[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c03_txt-10]
[Page 172-188]
CHAPTER 3
Party Organization
B. PARTY CAUCUS OR CONFERENCE
Sec. 9. --Assigning Members to House Committees
The House rules provide for election by the House of the standing
committees,<SUP>(6)</SUP> their chairmen,<SUP>(7)</SUP> and election
by the House of Members to fill vacancies in standing
committees.<SUP>(8)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Rule X clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 669 (1973). A former
version of Rule X provided that unless otherwise specially
ordered by the House the Speaker should appoint the standing
committees (see 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4448); the Speaker in
practice usually, but not always, accepted the Minority
Leader's recommendations with respect to minority party
members' committee assignments (see discussion in 8 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 2172 [quoted remarks of Joseph G. Cannon]). For
further discussion comparing the former with the present
practice, see Riddick, Floyd M., Congressional Procedure,
Chapman and Grimes (Boston, 1941), pp. 35, 36.
7. Rule X clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 672 (1973).
8. Rule X clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 673 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In practice, the political parties decide as to assignments of
their respective party members to House committees, and resolutions
providing for such elections are presented in the House by the majority
and minority parties as soon as they are able to perfect their lists.
The practice is indicated in the following exchange from the Record of
the 92d Congress:<SUP>(9)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 117 Cong. Rec. 1710, 1711, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 4, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Is it correct that the
resolution presently before the House is a resolution offered on
behalf of the Democratic caucus? The resolution is the
recommendations for committee assignment on the Democratic side.
The Speaker:<SUP>(10)</SUP> The gentleman is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ford: Is it the procedure to be followed that subsequently
a com
[[Page 173]]
parable resolution will be offered representing the views of the
Republican conference?
The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
The lists presented by the parties indicate not only the membership
but also the ranking of the Members on the House
committees.<SUP>(11)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. For further discussion of procedures for electing House committees,
see Ch. 17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The caucus and conference thus play a major role in determining
assignments to House committees. Each party has created<SUP>(12)</SUP>
a committee on committees,<SUP>(13)</SUP> which is charged with the
responsibility of nominating party members for positions on House
committees. The caucus or conference elects or approves<SUP>(14)</SUP>
the membership of the party's committee on committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 8, supra.
13. For a general description of the committee on committees, see
Sec. 11, infra.
14. See Sec. 9.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to having created the committee on committees and
selecting or approving the membership thereof, the caucus or conference
may formulate rules or guidelines affecting the composition of House
committees. For example, in an addendum to the caucus rules of
1971,<SUP>(15)</SUP> it was stated to be the sense of the Democratic
Caucus that no Member should be a member of more than two committees
with legislative jurisdiction. Another provision in the
addendum<SUP>(16)</SUP> stated that recommendations by the Committee on
Committees as to nominees for chairmen and membership of the committees
``need not necessarily follow seniority.'' In similar fashion, the
ratio between the majority and minority parties on the standing
committees, which varies with the respective membership of the parties
in the House, may be in large measure determined by the caucus. An
addendum to the caucus rules of 1971<SUP>(17)</SUP> stated the
following to be the sense of the caucus:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Democratic Caucus Rules (July 20, 1971), addendum, paragraph 3. For
discussion of later versions of the caucus rules, see
supplements to this edition as they appear.
16. Democratic Caucus Rules (July 20, 1971), addendum, paragraph 5.
17. Democratic Caucus Rules (July 20, 1971), addendum, paragraph 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee ratios should be established to create firm working
majorities on each committee. In determining the ratio on the
respective standing committees, the Speaker should provide for a
minimum of three Democrats for each two Republicans. On those
committees on which the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico
serves, said Commissioner shall be considered, in the 92nd
Congress, as a Member of the minority and the Democratic mem
[[Page 174]]
bership should be increased accordingly.<SUP>(18)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For further discussion of the determination of the ratio between
the majority and minority parties on standing committees, see 8
Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2186, 2187. Rule X clause 1, of
the House Rules indicates the total number of Members to be
elected to each standing committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the assignments made by the party Committee on Committees
are subject to caucus or conference approval.<SUP>(19)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. For more detailed discussion of such approval, see Sec. 9.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An addendum to the caucus rules of 1971<SUP>(20)</SUP> stated that,
``The Committee on Committees shall recommend to the caucus nominees
for chairmen and membership of each committee and such recommendation
need not necessarily follow seniority.'' It was stated
further:<SUP>(1)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Democratic Caucus Rules (July 20, 1971), addendum, paragraph 5.
