Reorganization of the House of Representatives: Modern Reform Efforts

Order Code RL31835

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Reorganization of the House of Representatives:

Modern Reform Efforts

October 20, 2003

name redacted

Specialist on the Congress

name redacted

name redacted

Analysts in American National Government

Government and Finance Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Reorganization of the House of Representatives:

Modern Reform Efforts

Summary

On January 7, 2003, the House created a Select Committee on Homeland

Security. One of its responsibilities is to conduct a “thorough and complete study of

the operation and implementation of the rules of the House, including Rule X, with

respect to the issue of homeland security.” The select committee is required to

submit its recommendations on possible changes to the Committee on Rules not later

than September 30, 2004.

Numerous official and unofficial reviews by Congress have been conducted in

the past 60 years. Three joint committees, two select committees, two commissions,

and party caucuses and conferences have studied various aspects of the House and

its committee system. The contemporary system is primarily a product of the

Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, which, among other things, codified

committee jurisdictions, streamlined the committee system, and instituted a

professional committee staffing structure. The Legislative Reorganization Act of

1970 opened Congress to public scrutiny, modified committee and floor procedures,

and enhanced Congress’s research and budget capabilities. The Committee Reform

Amendments of 1974 (Bolling committee) recommended major changes in House

committee jurisdiction and referral procedures, although an alternative plan was

adopted. The work of the Commission on Administrative Review (Obey

commission) and the Commission on Information and Facilities (Brooks

commission) focused on the administrative structure of the House. The Select

Committee on Committees (Patterson committee) recommended modifications in

House energy jurisdiction, committee assignment process, and committee procedures.

The Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress altered aspects of

congressional organization and operations. Many decisions affecting committee and

floor operations are within the purview of the respective party caucuses; they too

have modified party and House rules on several occasions since 1946.

This report discusses the reform efforts to reorganize the House committee

system since the 1940s. This report will be updated if events warrant.

For related information on congressional reorganization efforts, see CRS Report

RL32112, Reorganization of the Senate: Modern Reform Efforts, by (name redacted),

Colton Campbell, (name redacted), and (name redacted).

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 79th Congress (1945-1946) . . . . . . 2

Creation, Membership, and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Committee Activity and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, 91st Congress (1969-1970) . . . . . . 7

Creation, Membership, and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Committee Activity and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Party Caucus Reforms, 92nd, 93rd, and 94th Congresses (1971-1975) . . . . . 13

House Select Committee on Committees (Bolling Committee),

93rd Congress (1973-1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Creation, Membership, and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Committee Activity and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

House Commission on Information and Facilities

(Brooks Commission), 94th Congress (1975-1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Creation, Membership and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Commission Activity and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

House Commission on Administrative Review

(Obey Commission), 94-95th Congresses (1976-1977) . . . . . . . . . . 40

Creation, Membership, and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Commission Activity and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

House Select Committee on Committees (Patterson Committee),

96th Congress (1979-1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Creation, Membership, and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Commission Activity and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 102nd and

103rd Congresses (1991-1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Republican Control, 104th Congress (1995-1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

House Select Committee on Homeland Security, 108th Congress

(2003-2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Creation, Membership, and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

List of Tables

Table 1. Proposed Changes in Standing Committee Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 2. Summary of Reform Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

The authors wish to acknowledge the production assistance of Patricia Johns

Grant.

Reorganization of the House of

Representatives: Modern Reform Efforts

Introduction

The House standing committee system began in 1789 with the creation of the

Committee on Enrolled Bills. By 1810, the House had 10 standing committees. By

the time of the Civil War, the standing committee system was entrenched; the House

had 39 standing panels. When Woodrow Wilson wrote his doctoral dissertation in

1885, he characterized Congress as “a government by the chairmen of the Standing

Committees of Congress.”1

In the years following, many new standing committees were created, although

very few were abolished.2 By 1913, there were 61 standing committees in the House.

In 1927, the House combined 11 expenditure committees into one Committee on

Expenditures in the Executive Departments.

By the early 1940s, there was extensive criticism of Congress by scholars and

Members themselves. In response, Congress created a Joint Committee on the

Organization of Congress, thereby marking the beginning of numerous efforts to

reorganize Congress, including the House’s committee system.3

Since the 1946 effort, Congress created two more joint committees. The House

also created two select committees and two commissions to review its internal

organization and operations. The Democratic Caucus and Republican Conference

have studied various aspects of House organization and the committee system. The

minority party alternatives offered to the majority party resolutions adopting the rules

for a new Congress have contained recommendations for congressional

reorganization.

1

Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University

Press, 1981), p. 69.

2

3

Six minor committees were abolished in 1909, and another six were abolished in 1911.

See also CRS Report RL32112, Reorganization of the Senate: Modern Reform

Efforts, by (name redacted), Colton Campbell, (name redacted), and (name

redacted).

CRS-2

Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 79th Congress (19451946)

Creation, Membership, and Funding.

Creation. On February 19, 1945, the House concurred in Senate amendments

to H.Con.Res. 18, and established the Joint Committee on the Organization of

Congress. The joint committee was composed of 12 members, six from each

chamber, equally divided by party. The joint committee could take testimony and

make recommendations concerning the structure of Congress. The panel was

authorized for the 2 years of the 79th Congress.

The resolution called on the joint committee to “make a full and complete study

of the organization and operation of the Congress,” and “recommend improvements

in such organization and operation with a view toward strengthening the Congress,

simplifying its operations, improving its relationships with the other branches of the

United States Government, and enabling it better to meet its responsibilities under

the Constitution.”

Members had been considering reorganization of Congress for several years

before the creation of the joint committee. The joint committee was created in part

in response to the new environment in which lawmakers found themselves during

and after the Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt — a much larger federal

government involved in far more areas of national life. As one scholar noted, it was

“becoming apparent that the role of the federal government was irrevocably

changed...Consequently, institutions such as the Congress, would be required to

change to accommodate themselves to new domestic and international demands.”4

Members also wanted to respond to a public perception that Congress had

become too insular. In 1942, for example, there was a public outcry when the House

passed a bill to bring Members under the Civil Service retirement system. “Letters

poured into congressional offices criticizing Members for voting their personal

concerns in a time of national emergency.”5

Membership. The committee was chaired by Senator Robert M. LaFollette

Jr., a progressive from Wisconsin who caucused with the Republicans. Its vice chair

was A.S. “Mike” Monroney, a House Democrat from Oklahoma. The other House

members were: Eugene Cox (D-GA); Thomas J. Lane (D-MA); Earl Michener (RMI); Everett Dirksen (R-IL); and Charles Plumley (R-VT). Other Senators on the

committee were: Elbert D. Thomas (D-UT); Claude Pepper (D-FL); Richard Russell

(D-Ga.); Wallace White (R-ME); and C. Wayland Brooks (R-IL).

4

(name redacted), “ The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 – A View From Forty

Years,” prepared for delivery at the American Political Science Association’s annual

meeting, New Orleans, La., 1985, p. 2.

5

Ibid.

CRS-3

Funding. The joint committee was authorized to spend $15,000 over its 2-year

lifespan, which was to be taken equally from the House and Senate contingency

funds.

Committee Activity and Recommendations.

From March 13 through June 29, 1945, the joint committee held 39 hearings,

receiving testimony from 102 witnesses. The committee issued its report (H.Rept..

1675), on March 4, 1946. The report contained a wide-ranging list of 37 specific

recommendations designed to improve the structure and efficiency of Congress,

many of which were adopted.

The Senate created a Special Committee on the Reorganization of Congress to

deal with the committee’s recommendations. The special committee was also

chaired by LaFollette, and reported out legislation (S. 2177) on May 31, 1946, that

was nearly identical to the set of recommendations. The Senate began debate on the

bill on June 5 and passed it by a vote of 49-16 on June 10, after making several

changes.

In the House, the bill sat at the Speaker’s table for weeks while negotiations

took place over several of its provisions. On July 25, the House approved an open

rule for consideration of the bill. After approving a series of amendments, the House

passed the bill by a division vote of 229-61, sending it back to the Senate. The

Senate approved the House-passed version of the bill by voice vote on July 26.

President Harry S Truman signed the measure into law on August 2 (P.L. 601, 79th

Congress).

Committee Organization. At the heart of the set of recommendations was

a dramatic overhaul of House and Senate committee structures. The panel

recommended that the number of standing committees in the House be reduced in

number to 18 from 48, largely by consolidating the jurisdictions of the 48 panels. The

18 restructured committees recommended in the report were:

! Agriculture. Formed by the existing Agriculture Committee.

! Appropriations. Formed by the existing Appropriations Committee.

! Expenditures in the Executive Department. Formed by the existing

Expenditures in the Executive Department Committee.

! Banking and Currency. Formed by the merger of the Banking and Currency,

and the Coinage, Weights and Measures Committees.

! Civil Service. Formed by the merger of the Civil Service, Census, Post Office

and Post Roads, and the District of Columbia Committees.

! Public Works. Formed by the merger of the Flood Control, Public Buildings

and Grounds, Rivers and Harbors, and Roads Committees.

! Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Formed by the existing Interstate and

Foreign Commerce Committee.

! Judiciary. Formed by the merger of the Judiciary, Patents, Revision of the

Laws, and Immigration and Naturalization Committees.

! Foreign Affairs. Formed by the existing Foreign Affairs Committee.

! Labor. Formed by the merger of the Labor and Education Committees.

CRS-4

! Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Formed by the existing Merchant Marine and

Fisheries Committee.

! Armed Services. Formed by the merger of the Military Affairs and Naval

Affairs Committees.

! Veterans’ Affairs. Formed by the merger of the Pensions, Invalid Pensions,

and World War Veterans’ Legislation Committees.

! Public Lands. Formed by the merger of the Public Lands, Territories,

Irrigation and Reclamation, Mines and Mining, Insular Affairs, and Indian

Affairs Committees.

! Ways and Means. Formed by the existing Ways and Means Committee.

! Rules. Formed by the existing Rules Committee.

! House Administration. Formed by the merger of the Accounts, Disposal of

Executive Papers, Enrolled Bills, Library, Memorials and Printing

Committees. The Committee on the Election of President, Vice President, and

Representatives in Congress was abolished. Three separate Elections

committees were abolished and those responsibilities transferred to the House

Administration Committee.

! Un-American Activities. Formed by the existing Un-American Activities

Committee.

The Claims panel and the War Claims panel were abolished.6

The committee also recommended that House Members be limited to one major

committee assignment.

Jurisdiction and Oversight. The joint committee called on the House and

Senate to spell out the jurisdictions of each standing committee clearly and to

incorporate the re-drawn jurisdictions in the House and Senate rules. The definitions

“should enumerate the activities covered and describe their scope in terms of subject

matter of legislation as well as the administrative organization of the Federal

Government so that disputes over jurisdiction will be minimized or eliminated.”7

The joint committee recommended that each standing committee have authority

to investigate the executive branch departments under their jurisdiction. This

authority would include the ability to issue subpoenas and to open investigations on

their own. This recommendation was in response to the existing practice of creating

a special committee to investigate problems as they arose, for example the House

Select Committee to Investigate Acts of Executive Agencies which Exceed Their

Authority. Because the standing committees would now have the authority they

needed to conduct oversight, the committee recommended that there be a ban on

creation of any new special committees, particularly those charged with conducting

investigations.

6

Title IV of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 601, 79th Congress) transferred

adjudication of claims against the government to the Court of Claims, which is now the U.S.

Court of Federal Claims.

7

U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of the

Congress, 79th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept.. 1675 (Washington: GPO, 1946), p. 5.

CRS-5

Staffing. The joint committee recommended that each standing committee

have professional staff, who were well paid and who would be available to Members

to help them make policy decisions. Each standing committee would be able to

employ up to four professional staff, who would be hired for their expertise and could

not be terminated for political reasons. These staff were to be paid between $6,000

and $8,000 a year, and were to work only on committee business. The

recommendations also said that committees should be able to employ up to six

clerical staff.

To supplement committee staff, the joint committee recommended that

Congress increase staffing of the Legislative Reference Service, a division of the

Library of Congress. The committee recommended increasing the budget to

$500,000 the first year from $198,000; $650,000 for the second year; and $750,000

in the third year.

The joint committee recommended that each Member be allowed to hire a wellpaid administrative assistant, whose job it would be to free up the Member from

having to take care of much constituent service so that the Member could focus more

on legislation. Administrative assistants would handle most correspondence and

requests for assistance from the public. The joint committee recommended that this

employee be paid up to $8,000 a year.

The joint committee also called for the creation of a congressional secretarial

pool to help overloaded offices with clerical work.

Administrative Proposals. The committee made a series of proposals

designed to update Congress in a variety of ways. The key recommendations were:

! raising pay for Members of Congress to $15,000 from $10,000 and allowing

Members to join the federal retirement system; and raising pay for top

congressional staff, such as the clerk of the House and the secretary of the

Senate, by some 50%;

! creating matching sets of party policy committees in each chamber (for a total

of four) that would be authorized to hire staff and meet regularly with

representatives of the executive branch;

! establishing a personnel director who would be selected by the leaders of the

two chambers and who would set up a system for finding and evaluating

would-be legislative staff, removed from political considerations;

! regulating lobbyists by requiring that representatives of groups with an interest

in legislation register and disclose their funding sources and the names of

groups they represented;

! creating a legislative budget process that would require the Appropriations and

revenue committees in both chambers to draft a tentative budget each year.

