Secretary-designate of the Treasury, Mr. O'Neill, in my office just 
moments ago, that bipartisanship is more than a word. It means that 
both sides give up part of their fixed positions. That is what 
bipartisanship means. If there is going to be compromise, it means that 
neither side gets precisely what it is seeking. But only through that 
kind of compromise and bipartisan spirit can we advance the agenda in 
this Chamber.
  Senator Domenici and I have already spoken several times. We had an 
extended discussion today. It is a good beginning.
  Again, I pledge my best effort to making this arrangement work. I 
think it can work. I believe if people of good faith join together, we 
can achieve much for our country.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have stated publicly on previous occasions 
my admiration for the two leaders, the Democratic leader and the 
Republican leader, and certainly that is accentuated as a result of the 
work they have done today.
  The work they have done has been difficult and hard, but in the 
process of doing the work, there have been some unsung heroes I want to 
recognize. I call them heroes. I underline and underscore that. When an 
idea is given by Senator Daschle or by Senator Lott, somebody has to 
put this on paper and work out the details. Those details have been 
worked out. Therefore, I want to make sure the Senate record is spread 
with the fact that we have had people who could be out in the private 
sector making lots and lots of money. They are here because they are 
dedicated public servants.
  I mention specifically Mark Patterson, Mark Childress, Caroline 
Fredrickson, Marty Paone, and Lula Davis on this side, who have spent 
tremendous amounts of time trying to carry forth the wishes of the two 
leaders.
  On the Republican side, there are others who could mention probably 
more people than I, but I have been able to witness personally this 
last week the tremendous work of Dave Hoppe, Elizabeth Letchworth, and 
Dave Schiappa, who have done tremendous work and have really made it 
possible to arrive at the point we are today. The work, the leadership, 
the policy direction by our two leaders has been significant, but it 
has only been able to be implemented because of the work of these staff 
people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, this is my first opportunity to address 
this body, so this is a special day for me.
  For the past 8 years, I have been in and out of this Chamber any 
number of times as Governor of Delaware and chairman of the National 
Governors' Association. I have never had the opportunity to sit down in 
one of these seats or to speak at one of these podiums.
  One of the great things about being Governor is you get to be part of 
the National Governors' Association. There is a strong history there of 
Democrats and Republicans, and one or two Independents as well, to 
actually work together, to reach across the aisle and to find 
consensus, not just occasionally but routinely.
  One of the aspects I liked most about being Governor was that every 
day you came home you felt good because you had gotten something done. 
Some of us

[[Page S41]]