1. Democratic Caucus Rules (July 20, 1971), addendum, paragraph 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on Committees shall make recommendations to the
caucus, one committee at a time. Upon a demand supported by 10 or
more Members, a separate vote shall be had on any committee
chairman or any member of the committee. If any such motion
prevails, the committee list of that particular committee shall be
considered recommitted to the Committee on Committees. Further,
such demand, if made and properly supported, shall be debated for
no more than 40 minutes with the time equally divided between
proponents and opponents. If the caucus and the Committee on
Committees be in disagreement after completion of the procedure
herein provided, the caucus may make final and complete disposition
of the matter.
[Note: For discussion of the current version of this provision, see
supplements to this edition as they appear.]
The Republican Conference has similarly adopted procedures whereby
certain recommendations of the Republican Committee on Committees are
submitted to a vote in the conference.<SUP>(2)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Sec. 9.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The list of committee assignments presented by each party to the
House in the form of a resolution has generally been routinely approved
by the whole House. But in the 92d Congress, a challenge was made to
the tradition whereby each party, rather than the whole House, assumes
primary responsibility for determining assignments of members of that
party to House committees. Dissatisfied with one committee chairmanship
as determined by the majority caucus, certain members of the majority
party attempted to present the issue of that chairmanship for determina
[[Page 175]]
tion by both majority and minority party members. The House declined to
depart from tradition, however, and the resolution naming members of
the majority party to positions on House committees was adopted without
change.<SUP>(3)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Sec. 9.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The presence of third parties in the House may complicate
procedures for determining committee ratios and making committee
assignments. In the 75th Congress,<SUP>(4)</SUP> for example, members
of the Farmer-Labor and Progressive parties sparked a debate in the
House over procedures by which committee assignments should be allotted
to third parties. The Farmer-Labor-Progressive group were critical of
the procedure whereby members of that group had been given their
committee assignments from the quota for the Democratic majority and
had been nominated for committee membership in the resolution naming
Democratic Members to committees. Members of the Farmer-Labor-
Progressive group contended that their committee assignments should
either have been taken out of the quota set aside for minority Members
of the House, or awarded from a bloc of assignments specifically
reserved for their group. The arguments of the Farmer-Labor-Progressive
group did not prevail, and the House adopted the resolution assigning
Democrats and the third party members to committees.<SUP>(5)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. For a detailed discussion of the proceedings described here, see
Sec. 9.4, infra.
5. See Sec. 9.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is worth noting here that the power of each party to determine
committee assignments and rank of Members on committees is sometimes
the instrument by which party discipline is maintained and party
members ``punished'' for actions considered disloyal to the
party.<SUP>(6)</SUP> Factors other than party loyalty, however, enter
more frequently into the determination of Members' committee
assignments; such factors include length of service in the House,
geographical considerations, and the desires of the individual Member
himself.<SUP>(7)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. 9.5, infra.
7. For further discussion of committees and committee assignments, see
Ch. 17, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Election by Caucus of Committee on Committees
Sec. 9.1 Democratic members of the Committee on Ways and Means, who
serve as their party's Committee on Com
[[Page 176]]
mittees<SUP>(8)</SUP> are elected in the party caucus by secret
ballot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. The Republican Committee on Committees is constituted somewhat
differently. See Sec. 8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Note: The following is descriptive of the practice that has been
in effect in some Congresses. For discussion of current practice in
which the function of determining committee assignments has been
delegated to a different committee, see supplements to this edition as
they appear.]
On Mar. 2, 1956,<SUP>(9)</SUP> a Member addressed remarks to the
House concerning a newspaper article that had charged Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, with exercising influence over the selection of
members of the Committee on Ways and Means for the purpose of excluding
from that committee any Member who might be opposed to certain tax
benefits enjoyed by the oil industry. At the conclusion of the Member's
remarks, the Speaker pro tempore, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
observed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 102 Cong. Rec. 3839, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair may make the personal observation that members of the
Ways and Means Committee on the Democratic side are elected in
caucus by secret ballot.
Parliamentarian's Note: Announcements made in the House have
referred to caucus meetings to be held for purposes of electing members
of the Committee on Ways and Means. See Sec. 5.3, supra.
Approval of Committee Assignments
Sec. 9.2 Nominations for assignments to standing committees of the
House are made by the party Committee on Committees and reported to
the caucus or conference for approval.