Congress could not appropriate more than the estimated receipts for the

coming year without also authorizing an increase in the national debt. Also,

the President would be given the power to reduce appropriations by a uniform

percentage in all programs if expenditures exceeded receipts;

! banning the introduction of bills to build specific bridges and certain other

bills involving claims against the United States;

CRS-6

! setting an annual adjournment date of June 30, with Members returning to

Washington for a fall session; also, the report called for “experimentation by

the leadership of the two Houses in dividing the workweek, reserving 3 days

for morning and afternoon hearings by committees, possibly with evening

sessions on those days, and 3 days for sessions in the Chambers for legislative

work;”8

! limiting conference reports only to items that were in disagreement between

the two chambers;

! increasing the legislative counsel’s office budget to $150,000 from $90,000

a year to hire more personnel to help Members draft bills;

! requiring all hearings and many of the meetings of the Appropriations

Committee be open to the public, press, and other Members of Congress;

! requiring the General Accounting Office to do an annual audit of each

government agency; and

! banning the reappropriation of funds already appropriated but not yet spent,

and the act of legislating on an appropriations bill.

Senate Provisions. The joint committee called for 16 committees in the

Senate, down from 33. The new committees recommended were:

! Agriculture. Formed from the existing Agriculture and Forestry Committee.

! Appropriations. Formed from the existing Appropriations Committee.

! Rules and Administration of the Senate. Formed by the merger of the Audit

and Control, Enrolled Bills, Library, Printing, Privileges and Elections, and

Rules Committees.

! Banking and Currency. Formed from the existing Banking and Currency

Committee.

! Finance. Formed from the existing Finance Committee.

! Labor and Public Welfare. Formed from the of Education and Labor

Committee, and the Social Security jurisdiction of the Finance Committee.

! Claims. Formed from the existing Claims Committee. To be dissolved when

claims were transferred to the courts.9

! Interior, Natural Resources and Public Works. Formed from the merger of the

Commerce, Indian Affairs, Interoceanic Canals, Irrigation and Reclamation,

Mines and Mining, Public Buildings and Grounds, Public Lands and Surveys,

and Territories and Insular Affairs Committees. Also to include the Post

Roads jurisdiction of the Post Office and Post Roads Committee, which would

be abolished.

! Civil Service. Formed from the merger of the Civil Service and Post Office

and Post Roads Committees, minus the Post Roads jurisdiction.

! District of Columbia. Formed from the existing District of Columbia

Committee. To be dissolved when D.C. residents were granted home rule.10

8

Organization of the Congress, p. 26.

9

See footnote 5.

10

President Harry S Truman proposed granting home rule to the residents of the District of

(continued...)

CRS-7

! Expenditures in the Executive Department. Formed from the existing

Expenditures in the Executive Department Committee.

! Armed Services. Formed from the merger of the Military Affairs and Naval

Affairs Committees.

! Veterans’ Affairs. Formed from the Pensions Committee and the merger of

veterans’ jurisdiction from the Finance Committee.

! Foreign Relations. Formed from the existing Foreign Relations Committee.

! Interstate Commerce. Formed from the merger of the Interstate Commerce

and Manufacturers Committees.

! Judiciary. Formed by the merger of the Judiciary, Patents, and Immigration

Committees.

Final Action. The majority of recommendations made by the joint committee

were adopted by Congress. In the House, Members deleted provisions authorizing

a top administrative aide for their offices, creating majority and minority policy

committees, and creating a stenographic pool for Members. They also deleted all the

proposed enforcement provisions for the budget process. Finally, they changed the

Members’ salary increase to $12,500, plus an additional $2,500 for expenses. In the

Senate, Members deleted the section of the plan calling for home rule for the District

of Columbia, deleted the transfer of pensions and rehabilitation programs to a

Veterans’ Affairs Committee from the Finance Committee, moved the adjournment

date of Congress to July 31 from June 30, deleted the fall session recommendation,

and eliminated the new personnel director. The Senate also modified a fiscal

recommendation, allowing the President to reduce spending at his discretion instead

of requiring an across-the-board reduction.

Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, 91st Congress (19691970)

Creation, Membership, and Funding.

Creation. The 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act was the product of more

than 5 years of work, spread over three Congresses. It began with the creation of a

Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress in March 1965, and concluded

when the House concurred in Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 17654 on October

8, 1970, and sent the measure to the President, who signed it (P.L. 91-510).

The charge to the 1965 joint committee was essentially the same as the charge

given to the 1945 joint committee, which had led to the 1946 Legislative

Reorganization Act. The resolution creating the 1965 committee stated that the

committee was to “make a full and complete study of the organization and operation

of the Congress of the United States and shall recommend improvements in such

organization and operation with a view towards strengthening the Congress,

simplifying its operations, improving its relationship with other branches of the

United States Government and enabling it better to meet its responsibilities under the

Constitution.”

10

(...continued)

Columbia during his presidency.

CRS-8

Despite the extensive changes that took place because of the 1946 Act,

Members eventually felt the law had not gone far enough. “[C]omplaints soon

surfaced about some of its deficiencies, omissions, and outright failures. New

grievances about congressional conditions were added in the years that followed.

Calls for reform were increasingly voiced not only in the press, among students of

the place and in Congress itself, but also among elements of the informed public,”

wrote congressional scholar Walter Kravitz.11

During the 5 years it took for the reorganization effort to wend its way to

enactment, from 1965 to 1970, institutional tensions between the legislative branch

and the executive branch escalated. The Vietnam War raised questions about the role

each branch played in war powers; President Nixon battled with Congress over

spending appropriated funds. Congress moved to reassert its role with passage, over

the president’s veto, of the 1973 War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148). The budget

fights led to passage of the 1974 Congressional Budget Control and Impoundment

Act (P.L. 93-344), which created the House and Senate Budget Committees and the

Congressional Budget Office and set up a budget process for Congress to follow,

separate from the executive branch. The 1970 Act was part of a broad effort to by

Congress to assert its authority over the executive branch and to increase its access

to information.

Membership. The original 1965 joint committee consisted of six Senators and

six Representatives, equally divided by party. Senators on the committee were: A.S.

“Mike” Monroney (D-OK); John J. Sparkman (D-AL); Lee Metcalf (D-MT); Karl

E. Mundt (R-SD); Clifford P. Case (R-NJ); and J. Caleb Boggs (R-DE); House

members were: Ray J. Madden (D-IN); Jack Brooks (D-TX); Ken Hechler (D-WV);

Thomas B. Curtis (R-MO); Robert P. Griffin (R-MI); and Durward G. Hall (R-MO).

When Rep. Griffin resigned from the House in 1966 to accept appointment to the

Senate, he was replaced by Rep. James C. Cleveland (R-NH).

On April 22, 1969, Rep. William M. Colmer (D-MS), chairman of the House

Rules Committee, appointed a special five-member subcommittee to review

congressional reorganization proposals and make recommendations. The Special

Subcommittee on Legislative Reorganization was chaired by B.F. Sisk (D-CA).

Other members were: Ray J. Madden (D-IN), Richard Bolling (D-MO), H. Allen

Smith (R-CA), and Delbert L. Latta (R-OH). Mr. Madden resigned from the

subcommittee on May 6 and was replaced by Rep. John Young (D-TX).

Funding. The 1965 joint committee was authorized under H.Con.Res. 4 to

spend $150,000.

Committee Activity and Recommendations.

The Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress held 40 days of

hearings between May 10 and September 23, 1965. It heard from 199 witnesses,

11

Walter Kravitz, “The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 and Its Aftermath,” prepared

for the symposium on Service to Congress: The Congressional Research Service at 75, 1989,

p. 2.

CRS-9

including Members of Congress, political scientists, and other government officials.

The committee issued its final report on July 28, 1966 (S. Rept. 1414, 89th Congress,

2nd Session). It contained some 120 recommended changes to the operation of

Congress, ranging from those affecting the committee system to the imposition of

fiscal controls to increases in staffing. Legislation was introduced in both chambers

that year but saw no action. It was reintroduced in the Senate in 1967 as S. 355. The

Senate passed the bill by a vote of 75-9 on March 1967, but the measure saw no

action in the House.

In 1969, the House Rules Committee’s Special Subcommittee on Legislative

Reorganization held 16 executive sessions over several months. After compiling a

draft of a bill, the special subcommittee instructed its staff to hold a series of

briefings for Members to explain the measure to them. Those briefings were held

October 16, 17, 20, and 21, and were attended by some 80 House Members and staff.

Through October, November and December, the special subcommittee held a series

of hearings on its draft bill, at which 44 people testified and 44 more submitted their

views for the record. These hearings were published in a 453-page volume in early

1970. The special subcommittee revised its draft and reported a measure to the full

House Rules Committee early in 1970. That panel reported the measure on May 12,

with amendments (H.R. 17654, H.Rept.. 91-1215).

The House began debate on the bill on July 13 and passed it, amended, on

September 17 by a vote of 326-19. The legislation went directly to the floor in the

Senate. The Senate passed the bill, amended, by a vote of 59-5 on October 6. The

House concurred in the Senate amendments on October 8, by voice vote, clearing the

measure. President Nixon signed the bill into law on October 26, 1970 (PL 91-510).

House Committee System. Unlike the 1946 Act, the 1970 Act focused

more on rules governing committees, not the committee structure itself. One of the

complaints heard most frequently from Members was that committee chairs wielded

too much power. Many of the changes in the process were designed to give greater

voice to the minority Members on committees and to make sure that a chair could not

always override the wishes of a majority of the committee. Also, the special

subcommittee had recommended that the House clarify that the rules of the House

apply to its committees and that committee rules apply to its subcommittees.

The recommendations of the 1965 joint committee formed the backbone of the

House special committee’s work. So while the specific legislation that led to the

1970 Legislative Reorganization Act can be traced back to legislation coming out of

the special committee’s work, many of those recommendations, particularly those

dealing with the Senate, originated several years earlier with the joint committee.

To improve the functioning of committees, the special subcommittee

recommended that each committee adopt written rules, which could not be

inconsistent with House rules, and select a regular meeting day to conduct its

business, though additional meetings could be added at the discretion of the chair.

It recommended that a majority of a committee could call a special meeting without

the assent of a committee chair, and the ranking majority member should preside

over the committee in the absence of the chair. A majority of the minority party

should be allowed to call witnesses during at least one day of hearings.

CRS-10

Dates and times of hearings should be announced at least one week in advance,

the subcommittee recommended, unless the committee determined it could not meet

this deadline, in which case it was to be “noticed” as soon as possible in the Daily

Digest of the Congressional Record. The House Rules Committee was exempted.

The special subcommittee said that committee reports should be filed within

seven days of a request to do so by a majority of the committee. This

recommendation was intended to get around a chair who, when opposed to a bill,

declined to report it to the full House, despite the action of the committee. This

recommendation was matched by a new policy to allow the Speaker to recognize a

member of a committee to call up a bill on the floor if the Rules Committee had

made it in order, even if the Member was not the chair of the committee.

The special subcommittee recommended that the minority should be given three

days in which to file their opinions for a committee report if they “noticed” their

intent at the time of the committee markup. Reports must be available at least three

calendar days before House consideration of a bill. And, for appropriations bills,

printed committee hearings were also to be available at least three days in advance

of the floor action. The House Rules Committee was exempted from many of these

proposals.

To provide greater public scrutiny of Congress’s business, the special

subcommittee recommended that committee business meetings and hearings be open

to the public unless a majority vote of a committee closed hearing. On each motion

to report, the committee must record the votes for and against the motion and include

the votes in its report.

The special subcommittee recommended that committees allow their hearings

to be broadcast, when authorized by a majority vote of a committee. This

recommendation included radio, television, and still photography. While committees

were to determine the rules governing such broadcasts, the special subcommittee

recommended that, at a minimum, committee rules require that a broadcast be

uninterrupted and not commercially sponsored; no subpoenaed witness be depicted

without his or her permission; cameras be limited to four fixed locations; and

broadcasting not interfere with conduct of a hearing.

The special subcommittee also recommended some administrative changes in

the way committees functioned. It recommended that proxy voting be barred in

committees unless the committee’s rules permitted it, in which case a proxy must be

in writing, designate who was to cast it, and be limited to a specific measure or

amendments to a measure. The special subcommittee recommended that committees

be allowed to meet when the House was in session, unless the House was debating

a bill under the five-minute rule. Even then, five specific committees, Rules,

Appropriations, Government Operations, Internal Security, and Standards of Official

Conduct, could meet. It also recommended that witnesses be required to provide

their written statements in advance of their testimony when it would be possible to

do so. And, it called on committees to provide an annual report of their activities of

the previous year, except for the Appropriations, Rules, House Administration, and

Standards of Official Conduct Committees.

CRS-11

The special subcommittee recommended a funding process for all committees.

Each committee was to file a single, annual funding request for itself, which had to

be available to Members for at least one day before the chamber acted on it. If the

committee exceeded its approved spending, it would have to come back to the House

with an explanation of why it needed additional funding.

Staff. The special subcommittee made a series of recommendations to allow

more information to flow to Members about legislation. It recommended an increase

in the number of professional staff authorized for each committee to six from four

and authorized committees to hire consultants, subject to the approval of the House

Administration Committee.

The special subcommittee recommended that a majority of a committee’s

minority members could hire two of the six professional employees, and one of the

six clerical positions, subject to approval of a majority vote of a committee. Any

staff member could be fired by a majority vote of the committee. The Committees

on Standards of Official Conduct and Appropriations were exempt from many of

these proposed rules.

The special subcommittee recommended that each House Member be authorized

to hire an administrative assistant at pay not to exceed $8,955 per year. This

recommendation was designed to match the structure in the Senate, which already

authorized a top office staff member.

