[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 3.  Party Organization]
[A. Introduction]
[Â§ 1. In General]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 143-148]
 
                               CHAPTER 3
 
                           Party Organization
 
                            A. INTRODUCTION
 
Sec. 1. In General



    This chapter describes the nature and functions of the party 
structure in the House, including the party leadership and the major 
party organizations.(1) It should be borne in mind that some 
of the organizations described do not remain constant in their 
influence or importance as instruments for the formation or promotion 
of party policy. Thus, the Democratic Caucus is more active at present 
than at times in the recent past;(2) the Republican 
Conference has in some measure assumed functions formerly undertaken by 
the Policy Committee;(3) and the Democratic Steering 
Committee has been relatively inactive in recent years.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See also the discussion of party organizations in 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 3602-3629.
            This chapter discusses significant developments through the 
        93d Congress, first session. For discussion of later changes in 
        the structure and procedures of the party organizations, see 
        supplements to this edition as they appear.
 2. See Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the Congress of the United 
        States, Congressional Quarterly Service (Washington, D.C., 
        1971), p. 604.
 3. Id. at p. 142.
 4. Id.
            For discussion of recent developments, including the new 
        role assumed by the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, 
        see supplements to this edition as they appear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Much of the legislative business that is done is, of course, a 
result of interaction between the political parties. Many of the rules 
and procedures of the House can be understood only in the context of 
the system of government through parties. Jefferson regarded the rules 
of proceeding as, in some degree, a check on the power of the majority; 
he stated that,(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Jefferson's Manual, sec. 1 (House Rules and Manual Sec. 283 
        [1973]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [A]s it is always in the power of the majority, by their 
    numbers, to stop any improper measures proposed on the part of 
    their opponents, the only weapons by which the minority can defend 
    themselves against similar attempts from those in power are the 
    forms and rules of proceeding which . . . [have] become the law of 
    the House, by a strict adherence to which the weaker party can only 
    be protected from those irregularities and abuses which these forms 
    were intended to check. . . .

[[Page 144]]

At the same time, it has often been observed that the rules of 
proceeding are an instrument through which a majority may work its will 
in the face of the determined opposition of a minority.

    Although not always the case, frequently the attitude of members of 
the same party toward particular legislation is fairly 
uniform,(6) so that sentiment in the House with respect to 
such legislation divides according to party alignment.(7) 
Despite the traditional role of partisan rivalry in shaping 
legislation, however, the spirit of comity that exists between the 
parties has often been noted.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 10, infra, as to means by which a party may seek to 
        promote uniformity among its members.
 7. The terms ``majority'' and ``minority,'' of course, need not 
        necessarily refer to parties, but may refer to the division of 
        sentiment on an issue where such sentiment does not depend on 
        party alignment. For an instance in which the term ``minority'' 
        in a special order was construed to refer to the minority party 
        in the House and not to those in the minority on the pending 
        question, see 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 767. It is also stated 
        (in 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 766) that a division of time for 
        debate between those ``for and against'' a proposition does not 
        necessarily provide for such division between the majority and 
        minority parties of the House but between those actually 
        favoring and opposing the measure.
 8. See, for example, 117 Cong. Rec. 1709, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 4, 
        1971 (remarks of Mr. James G. Fulton [Pa.]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Steps are taken to ensure that in every phase of legislative 
proceedings each party's interests are represented. Thus, each standing 
committee is composed of members selected by the respective 
parties.(9) Where memberships are added to a committee, they 
are apportioned between majority and minority.(10) Similar 
principles of apportionment are applied with respect to 
subcommittees.(11) With respect to the appointment of 
committee staff personnel, the rules typically contain a provision such 
as the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 9, infra.
10.  See Sec. 17.8 infra.
11. See, for example, 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4551.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The minority party on any such standing committee is entitled 
    to and shall receive fair consideration in the appointment of 
    committee staff personnel pursuant to each such primary or 
    additional expense resolution.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XI clause 32(c), House Rules and Manual (1971). This language, 
        offered as part of H. Res. 5, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. (1971), 
        engendered considerable controversy, being a modification of a 
        proposed more specific rule.
            A statute [2 USCA Sec. 72a(b)] provides that, subject to 
        appropriations which it shall be in order to include in 
        appropriation bills, the Committee on Appropriations of each 
        House is authorized to appoint such staff, in addition to the 
        clerk thereof and assistants for the minority, as each such 
        committee, by a majority vote, shall determine to be necessary, 
        such personnel, other than the minority assistants, to possess 
        such qualifications as the committees respectively may 
        prescribe.
            As to committees and committee staff generally, see Ch. 17, 
        infra.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 145]]