This practice is of long standing.<SUP>(10)</SUP> Thus, on Jan. 14,
1965,<SUP>(11)</SUP> Majority Leader Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
announced a caucus meeting ``for the purpose of agreeing to
recommendations of the Democratic Committee on Committees in
designating Democratic Members of the several committees and their
assignment thereon.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3617, discussing the practice of the
Democratic party.
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 660, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The excerpts below, from a debate<SUP>(12)</SUP> in the House over
the procedures for making certain committee assignments, indicate that
the practice as now followed reflects reforms recently adopted by
[[Page 177]]
both parties<SUP>(13)</SUP> with respect to the effect of seniority on
committee assignments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. For more detailed discussion of the debate, see Sec. 9.3, infra.
13. See the Parliamentarian's note at the end of this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the debate, which centered upon a certain committee
chairmanship,<SUP>(14)</SUP> the following remarks were made by the
Republican floor leader, Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. In the caucus, ``a majority decision [had been made] to [accept]
the committee chairman as recommended by the committee on
committees.'' (Remarks of Mr. Boggs, 117 Cong. Rec. 1709, 92d
Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 4, 1971.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . Let me make another observation, Mr. Speaker. In 1970,
the Republican Party took the initiative to make some changes in
the election of our ranking Republican member, or the chairman, if
we were in the majority. Under the Conable task force, a great deal
of time and study resulted in a procedure which we followed
yesterday. Each of our ranking Members was voted on separately and
secretly. The net result was that we chose responsible members for
each committee to be the ranking minority member. We have made that
decision on our side, and we do not think you should come over and
upset those decisions on our side. And I do not think . . . that we
should make any decision as far as your party caucus is
concerned.<SUP>(15)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 1711, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 4, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, the Majority Leader, Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, made
the following remarks:<SUP>(16)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, I wish to commend the minority leader for the statement
he has made . . .
I would also point out that we, too, had a task force, known as
the Hansen Committee. That committee worked hard and diligently . .
. [t]hey came to a unanimous resolution on their recommendations,
and those recommendations in turn were adopted by the caucus.
Just as the gentleman from Michigan said that they had the
right to vote on each of their ranking Members separately, so we
had the same right and did so on yesterday.
At a later point in the debate, Mr. Ford again stated:<SUP>(17)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 117 Cong. Rec. 1712, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 4, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, our Members
will have voted for our nominees for ranking members on each of the
committees and we did it in our caucus or conference by a secret
ballot with a separate vote in each case.
Parliamentarian's Note: As previously noted in this section, the
Democratic Committee on Committees has traditionally nominated
Democratic party members for assignment to House committees and
reported such nominations to the caucus for approval.<SUP>(18)</SUP>
Pursuant to recommendations of the Hansen Committee mentioned above in
the remarks of Mr. Boggs, the
[[Page 178]]
Democrats provided in an addendum to the caucus rules that, ``The
Committee on Committees shall recommend to the caucus nominees for
chairman and membership of each committee and such recommendation need
not necessarily follow seniority,''<SUP>(19)</SUP> and that the
Committee on Committees should make its recommendations ``one committee
at a time.''<SUP>(20)</SUP> Provision was also made for a separate
vote, in certain circumstances, on any committee chairman or member of
a committee.''<SUP>(1)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3617.
19. Democratic Caucus Rules (July 20, 1971), addendum, paragraph 5. For
discussion of a more recent version of this provision,
including special procedures for nominating members of the
Committee on Rules, see supplements to this edition as they
appear.
20. Democratic Caucus Rules (July 20, 1971), addendum, paragraph 6.
1. See Democratic Caucus Rules (July 20, 1971), addendum, paragraph 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The history of Republican procedures for making committee
assignments has been similar in many respects to that of the Democratic
party's procedures. In 1919,<SUP>(2)</SUP> the Republican Conference
defined the duties of the Committee on Committees to include the
selection of the Republican members of the standing committees of the
House, the selection of members for specified party positions, and the
duty to report its action to a Republican Conference. Pursuant to
recommendations of a task force, the Republican Committee on Committees
now names its choice, not necessarily on the basis of seniority, for
the ranking Republican Member on each House committee; the Republican
Conference then votes, by secret ballot, on each such nomination
separately.<SUP>(3)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3621.
3. See the remarks of Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, quoted in this
section, supra. See also Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the
Congress of the United States, Congressional Quarterly Service
(Washington, D.C., 1971) p. 171, discussing the changes noted
above in the use of seniority as a basis for determining
committee assignments.
