[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 3.  Party Organization]
[B. Party Caucus or Conference]
[Â§ 10. Policy Determination; Party Decisions as Binding]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 188-191]
 
                               CHAPTER 3
 
                           Party Organization
 
                     B. PARTY CAUCUS OR CONFERENCE
 
Sec. 10. --Policy Determination; Party Decisions as Binding

    [Note: The following is descriptive of the practices in some 
Congresses. For discussion of current

[[Page 189]]

practices that may differ in some particulars from those stated, see 
supplements to this edition as they appear.]
    The party caucus or conference develops party positions with 
respect to specific issues. Thus, a consensus may be reached in the 
caucus or conference with regard to legislation or rules changes 
currently under consideration, or desired to be presented for 
consideration, by the House or committees in the House. Party leaders 
and other members are thus advised of the party's sentiment on 
particular issues, and actions may be authorized in the House based on 
the decisions of the caucus or conference.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For remarks indicating that particular resolutions were offered 
        ``by direction of the . . . caucus'' or ``under instructions of 
        the . . . caucus,'' see for example, 117 Cong. Rec. 132, 92d 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 1971 (remarks of Mr. William M. 
        Colmer [Miss.]); and 111 Cong. Rec. 23, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Jan. 4, 1965 (remarks of Mr. Carl Albert [Okla.]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example of how a caucus decision may be reflected in action 
taken in the House, a view adopted by the Democratic Caucus with 
respect to certain committee procedures was incorporated in a 
resolution introduced to the House in the 92d Congress. A resolution 
expressing the sense of the Democratic Caucus(19) stated, in 
part,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Democratic Caucus Rules (July 20 1971), addendum, paragraph 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That it is the sense of the Democratic Caucus that . 
    . .
        9. All committees shall provide in their rules of procedure for 
    the application of the 5-minute rule in the interrogation of 
    witnesses until such time as each member of the committee who so 
    desires has had an opportunity to question the witness.

The above provision was incorporated in a resolution introduced in the 
House on Jan. 21, 1971.(20) The same House resolution 
reflected another paragraph of the caucus resolution,(1) 
containing a recommendation ``that the Select Committee on Small 
Business be made a permanent select committee of the House without 
legislative jurisdiction except to make investigations and reports.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See H. Res. 5 at 117 Cong. Rec. 14, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. Democratic Caucus Rules (July 20, 1971), addendum, paragraph 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Democratic Caucus Rule provides:(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Democratic Caucus Rules (July 20, 1971), Rule 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        7. In deciding upon action in the House involving party policy 
    or principle, a two-thirds vote of those present and voting at a 
    caucus meeting shall bind all members of the caucus; provided, the 
    said two-thirds vote is a ma

[[Page 190]]

    jority of the full Democratic membership of the House: and provided 
    further, that no Member shall be bound upon questions involving a 
    construction of the Constitution of the United States or upon which 
    he made contrary pledges to his constituents prior to his election 
    or received contrary instructions by resolutions or platform from 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    his nominating authority.

The rule permitting decisions of the caucus in some instances to bind 
all Democratic Members is one of long standing.(3) It has 
been applied to permit the caucus to issue directives to Democratic 
members of House committees with respect to disposition of matters 
under consideration,(4) and to assure party members' support 
of party positions taken with respect to issues before the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 3605, 3609. For recent changes 
        in the caucus rules, and the current practice, see supplements 
        to this edition.
 4. See discussion in Galloway, George B., History of the House of 
        Representatives, Thomas Y. Crowell (New York, 1961), pp. 137, 
        140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 92d Congress, the following remarks were made with reference 
to a caucus decision regarding the right of the minority to funds for 
staffing:(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 44, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 21, 1971. For other 
        remarks of a similar nature relating to the unit rule of the 
        caucus, see 117 Cong. Rec. 433, 434, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 
        25, 1971 (remarks of Mr. Benjamin B. Blackburn (Ga.), and 
        related materials, including a copy of the Democratic Caucus 
        Rules inserted in the Record).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, the 
    act of the Democratic caucus binding Democratic Representatives to 
    vote for repeal of the minority staffing provision which we enacted 
    into law last fall is a shocking breach of faith . . . [U]nder the 
    rules of the Democratic caucus, as they have been explained to me, 
    all Members of the Democratic Party are bound to vote to repeal the 
    minority staffing provisions. Debate cannot change their votes. 
    Neither can their consciences nor senses of fairness change their 
    votes. . . .

    Cannon quotes remarks of Speaker Champ Clark, of 
Missouri,(6) made in 1913 when the caucus rules were 
substantially as they are now,(7) to the effect that caucus 
action taken by a two-thirds vote is not binding on constitutional 
questions or ``matters of conscience or where a Member has made 
promises or pledges in his campaign for election.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See  Cannon's Precedents  3605.
 7. See the caucus rules set forth in 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3609.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Republicans do not have a formal rule making the decisions of 
the conference binding on all Republicans, although a consensus 
developed in the conference is persuasive. (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Riddick, Floyd M., Congressional Procedure, Chapman and Grimes 
        (Boston, 1941), p. 35, to the effect that in some instances the 
        Republicans vote as uniformly in support of party positions as 
        do the Democrats.

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

[[Page 191]]

    In the course of a debate in the 92d Congress over the election of 
Democratic Members to committees,(9) the following 
discussion took place with respect to the existence of a ``unit rule'' 
in the Republican Conference and with respect to the views of the 
Republican Party on the issues before the House:(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 9.3, supra.
10. 117 Cong. Rec. 1712, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., Feb. 4, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Conyers [Jr., of Michigan]: . . . [T]he question is, 
    do the minority Members intend to simply ratify the decisions from 
    the majority caucus or are they entitled and obligated to make an 
    evaluatory determination as to what they think is correct regarding 
    who should be the chairmen of the various committees in this 92nd 
    Congress? . . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: . . . We do not have a unit 
    rule on our side of the aisle. The Republican Conference does not 
    bind its Members to vote as a majority of the conference decides. 
    As Republicans, we do not dictate to our members.
        Mr. Conyers: Then who were you speaking for when you said that 
    your party or your membership was going to ratify the Democratic 
    decisions if you do not have the unit rule?
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker if the gentleman will yield 
    further, our Members will have voted for our nominees for ranking 
    Members on each of the committees . . . we do not think under our 
    political system in America that you, the Democrats, should make 
    decisions for us. We do not think we should become involved in 
    making decisions for your party. . . .
        We should not vote against the previous question. That is your 
    decision. We will take care of ourselves when the next resolution 
    is offered.
        Mr. Conyers: In other words, the distinguished minority leader 
    leaves to the discretion of every Member on the other side of the 
    aisle the right to review in his own mind the validity of these 
    Democratic Caucus recommendations; is that correct?
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: That is correct. Each Member on our side 
    will make up his own mind. As I said a moment ago, we have no unit 
    rule in the Republican Party.

    An instance has been cited wherein Republican Members failing to 
abide by the action of their party caucus were disciplined by removal 
from committees or reduction in rank.(11) The situation 
described arose at a time when the power over committee assignments 
resided in the Speaker, and when the caucus was dominated by Speaker 
Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3606.
12. See Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the Congress to the United 
        States, Congressional Quarterly Service (Washington, D.C., 
        1971), p. 141.

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

[[Page 192]]