Budget Matters. The special subcommittee recommended that the

Appropriations Committees in both chambers hold a hearing within 30 days of

submission on the entire budget proposed by the President. The special

subcommittee called on the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and

Budget to come up with uniform fiscal measurements for programs and to supply

committees, upon request, detailed program information on government agencies.

The special subcommittee envisioned a bigger role for the Comptroller General, the

head of the General Accounting Office. That office was to provide analysis of

existing programs and provide to committees staff expert in doing cost-benefit

analysis.

The special subcommittee also called on the President to provide 5 years’ worth

of detailed program information for each program, the current fiscal year and four

succeeding ones.

It also recommended that each House report be required to include a cost

estimate for the bill it accompanied.

Administrative Proposals. The special subcommittee recommended

creation of a Joint Committee on Data Processing to help coordinate the acquisition

and use of computers and technology. The committee was to consist of 12 Members,

six from each chamber, equally divided between the majority and minority parties.

The special subcommittee also recommended that the Legislative Reference

Service, a division of the Library of Congress that was designed to provide research

support to lawmakers, be renamed the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and

CRS-12

its responsibilities be expanded and redefined. The new CRS would be authorized

to require government agencies to provide information, and could hire temporary

services of experts or consultants.

The special subcommittee recommended that the Joint Committee of Congress

on the Library be renamed the Joint Committee on the Library and Congressional

Research to make clear that this panel was to oversee the operations of CRS.

The special subcommittee recommended the abolition of the Joint Committee

on Immigration and Nationality Policy.

The special subcommittee recommended that, in the House, the reading of the

Journal12 be dispensed with and that a vote on the Journal be non-debatable. This

recommendation came in response to the use of the reading of the Journal and votes

on its approval as dilatory tactics by the minority.

The special subcommittee recommended codifying the practice that conference

agreements be prepared jointly by conferees of the two houses, and that time for

debate on a conference report be divided equally between the majority and minority.

The special subcommittee recommended that, when House Members raised

points of order against a bill because it included nongermane amendments, the House

debate the motion for 40 minutes and that a two-thirds vote be required to permit the

amendments to stand.

The House parliamentarian, the special subcommittee recommended, should

prepare and have printed new compilations of House precedents every 5 years. A

condensed and up-to-date version should be printed at the beginning of each

Congress.

The special subcommittee recommended the creation of the Capitol Guide

Service to provide free, organized tours of the Capitol for the public.

Senate Provisions. The Senate agreed to make it easier for a majority of

committee members to call a meeting. It also adopted a series of changes designed

to give more power to Members, not chairs, of committees. Those included a

requirement that committee reports be filed within seven days of committee action,

that a committee’s minority party be allowed to call witnesses during at least one day

of hearings, and that members have three days to file minority views for committee

reports.

The Senate agreed to ban general proxy voting (but permit specific proxies), and

to require that each committee file a single annual expense report.

Most Senate standing committees were reduced in size, and, for future

assignments, Senators were restricted to service on two major committees and one

minor one. It also restricted Senators to service on only one of the following

12

Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States.

CRS-13

committees at a time: Appropriations, Armed Services, Finance, and Foreign

Relations. In the future, Senators also could hold not more than one chairmanship,

or more than one subcommittee chairmanship, on any major committee.

The Senate renamed its Banking and Currency Committee to the Committee on

Banking, Housing and, Urban Affairs, and gave it jurisdiction over urban affairs

generally. The Senate created a Committee on Veterans’ Affairs with jurisdiction

transferred from three other standing committees.

The Senate authorized the addition of two professional staff for each standing

committee. The minority party was afforded the right to hire two staff authorized for

a committee. Senate staff salary maximums were increased to roughly match the

House.

The Senate prohibited floor consideration of a measure unless the report on it

had been available for at least three calendar days, though the majority and minority

leaders could agree to waive this rule. If the two leaders agreed, committees also

would be allowed to sit while the Senate was in session.

For both the House and the Senate, conference procedures were changed to

require that both chambers print conference reports, that conferees of both chambers

jointly prepare an explanatory statement to accompany a conference report and that

debate time on a conference report be equally divided between the majority and

minority parties.

Final Action. A few of the recommendations of the House subcommittee were

changed several times during the course of congressional consideration, and

additional changes were adopted later. The House provided that the minority was to

receive no less than one-third of committee staff. Members also agreed to begin

recording how each Member voted during teller votes taken in the Committee of the

Whole, and to allow as few as 20 Members to obtain a roll call vote. The provision

on nongermane amendments, requiring only a majority vote for an amendment for

it to succeed, was modified. Finally, the House struck from the bill the provision

creating a top administrative staffer for Members’ personal offices. The Senate

added a new Veterans’ Affairs Committee to its roster.

Finally, the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations was established.

Made up of 10 members, five from each chamber, the committee was instructed to

continue to study the organization and operations of Congress and make

recommendations about improvements. The committee was also to oversee the new

Office of Placement and Office of Management, which were created to assist

Members in finding staff and provide help with office problems.

Party Caucus Reforms, 92nd, 93rd, and 94th Congresses (19711975)

Procedural reforms in the House Democratic Caucus and House Republican

Conference between 1971 and 1975 substantially affected committee organization

and assignment procedures in the House of Representatives.

CRS-14

These reforms were generally advocated by more junior, reform-minded

Members of both parties, who were influenced by the changes underway in society

as a whole during this period and sought to have the House reflect these

developments. The broad changes in American Society included the civil rights

movement, growing opposition to American military involvement in Southeast Asia,

and the widespread questioning of authority engendered by the Watergate scandal

that caused President Richard M. Nixon to resign under threat of congressional

impeachment. Junior Democratic Members joined forces with other reformers in

Congress to push for institutional reforms in a House they viewed as largely

dominated by senior and conservative Southern Members who often sided with

Republicans.

Some Members may have concluded that the organization and membership of

Congress had not kept pace with societal changes. As one Member noted of new

Members,

“We were the children of Vietnam, not World War II. We were products of

television, not of print. We were products of computer politics, not courthouse

politics. And we were reflections of JFK as president, not FDR.”13

Among the key impacts of the Democratic Caucus and Republican Conference

reforms were a decrease in the power of committee chairs, a weakening of the

seniority system, and a strengthening of the hand of House leadership over

scheduling and committee assignments. The reforms also gave junior Members

additional mechanisms to influence the workings of the chamber, including

procedures to bypass closed rules on major legislation, separate votes on committee

chairs, giving a role for Members in establishing subcommittee jurisdiction, as well

as a place on the panel making standing committee assignments.

1971-Democratic Caucus. Many reform-minded Members of the House

expressed the view that the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act did not go far

enough and that additional reforms needed to be made. Toward that end, the

Democratic Study Group, an organization of progressive, Democrats, was successful

in convincing the Democratic Caucus to create a special caucus committee, the

Committee on Organization, Study, and Review (OSR), to examine proposals for

reform.

On January 20, 1971, the Democratic Caucus adopted the first set of proposals

put forth by the OSR. Under this plan:

! The Democratic Committee on Committees, made up of the Democratic

members of the House Ways and Means Committee, would recommend

nominees for the chairmanship and membership of each committee. These

nominations were no longer required to be based on seniority.

13

Ronald D. Elving, “Rebels of ‘94 and ‘Watergate Babies’ Similar in Class Size,

Sense of Zeal,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly, Jan. 24, 1998, pp. 160-161

CRS-15

! The Committee on Committees would recommend committee chairmanships

separately rather than as a slate. At the request of 10 caucus members, a

nomination for a chair could be separately debated and voted upon.

! Democratic House Members would be limited to one subcommittee

chairmanship, and each subcommittee chair would be entitled to hire one staff

aide. In addition, the chair of a committee could not simultaneously serve as

chair of more than one subcommittee of that committee. These changes

opened approximately 40 subcommittee chairmanships to junior Members.

Not all attempts at change made by junior Members were successful. An effort

to unseat the chair of the House District of Columbia Committee and replace him

with a more junior committee member was rejected. Another effort to seat the

outgoing chair of the Democratic Study Group on the Ways and Means Committee

failed. Finally, even after reforms were adopted by the Democratic Caucus, two

committee chairs were able to implement procedural changes on their individual

panels which lessened the effect of the new rules.

1971-Republican Conference. On January 20, House Republicans agreed

to allow all of their Members to vote on nominations for ranking minority members

on committees. In doing so, the Republican Conference approved the

recommendations of a Republican task force on seniority chaired by Rep. Barber B.

Conable Jr. (R-NY). The recommendations eliminated the requirement that ranking

membership on committees be, in effect, automatically based on seniority.

Under these new procedures, the Republican Committee on Committees, made

up of one Representative from each state that had Republican Members in the House,

would nominate a Member to be ranking on each committee. The conference would

then vote separately and by secret ballot on each nomination. If the nomination was

rejected, the Committee on Committees would nominate another Member.

The Members also agreed that when Republicans won a majority in the House,

the same procedures would apply toward the selection of committee chairs.

1973-Democratic Caucus. In 1973, some Members in the Democratic

Study Group, as well as outside lobbying groups such as Common Cause and

Americans for Democratic Action, waged a nearly 2-month effort to institute further

reforms in the House Democratic Caucus. On February 21, the Democratic Caucus

adopted a series of procedural changes, including changes to:

! require that all House committee hearings be open unless they dealt with

matters of national security or could injure personal reputations; markups

could only be closed by majority vote at the beginning of a committee session;

(The House later adopted these provisions in a slightly modified version as

amendments to the House rules.)

! adopt a change that would allow 50 Members to secure a caucus vote on

directing the House Rules Committee to make an amendment in order on the

House floor; this change was intended to halt the practice of committee chairs

bringing major legislation to the floor without an opportunity for floor

amendment;

CRS-16

! permit a secret-ballot vote on the nomination of any committee chair at the

demand of 20% of the caucus;

! strip the chair of the Ways and Means Committee of the role of chair of the

Committee on Committees and replacing that person with the Speaker; the

House majority leader and caucus chair were added to the panel; and

! create a new committee, the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, to

promote party policy and unity; membership would include the caucus chair,

four deputy whips, three Members appointed by the Speaker, and 12 Members

elected by a vote of the Democratic Caucus.

Finally, the caucus approved a so-called Subcommittee Bill of Rights that

authorized each subcommittee to meet, hold hearings, and act. It empowered the

caucus of Democrats on each committee to establish subcommittee jurisdictions; set

party ratios on subcommittees; and choose subcommittee members and chairs,

guaranteeing all Democratic members of a committee a major subcommittee

assignment. Subcommittees were guaranteed independent budgets, and committee

chairs were required to refer measures to subcommittees in accordance with the

committees’ written jurisdictions.

1974 and 1975 - Democratic Caucus. Additional changes to assignment

procedures and seniority were made in meetings in December 1974 and January 1975

in the House Democratic Caucus. These changes were supported by reformers in

Congress with the assistance of a large class of Democratic freshman who were

elected to the 94th Congress.

The authority to make Democratic committee assignments was transferred from

the House Committee on Committees, which consisted of the Democratic Members

of the House Ways and Means Committee, to the Steering and Policy Committee.

Democrats required automatic secret-ballot votes on committee chairs and allowed

for additional nominations for committee chair if the first nominee was rejected.

Within two weeks of making these procedural changes regarding the selection

of committee chairs, House Democrats, through a series of votes in the Democratic

Steering Committee and in the Democratic Caucus, ended in practice the strict

operation of the seniority system by removing three standing committee chairs.

Additional changes were made in the December and January meetings of the

caucus, including requiring nominations for the chairs of Appropriations

subcommittees to be approved by the caucus. The Speaker was allowed to nominate

all Democratic members of the Rules Committee. The caucus recommended

changing House rules to require open conference committee meetings. The House

also renamed three standing committees, made the Select Committee on Small

Business a standing committee, and abolished the controversial House Internal

Security Committee, which had been previously named the House Un-American

Activities Committee.

CRS-17

House Select Committee on Committees (Bolling Committee),

93rd Congress (1973-1974)

Creation, Membership, and Funding.

Creation. The Select Committee on Committees was established in the 93rd

Congress in response to widespread Member dissatisfaction with the existing

committee structure. As Rep. Bolling stated in House debate on the reform

resolution, "Twenty-eight years ago is the last time the House reorganized itself. I do

not believe that there is a Member here, no matter how much he may disagree with

the content of this resolution, who does not agree that there needs to be a

reorganization."14 Reps. Richard Bolling (D-MO) and Dave Martin (R-NE)

introduced H.Res. 132 on January 15, 1973, and the resolution was subsequently

referred to the House Rules Committee. On January 31, 1973, the resolution passed

the House by a vote of 282-91. The Select Committee on Committees dissolved at

the of the 93rd Congress, consistent with its authorizing legislation.

While a set of reforms less sweeping than those proposed by the committee

ultimately passed the House of Representatives (and even some of these changes

were later repealed), the recommendations made by the Select Committee on

Committees laid the groundwork for several subsequent congressional committee

reform efforts, including those undertaken in the United States Senate,15 by the Joint

Committee on the Organization of Congress in 1991-1994, and by the Republican

majority that took power in the House in 1995. The latter two efforts are discussed

in detail in later sections of this report.

Under H.Res. 132, the select committee was “authorized and directed to conduct

a thorough and complete study with respect to the operation and implementation of

Rules X and XI....,including committee structure of the House, the number and

optimum size of committees, their jurisdiction, the number of subcommittees,

committee rules and procedures, media coverage of meetings, staffing, space,

equipment, and other committee facilities.”

14

Rep. Richard Bolling, Remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 120, September

30, 1974 p. 32953.

