Senate Ends Impasse on Committee Funding

Associated Press

[RCW2001]

Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, January 15, 2003; 9:16 PM

WASHINGTON –– Senate leaders reached agreement Wednesday on how the two parties will divide up committee funding, ending an impasse that had deflected the Senate from its legislative business and clouded the debut of new Majority Leader Bill Frist.

With the deal on committee organization, coming eight days after the 108th Congress opened, committee chairmanships will finally be turned over to the new Republican majority and 11 Senate freshmen will get their promised seats on the 20 Senate committees.

Frist, R-Tenn., said the deal was fair to both sides, and, with it done, the Senate can begin to "accomplish what we are all about, which is to proceed with the nation's business."

The completion of that normally routine housekeeping chore removes a distraction that had postponed hearings still nominally under Democratic chairmen and delayed action on a $385 billion catchall spending bill for the fiscal year starting last Oct. 1. The last Congress failed to act on the legislation to fund non-defense federal agencies.

The dispute made for a contentious start to the new session and its new leader, Frist, with Democrats claiming they were being treated unfairly and Republicans accusing Democrats of ignoring the results of last November's election that put the GOP back in the majority.

There was never a problem with numbers: In the last Congress, Democrats held a one-seat advantage on committees and in this session, Republicans will gain a one-seat edge.

But Democrats said that traditional committee funding ratios, where the minority got as little as one-third of the money going to each committee, was no longer relevant in light of the last Congress when the funds were divided nearly equally.

The 107th Congress began in a 50-50 tie, and the parties agreed to a formula of near parity in seats, funds and space. There were only minor changes in the funding ratio when Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt., left the Republicans and shifted power to the Democrats.

Under the agreement outlined in a joint leadership letter, committee budgets will reflect the current ratio of the Senate, where Republicans have 51 seats and the Democrats, with Jeffords, have 49. An additional 10 percent will be given to the Republican chairman of each committee for administrative expenses.

Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota said the agreement was "the mirror image of the resolution we passed in the 107th Congress," when Democrats were up by 51-49. "We are very pleased with the outcome of the negotiations." Daschle said he hoped the precedent of committee structures being proportionate to Senate seats would continue in the future.

As in the past, individual committees will still be able to make adjustments in the formula.

© 2003 The Associated Press

[Uncle Bill]

http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/2003/gv011403.htm

---

January 14, 2003

THE NEED FOR A COMMITTEE RESOLUTION

• Senate Republicans won a majority of seats (51-49) in the elections on November 5, 2002. It is now January 14, 2003, and the Senate has yet to agree on an organizing resolution reflecting the new majority. This has precluded us from conducting any business, a clear negation of the will of the American people.

• Based on S. Res. 54 passed on March 8, 2001, current committee funding does not expire until February 28^th and does not have to be addressed prior to that date. Therefore, we could continue to negotiate funding while at least naming Committee Chairmen, so that the Senate may begin the work the American people elected them to do.

• Democrats not only refuse to reorganize, they are still acting as Chairmen in many cases and, in one instance, issued a hearing notice without the consent of Republican Committee members.

• In recent history it has never taken so long for the Senate to pass a Committee organization resolution. Organization resolutions agreed to in past Congresses:

103^rd Congress - January 7
104^th Congress - January 4
105^th Congress - January 9
106^th Congress - January 7

• Until last Congress'50-50 split, clear precedent has been set regarding a 2/3 - 1/3 split for committee funding. A chart of historic funding ratios, provided by the Senate Rules Committee audit staff, is available from the Republican Policy Committee.

• Following Senator Jeffords' switch (effective on June 6, 2001), the Senate quickly recognized new chairmen, as provided by S. Res. 8, which previously had been passed by unanimous consent on January 5, 2001. Senate Republicans were fully cooperative in the naming of new committee chairmen.

• S. Res. 4 was passed by the Senate in 1977 setting the 2/3 - 1/3 precedent. Before the passage of this resolution, minority committee staff was not even entitled to 1/3 of committee funding. The rule is below.

Standing Rules of The Senate

RULE XXVII

COMMITTEE STAFF

1. Staff members appointed to assist minority members of committees pursuant to authority of a resolution described in paragraph 9 of rule XXVI or other Senate resolution shall be accorded equitable treatment with respect to the fixing of salary rates, the assignment of facilities, and the accessibility of committee records.

2. The minority shall receive fair consideration in the appointment of staff personnel pursuant to authority of a resolution described in paragraph 9 of rule XXVI.

3. The staffs of committees (including personnel appointed pursuant to authority of a resolution described in paragraph 9 of rule XXVI or other Senate resolution) should reflect the relative number of majority and minority members of committees. A majority of the minority members of any committee may, by resolution, request that at least one third of all funds of the committee for personnel (other than those funds determined by the chairman and ranking minority member to be allocated for the administrative and clerical functions of the committee as a whole) be allocated to the minority members of such committee for compensation of minority staff as the minority members may decide. The committee shall thereafter adjust its budget to comply with such resolution. Such adjustment shall be equitably made over a four year period, commencing July 1, 1977, with not less than one half being made in two years. Upon request by a majority of the minority members of any committee by resolution, proportionate space, equipment, and facilities shall be provided for such minority staff. [emphasis added]

4. No committee shall appoint to its staff any experts or other personnel detailed or assigned from any department or agency of the Government, except with the written permission of the Committee on Rules and Administration.

• In the last century, the majority party twice (83^rd and 84^th Congresses) controlled the Senate by a one-vote margin. On two other occasions (82^nd and 85^th Congresses), the majority had only a two-vote advantage. (CRS Specialist in American National Government Paul Runquist)

• These instances existed prior to the passage of S. Res. 4 in 1977 establishing the precedent for a 2/3 - 1/3 ratio for committee funding. Records are not readily available on the breakdown of funding at these times, but it is very likely that the minority was granted far less than 1/3 of committee funding.