previously served together in the House for awhile. I can remember any 
number of times going home on the train to Delaware feeling frustrated, 
not just 1 night or 1 week but maybe months, because we hadn't gotten 
enough done. We hadn't really met what was expected of us by the people 
who sent us here.
  I suspect, for people outside this body, the action we are endorsing 
today will have a relatively little consequence or seems to be of 
little consequence. But the agreement that has been struck is an 
agreement of real consequence, not just for those of us working here in 
the years to come but I think a real consequence for our Nation.
  We could have spent much of this month, and maybe the next month and 
the month beyond that, arguing about the size of the negotiating table 
and how many seats were going to be at that negotiating table or how 
many members would be on committees and subcommittees. We are not going 
to be doing that. Instead, we are going to have the opportunity to take 
up the business of the people who sent us here to work in the first 
place.
  This may be the triumph of man's hope over experience, but maybe if 
we can agree on some of the difficult issues we are agreeing on today, 
then there is some hope and promise that we may be able to find 
agreement on campaign finance reform, on ways to continue reducing our 
Nation's debt, and we might shore up the Social Security and Medicare 
trust funds, and we might cut some taxes--Democrats and Republicans 
will find common ground there--and how we might extend health care 
coverage to folks who don't have it, and prescription assistance for 
some of our older Americans, and even on schools.
  When the American people voted for 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, 
they did not vote for gridlock. When they voted for almost equal 
numbers in the House, they did not vote for gridlock. When they voted 
almost equally for George W. Bush and Al Gore, they did not vote for 
gridlock. I am proud to stand here on my third day as a Senator to be 
able to support a wonderful compromise struck by two excellent leaders 
that holds forth the promise that the next 2 years that we work 
together in the 107th Congress will be 2 years that will show a great 
deal more progress for our country, and that is good. This is a good 
day. I commend those who brought us to this agreement.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate is in an unusual situation and 
we are dealing, I believe, with extreme wisdom. It is a very difficult 
anomaly. It has never happened before that the Senate has had a 50/50 
split of this nature at the beginning of Congress. The only thing that 
comes close was in 1953, which was very different because the 
Republicans had a majority in the beginning of the Congress and the 50/
50 situation that existed only occurred in the second session of that 
Congress. The same party was in control throughout with the Vice 
President's vote in the second session, which had the majority in the 
first session.
  This is an unusual situation. It took wisdom and statesmanship on the 
part of our leaders to put together a resolution which would carry us 
through this very difficult point. Just like during the impeachment 
situation, the leadership was able to work out a process which allowed 
the Senate to function and to proceed in a manner that would allow us 
to have comity and civility, to avoid recrimination. So here the 
leaders have been able to put together a resolution which will permit 
us to do just that. I not only wish to thank Senators Daschle and Lott, 
but many others have been involved in this. I see one of the clear 
architects of anything we do around here in the Senate based on a 
knowledge of the Senate as an institution and a knowledge of the 
Constitution. Senator Byrd is on the floor. His role on this has been 
essential as well; the wisdom and the implications and precedents which 
preceded us, and which we will be setting here today, are very much 
known to Senator Byrd. As always, we have relied heavily upon him in 
achieving this result. I simply say this: One of the national papers 
said a few days ago that power-sharing is the first test in the Senate.
  Whether that term ``power sharing'' is particularly beloved by 
Members of this body, nonetheless that is really what we have had to 
achieve today. We have succeeded in passing that test, in my judgment. 
We carved out the mechanism which will allow us to respect the fact 
that we have a 50/50 Senate.
  On the other hand, we are different from the House in at least two 
ways. Being in the presence of Senator Byrd, I am sure there are many 
more ways; but at least in two ways that I focus on.
  First, we have a Vice President, somebody who can break a tie.
  Second, we are a continuing body. The fact is we are a continuing 
body. If we didn't agree to a resolution, the previous Senate's 
resolution would continue to be in force until it was supplemented by a 
new resolution.
  That is very different from the situation that exists in the House of 
Representatives.
  In my home State in Michigan, we had a very positive experience in 
1993, I believe, with a 50/50 House of Representatives. But they ended 
up with joint speakers, joint chairmen--joint everything, because there 
was no alternative. There was no way of breaking that tie.
  We have a way of breaking a tie here. We have a Vice President at 
least on the Senate floor. We don't have a Vice President in committee, 
but we have a Vice President on the Senate floor. And we have a 
continuing body. We are a continuing body, which means that the last 
resolution would have continued in place, with all of the difficulties 
and complications that would have created, until it was replaced by the 
resolution we are adopting here today.
  I commend our leadership and all those who have been involved in 
making it possible for us to proceed as a Senate in a manner which I 
think the public will respect as being fair and which is respectful of 
this body and this institution.
  I know how conscious we must be of what we are doing--not just for 
the next period of time until a majority is reestablished by one party 
or the other, but we must be respectful of the implications of what we 
are doing for future circumstances similar to these.
  History, I believe, will judge this agreement favorably. It is an 
agreement which is very sensitive to the history of this body. It is 
about as close to the 50/50 yard line as we can get consistent with the 
fact that there is indeed a Vice President who on the floor can break a 
tie consistent with the nature of this body as a continuing 
institution.
  The old saying that ``necessity is the mother of invention'' is 
surely true again. It is the mother of bipartisan invention here, and I 
think it will serve us very well, and we will find we can work together 
as well as we have so often even when one of us is in the majority and 
one in the minority.
  I know this has been the case on the Armed Services Committee. As the 
Presiding Officer knows and may know again, many of our committees work 
very well together on both sides of the aisle. It has been true between 
myself and Senator Warner, who has been chairman and will again be on 
the 20th, and with Senator Thurmond before him. We have worked together 
very closely. That closeness will continue surely and even perhaps be 
enhanced, if that is possible, by this resolution.
  I thank all those who have been involved.
  I see Senator Reid is also on the floor. I want to add my thanks to 
him because he has been at every moment involved in the carving of this 
document. I commend him and all others on both sides for their efforts.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the agreement, the resolution is 
agreed to, and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
  The resolution (S. Res. 8) was agreed to, as follows:

                               S. Res. 8

       Resolved, That, notwithstanding the provisions of Rule XXV, 
     or any other provision of the Standing Rules or Standing 
     Orders of the Senate, the committees of the Senate, including 
     Joint and Special Committees, for the 107th Congress shall be 
     composed equally of members of both parties, to be appointed 
     at a later time by the two Leaders; that the budgets and 
     office space for such committees, and all other subgroups, 
     shall likewise be equal, with up to an additional 10% to be 
     allocated for administrative expenses to be determined by the 
     Rules Committee, with

[[Page S42]]

     the total administrative expenses allocation for all 
     committees not to exceed historic levels; and that the 
     Chairman of a full committee may discharge a subcommittee of 
     any Legislative or Executive Calendar item which has not been 
     reported because of a tie vote and place it on the full 
     committee's agenda.
       Sec. 2. Provided, That such committee ratios shall remain 
     in effect for the remainder of the 107th Congress, except 
     that if at any time during the 107th Congress either party 
     attains a majority of the whole number of Senators, then each 
     committee ratio shall be adjusted to reflect the ratio of the 
     parties in the Senate, and the provisions of this resolution 
     shall have no further effect, except that the members 
     appointed by the two Leaders, pursuant to this resolution, 
     shall no longer be members of the committees, and the 
     committee chairmanships shall be held by the party which has 
     attained a majority of the whole number of Senators.
       Sec. 3. Pursuant to the provisions and exceptions listed 
     above, the following additional Standing Orders shall be in 
     effect for the 107th Congress:
       (1) If a committee has not reported out a legislative item 
     or nomination because of a tie vote, then, after notice of 
     such tie vote has been transmitted to the Senate by that 
     committee and printed in the Record, the Majority Leader or 
     the Minority Leader may, only after consultation with the 
     Chairman and Ranking Member of the committee, make a motion 
     to discharge such legislative item or nomination, and time 
     for debate on such motion shall be limited to 4 hours, to be 
     equally divided between the two Leaders, with no other 
     motions, points of order, or amendments in order: Provided, 
     That following the use or yielding back of time, a vote occur 
     on the motion to discharge, without any intervening action, 
     motion, or debate, and if agreed to it be placed immediately 
     on the Calendar of Business (in the case of legislation) or 
     the Executive Calendar (in the case of a nomination).
       (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule XXII, to insure 
     that any cloture motion shall be offered for the purpose of 
     bringing to a close debate, in no case shall it be in order 
     for any cloture motion to be made on an amendable item during 
     its first 12 hours of Senate debate: Provided, That all other 
     provisions of Rule XXII remain in status quo.
       (3) Both Leaders shall seek to attain an equal balance of 
     the interests of the two parties when scheduling and debating 
     legislative and executive business generally, and in keeping 
     with the present Senate precedents, a motion to proceed to 
     any Legislative or Executive Calendar item shall continue to 
     be considered the prerogative of the Majority Leader, 
     although the Senate Rules do not prohibit the right of the 
     Democratic Leader, or any other Senator, to move to proceed 
     to any item.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 10 minutes on the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________