15

In 1976, the Senate undertook a reform and restructuring effort that, in many regards,

echoed the recommendations of the Bolling committee. The Temporary Select Committee

to Study the Senate Committee System, often called the “Stevenson committee” after its

chair, Senator Adlai Stevenson III (D-IL), issued recommendations for reorganizing aspects

of the Senate committee system. These recommendations, as adopted in S. Res. 4 of the 95th

Congress, reduced the number of Senate committees, consolidated their jurisdictions, set

limits on the assignment of Senators to committees and subcommittees, institutionalized

committee scheduling practices, and reformed the allocation of committee staff between the

majority and minority parties. For more information on the work of the Temporary Select

Committee, see S.Res. 4, 95th Cong., 1st sess., and Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1977,

(Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 1977), pp. 781-790.

CRS-18

Membership. The Select Committee on Committees was made up of five

Democrats and five Republicans, each appointed by Speaker of the House Carl

Albert (D-OK). The committee was chaired by Rep. Richard Bolling and is

popularly referred to as the Bolling committee. Other Members appointed to the

select committee were Reps. Robert G. Stephens Jr. (D-GA); John C. Culver (D-IA);

Lloyd Meeds (D-WA); Paul S. Sarbanes (D-MD); Dave Martin; who served as vice

chair of the select committee, Peter H.B. Frelinghuysen (R-NJ); Charles E. Wiggins

(R-CA); William A. Steiger (R-WI); and C.W. “Bill” Young (R-FL).

Funding. H.Res. 132 authorized $1.5 million for the budget of the select

committee.

Committee Activity and Recommendations.

The select committee conducted hearings and panel discussions, and received

the testimony of Members of the House. It interviewed a large number of House

committee staff and also commissioned a number of specialized studies. Hearings

began on May 2, 1973, and concluded October 11. The select committee issued a

working draft report on committee jurisdiction and procedure in the House on

December 7.

The Bolling committee committed most of its recommendations to legislation,

H.Res. 988, which was given extensive review by the House Democratic Caucus.

After a period of review, the caucus voted to direct the Rules Committee to issue a

rule for consideration of three pieces of reform legislation on the House floor: the

Bolling committee’s H.Res. 988, a less sweeping amendment in the nature of a

substitute to H.Res. 988 forwarded by Rep. Julia Butler Hansen; and a affirmative

piece of legislation offered by Bolling committee Vice Chair Dave Martin, which

included provisions of both the Bolling and Hansen resolutions. Extensive debate

and amendment followed in the House, and the Hansen substitute to H.Res. 988 was

eventually agreed to October 8.16

Hearings. On May 2 and 3, 1973, the select committee heard testimony from

Speaker Carl Albert (D-OK) and Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford (R-MI). The

Speaker’s testimony generally avoided specific reform recommendations, but stressed

his support for the idea of allowing the Members of each new Congress to meet in

December, a month before the official session opening, to dispose of time-consuming

organizational matters that he felt bogged down Congress’s productivity.

Minority Leader Ford expressed support for that idea as well, and in his

testimony focused on a number of specific ways committees should be reformed,

including splitting the Education and Labor Committee into two committees and

shifting some of the workload away from the Interstate and Foreign Commerce

Committee and Banking and Currency Committee. The minority leader stopped

short of calling for the abolition of any House committees.

16

For more information on the three reform proposals, see Rep. Olin E. Teague, remarks in

the House, Congressional Record, vol. 120, Sept. 30, 1974, pp. 32959-32963.

CRS-19

A hearing on May 9, focused on the work of the Education and Labor

Committee and the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee, with the select

committee hearing from both panels’ chairs.

Hearings on May 16-18, continued the focus on whether to split the Committee

on Education and Labor. The May 18 hearing also marked the first substantive

statement by Chairman Bolling about specific reform proposals. During that session,

Bolling proposed that the House take from standing committees the power to create

subcommittees. He also suggested splitting oversight functions into three areas of

jurisdiction, with some oversight handled by authorizing committees, some by an

expanded Government Operations Committee, and some by the Appropriations

Committee or a new Budget Committee.

Hearings on June 6-8, focused on Congress’s dealings with the federal budget.

The jurisdictions of the House Foreign Affairs, Internal Security, and Science and

Astronautics Committees were also examined and the select committee heard from

the chairs of those panels.

Hearings on October 3-5 and October 11, heard from outside witnesses,

including a leading consumer rights activist, the chair of Common Cause, the director

of the AFL-CIO Legislative Department, and the director of the Washington bureau

of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

On December 7, 1973, the select committee issued a working draft report of its

recommendations.

Initial Recommendations: Committee Jurisdiction. The December

working draft report of the select committee proposed changing the jurisdiction of

16 of the 21 standing House committees.

Under the proposal, one committee (Veterans’ Affairs) would have no

jurisdictional change. Three standing committees (Internal Security, Post Office and

Civil Service, and Merchant Marine and Fisheries) would be abolished altogether as

would the Select Committee on Small Business. Three standing committees would

receive significant jurisdictional changes. The Education and Labor Committee

would be split into two committees, one overseeing education, the other labor. The

Interior Committee would become the Committee on Energy and Environment. The

Public Works Committee would become the Public Works and Transportation

Committee. In addition, a new Budget Committee would be formed.

Table 1 below details the changes in standing committee jurisdiction proposed

in the working draft report.

CRS-20

Table 1. Proposed Changes in Standing Committee Jurisdictiona

Standing Committee (new

committee names in

parentheses)

Existing Committee

Jurisdiction

Proposed Jurisdictional Loss

Proposed Jurisdictional Gain

Agriculture (to become

Agriculture and Natural

Resources)

Agriculture.

Agricultural colleges and

extension services.

Farm Credit.

Food stamps.

Public Law 480.

Sugar Act.

Commodities exchanges.

School milk.

Forestry.

Soils and plants.

Small watersheds.

Animal welfare.

Rural development.

Pesticides.

Nutrition.

Agricultural colleges (to

Education).

Food stamps (to Ways and Means).

Public Law 480, except for

domestic production (to Foreign

Affairs).

Commodities exchanges (to

Commerce and Health).

School milk (to Education).

Small watersheds (to Energy and

Environment).

Public lands, except leasing and

management of energy

resources (from Interior).

Forestry (from Interior).

Parks and wilderness (from

Interior).

District of Columbia parks

(from Public Works).

Wildlife (from Merchant Marine

and Fisheries and Interior).

Fish and fisheries (from

Merchant Marine and Fisheries).

Marine affairs (partial

jurisdiction; from Merchant

Marine and Fisheries).

Commodity Credit Corporation

(from Banking and Currency).

Appropriations

Appropriations of the revenue for

the support of the government.

No jurisdictional loss was proposed.

Rescission authority for

previous fiscal years.

Transfer authority.

CRS-21

Standing Committee (new

committee names in

parentheses)

Existing Committee

Jurisdiction

Proposed Jurisdictional Loss

Proposed Jurisdictional Gain

Armed Services

Armed Services procurement.

Military programs and their

operations.

Civil defense.

Common defense.

Foreign intelligence.

Foreign military aid.

Military personnel and their

dependents.

Military research and

development.

Military security.

Military housing.

Military installations.

Service academies.

Military administration.

Selective Service.

Stockpiles and reserves.

Naval petroleum and oil share

reserves.

Exclusive jurisdiction over military

research and development

(jurisdiction to be shared with

Science and Technology).

Foreign intelligence (jurisdiction to

be shared with Foreign Affairs and

Appropriations).

Naval petroleum and oil share

reserves (to Energy and

Environment).

Arms control and disarmament

(partial jurisdiction; to be shared

with Foreign Affairs).

Banking and Currency (to

become Banking,

Currency, and Housing).

Banks and banking.

Coins and coinage.

Currency.

Economic stabilization and

defense production measures.

Foundations and charitable trusts.

Government lending.

Housing and urban development.

Mass transit.

Insurance.

International finance.

International trade and export

controls.

Money and credit.

Small business.

Mass transit (to Public Works and

Transportation).

Foundations and charitable trusts

(to Ways and Means).

Commodity Credit Corporation (to

Agriculture and Natural Resources).

International Trade (to Foreign

Affairs).

Select Committee on Small

Business.

Renegotiation (from Ways and

Means).

CRS-22

Standing Committee (new

committee names in

parentheses)

Existing Committee

Jurisdiction

Proposed Jurisdictional Loss

Proposed Jurisdictional Gain

District of Columbia

All matters relating to the

municipal affairs of the District,

other than appropriations.

Insurance, executors,

administrators, wills, and divorce.

Municipal code and amendments

to the criminal and corporation

laws.

Regulation of the sale of

intoxicating liquor.

Taxes and tax sales.

No jurisdictional loss was proposed.

Howard University, Freedmen’s

Hospital, St. Elizabeth’s

Hospital, Federal City College

(from Education and Labor).

Education and Labor

(education functions split

off to become House

Education Committee)

Aging.

Preschool, elementary, secondary

and post-secondary education.

Arts and humanities.

Education technology.

Educational and library facilities.

Freedmen’s Hospital in the

District of Columbia.

International education.

Legal services.

Special education.

St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in the

District of Columbia.

Gallaudet College.

Native American education.

Howard University.

Legal services (to Judiciary).

Freedmen’s Hospital (to District of

Columbia).

St. Elizabeth’s Hospital (to District

of Columbia).

Howard University (to District of

Columbia).

Prison education (from

Judiciary).

School milk (from Agriculture).

Health services training (from

Interstate and Foreign

Commerce).

Agricultural colleges (from

Agriculture).

CRS-23

Standing Committee (new

committee names in

parentheses)

Existing Committee

Jurisdiction

Proposed Jurisdictional Loss

Proposed Jurisdictional Gain

Education and Labor

(labor functions split off to

become House Labor

Committee)

Agricultural and migrant labor.

Child labor.

Convict labor and prison

produced goods.

Discrimination against the aged.

Equal employment opportunity

and fair employment practices.

Foreign contract labor.

Miner safety.

Labor standards.

Labor statistics.

Manpower and vocational

education.

Mediation and arbitration.

Occupational Safety and Health

Act.

Pensions.

Wages and hours.

Workmen’s compensation.

No jurisdictional loss was proposed.

Unemployment compensation

(from Ways and Means).

WIN (from Ways and Means).

Civil Service generally,

including the status of officers

and employees, their

compensation and classification,

employee travel, transportation

and subsistence (from Post

Office and Civil Service).

CRS-24

Standing Committee (new

committee names in

parentheses)

Foreign Affairs

Existing Committee

Jurisdiction

Foreign policy of the United

States. Arms control and

disarmament.

Embassies and legations abroad.

International boundaries.

Foreign loans.

International conferences and

congresses.

Foreign military intervention.

Diplomatic service.

Encouragement of international

trade.

Protection of business

investments abroad.

Neutrality.

Protection of US citizens abroad;

expatriation.

American Red Cross.

United Nations organizations.

International finance and

monetary organizations.

Foreign policy agency

authorizations.

International environmental

agreements.

Foreign economic and security

assistance.

Proposed Jurisdictional Loss

Arms control (jurisdiction to be

shared with Armed Services).

Proposed Jurisdictional Gain

Trade and tariffs (from Ways

and Means).

Public Law 480, other than its

domestic production functions

(from Agriculture).

Foreign intelligence (in

conjunction with Appropriations

and Armed Services).

International fishing agreements

(Merchant Marine and

Fisheries).

Interoceanic canals (Merchant

Marine and Fisheries).

International trade (Banking and

Currency).

CRS-25

Standing Committee (new

committee names in

parentheses)

Existing Committee

Jurisdiction

Proposed Jurisdictional Loss

Proposed Jurisdictional Gain

Government Operations

Executive reorganizations.

Intergovernmental relationships.

Budget and accounting.

Freedom of information.

Federal procurement.

Comptroller General

Economy and efficiency of

government activities.

General Services Administration.

Evaluation of legislative

reorganization acts.

No jurisdictional loss was proposed.

Postal Service (from Post Office

and Civil Service).

Census (from Post Office and

Civil Service).

National Archives (from Post

Office and Civil Service).

Holidays and celebrations (from

Judiciary).

Hatch Act (from House

Administration).

Revenue sharing (from Ways

and Means).

Territories (from Interior and

Insular Affairs).

Indians (from Interior and

Insular Affairs).

House Administration

Contingent fund appropriations.

Member allowances.

Federal elections.

Hatch Act.

House Information Systems.

House employees.

House office space assignments.

Committee investigative funds.

Campaign finance.

Printing.

House restaurant.

Congressional Record.

Library of Congress.

Smithsonian.

Botanic Garden.

Elections (to Standards of Official

Conduct).

Campaign finance (to Standards of

Official Conduct).

Hatch Act (to Government

Operations).

Management and administration

of House restaurant, parking,

and beauty shop (from

individual committees).

CRS-26

Standing Committee (new

committee names in

parentheses)

Existing Committee

Jurisdiction

Proposed Jurisdictional Loss

Proposed Jurisdictional Gain

Interior and Insular

Affairs (to become Energy

and Environment)

Environment, not including

NEPA, clean air, clean water,

solid waste, and noise pollution.

National parks and recreation.

Native Americans.

Public lands.

Land use planning.

National forests.

Minerals and energy.

Mining.

Territories.

Water and power.

Wilderness areas.

Wildlife refuges.

Forests (to Agriculture and Natural

Resources).

National parks and recreation (to

Agriculture and Natural Resources).

Native Americans (to Government

Operations).

Public lands, except leasing of

energy resources (to Agriculture

and Natural Resources).

Territories (to Government

Operations).

Wildlife refuges (to Agriculture and

Natural Resources).

Wilderness areas (to Agriculture

and Natural Resources).

