50/50 Senate - who controls the committees?

[LSK]

I always thought that they were controlled by the Party that controls the White House. But someone else suggested the committees are split.

Does anyone know for sure how it would work???

[Hosnon]

1. The Senate would vote for a leader to set the agenda and appoint committee

chairs.

It would require a simple majority vote to get elected. If the vote was 50/50, Cheney would break the tie and the Republican candidate would be elected.

Assuming the vote was along party lines, the Republicans would set the agenda and appoint the committee chairs.

[doublethink]

5. So if the vote went down upon party lines ....

50/50 ... and Cheney gets the deciding vote to set up any committee chairs, ...... that means there goes our 'oversight, investigations, and subpoena power in the senate?'....sigh...... :eyes: ........... Although this Smith guy (repub) along with a few other Repubs who may have suddenly found their 'conscience' might still give us the majority? Fingers crossed, and all the best to Senator Tim Johnson's full recovery. Peace.

[Hosnon]

8. Yeah pretty much. nt.

[onenote]

2. my recollection is that they were evenly divided

the last time the senate was split 50-50, with an equal number of members and co-chairman.if a committee deadlocked on a vote, the Senate majority leader (who would be a repub if it was 50/50 with a repub VP) was given the authority to call for a floor vote on the legislation or the nomination.

Here's a link. http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=19129&printerfriendlyVers=1&

[Jon8503]

3. When Lott & Daschle were senate leaders and it was 50/50 they

worked out an agreement for a shared committee assignments senate with Lott the majority leader as it was 50/50 & the VP was the tie voter.

Lott, Daschle discuss sharing power in Senate
From CNN Congressional Correspondent Chris Black

December 7, 2000
Web posted at: 5:05 p.m. EST (2205 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate leaders Trent Lott and Tom Daschle spent an hour behind closed doors Thursday morning in their first discussion of how Democrats and Republicans could share power in an evenly divided Senate in the 107th Congress.


Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle

The meeting was inconclusive, but Senate Majority Leader Lott, R-Mississippi, and Senate Minority Leader Daschle, D-South Dakota, agreed to hold regular discussions and try to reach an agreement by the end of December. The new Senate will convene on January 3, 2001.

If George W. Bush becomes president and Sen. Joe Lieberman, Vice President Al Gore's running mate, stays in the Senate, the chamber will be divided 50-50 between the two parties -- the first time since 1881 the two parties have the same number of seats.

If Gore's challenge to the Florida presidential results succeeds and Lieberman becomes vice president, Connecticut's Republican governor is likely to appoint a fellow Republican to Lieberman's seat: That would give the GOP a 51-49 edge in the upper chamber.

"We had a discussion about the agenda for the next year and how we're going to work together," Lott said after the meeting.

"This was an opening discussion, kind of general in nature. It was on global areas. We talked through and I asked him to give me specifics, and I'll come back to him with some too," he said.

According to one aide to Daschle, the Democratic leader tried to impress on Lott the unity of the Democratic caucus in wanting equal staff, equal votes in committee and input on setting the Senate's legislative agenda. Lott was reportedly positive about wanting to work something out.


Sen. John McCain

There is little talk of co-chairing the committees, however.

At least one committee chairman -- Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee -- has agreed to divide his committee 50-50, but McCain would remain as sole chairman. Democrats already are looking ahead to the midterm elections in 2002 and want to be able to run against a possible Republican president and Congress.

By a fluke of timing, Democrats will hold the majority in the Senate for 17 days -- between January 3, when the new Senate convenes with Lieberman in his current seat and Gore retains his vice presidential duty as Senate tie-breaker, and January 20, when a new vice president takes office.

[Virginia Dare]

4. Here is some historical info from today's WAPO..

The only time that partisan control of the Senate changed in mid-session, historians say, was in 2001. Republicans began the year controlling the 50-50 chamber with Cheney's tie-breaking vote. But Democrats, mindful of the recent sudden death of Sen. Paul Coverdell (R-Ga.), were aware they could be a heartbeat away from the majority.

In order to adopt new rules organizing the Senate, the two parties must reach nearly unanimous agreement. Democrats in 2001 blocked the naming of committee chairmen and members, demanding concessions before agreeing to the rules. Among those concessions: Should the numerical advantage change, all committee assignments and chairmanships would be nullified, and a new organization would have to be submitted.

That's what happened, not because of a death but because disgruntled moderate Republican Sen. James M. Jeffords (Vt.) decided to caucus with the Democrats, giving them a 51-49 edge and the powers of the majority. Senate Republican sources said yesterday that their party is likely to press for similar concessions when negotiating the operating rules for the next Congress. But even if Johnson were incapacitated, Democratic aides say, they would resist.

A different scenario unfolded in 1954, after the deaths and replacements of several senators over two years. Republicans remained the majority party even though Democrats eventually outnumbered them, 48 to 47, with one independent. Democratic leader Lyndon B. Johnson did not challenge the GOP's control, in part, historians said, because the independent, Wayne L. Morse of Oregon, warned that he would caucus with the Republicans if need be. That would have led to a 48-48 chamber, and Vice President Richard M. Nixon would have broken the tie in Republicans' favor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/14/AR2006121400379_2.html

[DURHAM D]

6. I don't understand this kind of post - the man is not dead-period.

[Hosnon]

9. Nothing wrong with preparing yourself - especially when so much is at stake.

Do parents wait until their child actually gets accepted to college before worrying about how to pay for it? (And many more like examples involving retirement, etc.)

[Warpy]

7. Cheney breaks the tie

so the fucking Repugs maintain control.