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

[savedbygrace]

I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. That sentence was written by a math major, I'm sure of it. LOL.

A journalism student, huh? What does she want to write when she gets out into the real world?

[meema]

This makes me sick.
Have the Repubs never learned how to play hardball? So accustomed to being the minority? So blankety-blank eager to get their hands on the gavels?
The MONEY and the STAFF are so important, especially in Judiciary!

[hchutch]

The Dems wanted a 51-49 funding/staff ratio.

We wanted the traditional 66-34 ratio.

The result is 60-40.

They gave up nine points.

We gave up six.

Uh... the Dems caved more than we did. Even if it was a 67-33 ratio, the final score is a win - we took nine points, they took seven.

9-7 is still a win (and that is the WORST one can say about the GOP's performance), even if the pitcher's ERA is going to be a little on the high side. Still not bad for opening day - there's a whole season worth of games.

Besides, we got a big bonus on the Michigan case, so I don't think we have all that much to complain about today.

[Sabertooth]

So, Dems wanted 50% and were perceived to be holding the stronger hand.

Who perceived that, rather than the bluff it clearly was?

A good compromise is when you meet in the middle. Dems went more than half way again.

No, we gave them a 7% increase when they asked for 17% and were entitled to 0%. We gave in, they didn't.

You're spinning like Carville and Begala.

[Howlin]

The Democrats also wanted to split the staff on the Intelligence Committee, half GOP, half Dem; since that is NEVER done -- the staff serves all the committee, supposedly bipartisan -- the fact that they did NOT get that is also good for us.

Also, the Dems had a set of little "rules" they wanted to instigate on the Judiciary Commmittee, i.e., only one "controversial nominee" per hearing, has to be vetted and approved by the ABA, and a bunch of other crap -- that they did NOT get either.

[MJY1288]

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

If they had set ratios, Why would they to negotiate a Organization Resolution to begin with... DUH!

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

Absolutely, But for the past century we havn't seen the RATS pull such stunts, There is nothing the RATS won't do to game the system. Haven't you figured that out yet?

Lott is to blame for opening this can of worms, When you give these low life RATS an inch they try and take a mile. There is no reason for a huge debate over this, It's an organization resolution for pete's sake.

[EDINVA]

sorry, but you are aptly named .. you don't know, diddly. EVERYTHING that gets done gets done in Committee .. when you watch a floor vote, it's all over. It's those budgets that fund the comittee staffs ... so you have an equal number of young D staffers to young R staffers. Their job is to thwart the opposition. So, instead of having, i.e., 6 GOP staffers and 4 D staffers, you have 5 of each. They will now be more successful at obstructing at the committee level. They will stay on Capitol Hill and continue to exert their influence. The GOP staffers will not be able to accomplish so much ... it's a real loss, leaving aside the symbolism of Frist starting of on the entirely wrong foot .. there's a world of difference getting control without a majority because ONE Senator who was elected GOP switched to D .. AND, winning a majority through an election when all the odds and history were against you. Of course Daschle is happy and wants this proportion to continue .. he won't live long enough to see another super D majority. GOP loses again, even when they win.

[RCW2001]

"They caved more than we did"... LOL! Big Winners Are We.../sarcasm off

[meema]

I'm not standing up for Lott...BUT his problem was 50-50!
Which is why all dashole had to do is get 1 Pubbie to be a former pubbie. Hence: 50-49-1

[The Wizard]

makes me sick, too, but the GOP took a while in the house to learn how to lead, AND THE SENATE WILL STAY GOP for years with any luck

[hchutch]

Specter will play ball. Dubya wants the judges, and Dubya gets what he wants or he's going to use the bully pulpit and his political capital to get Senators who will give him what he wants. After 2002, no Senator is going to cross Dubya without thinking that over.

[meema]

I'm not standing up for Lott...BUT his problem was 50-50!
Which is why all dashole had to do is get 1 Pubbie to be a former pubbie. Hence: 50-49-1

[hchutch]

Put it this way. Yeah, the ERA's a little high, yeah the prize rookie pitcher (Frist) got a little roughed up, but inthe end they gave up more points than we did. We won, it wasn't pretty, it wasn't a complete blowout, but we won.

I'll take an ugly win. I just wanna win.

[hchutch]

Frist got roughed up, but the 60-40 funding and staff ratio still means they gave up NINE percent. We have up SEVEN percent.

I don't care if you can score seven runs off a pitcher. If YOUR pitcher gives up nine runs, you're still the L-O-S-E-R.

[Fred Mertz]

I'll take an ugly win.

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

[deport]

makes me sick, too, but the GOP took a while in the house to learn how to lead,

---

Damn weren't them senate boys and girls practicing leadership prior to the 107th for a few years while Clinton was President? Guess they didn't learn much.

[PhiKapMom]

You are right -- with 50/50 there wasn't much could be done without bringing everything to a screeching halt.

[Sabertooth]

We wanted the traditional 66-34 ratio.

The result is 60-40.

They gave up nine points.

We gave up six.

Where did you learn math, working on a Democrat budget staff?

If we gave six, they got six.

If they ask for a 16% increase, and only get a 6% increase, that's a...

6% increase.

Giving the Democrats smaller increases than they've asked for is never a cut.

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

First: no they didn't. They bluffed, we folded.

Second: It's exactly the mindset that you articulate here that leads to GOP defeat after defeat.

9-7 is still a win (and that is the WORST one can say about the GOP's performance), even if the pitcher's ERA is going to be a little on the high side. Still not bad for opening day - there's a whole season worth of games.

If CPAs use that kind of math, they go to jail. You can't report a 7% loss as a 9% profit, and claim you came out in the black.

[RCW2001]

Why can't you see that?

Same flavor of koolaid...different side of town??? ;)

[hchutch]

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