Committee assignments in the United States

Introduction

Committee assignments often determine the character of a Member’s career. They
are also important to the party leaders who organize the chamber and shape the
composition of the committees. House rules identify some procedures for making
committee assignments; Republican Conference and Democratic Caucus rules supplement
these House rules and provide more specific criteria for committee assignments.
Information on the number of, and limitations on, assignments is provided in CRS
Report 98-151, House Committees: Categories and Rules for Committee Assignments.
In general, pursuant to House rules, Representatives cannot serve on more than two
standing committees. In addition, both parties identify exclusive committees and
generally limit service on them; other panels are identified as nonexclusive or exempt
committees. House and party rules restrict Members’ service on the Budget, Intelligence,
and Standards of Official Conduct Committees to a limited number of terms. (1)

Congressional Committee Asassignment Process Theory

According to Kenneth A. Shepsle, it “has become rather common in the scholarly literature on the United States House of Representatives to focus on the activities of the chamber’s subunits — its standing committees. Woodrow Wilson’s intuition that “Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, while Congress in its committee rooms is Congress at work” has been
sustained in numerous studies. Indeed, two of the best descriptive congressional studies (Fenno (1966) and Manley (1970)) focus almost exclusively on committee activities.”

Kenneth A. Shepsle continues: “A second set of studies, acknowledging the import of the committee structure, has sought to determine who is admitted to which committee
rooms. Empirical studies of the committee assignment process, following Master’s (1961) classic piece, have exhaustively analyzed the data of the public record as they pertain to matters of committee personnel. Descriptive studies by Bullock (1969, 1971, 1972, 1973a, 1973b),
Clapp (1964), Congressional Quarterly (1973), and Gawthrop (1966), as well as quasi-theoretical pieces by Bullock and Sprague (1969), Rohde and Shepsle (1973), Uslaner (1971) and Westefield (1973), have detailed various aspects of the committee assignment process.” (2)

Committee Sizes and Ratios

Traditionally, the respective party leaders, occasionally with input from committee
leaders, negotiate individual committee sizes and ratios prior to the post-general-election
early organization meetings, when the assignment process officially begins. Sizes are
determined prior to the start of the Congress, although they generally remain fairly
constant year after year. When the size of a committee is increased, it is usually done to
accommodate individual Member requests for service on a particular panel. In the 110th
Congress, the largest House committee has 75 members; the smallest has 10. (3)

Factors in Making Assignments

Both parties consider a variety of factors in making assignments, including seniority,
experience, background, ideology, election margin, state delegation support, leadership
support, as well as the special concerns of the Member’s district. Further, the leadership
often considers geographic balance in making assignments, with Members of the other
party not usually counted for such purposes. None of these factors, however, is usually
seen as having equal weight for each Member in each instance.
In addition, the rules of the party organizations and the House attempt to ensure an
equitable number of assignments for each Member and an equitable distribution of
assignments to important committees. However, the so-called “property norm” generally
allows returning Members to retain their seats on committees prior to allowing new
Members to seek their assignments. In addition, if sizes and ratios are dramatically
changed, each party might make exceptions to the property norm.

Party Organizations

Both Democrats and Republicans give the assignment function to a “steering
committee.” For both parties, the steering committee comprises the elected party
leadership, numerous Members elected by region from the party membership, and
Members appointed by the leadership. Representatives from specific classes — groups
of Members elected in a specific year — are also represented.
Each party Member has a representative on his or her party’s steering committee, and
one role of this representative is to advance the individual Member’s choices for
assignments. The steering committee for each party votes by secret ballot to arrive at
individual recommendations for assignments to standing committees and forwards those
recommendations to the full party conference or caucus. (Even recommendations for the
House Rules and House Administration Committees’ members, which are made by the
Speaker and minority leader, are confirmed by the full party conference.) Once ratified
by the Republican Conference or Democratic Caucus, the recommendations are forwarded
to the House, which votes on simple resolutions officially making the assignments. (4)

Individual Member Rights

Democratic Caucus rules guarantee each Democratic Member assignment to either
an exclusive or nonexclusive committee. Further, if a Member’s regional representative
on the Democratic Steering Committee refuses to nominate the Member to the committee
of his or her choice, the Member may ensure consideration by sending a letter, signed by
half of his state delegation, to the chair of the Steering Committee. In addition, caucus
rules provide for a separate vote by the entire caucus on particular Steering Committee
recommendations if a vote is requested by 10 or more Members. Republican Conference
rules do not contain similar provisions. (5)

Resources

Notes

1. House Committees: Assignment Process, Judy Schneider (Congress)
2. A Model of the Congressional Commitee Assignment Process, Washington University, St. Louis, July, 1973
3. House Committees: Assignment Process, Judy Schneider (Congress)
4. Id
5. Id.

Further Reading

William F. Connelly*, Jr. and John J. Pitney, Jr.*, Congress’ Permanent Minority?: Republicans in the U.S. House (Littlefield Adams, 1994).

Richard F. Fenno, Jr., Home Style: House Members in Their Districts (Little-Brown, 1978).

James G. Gimpel, Fullfilling the Contract: The First 100 Days (Allyn and Bacon, 1996).