Environmental policy; coastal

zones (from Merchant Marine

and Fisheries).

Clean air and drinking water;

noise; solid waste and toxic

substances (from Interstate

Foreign Commerce).

Clean water (from Public

Works).

Ocean dumping (from Public

Works, and Merchant Marine

and Fisheries).

Radiation (from Joint

Committee on Atomic Energy,

and Merchant Marine and

Fisheries).

Energy conservation and

regulation (from Interstate

Foreign Commerce).

Energy power administrations

(from Public Works).

Energy taxes (from Ways and

Means).

Naval petroleum reserves (from

Armed Services).

Small watersheds (from

Agriculture).

Flood control (from Public

Works).

Internal Security (to be

disbanded.)

Communist activities.

Internal security.

Obstructing or opposing

government authority.

Overthrow of government.

Revolutionary organizations.

Subversive activities.

Transfer all jurisdiction to Judiciary

Committee.

CRS-27

Standing Committee (new

committee names in

parentheses)

Existing Committee

Jurisdiction

Proposed Jurisdictional Loss

Proposed Jurisdictional Gain

Interstate and Foreign

Commerce (to become

Commerce and Health)

Aviation.

Communications.

Consumer protection.

Energy regulation.

Environment.

Health.

Insurance.

Regulatory agencies.

Securities and exchanges.

Surface transportation.

Trading with the enemy.

Weather.

Aviation (to Public Works and

Transportation).

Energy regulation (to Energy and

Environment).

Environment – clean air, solid

waste, noise (to Energy and

Environment).

Health services training (to

Education).

Surface Transportation (to Public

Works and Transportation).

Weather (to Science and

Technology).

Clean drinking water (to Energy

and Environment).

Biomedical research (from

Science and Astronautics).

Commodities exchanges (from

Agriculture).

Maternal and child health (from

Ways and Means).

Non-tax-related aspects of

Medicare and Medicaid (from

Ways and Means).

Patents, trademarks and

copyrights (from Judiciary).

Population (from Interior and

Insular Affairs).

Judiciary

Administrative law.

Bankruptcy.

Citizenship.

Civil rights.

Claims against the United States.

Congressional matters.

Constitutional law.

Federal courts.

Crime.

Government relations.

Holidays and celebrations.

International law.

Administration of justice.

Monopolies and improper trade

practices.

National corporate charters.

Patents, trademarks, and

copyrights.

Revision and codification of

federal statues.

Holidays and celebrations (to

Government Operations).

Patents, trademarks and copyrights

(to Commerce and Health).

Internal Security (from Internal

Security).

Legal services (from Education

and Labor).

Impeachments and confirmation

of vice presidential nominees

under the 25th amendment.

CRS-28

Standing Committee (new

committee names in

parentheses)

Merchant Marine and

Fisheries (to be

disbanded)

Existing Committee

Jurisdiction

Proposed Jurisdictional Loss

Coast Guard.

Fishing and fisheries.

Merchant marine.

Panama Canal.

Coastal zone management.

International fishing conventions.

Oceanography.

National environmental policy.

Offshore ports.

Wildlife.

Coast Guard (to Public Works and

Transportation).

Fishing and fisheries (to

Agriculture and Natural Resources).

Merchant Marines (to Public Works

and Transportation.)

Panama Canal (to Foreign Affairs).

Coastal zone management (to

Energy and Environment).

International fishing conventions

(to Foreign Affairs).

Oceanography (to Science and

Technology).

National environmental policy (to

Energy and Environment).

Offshore ports (to Public Works

and Transportation).

Wildlife (to Agriculture and Natural

Resources).

Proposed Jurisdictional Gain

CRS-29

Standing Committee (new

committee names in

parentheses)

Existing Committee

Jurisdiction

Proposed Jurisdictional Loss

Post Office and Civil

Service (to be disbanded)

Civil service.

Retirement.

Postal Rate Commission.

Railway mail service.

Ocean mail.

Pneumatic tube service.

Status of officers and employees,

their compensation and

classification.

Postal Service.

Postal savings banks.

National Archives.

Census.

Employee travel, transportation,

and subsistence.

Post roads.

Franking.

Civil service (to Labor).

Retirement (to Labor).

Postal Rate Commission (to

Government Operations).

Railway mail service (to

Government Operations).

Ocean mail (to Government

Operations).

Pneumatic tube service (to

Government Operations).

Status of officers and employees,

their compensation, and

classification (to Labor).

Postal Service (to Government

Operations).

Postal savings banks (to

Government Operations).

National Archives (to Government

Operations).

Census (to Government

Operations).

Employee travel, transportation,

and subsistence (to Labor).

Post roads (to Government

Operations).

Franking (to Standards of Official

Conduct).

Proposed Jurisdictional Gain

CRS-30

Standing Committee (new

committee names in

parentheses)

Existing Committee

Jurisdiction

Proposed Jurisdictional Loss

Proposed Jurisdictional Gain

Public Works (to become

Public Works and

Transportation)

Water quality.

Water power.

Flood control.

Disaster relief.

Public buildings and grounds.

Regional development.

Rivers and harbors.

Highways.

Relocation assistance.

Highway safety.

Parks within the District of

Columbia.

Water quality (to Energy and

Environment).

Water power (to Energy and

Environment).

Flood control (to Energy and

Environment).

Parks within the District of

Columbia (to Agriculture and

Natural Resources).

Mass transit (from Banking and

Currency).

Railway transportation (from

Interstate and Foreign

Commerce).

Railroad labor (from Interstate

and Foreign Commerce).

Civil aviation (from Interstate

and Foreign Commerce).

Inland waterway traffic (from

Interstate and Foreign

Commerce).

Merchant marine (from

Merchant Marine and Fisheries)

Interstate Commerce

Commission, Civil Aeronautics

Board, Federal Aviation

Administration, Federal

Railroad Administration,

Maritime Administration,

Amtrak (from Interstate

Commerce, and Merchant

Marine and Fisheries).

Rules

Final adjournment of Congress.

Rules and joint rules of the

House.

Order of business of the House.

Recess of Congress.

Reorganization of Congress.

No jurisdictional loss was proposed.

A new bill referral appeal

mechanism.

CRS-31

Standing Committee (new

committee names in

parentheses)

Existing Committee

Jurisdiction

Proposed Jurisdictional Loss

Proposed Jurisdictional Gain

Science and Astronautics

(to become Science and

Technology)

Measurement.

Research and development.

Science.

Science fellowships,

scholarships, and grants.

Science policy.

Science centers.

Scientific programs.

Scientific resources including

manpower.

Space.

Technology.

Technology assessment.

Technology transfer.

Science fellowships, scholarship

and grants (to Education).

Biomedical research and

development (to Commerce and

Health).

Overview of military research

and development (to be shared

with Armed Services).

Oceanic and atmospheric

sciences (from Merchant Marine

and Fisheries).

Energy research and

development (from Interior and

Insular Affairs, Commerce,

Joint Committee on Atomic

Energy, Merchant Marine and

Fisheries).

Civil aviation R&D (from

Interstate and Foreign

Commerce).

Environmental R&D (from

Interior and Insular Affairs,

Public Works, Commerce,

Merchant Marine and Fisheries.)

Weather (from Interstate and

Foreign Commerce).

Standards of Official

Conduct

Code of official conduct.

Financial disclosure.

Lobbying.

Campaign expenditures of House

Members.

No jurisdictional loss was proposed.

Federal elections, including

voter registration (from House

Administration).

Franking (from Post Office and

Civil Service).

Special Committee to

Investigate Campaign

Expenditures.

Campaign finance (from House

Administration).

Veteran’s Affairs

Veterans affairs, including

compensation, education,

employment, healthcare, housing,

insurance, and training.

No jurisdictional loss was proposed.

No jurisdictional gain was

proposed.

CRS-32

Standing Committee (new

committee names in

parentheses)

Ways and Means

a

Existing Committee

Jurisdiction

National health insurance.

Public debt.

Renegotiation.

Revenue sharing.

Social Security OASDI.

Medicare

Medicaid.

Maternal and child health.

Public assistance.

Unemployment compensation.

WIN program.

Taxes.

Trade and tariffs.

Transportation trust funds.

Proposed Jurisdictional Loss

Proposed Jurisdictional Gain

Maternal and child health (to

Commerce and Health).

Public debt (to Budget).

Renegotiation (to Banking,

Currency, and Housing).

Revenue sharing (to Government

Operations).

WIN program (to Labor).

Trade and tariffs (to Foreign

Affairs).

Medicare and medicaid to

Commerce and Health (non-tax

aspects).

Food stamps (from Agriculture).

Foundations and charitable

trusts (from Banking and

Currency).

For further information on proposed jurisdictional changes, see “Jurisdiction Overhaul Recommended for House,” Congressional

Quarterly Almanac, 1973, pp. 755-769

CRS-33

Initial Recommendations: Other Matters. Jurisdictional change was the

main focus of the December working draft report of the Select Committee on

Committees. However, the select committee recommended other reforms to:

! direct Members to gather in Washington in the weeks before the formal

opening of Congress to dispose of organizational matters, thus allowing them

to be ready to conduct business as soon as sworn in;

! require major committees to establish oversight subcommittees;

! establish a House oversight agenda to be drawn up by leadership or by the

Government Operations Committee;

! improve communication between committees that dealt regularly with the

same federal agencies;

! eliminate proxy voting;

! make exclusive, 15 of the 22 proposed committees; and designate panels as

“A” and “B;” and

! require that no legislation be reported by a committee unless a majority of a

committee was present at the time of the vote to report.

Reform Legislation Drafted. When the select committee released its

working draft report in December 1973, the draft was met with extensive criticism.

The select committee met in February 1974 to revise its draft to increase its chances

of adoption. While several changes were made to the working draft, the framework

of proposed reform remained largely intact and was introduced as H.Res. 988.

One notable change between the working draft and H.Res. 988 made by the

select committee was that the recommendation to abolish the Merchant Marine and

Fisheries Committee was abandoned, although its jurisdiction was diminished.

Additionally, the Select Committee on Small Business would not have been

abolished under H.Res. 988. Instead, it was given legislative jurisdiction, and H.Res.

988 proposed instead to eliminate the Banking and Currency Committee’s Small

Business Subcommittee.

The contentious parts of the working draft report that would substantially reduce

the workload of the Ways and Means Committee remained in H.Res. 988, despite the

opposition of members of that panel.

H.Res. 988 called for 22 House committees. A new committee structure would

be established designating 15 of these committees as “A” committees of generally

equal stature, and seven as “B” committees with more limited jurisdictional purview.

CRS-34

That structure is shown in this chart:

“A” Committees

Agriculture and Forestry

Appropriations

Armed Services

Banking, Currency and Housing

Commerce and Health

Education

Energy and Environment

Foreign Affairs

Government Operations

Judiciary

Labor

Public Works and Transportation

Rules

Science and Technology

Ways and Means

“B” Committees

Budget

District of Columbia

House Administration

Merchant Marine and Fisheries

Small Business

Standards of Official Conduct

Veterans Affairs

H.Res. 988 retained the recommendations for an early House organizational

meeting, elimination of proxy voting, and increased oversight.

In addition, the legislation allowed an increase in the professional and clerical

staffs of committees, with the minority members of the committee being afforded the

opportunity to select one-third of the staff and one-third of any investigative staff.

H.Res. 988 also authorized the Speaker to refer measures to more than one

committee in joint, split, or sequential fashion, and to create ad hoc panels subject to

the approval of the House.

On March 19, 1974, the Select Committee on Committees unanimously reported

its revised resolution, H.Res. 988, and, at the request of the House Democratic

Caucus, submitted the resolution to the caucus for its consideration and review.

Caucus Consideration and the Hansen Alternative. On May 9, 1974,

the House Democratic Caucus voted by secret ballot on a motion offered by Rep.

Phillip Burton (D-CA) to refer H.Res. 988 to the Democratic Committee on

Organization, Study and Review, chaired by Rep. Julia Butler Hansen (D-WA)

(referred to as “the Hansen committee”) for further consideration. Under the terms

of the motion, the Hansen committee was to report back to the caucus by July 17.

On July 17, Rep. Hansen presented an alternative to the caucus, H.Res. 1248.

H.Res. 1248 called for fewer changes to House rules than H.Res. 988, and left

committee jurisdictions largely unchanged.

On July 23, the caucus adopted a resolution by voice vote urging the House

Rules Committee to send the Hansen and Bolling proposals together to the House

floor under an open rule.

CRS-35

Bolling vs. Hansen. The select committee (Bolling) resolution and the

Hansen alternative differed in several aspects:

Select Committee (Bolling)

Hansen Alternative

Divided the Education and Labor

Committee into two committees, one

overseeing education, the other labor.

Education and Labor remained intact.

Abolished the Post Office and Civil

Service Committee.

Post Office and Civil Service

Committee remained intact and was

given additional duties.

The Ways and Means Committee lost

substantial jurisdiction, primarily over

trade, health, and worker incentive

programs.

Ways and Means lost little

jurisdiction.

The Merchant Marine and Fisheries

Committee lost jurisdiction.

The Merchant Marine and Fisheries

Committee’s jurisdiction remained

intact.

The Rules Committee gained a new

jurisdictional arbitration role in

addition to its regular duties.

The Rules Committee’s power was

substantially reduced.

Required the establishment of

oversight committees on all House

standing committees.

Made the establishment of oversight

committees on standing committees

optional.

Eliminated proxy voting entirely.

Retained proxy voting under tighter

regulation.

Minority on committees was entitled

to up to one-third of the funds

provided under investigating

resolutions.