For general discussion of procedures by which party members
are assigned to House committees, see Riddick, Floyd M.,
Congressional Procedure, Chapman and Grimes (Boston, 1941), DD.
35-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refusal by House to Overrule Caucus
Sec. 9.3 In the 92d Congress, the House declined to depart from the
procedure whereby each party determines the assignments and rank of
its
[[Page 179]]
members on standing committees of the House.
In the 92d Congress,<SUP>(4)</SUP> a few Democratic Members opposed
their party's selection of Mr. John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, as
Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia. One of the
Democratic Members, Mr. Jerome R. Waldie, of California, announced his
intention to submit the issue of such committee assignment to the whole
House, thereby challenging the custom that committee assignments as
determined by the respective parties will not be challenged in the
House. The announcement was as follows:<SUP>(5)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See 117 Cong. Rec. 1708-1714, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 4, 1971.
5. 117 Cong. Rec. 1707 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 4, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Waldie: Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time in today's
proceedings a resolution that encompasses the decisions of the
majority caucus with relationship to chairmen of standing
committees and members thereof will be presented to the House for
approval. It is my understanding that customarily the decision of
the majority caucus in these matters has been traditionally
accepted without any objection from any Member of the House of
Representatives. It will be my intention at this particular moment,
however, to subject that tradition to a test today, and I will ask
the House to vote down the previous question when the previous
question is sought in order to permit that resolution to be open to
amendment.
If the previous question is voted down, and the resolution is
thereupon open for amendment, it would be my intention to offer an
amendment to the resolution appointing standing committee chairmen
to delete the standing committee chairman of the House District of
Columbia Committee.
After the introduction of the resolution assigning Democratic
Members to House committees, a debate took place in the House on the
issues raised by Mr. Waldie's action, as follows:
Mr. Waldie: . . . [It is] my intention to request the entire
House to consider this proposal. I recognize that is a departure
not from the rules of the House, which are explicit that the entire
House of Representatives participate in this decision, but from the
custom of the House, which is that the majority party in the
enclaves of their caucus make the determinations and the minority
party accepts those decisions. It is my own personal conviction
that this issue is of national importance and all of the
legislative representatives of the Nation, of the minority and of
the majority, should participate. . . .
It has been usually the case that the minority party has been
outspoken in their concern and condemnation of the seniority system
because their opportunity of implementing any change in that system
would not be existent. Today, that opportunity will be afforded you
and I hope you will join with those who believe that the deci
[[Page 180]]
sion to continue this committee as it has been in the past was a
wrong decision which was made in the majority caucus.<SUP>(6)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 117 Cong. Rec. 1709, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 4, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In opposition to Mr. Waldie's proposal, Majority Leader Hale Boggs,
of Louisiana, spoke as follows:<SUP>(7)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Boggs: Would the gentleman not agree that we would be
establishing a precedent here that could be carried to any length
and in truth and in fact, if the majority party voted unanimously,
we could displace any committee member or every committee member
nominated by the minority.
In response to the Majority Leader's question, Mr. Waldie stated as
follows:<SUP>(8)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Wade: . . . I would say that in those instances where the
national interest is not being properly cared for, that comity,
custom, and courtesy of the House should be reconsidered and the
rules of the House followed in those instances where comity,
courtesy, and custom are contrary to the rules and to the interest
of the American people.
The following discussion then took place:<SUP>(9)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Boggs: . . . [I]s it not accurate that if a minority on the
Democratic side and a majority on the minority side get together
they could take over control of the entire committee system in the
House? . . .
Mr. Waldie: That is true, but if by so doing the national
interest were advanced I would not find that objectionable.
Mr. Boggs: As to the question of whether or not the national
interests are involved, again I defer to the distinguished
chairman, but the gentleman was here on yesterday when this matter
was debated and the gentleman knows that this matter was debated
fully, without any effort to limit debate, and that a vote was
taken, and that a majority decision was made to adopt the committee
chairman as recommended by the committee on committees.
Mr. Waldie: I recognize . . . that the debate was fair and
proper, and that the decision represented the vote of the majority,
but the national interests, however, are not represented per se by
the majority of the Democratic caucus . . . and I would like to
again accord under our rule the opportunity of the minority to
participate in the determination as to whether the national
interests have been served.