John R. Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, Congress as Public Enemy: Public Attitudes Toward American Political Institutions (Cambridge, 1995).

Allen Schick, The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy and Process (The Brookings Institution, 1995).

Walter J. Oleszek, Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process, 4th edition (CQ Press, 1995).

James A. Thurber*, Remaking Congress: Change and Stability in the 1990’s (Congressional Quarterly Press,1996).

Marian Currinder*, Money in the House: Campaign Funds and Congressional Party Politics, (Westview, 2009)

Scott A. Frisch and Sean Q. Kelly*, Committee Assignment Politics in the U.S. House of Representatives (University of Oklahoma Press, 2005)

Morris P. Fiorina, Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America (Pearson/Longman, 2006)

R. Douglas Arnold, The Logic of Congressional Action (Yale University Press, 1990).

Ross K. Baker, House and Senate (Norton, 1989).

Jon R. Bond* and Richard Fleisher, The President in the Legislative Arena (University of Chicago Press, 1990).

David T. Canon, Actors, Athletes, and Astronauts: Political Amateurs in the United States Congress
(University of Chicago Press, 1990).

Richard E. Cohen, Rostenkowski: The Pursuit of Power and the End of the Old Politics (Ivan R. Dee, 1999)

Roger H. Davidson, editor, The Postreform Congress (St. Martin’s Press, 1992).

Lawrence Dodd* and Bruce Oppenheimer*, editors, Congress Reconsidered, 6th edition (CQ Press, 1997).

Brendan J. Doherty*, “The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign” (University of Kansas Press, 2013).

Ronald D. Elving*, Conflict and Compromise: How Congress Makes the Law (Simon & Schuster, 1995).

Lawrence Evans*, Leadership in Committee: A Comparative Analysis of Leadership Behavior in the U.S. Senate (Michigan, 1991).

Richard F. Fenno, Jr., The United States Senate: A Bicameral Perspective (American Enterprise Institute, 1982).

Morris P. Fiorina, Congress – Keystone of the Washington Establishment, 2nd edition
(Yale University Press, 1989).

Morris P. Forina, Divided Government, 2nd Edition (Allyn and Bacon, 1996).

Richard L. Hall*, Participation in Congress (Yale, 1996).

John Haskell*, Direct Democracy or Representative Government? (2007)

John Haskell*, Marian Currinder*, and Sarea A. Grove, “Congress in Context” (Westview Press, 2014)

Paul S. Herrnson*, Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington (CQ Press, 1995).

Gary C. Jacobson, The Politics of Congressional Elections, 3rd edition (Harper-Collins, 1992).

Charles O. Jones, Separate But Equal: Congress and the Presidency (Chatham House, 1995).

Paul C. Light*, “Thickening Government: Federal Hierarchy and the Diffusion of Accountability
(The Brookings Institution, 1995)

Burdett Loomis*, The New American Politician: Ambition, Entrepreneurship, and the Changing Face of Political Life (Basic Books, 1988).

David Magleby* and Candice Nelson*, Congressional Campaign Finance: Assessing Proposals for Reform (The Brookings Institution, 1990).

Forrest Maltzman*, Competing Principals: Committees, Parties, and the Organization of Congress (Michigan, 1997).

Thomas E. Mann*, editor, A Question of Balance: The President, The Congress, and Foreign Policy (The Brookings Institution, 1990).

Janet M. Martin*, Lessons from the Hill: The Legislative Journey of an Education Program (St. Martin’s, 1994).

David R. Mayhew*, Congress: The Electoral Connection (Yale University Press, 1974).

Elizabeth Anne Oldmixon*, “Uncompromising Positions: God, Sex and the U.S. House of Representatives” (Georgetown University Press, 2005)

Norman Ornstein*, Thomas E. Mann*, and Michael J. Malbin, Vital Statistics on Congress: 1997-1998 (CQ Press, 1997).

Glenn R. Parker*, Characteristics of Congress: Patterns in Congressional Behavior (Prentice-Hall, 1989).

Mark A. Peterson*, Legislating Together: The White House and Capitol Hill from Eisenhower to Reagan (Harvard University Press, 1990).

David E. Price, The Congressional Experience: A View from the Hill (Westview, 1992).

Randall B. Ripley and James M. Lindsay, Congress Resurgent: Foreign and Defense Policy on Capitol Hill (Michigan, 1993).

David W. Rohde*, Parties and Leaders in the Post Reform House (University of Chicago Press, 1991).

Colleen Shogan*, The Moral Rhetortic of American Presidents (Texas A&M University Press, 2006)

Barbara Sinclair*, The Transformation of the U.S. Senate (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989).

Barbara Sinclair*, Legislators, Leaders, and Lawmaking: The U.S. House of Representatives in the Postreform Era (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995).

Steven S. Smith*, Call to Order: Floor Politics in the House and Senate (The Brookings Institution, 1989).

Frank J. Sorauf, Inside Campaign Finance: Myths and Realities (Yale University Press, 1992).

James A. Thurber*, Rivals for Power: Presidential Congressional Relations (CQ Press, 1996).