Each subcommittee chair and ranking

minority member could hire one staff

aide.

The Hansen alternative also required that committees with over 15 members

establish at least four subcommittees; required early organizational meetings; allowed

the Resident Commissioner and Delegates to sit on conference committees; required

a majority of House Members appointed to a conference committee to support the

House bill; established a Commission on Information and Facilities; directed the

Speaker to complete a compilation of House precedents by January 1, 1977, and to

update them every 2 years after that; and gave all standing committees subpoena

authority subject to approval by the full House. It also required that subpoenas be

authorized by the majority of a committee.

House Floor Consideration. On September 25, 1974, after four days of

often contentious hearings in the House Rules Committee, the committee adopted a

CRS-36

rule making H.Res. 988 in order for debate and amendment on the House floor. The

Hansen resolution was made in order as an amendment in the nature of a substitute

to H.Res. 988.

Six days of floor debate followed, opening on September 30, 1974. During

debate:

! an amendment offered by Rep. Frank J. Thompson (D-NJ), adding to the

Hansen substitute H.Res. 988's provisions regarding increased minority

staffing, passed by a vote of 218-180;

! an amendment to delete provisions of the Hansen substitute that called for the

elimination of the Committee on Internal Security was adopted by a vote of

246-164;

! an amendment was adopted to the Hansen substitute to establish a nonlegislative Select Committee on Aging;

! a controversial provision of the Hansen substitute that would have diminished

the power of the Rules Committee by allowing the Speaker to call up bills for

floor consideration without rules was stricken by a vote of 295-104;

! by a vote of 196-166, the House adopted an amendment to the Hansen

substitute to ban proxy voting outright; and

! an amendment was adopted to the Hansen substitute to give the Select Small

Business Committee legislative oversight; this provision was identical to one

already contained in H.Res. 988.

Consideration ended on October 8 with the adoption of the Hansen substitute,

as amended, by a vote of 203-165. The House had also rejected a compromise

package (H.Res. 1321) offered by the Select Committee’s Vice Chairman Dave

Martin by a vote of 41-319. The House then passed H.Res. 988 as amended by the

Hansen substitute by a vote of 359-7.

House Commission on Information and Facilities (Brooks

Commission), 94th Congress (1975-1976)

Creation, Membership and Funding.

Creation. Section 204 of P.L. 93-554 established in the House of

Representatives a temporary Commission on Information and Facilities.

In its final report (H. Doc. 95-22) the commission itself noted that it was

...born out of a growing concern among Members of Congress that (a) the scope

and complexity of the issues facing Congress may have surpassed the ready

availability of the information and analysis required by the Congress to deal

effectively with those issues, and (b) the range of legislative, oversight and

representational responsibilities undertaken by the Congress, together with the

increasing number of staff personnel needed to support its Members, had

surpassed the physical capacity of space and facilities.

CRS-37

The law had directed the commission to undertake a complete study of

...the information problems of the House of Representatives against the

background of the existing institutions and services available to the House, and

to make such recommendations with respect thereto as may be appropriate ... the

facilities and space requirements of the Members and committees of the House,

including space utilization, parking ... the staff required to provide the House

legislative counsel with the capability to fully meet the needs of the members of

the House.

When studying the question of the House’s information needs, the commission

was directed to examine the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the General

Accounting Office (GAO), the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), and the

strengths and weaknesses of each; information collection and dissemination in the

House; outside information resources; methods of organizing information transfer to

and from the executive branch; the possible creation of a staff journal; and

experimental or pilot approaches to dealing with information problems.

The commission was directed to make annual progress reports to the Speaker

on its work, as well as any interim reports as would be necessary or were requested

by the Speaker.

The final report of the commission was to be submitted to the House by January

2, 1977. A set of recommendations dealing with staffing of the House legislative

counsel were to be submitted no later than January 1, 1976.

In addition, the FY1976 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (P.L. 94-59)

directed the commission to include in its study an examination of the organizational

effectiveness of the legislative branch’s support agencies and whether there was

duplication among their functions.

The recommendations and pilot programs undertaken by the Brooks commission

were an attempt to turn the House of Representatives into a more efficient, modern

entity that could keep pace with the considerable demands placed on the institution

by its own growth and by the information age. Many of the Brooks commission’s

recommendations regarding the use of space and facilities were embraced by the

House Commission on Administrative Review, also known as the Obey commission,

that was operating at the same time. (The work of the Obey commission is discussed

later in this report.)

Membership. Under its authorizing legislation, the commission was

composed of nine Members of the House, selected by the Speaker, including the

House Members on the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations. No more than

five Members appointed by the Speaker could be of the same political party.

The panel was chaired by Rep. Jack Brooks (D-TX), and the commission is

popularly know as the Brooks commission. Panel members were Robert N. Giaimo

(D-CT); James G. O’Hara (D-MI); Don Fuqua (D-FL); Elizabeth Holtzman (D-NY);

James C. Cleveland (R-NH); John C. Ashbrook (R-OH); Charles W. Whalen, Jr. (ROH); and Philip M. Crane (R-IL).

CRS-38

The law also directed the Speaker to establish a six-person advisory council to

help the commission carry out its work. The advisory council was to be made up of

two members who were representatives of public affairs institutions, two members

who had demonstrated ability in office space utilization, and two members of the

general public.

Funding. Section 204 of the law authorized all funding needed “...to carry out

the purposes of this section” from the contingent fund of the House of

Representatives.

Commission Activity and Recommendations.

To conduct its work, the commission established a Task Force on Information

Resources and a Task Force on Facilities and Space Utilization.

The commission utilized the staff of the Joint Committee on Congressional

Operations and also received the assistance from the General Accounting Office,

Congressional Research Service, and House Information Systems. The commission

also, as specifically authorized by its enabling legislation, made wide use of pilot

projects for the production, demonstration, testing, and evaluation of useful products

and services.

By the time the Brooks Commission had issued its final report in January, 1977,

it had published six information inventories, conducted a comprehensive study of

congressional support agencies, started numerous pilot projects designed to test

information services, completed an inventory of existing space uses and needs as well

as made numerous recommendation about ways to better manage congressional space

and growth.

Information. The commission identified the major information problem

facing Congress as the massive volume of information that Members and committees

receive, both in print and online, and the information’s varying levels of quality and

usefulness.

In order to improve the quality of information and how it was presented to

Congress, the commission undertook several studies and pilot projects. These

projects included the publication of detailed guides to the organization of GAO and

CRS to make Members aware of the information and services the agencies provided.

The commission found little evidence of widespread duplication of efforts at CRS,

OTA, and CBO, but made recommendations for better coordination and

communication among these agencies. The commission oversaw the publication of

an inventory of all information services available to the House from internal sources,

from all legislative branch agencies, from the departments and agencies of the

executive branch, and from relevant private organizations such as universities and

research institutes.

The commission oversaw the permanent installation of a 30-terminal system of

computers available to Members and committees that provided access to a legislative

status service, Library of Congress databases, and databases at the Departments of

Justice and Agriculture. The commission piloted the establishment of a computer-

CRS-39

assisted network to continually advise Members and staff on the progress of

legislative debate and related activities on the House floor. The commission initiated

the construction and testing of a computer system for Members and committees

providing information on current and historic data on the federal budget. The

commission recommended that Congress undertake a coordinated institutionwide

effort to develop and expand the availability of automated information services.

The commission instituted the publication of a monthly staff journal to help

keep congressional staff informed on matters affecting the performance of their

duties and recommended that publication of this staff journal be made permanent.

Facilities. The commission concluded that the House lacked adequate space

for its needs and made poor use of its existing space. The commission concluded

that the House had no rational or systematic way to determine space allocations, that

space that could be used for Member and committee work was frequently used for

storage, that equipment and furniture was bulky and incompatible, and that the

physical layout of many Member and committee offices was unplanned or poorly

planned. In response to these problems, the commission undertook a comprehensive

inventory of space under the control of the House, determined its usage, and

categorized each space into one of five categories of importance. The commission

proposed a number of reallocations of existing space, including moving the House

Document Room to the Longworth Building from the Capitol for the convenience of

staff, moving printing functions to House Annex 2 (now the Ford Building), from the

Longworth Building and making additional space available in the Rayburn Building

for events and meetings.

The commission implemented a pilot program utilizing space-saving modular

furniture in House offices. The commission created a copy and production center to

test the idea of freeing up office space by centralizing the production of bulk

documents. The commission proposed a plan to redesign the Rayburn Reception

Room in the Capitol in order to make it a more useful meeting space for Members.

The commission called for a comprehensive study of the advantages and

disadvantages of using the interior courtyard space of the Cannon and Longworth

Buildings as sites for the construction of additional office space. The commission

also issued a report detailing potential sites for the construction of one or more

additional House office buildings.

House Legislative Counsel. The commission found general satisfaction

in Congress with the services of the Office of Legislative Counsel, but noted that

increased demand had tested the capability of the office to serve its clients.

The commission recommended that the professional staff of the office

Legislative Counsel be expanded to no fewer than 40 attorneys from 27 attorneys

over a 5-year period.

The commission also recommended that additional office space be provided for

the Office of Legislative Counsel.

CRS-40

House Commission on Administrative Review (Obey

Commission), 94-95th Congresses (1976-1977)

Creation, Membership, and Funding.

Creation. The House on July 1, 1976, voted 380-30 for H.Res. 1368, which

established the Commission on Administrative Review.

H.Res. 1368 authorized the commission to make a complete review of the

administrative operations of the House of Representatives, including personnel,

accounting procedures, and all aspects of the administration of the chamber,

including Member allowances and recording-keeping practices.

Earlier in 1976, Rep. Wayne Hays (D-OH) was accused of employing a woman

on the staff of the House Administration Committee who did little or no work for

congressional pay. Hays, who was chair of the committee, eventually resigned his

seat. Concern over revelations involving the chamber’s “housekeeping” committee

and over accusations of ethical lapses against several Members contributed to the

creation of a commission to investigate House administration and ethics issues.17

Membership. The 15-member commission was chaired by Rep. David R.

Obey (D-WI), and the commission is popularly know as the Obey commission. Other

House members were: Melvin Price (D-IL); Lloyd Meeds (D-WA); Lee H. Hamilton

(D-IN); Norman E. D’Amours (D-NH); Bill Frenzel (R-MN); William L. Armstrong

(R-CO); and Robert E. Bauman (R-MD).

The commission also included public members. The private citizens were: Dr.

Ralph K. Huitt, executive director of the National Association of State Universities

and Land Grant Colleges; Charles U. Daly, former vice president for Government

and Community Affairs at Harvard University; William DuChessi, executive vice

president of Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union; William R.

Hamilton, president of William R. Hamilton and Staff Inc.; Robert W. Galvin,

chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Motorola Inc.; Roscoe L. Egger

Jr., partner and director of the Office of Federal Services for Price Waterhouse Inc.;

and Lucy Wilson Benson, former president of the League of Women Voters. Mrs.

Benson resigned from the commission upon being sworn in as under secretary of

state. She was replaced by Dr. Victoria Schuck, president of Mount Vernon College.

Funding. In its final report (H.Rept. 95-272) the commission said it expected

its final cost to be roughly $814,000, less than the $1.16 million it had anticipated

spending.

Commission Activity and Recommendations.

The commission spent more than a year gathering data on a wide variety of

aspects of the administration of the House. The commission undertook several

17

“Congress 1976: Spotlight on Ethics,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1976

(Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 1976), p. 25.

CRS-41

surveys of House Members and staff, and it also hired an outside consulting firm to

conduct another survey.

The commission divided its work into three parts: the scheduling system for the

House; ethics rules to govern House Members; and overhaul of the administrative

processes of the House. The commission issued its first report on December 1, 1976.

The report (H.Doc. 95-23) contained a list of detailed recommendations for changes

in the House scheduling process. With just one change (dropping the proposed

increase in the number of Members needed to get a vote in Committee of the Whole),

the House, on January 4, 1977 by a vote of 256-142, adopted a resolution (H.Res. 5)

which made the commission’s recommendations on House scheduling a part of

House rules.

On February 7, 1977, the commission issued its second report, on proposed

changes in ethics rules. The House adopted the changes recommended in the report

(H.Doc. 95-73) when it passed H.Res. 287 by a vote of 402-22, on March 2.

The commission issued its final report in September 1977. But the

recommendations in that report (H.Doc. 95-232), were never considered by the

House because the House rejected the rule for debate on the administrative changes

resolution (H.Res. 766) on October 12 by a vote of 160-252.

House Scheduling. The commission found that the sometimes chaotic and

frequently ad hoc House schedule made it more difficult for Members to work

effectively. It recommended that House leaders create a “firm schedule” for the

entire year at the start of the session, setting out when Members would need to be in

Washington and when the House would be in recess. Such a schedule, the

commission said, should be worked out in advance with the leadership of the Senate

and the House schedule should reflect the realities of time demands during the budget

season. Before May 15, emphasis should be given to the need for committee time

and activities; after that date the emphasis should turn to the floor schedule.

The commission recommended that general debate time be cut back. The

commission recommended that when the House was dealing with a noncontroversial

bill, the House cluster votes so that Members would not have to return to the floor

every time a vote was requested. To reduce the number of roll-call votes Members

cast on the floor, the commission recommended that 33 Members be needed to ask

for a recorded vote during House action while in the Committee of the Whole, an

increase from the then-level of 20.

The commission recommended that committees be allowed to meet when the

House was debating a measure under the five-minute rule unless 10 Members

objected on the House floor; at that time it took unanimous consent of the House for

permission to sit. Finally, the commission recommended that all committee

scheduling information be entered into an electronic database to help keep scheduling

conflicts to a minimum and allow Members to get more information about committee

activity.