Similarly, provision is generally made for majority and minority 
representation on joint committees.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 983a et seq. (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Care is also taken that the parties are fairly represented on other 
committees or commissions created for special purposes. For example, 
commissions that have been appointed for purposes of making 
recommendations regarding improvement, reconstruction, or the like, of 
the physical facilities of the Capitol, have been comprised of Members 
apportioned from the majority and minority parties, including 
designated party leaders.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See 40 USCA Sec. 166 (notes); see also Sec. 17 infra, discussing 
        measures taken to ensure equitable representation on the 
        Commission on the Extension of the Capitol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the majority party's candidates for various House offices 
are routinely elected thereto, the minority's candidates for the 
offices are generally named to positions as ``minority employees'' in 
the House.(15) Moreover, provision is made for the 
appointment and compensation of a minority pair clerk and a ``staff 
director to the minority.''(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 117 Cong. Rec. 13 (resolution naming minority candidates), 15 
        (resolution as to compensation of certain minority employees), 
        92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 21, 1971. As a further example, see 
        99 Cong. Rec. 15, 24, 25, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1953. 
        Resolutions relating to minority employees of the House are 
        discussed further in Sec. 17.10, infra.
16. See, for example, 117 Cong. Rec. 15 (H. Res. 6), 92d Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Jan. 21, 1971. See also H. Res. 441, 91st Cong. 1st 
        Sess. (1969).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On occasion, a Member has changed party affiliation, sometimes 
after acts on his part that his party has deemed disloyal and for which 
the party has imposed discipline on the Member. Thus, Mr. Albert W. 
Watson, of South Carolina, who had been elected to the 89th Congress as 
a Democrat, was the subject of punitive action taken by the caucus on 
account of his having supported a Republican Presidential candidate. 
Mr. Watson subsequently announced his intention to change his political 
affiliation from Democratic to Republican and to resign so that his 
constituents could, by their votes in a special election, indicate

[[Page 146]]

their approval or disapproval of his activities. Mr. Watson's letters 
tendering his resignation to the Governor of his state and informing 
the Speaker of such resignation appear in the Congressional 
Record.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 111 Cong. Rec. 1452, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 28, 1955.

            As to constitutionality, construction, and application of 
        statutes regarding party affiliation or change thereof as 
        affecting eligibility to nomination for public office, see 
        annotation, 153 ALR 641.

    In the 85th Congress, Mr. Vincent J. Dellay, of New Jersey, changed 
his party affiliation from Republican to Democratic. A letter written 
by him to the Republican floor leader appears in the Congressional 
Record;(18) the letter indicated that Mr. Dellay had 
informed certain Democratic leaders on both the national and state 
levels of his intention to change party affiliation. Also appearing in 
the Record(19) is Mr. Dellay's letter of resignation from a 
House committee as a Republican Member. Mr. Dellay was subsequently 
elected as a Democratic Member to certain House 
committees.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 104 Cong. Rec. 674, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 20, 1958.

19. Id.

20. See H. Res. 452, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. (1958).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaker's Relation to Party Structure

    Since the Speaker is the subject of another chapter (Ch. 6, infra) 
no attempt will be made here to discuss his office in depth. It is 
worth quoting here, however, certain remarks of Minority Leader Gerald 
R. Ford, of Michigan, on the subject of the Speakership; the remarks, 
made during discussion of a resolution commending John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, on his length of service as Speaker, were as 
follows:(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 17021, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. May 26, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The office of the Speaker is a unique one in the American 
    Government. He is at once the leader of his party and the impartial 
    Presiding Officer of the House. As his powers are great, so must 
    his sense of fairness be extraordinary. As his position is exalted 
    among his legislative equals, so must his tact and consideration . 
    . . be constantly exercised.

    The Speaker is, of course, his party's leader. Nominated by the 
party caucus, he has received, in the election that takes place in the 
House at the beginning of a Congress, the universal support of the 
members of his party despite the range of ideological variations that 
may exist in the party. Historically, moreover, the Speaker will 
frequently rise to that posi

[[Page 147]]

tion after having served as his party's floor leader and perhaps, prior 
to that service, as the party whip. The minority party's candidate for 
Speaker generally becomes that party's floor leader, and may reasonably 
expect to be elevated to the Speakership upon a shift of power in the 
House.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See, generally, the discussion of leadership posts in the House in 
        Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the Congress of the United 
        States, Congressional Quarterly Service (Washington, D.C., 
        1971), pp. 140, 141. In 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 35 is cited 
        an unusual instance in which Speaker Joseph G. Cannon, of 
        Illinois, following a vote upon an essential question 
        indicating a change in the party control of the House, 
        announced that under such circumstances it was incumbent upon 
        the Speaker either to resign or to recognize for a motion 
        declaring vacant the office of Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker has on occasion taken the floor to promote certain 
measures that have been endorsed by his party. Thus, on Jan. 4, 
1965,(3) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, took 
the floor to urge adoption of rules for the 89th Congress that included 
certain provisions that had the endorsement of the Democratic Caucus. 
He stated that since the resolution under consideration contemplated 
certain changes in the rules, he felt that his views should be made 
known to the Members of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 23, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On one occasion, the caucus chairman inserted in the Record a 
resolution, previously approved by the caucus, praising the Speaker of 
the House for his efforts on behalf of Democratic candidates in a 
recent election campaign.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 3.18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In fulfilling the duties of the Chair, the Speaker is impartial, 
and assiduous in protecting the rights of the minority. Of course, this 
does not mean that the exigencies of business in the House cannot 
interfere with his ability to accommodate the minority party in 
particular instances. Thus, on a day on which the House was considering 
the 1951 amendments to the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 
the Speaker declined to entertain a request of the Minority Leader, 
made shortly after convening on that day, that the House take a two-
hour recess for a Republican Conference.(5) But a Speaker 
must always concur with the sentiments expressed by Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, in the 91st Congress:(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 5.5, infra.
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 17041, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., May 26, 1970.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 148]]

        There is one thing that I would like to be remembered for by my 
    colleagues and that is that John McCormack was always the Members' 
    Speaker. . . . It is because of the intense love I have in my heart 
    for the House of Representatives and the deep respect I have for 
    all Members. And also for the fact that whenever a Member takes the 
    Chair as Speaker he represents all of the Members without regard to 
    political party; to protect their rights under the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives; and, even more, protecting their rights 
    on a broader scale where that is necessary. I have always tried to 
    impartially carry out the Rules of the House of Representatives.