Mr. Phillip Burton, of California, in expressing his objections to
Mr. Waldie's proposal, stated in part as follows:
Mr. Burton: . . . It is a most dangerous precedent, I would
think, without regard to the political point of view that any of us
might hold, to in effect give the minority caucus veto power over
the majority caucus deliberations as to whom they select to lead
the various committees of the Congress.<SUP>(10)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 117 Cong. Rec. 1710, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 4. 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 181]]
In a series of exchanges with other Members, Minority Leader Gerald
R. Ford, of Michigan, made clear his opposition to Mr. Waldie's
proposal. The following excerpts<SUP>(11)</SUP> reveal the Minority
Leader's position:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 117 Cong. Rec. 1710-1712, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 4, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ford: Is it correct that the resolution presently before
the House is a resolution offered on behalf of the Democratic
Caucus? The resolution is the recommendations for committee
assignment on the Democratic side.
The Speaker: [Carl Albert, of Oklahoma]: The gentleman is
correct.
Mr. Ford: Is it the procedure to be followed that subsequently
a comparable resolution will be offered representing the views of
the Republican Conference?
The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Ford: Mr. Speaker, I think this factual situation clearly
sets forth the issue that is before us. The Democratic Caucus made
a decision on committee chairman. Whether we on our side agree with
it or not, by precedent that is a matter within the ranks and
prerogatives of the majority party.
. . . [Mr. Waldie] was unable to persuade a majority of the
Democrats to his view. I do not think that we on the Republican
side ought to succumb to his arguments of this occasion. Therefore,
Mr. Speaker, I would certainly hope and trust that the Republicans
on this issue, on a Democratic resolution expressing the views of
the Democratic Party, should not under any circumstances vote
``nay'' on the motion to order the previous question. As
Republicans we should exercise our option to vote ``yea'' or
``present'' on the previous question, because the matter is one for
the Democrats to decide and not for us.
Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, who had introduced the resolution
naming Democratic Members to committees, moved the previous question on
the resolution.<SUP>(12)</SUP> By vote of the House, the previous
question was ordered, and the Speaker announced that the question was
on the resolution. The resolution was agreed to.<SUP>(13)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 1714, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., Feb. 4, 1971.
13. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: It has been stated<SUP>(14)</SUP> that,
``motions for the election of Members to committees are debatable and
are subject to amendment.`` Although the House in the above proceedings
declined to allow an amendment to the Democratic resolution, it is
worth noting the procedure employed in challenging the resolution,
comprising a request for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, which
would have opened the resolution to amendment.<SUP>(15)</SUP> If the
House had permitted an amendment deleting
[[Page 182]]
the portion relating to the chairmanship of the Committee on the
District of Columbia and adopted the resolution as amended, another
chairman of that committee would have had to be recommended by the
Committee on Committees for caucus approval.<SUP>(16)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2172.
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 1709, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., Feb. 4, 1971.
16. See 117 Cong. Rec. 1707, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., Feb. 4, 1971
(remarks of Mr. Waldie).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Assignments of Third-Party Members
Sec. 9.4 The role of third party caucuses in obtaining committee
assignments for their members has been minimal. In the most recent
practice, committee assignments for members of third parties have
been determined by the majority party, and such assignments have
been included in the resolution naming majority party members to
committees.
In the 75th Congress, the resolution naming Democratic Members to
House committees included as well the names of members of the Farmer-
Labor and Progressive parties. Members of the Farmer-Labor Progressive
group, as they were referred to, objected to the method by which their
committee assignments were determined, and the issues raised by their
objections were debated on the floor of the House.
Following the introduction of the majority party's resolution
pertaining to committee assignments, the following proceedings took
place:<SUP>(17)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 203, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 13, 1937.
For references relating to third parties generally, see
Sec. 2 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the reading of the names in the resolution be
dispensed with and that the names be printed in the Record. It is
simply a list of the majority members of the various committees.
Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. Rayburn: I yield to the gentleman. . . .
Mr. Boileau: Does the gentleman state to the House these are
merely the names of the majority members?
Mr. Rayburn: There are also assigned the so-called Progressive
Members.
Mr. Boileau: The Members of the Farmer-Labor and Progressive
Parties are included in there?
Mr. Rayburn: Yes.
Mr. Boileau, after making certain parliamentary inquiries,
addressed the House on the subject of the committee assignments for the
Farmer-Labor and Progressive Members of the House. The de
[[Page 183]]
bate that ensued<SUP>(18)</SUP> centered on the contention of the
Farmer-Labor Progressive Members that either their group should have
been given a definite bloc of committee assignments to be apportioned
among their Members as the group itself should decide, or that the
assignments of the Farmer-Labor-Progressive Members should have been
taken out of the quota of committee assignments set aside for minority
Members of the House. The remarks of Mr. Boileau and other Members were
as follows:<SUP>(19)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See 81 Cong. Rec. 203-212, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 13, 1937.
