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

[Torie]

The funding ratio should be allocated based on reasonably anticipated workload, the responsibility for drafting legislation, and the need for both sides to be well informed. I don't know what that percentage is, I don't care what happened in the past, I want to do what is more reasonable in the future. And whatever the formula, it should not thereafter be tampered with, absent one side gaining 60 votes. Thus the formula should also apply to the numbers for future hypothetical senate divisions. Out of curiousity, someone said the formula was 60-40, and someone else said it was really 56-44. Which is it?

[copycat]

We'll add you to the anti-bushbot list too!

I respectfully decline. I am not an anti-Bush-bot.

But the truth is the truth.

[xzins]

Sounds to me like the money split used to be 50/50 when the Dems had their 50-49-1 advantage. Now that the Senate is 51-48-1, the Republicans have gained 10% of the money.

It's the Pubbies who won.

Simple math....they have 10% more than they had.

[MJY1288]

You do have a point! Thanks for pointing that out to me. And it looks like Frist refused to return the favor.

I didn't think of looking at this Senate Organizing Resolution at that angle. In short..... Trent Lott negotiated and GOT a better deal for the Republicans last June for the remainder of the 107th Congress, Then Daschle was able to garner for the 108th.

Thanks again for the perspective, I'll put you on my "The Glass Is Half Full" ping list :-)

Cheers,

MJY

[Howlin]

I never took your for a Bush basher. And I know 'em when I see 'em. :-)

[MJY1288]

I have started listening to Rush again a few weeks back after a friend said he was no longer using NYT's editorials and articles as fodder against Republicans. Today, Rush was on fire, He lit into the RATS like I have never heard him before. He seems to back to his old self IMHO

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

I hope I'm wrong, but it looks as if Senator Frist CAVED.

Wisdom is choosing the right battles to fight. Let's hope senator Frist is a wise man. To me, this first scrap is akin to arguing about the color of the fenders on the race cars.

[Leto]

. Maybe I'm missing something, but is the division of committee funding really that important? About the only thing I can think of where it would make much of a difference is in the amount of staff available to assist in issue research Well if we had 66% foing to the pubbies rather than 55% then more rats staffers would have lost their jobs ...which is a good thing. If Frist didn't cave on the rat demands on approving judges then this isn't too bad, but if he gave in on the approval on judges then we are looking at another Trent Lott or Dole as leader... I sure hope not.

[bigfootbob]

Only time will tell. The first impressions are important.

[Robert_Paulson2]

sorry pal
OLD freeper term
get used to it
it aint goin away...
:-)

[Leto]

THe funding was done during Jan MONTHS before Jeffords defection. The reason the funding wasn't changed because the staffing and funds had been committed, so Lott did blow it last session.

[SuziQ]

So, instead of having, i.e., 6 GOP staffers and 4 D staffers, you have 5 of each.

Staffers don't vote, Senators do. Instead of screaming anmoaning about how bad things are, we need to concentrate on how to get those Repub. numbers UP in 2004 so that Frist doesn't have to do this song and dance, he can tell the Dems. to pound sand!

We have the Committee Chairmanships now. Anyone who dismisses the importance of that must have been sleeping the last two years. It is impossible to get things to the floor for a vote if a Committee Chairman doesn't want it there.

Partial Birth Abortion? Little Tommy didn't let it get to the floor for a vote because he knew it would pass and Dubya would sign it. It had passed under x42, and Daschle even voted FOR the ban, so he could crow about how pro-life he was to the people back home, but he knew his vote didn't matter a hill of beans because he knew x42 would veto it!

Conservative Judges? Well, Dubya has brought them back and with a Repub. in the Chairmanship position at Judiciary, it will come to a floor vote and these folks can possible get passed and onto the Fed Bench.

Instead of always looking at the pessimistic side of things, try to be positive and maybe some of those undedcided voters you meet along the way to 2004 will see the wisdom in the Conservative position. If you do nothing but bitch and moan, what do you think their opinion will be?

[rwfromkansas]

Fox says:

"In the end, the sides compromised on the division of committee funds, office space and committee assignments.

The deal gives the GOP a one-seat majority on all committees except the Intelligence and Ethics committees, which traditionally have an even number of members from both parties.

It also gives the majority a roughly 60-40 advantage when it comes to staff, money and space, more than the two-thirds to one-third ratio that Republicans had wanted but less than the 51-49 percent split reflecting the majority-minority ratio. Democrats had threatened to filibuster anything less than that."

Okay, I was rather concerned earlier, but it sounds like we stuck with 60-40. It seems Fox is the only network that is able to just lay it out simply without all the BS the other articles had to insert to make the whole thing confusing.

[Howlin]

See above.

[Intolerant in NJ]

THe funding was done during Jan MONTHS before Jeffords defection...at which time the Senate and committees were split 50/50 - the dims would have had as much of a claim on a majority of funding as the 'pubs - Jeffords jumped only a few months later(May), plenty of time for dims to rejigger funding (refusing to allocate, new reorganization bill since they were now in charge,etc.) - but it didn't happen.....

[dfwgator]

Especially when we look at what was gained - the gavels and the committee seats.

That was already won in November.

[Robert_Paulson2]

Are you saying that the minority hasn't gotten 33% for a century?

---

we were the minority for the last 18 mos... and got nearly fifty percent... argue about the legitimacy of daschle's reign, but the hard truth is, we did pretty well for being in the minority... 50-49-1.

this is NOT a big win.
this will prove to be an effective win.

---

as far as the pubbies ability to make the needed touchdowns we want... remember we have NOT really been in POWER without democratic interference in our lifetimes...

we are not as good at cutting throats and playing the nutcracker sweet, as the dems have been.

we will do better, and we can do better, tomorrow morning at the first committee meetings.

I expect the REAL chairmen have their agendas ready to roll and several brand new high powered paper shredders for laehys and hillary's agenda printouts...

I love the smell of paper shredding in the morning.
You are dissappointed. I understand that. We could have done more... but maybe this will turn out better than we are seeing right now.

be well.

[MJY1288]

I read the article earlier, It's definately different from the AP and Reuters reports.

One thing I have come to recognise in the Senate. Who ever is the first to claim victory is the loser. The fact that Tom Daschle raced to the michrophones to proclaim a victory is a sure sign he is in "Damage Control Mode"

60/40 is a good split and as far as I'm concerned, I would like to see the Senate end these Organizing Resolutions for each new Congress and vote on a permanant set of rules that are binding and requires the President's signature and becomes the law of the land. A 60/40 split and a one seat advantage on the Committee's would be very fair IMHO

[Irish Eyes]

Thats right, how could I have forgotten that miserable debacle.

[FairOpinion]

We won.

So did Gore -- at least some people think so.

Hasn't anyone heard of negotiating skills? The ones where you ask for twice what you want, ask for outrageous things, so that when the other party gives you what you want, they can delude themselves that they forced you to compromise.

That is exactly what the Democrats did -- ask for everything, including the kitchen sink, so now the Republicans are so happy that the Dems "settled" for 40%, despite the rules which said that they are only entitled to 33%.

And wait until next time, when the Democrats will ask for 60-40 for their side, while there is still a Republican majority, and then they will "settle" for 50-50.

Will that be a win for the Republicans too?