Senators passed two resolutions last night (S. Res. 130 & S. Res. 131) which re-shaped some committee structures after Senator Arlen Specter’s (D-PA) party switch. He “lost big,” according to POLITICO. Under terms of the resolutions, Mr. Specter will not be able to “retain his seniority on five committees this Congress.”
In announcing his switch to the Democratic Party last week, Specter said that Democratic leaders assured him that he would be treated as if he were elected as a Democrat 29 years ago — essentially allowing him to leapfrog most Democrats and put himself in line to become a committee chairman if he wins reelection in 2010. Several Democrats have taken exception to the notion that Specter would be taking possession of their prized real estate.
By voice vote on Tuesday night, the Senate sided with that sentiment in approving a resolution that adds Specter to the Democratic side on Judiciary, Appropriations, Veterans Affairs, Aging and Environment and Public Works — expanding Democrats’ majority on those panels.
Specter will be treated as the most junior member of those panels — putting him last in line in speaking time during committee hearings and limiting his influence on those panels. When the Judiciary Committee considers Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Specter will be the last Democrat to speak, and he’s last in line to chair the committee if the current chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), steps down.
Notably, a Democratic aide “said Tuesday night that Specter’s fate was sealed by comments he made suggesting that he wanted Norm Coleman to win the disputed Minnesota Senate race and by senior Democrats who were angry at the prospect of losing seniority to Specter.” Specter has since reversed course on the Minnesota comments.
The Washington Post notes that Democrats “have suggested that they will consider revisiting Specter’s seniority claim at the committee level only after next year’s midterm elections.”
The Post also says that Senator Specter will actually be second from last in seniority on the Aging Committee, contrary to the excerpt above.
Congress in Your Pocket