19. See 81 Cong. Rec. 203, 204, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 13, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Boileau: . . . I had received word, entirely unofficially,
that the majority committee on committees, consisting of the
Democratic members of the Ways and Means Committee, had made the
assignments to the various committees covering the majority Members
of the House, and that the question had been decided by the
Democratic committee on committees as to the number and importance
of committees to which the Farmer-Labor and Progressive Members of
the House were to be assigned. After I had received that notice I
thought it was the proper thing to notify the Democratic chairman
of the Committee on Ways and Means, who is also chairman of the
Democratic committee on committees, that I intended to address the
House on this particular subject. I felt that he and other members
of the committee should know that we, the Farmer-Labor and
Progressive Members, were entirely dissatisfied with the treatment
accorded us, not only in the matter of committee assignments but
also in a slight degree we were dissatisfied because we had not had
adequate opportunity to present our request to the committee on
committees with reference to individual assignments. . . .
We of the Farmer-Labor Progressive group . . . demand that we
be considered for all intents and purposes as a minority group. In
no sense of the word can we ever be considered as a majority group.
The precedents of the House are clear on that subject. It has been
established over a long period of years that those Members with
political designations other than the two dominant parties--in our
instance the third party or fourth party, the Farmer-Labor-
Progressive Members, or the so-called third party Members of the
House--have received their appointments from the Members of the
majority party.
This is probably as it should be. We prefer to have a definite
bloc of committees assigned to us, but we are not pressing that
issue now. We are asking for proper recognition on the committees,
and it has been the traditional policy of the Congress . . . that
the dominant or the majority party . . . should make assignments to
the third party men in the resolution electing the majority
Members. . . .
It is good parliamentary procedure that the Democrats in this
instance should give us our assignments, but we do maintain that
our assignments should come out of the assignments set aside for
minority Members.
[[Page 184]]
. . . [O]ur assignments as committee members of the House
should be taken out of the quota that the precedents and the rules
set aside for minority Members.
There is nothing in the rules of the House that provides that
such assignments should be divided between Democrats and
Republicans. All the rules and all the precedents are that the
assignments should be made as among the majority on the one hand
and among the minority Members on the other, and I submit to you
that as minority Members of the House--and this is the crux of our
entire argument and I hope you will get this point--we are entitled
to be given just the same consideration as is given to other
minority Members of the House. In other words, we should be given
as much consideration, in proportion to our percentage of the
minority Members of the House, as the Republicans or any other
group of minority Members in this body. . . .
During the Seventy-fourth Congress there were 82 major
committee assignments made to minority members. The Republicans,
the Farmer-Laborites, and Progressives altogether had 82
assignments on the 11 major committees of the House.
There are 102 minority Members over on this side of the House
in this Congress. There are 89 Republicans, 8 Progressives, and 5
Farmer-Laborites, a total of 102 minority Members. The fair
proportion of this group of 13 Progressives and Farmer-Laborites is
12\3/4\ percent of the major committee assignments. That is fair.
If we are to have our share of minority assignments on major
committees, that is what we are entitled to. If we are to be given
12\3/4\ percent of the minority committee assignments on major
committees, we would be entitled to 10.45. . . . We are willing to
have 10.
Gardener R. Withrow, of Wisconsin, Chairman of the Farmer-
Labor-Progressive party's Conference, stated the reasons underlying
his party's contentions. Stating that his group had not been
treated fairly, he continued as follows:<SUP>(20)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 81 Cong. Rec. 208, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 13, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Withrow: . . . I do want to say that in my opinion the crux
of this question is that some time ago an agreement was made
between the Republicans and the Democrats, who at that time were
the only parties in the House of Representatives. That unwritten
agreement was to the effect that a certain ratio would be
maintained between the majority and the minority parties regardless
of how few Members the minority party had. In accordance with said
agreement the ratio is being maintained at the present time. But
what has happened? There has come to the House of Representatives
another group, a truly minority group. The Republicans demand in
this particular case that the ratio shall be maintained, and the
result is that we the Progressive and Farmer-Labor groups are being
sacrificed.