Ethics Rules. The Obey commission began operation at a time when several

Members of Congress had been accused of ethical misconduct. Testifying before the

CRS-42

commission, House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill (D-MA) said it was his desire

for the House to have “the strongest code of ethics of any legislative body in

America.”18 The commission, in its second report, detailed a new set of financial

requirements for Members and key staff to make information about Members more

readily available and to clarify for Members what the rules were governing subjects

such as outside income.

The commission recommended that Members of Congress, their principal

assistants, and professional committee staff be required to file annual financial

disclosure statements by April 30 of each year. Income, gifts, reimbursements, stock

holdings, debts, securities transactions, and real estate were to be included in the

disclosure statements. These financial disclosure statements would become public

information under the commission recommendations. The financial disclosure

statements would be filed with the clerk of the House, who would then transmit

copies to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the appropriate office

that oversaw campaigns. They were to be publicly available 30 days after their

receipt. Candidates for the House would be subject to the same disclosure

requirements as Members. Punishment for “knowing and willful falsification” of the

disclosure statements was one year in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.19

The commission also recommended that outside earned income for Members

of Congress be limited to 15% of their congressional salary; there was no limit on

outside income at the time. Honoraria would be limited to $750 per appearance. A

Member could not accept a gift worth more than $100 a year in the aggregate from

anyone who had a direct interest in the work before Congress, unless the gift came

from a personal friend or relative or each gift was worth less than $35.

The commission recommended that Members be prohibited from using funds

raised at testimonial dinners for personal use. In exchange for an increase in funds

provided to Members to run their offices, the commission recommended that the

House bar the practice of “unofficial” accounts, which some Members had used to

supplement their office expense funds. The commission also recommended barring

Members from converting their campaign funds to personal use, something retiring

Members had done.

The franking privilege also came under scrutiny. The commission recommended

that franking be used only for mass mailings prepared and printed at public expense,

be limited to six districtwide mailings a year, be banned 60 days prior to an election

in which the Member was a candidate, and prohibited Members who were running

a statewide campaign for office from using the frank to send mail outside of their

district.

Finally, it recommended travel by “lame-duck” Members should be abolished.

18

U.S. Congress, Commission on Administrative Review, Work of the Commission, 95th

Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept.. 95-272, vol. 1 (Washington: GPO, 1977), p. 47.

19

Ibid., p. 53.

CRS-43

The commission recommended creation of a Select Committee on Ethics, which

was to exist until December 31, 1977, to draft appropriate implementing language.

Administrative Proposals. The third report of the Obey commission

recommended major changes in the way the House as an institution operated.

The commission recommended creation of a new officer, a House administrator,

who would be in charge of most of the House administrative functions, from payment

of House bills and preparation of financial reports to maintenance of furniture and

equipment, to personnel assistance for Members and operation of the telephone and

computer networks. The commission also recommended hiring an auditor to perform

regular reviews of House operations.

The commission recommended creation of a Select Committee on Committees

to consider committee changes, specifically to reexamine jurisdictional lines drawn

between committees. It called for a test period for making the Congressional Record

better reflect actual House action by marking those speeches not actually delivered

on the floor.

The commission included in its report a large section on personnel issues. It

echoed recommendations from the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act when it

called for a central, professional office to help recruit staff for Members and

committees. It also called for the creation of a grievance panel to hear discrimination

complaints from administrative staffers and a fair employment practices panel to be

composed of sitting Members who would review staff grievances from Members’

offices and committee staff. The commission recommended that the House draw up

policies on maternity leave and short- and long-term disability policy.

Finally, the commission issued a series of recommendations on handling the

issue of office space, most of which were based on the work of the Brooks

commission, discussed earlier in this report.

House Select Committee on Committees

Committee), 96th Congress (1979-1980)

(Patterson

Creation, Membership, and Funding.

Creation. On March 20, 1979, the House adopted H.Res. 118 by a vote of

208-200, establishing the Select Committee on Committees.

The select committee was charged with studying committee structure,

jurisdiction, staffing, rules and procedures, and facilities and media coverage. Its

final report was due February 1, 1980, though it was later granted an extension until

April 1, 1980. Any recommendations made by the committee were to go to the

Democratic Caucus and Republican Conference rather than to the House floor.

One reason for the creation of the committee was the proliferation of

subcommittees. For example, by the late 1970s, “the House found itself with the

astonishing total of more than 83 committees and subcommittees claiming some

CRS-44

jurisdiction over energy,” a topic that had become a high-profile issue with the oils

shocks of the 1970s and the advent of the Carter Administration’s energy plan.20

Membership. The select committee was chaired by Rep. Jerry Patterson (DCA), and the committee is popularly know as the Patterson committee. Other

members on the 15-member panel were: William Clay (D-MO); Mike McCormack

(D-WA); John B. Breaux (D-LA); Patricia Schroeder (D-CO); Bob Traxler (D-MI);

Butler Derrick (D-SC); Joseph L. Fisher (D-VA); Peter H. Kostmayer (D-PA);

Charles Whitley (D-NC); James C. Cleveland (R-NH); Frank Horton (R-NY); Bill

Frenzel (R-MN); James Leach (R-IA); and Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-NY).

Funding. The committee spent approximately $800,000.21

Commission Activity and Recommendations.

The select committee met for more than a year to develop a set of recommended

changes to House committee jurisdictions and other topics. Of the five

recommendations the committee made, only one was considered on the House floor.

The committee recommended that the House create a new Energy Committee,

which would take its jurisdiction from the Commerce, Interior, and Public Works

Committees. The House did not approve this plan. On March 25, 1979, it voted

274-134 to reaffirm the Commerce Committee’s central role in energy policy. The

House then agreed to change the name of the Commerce Committee to the Energy

and Commerce Committee and to designate the panel as the lead committee on

energy policy beginning in the 97th Congress.

The second of the select committee’s recommendations was a plan where

specific committees would have specific days of the week on which to do their work.

The plan was designed to reduce scheduling conflicts for Members. Although the

plan was approved by the Rules Committee, it was never considered by the House.

A third recommendation of the committee was that each House Member be

limited to service on five subcommittees. Fourth, it also recommended that each

committee (except for Appropriations) be limited to six subcommittees and called

for a 3-year phase out of some 28 subcommittees in excess of that limitation.

Although the plan won the endorsement of the Republican Conference, it was not

acted on by the Democratic Caucus.

Finally, the committee recommended a new way for the Speaker to refer bills

that might be within the jurisdiction of more than one committee. A primary

committee would be designated for all jointly referred bills. All secondary

committees would have a limited and specific time in which to consider the bill.

Sequential referrals would also be permitted when a committee added an amendment

20

“Inside Congress,” in Congress and the Nation, vol. 4, (Washington: Congressional

Quarterly, 1981), p. 876.

21

“Congress and Government,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1980, (Washington:

Congressional Quarterly), p. 562.

CRS-45

to a bill during markup that crossed into another committee’s jurisdiction. This

recommendation was not considered.

Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 102nd and

103rd Congresses (1991-1994)

Creation, Membership, and Funding.

Creation. The bipartisan and bicameral Joint Committee on the Organization

of Congress (JCOC) was created on August 6, 1992, with the passage of H.Con.Res.

192. The JCOC was modeled after the congressional reform committees of the same

name established in 1945 and 1965, and was intended to address growing concern

both inside and outside of Congress over the effectiveness and public perception of

the institution.

Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-IN), Rep. Bill Gradison (R-OH), Sen. David L. Boren

(D-OK), and Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) jointly introduced H.Con.Res. 192 and

S. Con. Res. 57 in their respective chambers on July 31, 1991, to create the Joint

Committee on the Organization of Congress.

There was a sense among some Members that the issues facing Congress had

changed considerably over a period of years, but the internal structures of the

institution had not kept pace. Many Members expressed increasing frustration with

the workings of Congress and a record number of Members chose to retire in the

102nd Congress, many citing this frustration as a contributing factor in their decision.

Additionally, Congress was beset by a string of high-profile scandals that hurt

Congress in the eyes of public opinion, beginning in 1989 with the resignation of

House Speaker Jim Wright, followed in 1990 and 1991 by allegations that several

Senators had improperly influenced federal regulators on behalf of campaign

contributor Charles Keating.

The legislation to create the JCOC received little response when it was

introduced in July 1991, but the proposal picked up steam as additional scandals

relating to management problems at the House bank and the House post office

received widespread media attention and led to the resignation of the House sergeant

at arms and the House postmaster. Against this backdrop, the public’s already

skeptical attitude about Congress deteriorated and public disapproval ratings of

Congress hit an all-time high of 77% in the summer of 1992.

H.Con.Res. 192 was approved on June 18, 1992, by a vote of 412-4 in the

House, and unanimously, after one amendment, by the Senate on July 30. The Senate

amendment barred the joint committee from conducting business prior to November

15, 1992, to keep the joint committee free from potential pressures of election-year

politics. The House concurred on August 6, in the Senate’s amendment.

H.Con.Res. 192 directed the joint committee, before December 31, 1993, to

“make a full and complete study of the organization and operation of the Congress

and to recommend improvements which would strengthen the effectiveness of the

Congress, simplify its operations, improve its relationships with and oversight of

CRS-46

other branches of the United States Government, and improve the orderly

consideration of legislation.” This broad mandate echoed that of the 1946 and 1965

reform committees.

The resolution specifically directed the joint committee to issue a study that

included an examination of, “...the organization and operation of each House of the

Congress, and the structure of, and the relationships between, the various standing,

special, and select committees of the Congress, the relationship between the two

Houses of Congress, the relationship between the Congress and the executive branch

of the Government, the resources and working tools available to the legislative

branch as compared to those available to the executive branch; and the

responsibilities of the leadership, their ability to fulfill those responsibilities, and how

that relates to the ability of the Senate and the House of Representatives to perform

their legislative functions.”

Membership. The JCOC consisted of 28 members, 14 from each chamber

equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. That number included the

majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, who served as ex officio,

voting members of the joint committee. The joint committee was made up of two

subcommittees, one on the Senate and one on the House. Membership on the joint

committee was determined by each chamber’s party leaders.

Under its enabling legislation, no recommendation could be made by the joint

committee except upon a majority vote of the Members representing each house,

respectively. Any recommendation regarding the rules and procedures of one house

could only be made and voted on by the members of the committee from that body.

The committee did not have the authority to report legislation.

Sen. David Boren and Rep. Lee Hamilton were appointed co-chairs of the Joint

Committee on the Organization of Congress, and Sen. Domenici and Rep. Gradison

were named vice chairs. Committee member Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) was

appointed to assume the duties of House vice chair when Rep. Gradison resigned

from the House on January 31, 1993. Rep. Jennifer Dunn (R-WA) was then

appointed to fill the open seat.

Other House Members on the joint committee were: Sam Gejdenson (D-CT);

Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC); David Obey (D-WI); John M. Spratt, Jr. (D-SC) and

Al Swift (D-WA); Wayne Allard (R-CO); Bill Emerson (R-MO); Gerald B.H.

Solomon (R-NY); and Robert S. Walker (R-PA).

Other Senators on the committee were: Wendell H. Ford (D-KY); David Pryor

(D-AR); Harry Reid (D-NV); Paul S. Sarbanes (D-MD); Jim Sasser (D-TN); William

S. Cohen (R-ME); Nancy L. Kassebaum (R-KS); Trent Lott (R-MS); Richard D.

Lugar (R-IN); and Ted Stevens (R-AK).

Funding. H.Con.Res. 192 authorized funding from the House for half of the

expenses of the joint commission, the other half to be paid by the Senate. H. Con.

Res 192 permitted the House to spend up to $250,000 in the 102nd Congress for this

purpose. The committee funding resolution for the 103rd Congress, H.Res. 107,

authorized additional funds from the House for the operations of the joint committee

CRS-47

in that Congress, stating, “there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House

not more than $495,000 for one-half of the expenses of investigations and studies by

the Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress....” The legislation also

stipulated that not more than $50,000 of that amount could “...be used for consultant

services...”

Committee Activity and Recommendations.

The Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress conducted an extensive

information-gathering and policy-analysis process. It held 6 months of hearings

(from January to July 1993) and organized four symposiums on specific

organizational topics (the committee system, staffing, the budget process, and

legislative-executive relations) of interest to panel members.

The committee held 36 hearings, taking testimony from 243 witnesses – 133

House Members, 37 Senators, 14 former Members, 15 current and former staff

members, and 44 outside experts. In addition, the JCOC conducted a two-day retreat

in June 1993 at the U.S. Naval Academy to discuss reform options.

The joint committee organized the most extensive set of opinion surveys of

Members and congressional staff ever undertaken by a bicameral reorganization

committee. The committee's hearings were televised on C-SPAN and rebroadcast

frequently. In addition, the co-chairs and vice chairs sent a letter and op-ed piece to

1,600 daily newspaper editors asking them to let their readers know the joint

committee was interested in their views on congressional reform. The joint

committee subsequently received more than 1,000 letters from citizens written either

in response to the op-ed or to the televised hearings. The committee expired on

December 31, 1993, consistent with its enabling legislation, after issuing a report in

four parts making recommendations on ways to reform Congress.

House and Senate Members introduced separate legislation on February 3, 1994,

embodying the recommendations of the JCOC. These packages became known as

the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994 (H.R. 3801 and S. 1824, respectively).

Attempts were made to pass this legislation, but failed. In the end, only one

recommendation of the JCOC, relating to the application of laws to Congress, was

adopted in a scaled-back form by the House.

