With Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) publicly stating he'd consider becoming a Republican if Democrats block new funding for the Iraq War, many Democrats worry that control of the Senate hangs in the balance. However, their fears are unfounded. Many think back to 2001 when former Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) began caucusing with Democrats instead of Republicans, taking control of the Senate out of GOP hands. However, the two situations - though outwardly similar - contain one important difference.

If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.

What's the difference between now and 2001? A small but important distinction. When the 107th Congress was convened on January 3, 2001, Al Gore was still the Vice President and would be for another two-and-a-half weeks. Therefore, because of the Senate's 50-50 tie, Democrats had nominal control of the chamber when the organizing resolution came to a vote. With Dick Cheney soon to come in, however, Democrats allowed Republicans to control the Senate in return for a provision on the organizing resolution that allowed for a reorganization of the chamber if any member should switch parties, which Jeffords did five months later. There was no such clause in the current Senate's organizing resolution.

This raises some interesting questions. If this is true, then it might actually benefit the Democrats to force Lieberman to caucus with the Republicans. If the organizing resolution is set in stone then having Lieberman switch would mean that the Democrats could replace him on the Homeland Security, Armed Services, and Environment committees. And the Republicans, in order to make room for Lieberman, would have to drop members off of committees because they don't have any extra room.

I'm no expert on organizing resolutions, so maybe I am missing something. But if I'm right, here is what would likely happen if Lieberman bolted the party. We would need a new chairman for the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. First in line is Carl Levin. He has a better job as chairman of Armed Services, so he would take a pass. Next in line is Daniel Akaka. He is chairman of Veteran's Affairs. I'm guessing that he would consider Homeland Security a better gig. So, Akaka would become the new chairman, replacing Lieberman. That would create a vacancy in the chair of Veteran's Affairs. Next in line is Jay Rockefeller, who has a better job as head of the Intelligence Committee. So, the chair of Veteran's Affairs would fall to Patty Murray. She would join the swelling ranks of women in positions of Congressional power. Let's take a look:

Senate:

Ethics (co-chair): Barbara Boxer
Environment: Barbara Boxer
Rules: Diane Feinstein
Veteran's Affairs: Patty Murray (in this scenario)

House:

Ethics (co-chair): Stephanie Tubbs-Jones
House Administration: Juanita Millender-McDonald
Rules: Louise McIntosh Slaughter
Small Business: Nydia M. Velazquez

There is another consideration we shoud be taking into account, too, when we ponder a Democratic Party without Joe Lieberman. Part of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees' duties involves the following:

...organization and reorganization of the executive branch of the Government;...study the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of all agencies and departments of the Government; evaluate the effects of laws enacted to reorganize the legislative and executive branches of the Government; and study the intergovernmental relationships between the United States and the States and municipalities, and between the United States and international organizations of which it is a member. '

So, do I have this right about the Senate organizing resolution? If I do, I see a lot of benefit to just pushing Joe right out the door.