If we were treated on a par with the Republican membership of
this House, we should have 10 major committee assignments, whereas
we have only 3 major committee assignments. This is the unfairness
of it all, and, my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, you
are being penalized as well as we, because our committee
assignments at
[[Page 185]]
the present time really belong to you as a majority. We should not
be forced to take our committee assignments from the majority or
from the committee on committees of the Republicans; they should be
assigned to us in a block for us to do with as we please, because,
Mr. Speaker, we are in every sense a part of the minority group of
this House.
Members speaking in opposition to the position taken by the Farmer-
Labor-Progressive party members attached importance to that party's
alleged lack of status as a national party.<SUP>(1)</SUP> In addition,
those supporting the resolution listing committee assignments relied on
the alleged failure of the Farmer-Labor-Progressive Members to make
timely application to the Democratic Committee on Committees for the
particular committee assignments desired.<SUP>(2)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See 81 Cong. Rec. 209, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 13, 1937 (remarks
of Mr. John W. McCormack [Mass.]).
2. See 81 Cong. Rec. 210, 211, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan 13, 1937
(exchange between Messrs. McCormack and Boileau).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Fontaine M. Maverick, of Texas, while characterizing the
Progressive group as a national movement and praising their work,
stated that he would vote to sustain the committee assignments as made
by the Democratic members of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr.
Maverick's remarks were as Follows:<SUP>(3)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 81 Cong. Rec. 211, 212, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., Jan. 13, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . I believe that we should go out of our way to be fair
with this group of Progressives. I am, however, going to vote to
sustain the Committee on Ways and Means, because . . . I do not
believe the Progressive-Farmer-Labor group has been quite as
aggressive as they should have been in asking for these committee
assignments ahead of time. . . .
The resolution assigning members of the Democratic Party and the
Farmer-Labor-Progressive group was adopted by the House without
change.<SUP>(4)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 81 Cong. Rec. 212, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 13, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: A rule has been stated<SUP>(5)</SUP> that,
in the allotment of committee assignments the party in control is
termed the majority and all the other parties constitute the minority
and that committee assignments of all parties other than the
controlling party are charged to the minority.<SUP>(6)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2184.
6. Instances of the application of this rule are cited. See 8 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. Sec. 2184, 2185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Assignments as Instrument of Party Discipline
Sec. 9.5 The power to determine committee assignments has been used by
the caucus as a means of disciplining Members for actions
considered disloyal to the party.
[[Page 186]]
In the 90th Congress, the resolution assigning Democratic Members
to House committees left vacancies on two committees--the Committees on
the District of Columbia and on Interstate and Foreign Commerce--
pending further consideration by the caucus of the committee
assignments and seniority of Mr. John Bell Williams, of
Mississippi.<SUP>(7)</SUP> Mr. Williams, who had endorsed the 1964
Republican Presidential candidate, had for that reason been reduced in
rank on the two committees by action of the Democratic
Caucus.<SUP>(8)</SUP> In the 90th Congress, following the introduction
of the Democratic resolution, the following proceedings took
place:<SUP>(9)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See resolution assigning Democratic Members to committees in the
90th Congress in 113 Cong. Rec. 1086, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.,
Jan. 23, 1967.
8. See the resolution assigning Democratic Members to committees in
the 89th Congress, 111 Cong. Rec. 809, 810, 89th Cong. 1st
Sess., Jan. 18, 1965.
9. 113 Cong. Rec. 1086, 1087, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 23, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Williams of Mississippi: . . . Mr. Speaker, in view of the
extraordinary action which was taken in the last Congress with
respect to my seniority position on the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce and the Committee on the District of Columbia, it
is my understanding that the Democratic Committee on Committees has
felt it incumbent on them to take the matter of my committee rank
to the caucus for final determination. In view of that, Mr.
Speaker, I have directed a letter to the chairman of the Committee
on Committees requesting that I not be assigned to any committee
until such time as this matter can be determined finally by the
caucus.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, in view of the committee
assignments that have just been read, that this request was acceded
to.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in fairness to my Democratic colleagues . . .
it would appear to me that this matter should be disposed of as
soon as practicable.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I am prepared to direct a letter to
the chairman of the caucus, requesting that a caucus be called as
soon as practicable for the purpose of determining my relative rank
in being assigned to my two committee assignments.
The letter referred to by Mr. Williams was included in the
Record,<SUP>(10)</SUP> and reads in part as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 1087, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 23, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . If the Committee on Committees is unable at this time to
place me other than in fifteenth position on the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, I respectfully request that I not
be assigned now.