---

Caving with the GOP

[WOSG]

FREEP THE SENATE AND GET THE GOP TO RENEGE ON THE DEAL!!!

It is not voted on yet ... time to force the Senate to go back to 1/3 2/3 ... fact is, it will be in GOP hands for next decade and Daschle knows it, he's looking for crumbs ... let him filibuster the Senate organization 24/7 to stop the new majority!!

.... Senator Santorum, You are one of my favorite Senators and I know you have backbone, but what a cave-in to Democrat tricks you and Senate leaders just did! You know the rule is and has been 2/3 majority 1/3 minority for committee ratios for years. The absurd "precedent" of mid-session changeover does NOT mean you cave-in to Democrat unreasonable demands in a new session. REMEMBER, REPUBLICANS SENT YOU - NOT THE DEMOCRATS. Please do what your loyal Republican supporters want and not what Hillary Clinton wants! It is not voted on yet. Time to tell the Democrats "never mind" to the deal and force the Senate to go back to 1/3 2/3 ... 50% majority, 33% minority and 17% committee chair. Its a fair deal, as the Senate Democrats are only into obstructionism. If Senator Daschle doesnt like it, let him filibuster the Senate organization 24/7 to stop the new majority! If you cave on this, you will be forced to cave on much more later on.

[hchutch]

Did they? All they got was some funding and some staffers. Okay, a little more than usual, but big whoop. They will not have the votes to block anything in committee. That is big. They didn't even get have of the 16 points over NORMAL funding.

This is not a big loss, no matter how much you wish to stick your nose in the air and sniff for a sellout.

[Sabertooth]

This was a big win for the Dims. Why can't you see that?

"the Dems caved more than we did."
"the Dems caved more than we did."
"the Dems caved more than we did."
"the Dems caved more than we did."

Repeat this into the night with pride, and you'll either believe it or fall asleep.

[lds23]

When will the GOP stop playing prevent defense?

Justice delayed is justice denied. If they wait until the evidence is overwhelming in their favor, they do an injustice to those who suffer in the meantime.

[Thane_Banquo]

At first it seemed like they caved, but then I read this: As in the past, individual committees will still be able to make adjustments in the formula.

So there is a glimmer of hope. Since Republicans dominate the committees, if they had the balls, they could change it to the traditional 2/3 to 1/3 ratio.

[Quicksilver]

Are you saying that when the GOP was in the minority, they could have played hardball and gotten 40%?

Yes, if there are 41 in the minority who will support a filibuster.

[WOSG]

They "gave up" nothing ... they concocted a proposal we had no need to even consider ... If I offer $1 for your house and you "bargain" up to 1/2 its value, did you negotitate well???

Anything more than 1/3 ratio was a tactical victory for Dems, since they deserved NOTHING MORE THAN THAT.

[TLBSHOW]

This was a big win for the Dims. Why can't you see that?


blind

[Sabertooth]

Have some of this with your whine, I'm not interested.

Nor are you clever. Nor are you honest. When in doubt, you dissemble like a Democrat.

[MJY1288]

Things changed when Lott replaced Dole. I could go along with the glass is half empty crowd and call this a huge loss, But when the RATS took over the Senate and held slim majority in the 107th, the split was 55/45. With us having the same slim majority in the 108th we have a 60/40 split. I'll look at it as a minor victory, Everyone else can go vote for Hillary if they like, I'll stay put :-)

[Sabertooth]

Yes, if there are 41 in the minority who will support a filibuster.

My question was rhetorical.

The Democrats didn't have 41, that's why they settled for only a 7% increase. An easy bluff and a cheap win for them.

[Sabertooth]

This is not a big loss, no matter how much you wish to stick your nose in the air and sniff for a sellout.

Whoops, you accidentally tip-toed near the truth.

Weren't you spinning this as a win, earlier?

[deport]

I'll asked again as I don't think you replied to me when I asked earlier. Do you have any data on how the split will be accomplished in the committees regarding personnel? One Dem loss or two?

[MJY1288]

I'm sorry, I forgot to reply. I don't know, from what I understand they havn't even voted on the Resolution yet. My guess would be that Dems drop 2

[hchutch]

Sabertooth,

I think you fit the description of some folks that David Frum was talking about in his new book.

"Conservative elites were perpetually sniffing the air around Bush for the scent of sellout..."

I've come to the conclusion that the same theme may be true for the Republican as well, for whatever reason.

You might want to check out a few other threads that were posted today:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/823301/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/823326/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/823292/posts

Because as far as I am concerned, you've just been whining today, and you have said NOTHING about a major principled stand one took. I call that disingenuous at best. Period, end of discussion.

I have no respect for whiners who throw temper tantrums if they don't get every little urge they have gratified. And quite frankly, today, you're whining over a relative tempest in a teapot compared to the announcement made at 4:30 PM Eastern today.

[Quicksilver]

The Democrats are only too happy to stall. They have 41 out of 49 who will s-l-o-w down proceedings. There's probably only a six-month window for the GOP and the Bush administration to get legislation through the Senate. Nearly half of the Dems are running for president in '04, so look for much more of this stuff.

[hchutch]

It is not a loss. Especially when we look at what was gained - the gavels and the committee seats.

We won. We didn't win pretty, but we won.

Or would you rather hold out until they gave the next seven percent and not get jack-crap. All-or-nothing hitters have many more outs than homers.

[fightinJAG]

dasshole always goes out and proclaims victory, even when he got his little thumbs stubbed

[fightinJAG]

Agreed!

And maybe, just maybe, this one AP report is not accurate anyway??