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

[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..."

Who the heck is talking about Bush? That's off-topic.

Post something relevant. Or explain how you call a 7% increase for the Democrats a "cut."

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.

That's classic. Post non sequiters and then run away. This thread is about what happened in the Senate.

[MJY1288]

I wouldn't call it a win or a loss, I would call it a compromise and a compromise that would have never had to happen if Trent Lott had a spine.

My hope is that they come up with a standard ratio and take ratio's off the table. With just a one seat advantage to the majority on the Committee's a 60/40 split would be fine with me. I hope they illeminate this process by passing a bill that requires the Presidents signature and becomes law

[MJY1288]

LOL, Daschle proclaimed the Tax Cuts in 2001 as a victory didn't he :-)

[Sabertooth]

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

The gavels and seats were won in November. If we don't recognize that, the Democrats never will.

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

"Peace in our time."

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.

I'd rather call their bluff. You'd rather fold.

[Sabertooth]

The Democrats are only too happy to stall.

they threatened a filibuster if they didn't get 50/50 funding, and they took 40%.

That tells you that they were bluffing.

[new cruelty]

Post something relevant. Or explain how you call a 7% increase for the Democrats a "cut." If I may ask, how is this a 7% increase for the democrats?

[hchutch]

Oh, come off it.

You go around parsing everything said, just because you didn't get everything you want.

We got the gavels, we got the votes, we got a good fundign ratio that's closer to OUR proposal than theirs - I cannot fathom how anyone but the most snobbish "elite conservative" to use David Frum's words would call this a loss.

[Friend of thunder]

I think the bottom line is Tom Dasshole is now officially in the minority.

[WOSG]

Anything more than 1/3 is more than the Dems deserve:

I went here ...

http://congress.nw.dc.us/rollcall/dbq/officials/

And wrote my senators this ...

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 and harm conservative and Republican causes.

Respectfully,

[Fred Mertz]

I have no respect for whiners who throw temper tantrums if they don't get every little urge they have gratified.

Then you must not respect the Dims. They got what they wanted today. Admit it, the Pubbies caved again.

[TLBSHOW]

here is the bottom line we have to work with the rats to get anything done. That is the bottom line.

[hchutch]

I'd rather get on base than strike out.

Take your snobbish all-or-nothing attitude and shove it where the sun don't shine.

So far, Bush and Frist have done their job, and done it extremely well. I'll trust them over you any time.

[Sabertooth]

You go around parsing everything said, just because you didn't get everything you want.

We got the gavels, we got the votes, we got a good fundign ratio that's closer to OUR proposal than theirs - I cannot fathom how anyone but the most snobbish "elite conservative" to use David Frum's words would call this a loss.

It's called "math." Try to fathom this:

7% more for them is 7% less for us.

That's a win for them, and a loss for us. We weren't going to lose the gavels or the committiees, GOP timidity notwithstanding.

[Clinging Bitterly]

In other words the Republicans caved and gave the Democrats everything they wanted. Again.

[Sabertooth]

Take your snobbish all-or-nothing attitude and shove it where the sun don't shine.

You're too easy.

[WOSG]

there's nothing snobbish about pointing out that the Dems asked for something they didnt deserve to get, and the GOP compromised. Anything more than 1/3 was a Dem victory.

The GOP could and should have put forth the organization ratios that they want and forced the Dems to filibuster the organizing resolution or go along ... and filibuster 24/7. We have the votes to pass the organizing resolution. We should have gone ahead with what we want and done it.
Evenutally the Dems would have had to relent, they dont have the votes ... and it would have worn down their resistance.

This compromise with unreasonableness only encourages them ... for similar examples, look at Yasir Arafat and the North KOreans.

[hchutch]

It's not a cave.

Funds and staff ratios don't mean crap. The votes in committees and whoever wields the gavel mean far more. We get that when the resolution passes.

The funding and the staff ratio is not important.

[hchutch]

You think I'm easy?

You're deluded.

[Fred Mertz]

Giving the Dims from 33 percent to 40 percent is a cave where I come from. It's a 20 percent increase, and they lost the election! LOL

[Sabertooth]

If you cave on this, you will be forced to cave on much more later on and harm conservative and Republican causes.

"the Dems caved more than we did."

The victory song of delusional appeasers.