This request applies to the Committee on the District of
Columbia, also. . . .
Later in the first session of the 90th Congress, Mr. Thomas G.
[[Page 187]]
Abernethy, of Mississippi, made the following remarks respecting the
retirement of Mr. Williams from the Congress and the disciplinary
action that had been taken by the Democratic Caucus. Mr. Abernethy's
remarks were in part as follows:<SUP>(11)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 36598, 36599, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 14, 1967.
See also the remarks of Mr. Walter B. Jones (N.C.) (113 Cong.
Rec. 3513, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 16, 1967), to the effect
that the Democrats had been inconsistent in the treatment
accorded by different segments of the party to those party
members who refused to support Democratic political candidates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Abernethy: Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague, the
gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. John Bell Williams, will shortly
retire from the House of Representatives. . . .
There are numerous Members of this body and literally millions
around the country who feel that the treatment accorded Mr.
Williams was unreasonable and unjustified. Certainly it was
unprecedented. . . .
. . . His would-be disciplinarians unsuspectingly and
unintentionally made a great contribution toward elevating him to
the high position of Governor of his home State, the State of
Mississippi.
The Democratic Caucus in the 89th Congress also took similar action
with respect to Mr. Albert W. Watson, of South Carolina. Mr. Watson had
been elected to the 89th Congress as a Democrat, and, like Mr.
Williams, had supported the Republican Presidential candidate in 1964.
For that reason, the caucus directed that Mr. Watson be given a low-
ranking committee position. Subsequently, Mr. Watson announced his
intention to change his political affiliation. As a result, he was
elected to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce as a
Republican.<SUP>(12)</SUP> At the time he made his declaration
regarding the change in his party affiliation, Mr. Watson announced his
decision to resign so that his constituents could, by their votes in a
special election, indicate their approval or disapproval of his action.
On Jan. 18, 1965, the Speaker laid before the House a letter from Mr.
Watson stating that Mr. Watson had submitted a letter of resignation to
the Governor of South Carolina,<SUP>(13)</SUP> such resignation ``to
become effective upon such date as the Governor or may set for a
special election to fill the vacancy.'' Mr. Watson actually resigned
from the House on Feb. 1, 1965.<SUP>(14)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See resolution assigning Republican Members to committees at 111
Cong. Rec. 992, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 21, 1965.
13. Mr. Watson's letters to the Speaker and to the Governor appear at
111 Cong. Rec. 805, 806, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 18, 1965.
14. See communications laid before the House by the Speaker on Jan. 28,
1965 (111 Cong. Rec. 1452, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.); such
communications, signed by Mr. Watson, stated in part that, ``It
now clearly appears that the Governor intends no affirmative
action on this matter. Therefore . . . I have this day
transmitted to him my resignation effective upon the
adjournment of the House on Monday, February 1, 1965.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 188]]
In a special election, Mr. Watson was re-elected to the House as a
Republican. On June 16, 1965,<SUP>(15)</SUP> the House, at the request
of Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, permitted Mr. Watson to
be sworn although his certificate of election had not arrived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 111 Cong. Rec. 13774, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More recently, the seniority of Democratic Member John R. Rarick,
of Louisiana, was reduced by action of the caucus. Mr. Rarick, who had
refused to support his party's Presidential candidate in 1968, was for
that reason assigned a lower rank on the Committee on Agriculture than
he would otherwise have had.<SUP>(16)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See the resolution assigning Democratic Members to standing
committees of the House at 115 Cong. Rec. 2083, 91st Cong. 1st
Sess., Jan. 29, 1969. For discussion of departures from the
seniority rule in both the House and Senate, frequently for
purposes of imposing the party's discipline, see Congressional
Quarterly's Guide to the Congress of the United States,
Congressional Quarterly Service (Washington, D.C., 1971), pp.
171, 172. See also the discussion of caucus action, taken in
the 90th Congress, whereby Mr. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. (N.Y.)
was divested of a committee chairmanship on various grounds
(113 Cong. Rec. 22, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 1967
[remarks of Mr. James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In each of the above instances, the party's discipline was imposed
on a Member for his opposition to the party's Presidential candidate.
Cannon cites an instance<SUP>(17)</SUP> wherein Republican Members were
disciplined by removal from committees or reduction in committee rank
for their failure to abide by the action of their party caucus with
respect to matters under consideration in the House. It should be
noted, however, that the discipline in this case was imposed by the
Speaker of the House at a time when the Speaker made appointments to
standing committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3606.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------