[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 3.  Party Organization]
[B. Party Caucus or Conference]
[Â§ 9. Assigning Members to House Committees]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[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,(6)  their chairmen,(7) and election 
by the House of Members to fill vacancies in standing 
committees.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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:(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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:(10) 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.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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(12) 
a committee on committees,(13) which is charged with the 
responsibility of nominating party members for positions on House 
committees. The caucus or conference elects or approves(14) 
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,(15) 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(16) 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(17) 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.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. For more detailed discussion of such approval, see Sec. 9.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An addendum to the caucus rules of 1971(20) 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:(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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,(4) 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.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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.(6) 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.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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(8) 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,(9) 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.(10) Thus, on Jan. 14, 
1965,(11) 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(12) 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(13) 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,(14) 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.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.(18) 
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,''(19) and that the 
Committee on Committees should make its recommendations ``one committee 
at a time.''(20) Provision was also made for a separate 
vote, in certain circumstances, on any committee chairman or member of 
a committee.''(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,(2) 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.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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,(4) 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:(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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:(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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:(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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:(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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(11) 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.(12) 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.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 1714, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., Feb. 4, 1971.
13. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: It has been stated(14) 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.(15) 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.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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(18) 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:(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.(1) 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.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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:(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 81 Cong. Rec. 212, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 13, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: A rule has been stated(5) 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.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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.(7) 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.(8) In the 90th Congress, following the introduction 
of the Democratic resolution, the following proceedings took 
place:(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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,(10) 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:(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.(12) 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,(13) 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.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,(15) 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.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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(17) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------