While few of the recommendations of the JCOC were adopted at the time, its

list of suggested reforms reads like a description of the structure and workings of the

contemporary House of Representatives.

Large portions of the JCOC

recommendations, including provisions relating to the application of laws, increased

reporting for purposes of oversight, committee jurisdictional consolidation,

scheduling change, recodification of the House Rules, and certain information

technology reforms were subsequently adopted by the Republican majority in the

House of Representatives in 1995.

CRS-48

Recommendations: House of Representatives.

Ethics Process. The House subcommittee of the joint committee

recommended that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct be allowed to

use a panel of four or six private citizens as fact finders in the place of Members.

The independent fact finders would be chosen by the Standards Committee chair and

ranking minority member from a pool of 20 private citizens. The pool itself would

be selected jointly by the Speaker and the minority leader at the beginning of every

Congress. These independent fact finders would investigate complaints against

Members and report to the full committee whether a formal charge should be made.

If a formal charge was filed, the full Standards Committee would act as an

“adjudicatory” panel to hear the evidence and determine if the charge had been

proven.

Application of Laws. The House subcommittee recommended creating a

joint office of compliance run by a director and an eight-member board appointed by

the Speaker, the Senate majority leader, and the minority leaders of both chambers.

The office director would review federal employee and workplace protection laws

and propose regulations to specify how these provisions could be applied to

congressional employees. Congress could then approve the regulations by concurrent

resolution.

Under the JCOC recommendations, the laws that already applied to Congress

would continue to apply, but the institution’s enforcement mechanisms would be

improved to make them more like those used in the executive branch and the private

sector. The office of compliance would use a four-step procedure for considering

alleged violations, consisting of counseling, mediation, formal complaint and

administrative hearing, and federal appellate judicial review.

The Budget Process. The House subcommittee recommended moving to

a 2-year budget cycle. Under such a system, the budget resolution and appropriations

bills would be considered during the first year. Multi-year authorizations and

oversight activities would take place in the second year. By not having to pass a new

budget every year, the subcommittee argued, committees would have more time to

review how laws are working, and the executive branch would operate under a more

stable budget environment.

During the second year, the Budget Committee would focus on long-term

planning by holding hearings on problem areas identified by oversight activities and

issuing a report to the Speaker identifying the key budget issues facing Congress in

the next 2-year cycle.

The President's economic report would be required to include an analysis

describing broad policy objectives for the economy and language projecting how

those policies would affect the Gross National Product. The President also would be

required to submit separate policy reports laying out his long-term fiscal policy goals,

10-year budget projections, relevant comparisons between U.S. fiscal policies and

those of international competitors, and performance indicators to be used by

Congress to assess program effectiveness.

CRS-49

In addition, standing committees of the House would be required to prepare an

oversight agenda at the beginning of each Congress and a report at the conclusion of

that Congress specifying how the agenda was fulfilled. These reports would be

available to the Committee on House Administration for use when considering

committee funding.

The House subcommittee also suggested a number of additional reporting

requirements intended to provide more information about congressional actions:

! budget resolutions would be required to include a statement on the total tax

revenue uncollected due to special provisions in the tax code;

! reports accompanying appropriations bills would have to list provisions

earmarking funds below the appropriations account level;

! reports accompanying authorization bills would be required to list provisions

that earmark funds below the appropriations account level;

! reports accompanying bills that authorize tax expenditures would be required

to list all such tax expenditures;

! points of order against appropriations higher than the House-passed

authorization level would be allowed;

! the Congressional Budget Office would conduct a study of all federal user fees

and the effects of inflation on those fees since they were last adjusted;

! the Congressional Budget Office would also have to file quarterly reports

comparing revenues, expenditures, and the deficit for the current fiscal year

with the assumptions used in the concurrent budget resolution; and

! the President would have to establish targets for entitlement spending and

identify what actions he would recommend when such a target was exceeded.

The Committee System. The House subcommittee stressed the need to

reduce the number of committees and committee assignments. Specifically, it

suggested that Members of the House be limited to no more than two standing

committees and four subcommittees, with certain limited exceptions.

Any resolution from the party caucus or conference that violated this limit

would not be privileged under the rules of the House. To waive those limits, a

Member would first have to receive approval from his or her party caucus. If

approval was given, the Member would then have to notify the House of his or her

intent to seek a waiver. After a 48-hour layover, the waiver could be considered by

the full House. Such waivers would have to be considered individually by the House.

Subcommittee assignment limitations were to be enforced through a similar process.

If, because of these new assignment limits, membership on a committee fell

below half of its level during the 103d Congress, the Committee on Rules would

consider a resolution to abolish that committee and transfer its jurisdiction. The Rules

Committee could also recommend the creation of new committees in response to new

or emerging issues.

No exclusive or major committee, except the Committee on Appropriations,

would have more than five subcommittees. No non-major committee could have

more than four subcommittees. To reduce inter-committee jurisdictional disputes,

the Speaker would be encouraged to designate a “primary” committee of jurisdiction

CRS-50

when making multiple referrals of legislation and to impose time or subject-matter

restrictions on the other committees of referral after the committee of primary

jurisdiction reported the matter.

The Committee on Appropriations would be required to notify the appropriate

committees of jurisdiction whenever it reported a measure that contained funding for

unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions. Likewise, authorizing

committees would be required to notify the Committee on Appropriations whenever

any reported measure contained appropriations.

Due to the complexity of the issues considered, the term of service permitted on

the Intelligence Committee would be extended to 8 years and the term of the chair

to 4 years.

Subcommittees would be prohibited from meeting when the full committee was

in session unless the subcommittee had the written authorization of the full

committee chair. In addition, one week's advance notice of all committee and

subcommittee meetings and hearings would be required unless such notice proved

to be impracticable.

Committee reports would be required to include all roll-call votes on motions

to report — or a record of those present in the event of a voice vote. Committees

would have to publish their attendance and voting records at least twice a year in the

Congressional Record.

Floor Procedure and Scheduling. The House subcommittee recommended

that the minority party, through the minority leader or a designee, be guaranteed the

right to propose an alternative to all bills considered on the floor of the House

through a motion to recommit with instructions.

The recommendations expressed the sense of the House that the chamber's

schedule should provide for:

! a four-day legislative week;

! specific and exclusive periods during which only floor proceedings or only

committee sessions could be held;

! minimization of scheduling conflicts between and among committees and

subcommittees; and

! encouragement of an enhanced use of a computerized scheduling system.

The JCOC argued that the institution's accountability and credibility would

improve if the Congressional Record were required to be a substantially verbatim

transcript of the proceedings of the House.

The parliamentarian of the House would be directed to prepare a recodification

of the rules of the House to eliminate inconsistencies and outdated language.

Debate in the House would permit references by Members to certain actions

taken by the Senate or by committees of the Senate, which were a matter of public

record.

CRS-51

Staffing and Support Agencies. The House subcommittee recommended

that the Speaker appoint a task force to issue recommendations on achieving cost

savings in the legislative branch consistent with reductions implemented by the

executive branch under the National Performance Review.

Congressional support entities would also be periodically reviewed to improve

accountability and to identify ways to make these entities more effective, and to

eliminate duplication. Reauthorization of the Congressional Budget Office, the

Congressional Research Service, the General Accounting Office, the Office of

Technology Assessment (abolished in 1995), and the Government Printing Office

would be staggered every 8 years beginning in fiscal year 1997.

The Committee on House Administration was directed to review and evaluate

current staff training and orientation programs with the goal of creating programs

that enhance the professional development of congressional employees. The House

subcommittee recommended a sense of the House resolution that the appropriate

committees of the House and the Senate undertake a study of personal, committee,

and administrative staff salaries and take steps to achieve a greater degree of parity

between the chambers for staff who perform similar jobs.

Legislative — Executive Relations.

The House subcommittee

recommended that all House standing committees be required to prepare an oversight

agenda at the beginning of each Congress that ensured the periodic review of all

significant laws, agencies, and programs under their jurisdiction. Committees were

to submit their oversight agendas to the Committee on House Administration for

consideration during the committee funding process. House Administration would

publish these agendas along with any recommendations it might have for assuring the

effective coordination of committees' oversight activities.

Additionally, committees would be required to conduct hearings each Congress

on reports relating to executive branch activities, such as reports of inspectors

general. The Speaker would also be granted explicit authority to appoint special ad

hoc oversight committees.

Under the House subcommittee's recommendations, the appropriate committees

of the House and the Senate would be directed to eliminate nonessential reporting

requirements by executive branch agencies and to sunset all such reports within 5

years unless a report was explicitly reauthorized.

Information Technology. The Joint Committee on the Library and the Joint

Committee on Printing would be abolished and most of their functions transferred

to a proposed Joint Committee on Information Management. This new entity would

coordinate information management for Congress, establish standards and policies

for information technology in Congress, and ensure public dissemination of executive

branch information.

The House subcommittee also recommended a sense of the House resolution

that legislative information be more readily available and more widely disseminated

to Members and the public. Committee and conference reports would be filed on

CRS-52

computer disk to make them more accessible. Specified legislative information

would be made available by computer to the public and federal depository libraries.

Bills, committee reports, conference reports, and amendments would be

available for review at least 24 hours before consideration.

Legislative documents would be accessible on computer to all congressional

offices and through public databases.

The in-house cable system would also be expanded to provide all committee

hearing rooms and party cloakrooms with summaries of pending legislation.

Public Understanding of Congress. The House subcommittee expressed

a sense of the House that Congress:

! should experiment with alternative debate forms on the floor, such as: Oxford

Union style debates;

! support ongoing initiatives to raise private funds to create a congressional

education center;

! develop a central telephone line for information on the congressional agenda;

! encourage civic education programs; and

! enhance orientation programs for journalists covering Congress.

Recommendations: Senate.

The Budget Process. The Senate subcommittee made the same

recommendations regarding a 2-year budget cycle as the House did. The Senate

subcommittee also included a provision similar to the House subcommittee’s

recommendation that would require the Congressional Budget Office to prepare

quarterly reports comparing revenues, spending, and the deficit for the current fiscal

year with assumptions in the budget resolution. The Senate went on to clarify that the

so-called Byrd rule would be permanent and would require a 3/5ths vote of all

Senators to waive.

The Committee System. Under the JCOC recommendations, four categories

of committees would be established under Senate Rules—“Super A,” “A,” “B,” and

“C.” Under the Senate subcommittee’s recommendations, each Senator would be

limited to two “A” committee assignments: either one “Super A” committee (Armed

Services, Appropriations, Finance, or Foreign Relations) and one “A” committee

(Agriculture, Banking, Commerce, Energy, Environment, Governmental Affairs,

Judiciary, or Labor); or two “A” Committees and one “B” committee (Aging, Budget,

Indian Affairs, Rules, Small Business, or Veterans Affairs). Assignments to the

Ethics and Intelligence Committees would not count against these committee

assignment limits.

In addition, “Super A” and “A” committees, except the Appropriations

Committee, could have only three subcommittees. “B” committees could only have

two subcommittees. Senators could belong to two subcommittees per “A” committee,

except Appropriations, and one subcommittee per “B” committee.

CRS-53

Similar to the House proposal, Senators could receive a waiver of these limits

only after obtaining the permission of their party caucus and after a recorded vote of

the full Senate. The subcommittee proposed that the majority leader and minority

leader should assign Senators of their respective parties to committees.

If restrictions on committee membership caused a committee to fall below half

its current size, the Senate would have to vote on whether the committee should be

abolished.

The Senate subcommittee also recommended changes to Senate meeting days.

“Super A” committees could meet only on Tuesdays, “A” committees on

Wednesdays, and “B” committees on Thursdays. The Appropriations Committee,

Budget Committee, and “C” Committees were exempted from these meeting

restrictions.

Proxies could not be used in committee if they would affect the outcome of a

vote.

As in the House subcommittee’s recommendations, records of Senate committee

attendance and voting would be published twice yearly in the Congressional Record.

All Senate and House joint committees – Economic, Library, Organization of

Congress, Printing, and Taxation—would be abolished.

Floor Procedure and Scheduling.

The Senate subcommittee

recommended that a motion to proceed to consider a bill could no longer be

filibustered. After cloture was invoked, it would take a three-fifths vote to overturn

a ruling of the chair, and time for a quorum call would count against the Member

who called for it.

The subcommittee suggested dispensing with the reading of conference reports

available one day prior to consideration. It also suggested that amendments

expressing the sense of the Congress or Senate require the cosponsorship of at least

10 Senators.

Staffing and Support Agencies. The Senate subcommittee proposed that

the Senate cut its staff levels in proportion to those proposed by the executive branch

in its National Performance Review – approximately 12% over 5 years.

In addition, Congress would have to reimburse the executive branch and other

agencies such as the General Accounting Office for expenses of staff detailed to the

Senate.

Unused funds from office or committee accounts would not be available for

reprogramming. The secretary of the Senate would be directed to publish in the

Congressional Record an annual list of those offices using less than the amount their

office was budgeted for personnel.

Legislative — Executive Relations. The Senate subcommittee made

comparable suggestions to those made by the House. In addition, the Senate

CRS-54

subcommittee recommended that, during the second session of Congress, the GAO

give priority to congressional requests for audits and evaluations of executive branch

programs.

Information Technology. As noted above, all Senate and House joint

committees – Economic, Library, Organization of Congress, Printing, and

Taxation—would be abolished.

The Senate subcommittee also made numerous specific suggestions relating to

improving the efficiency of the printing of congressional and government documents.

Several items were deferred to leadership task forces.

House and Senate Action. House and Senate Members introduced separate

legislation on February 3, 1994, embodying the recommendations of the JCOC.

These packages became known as the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994 (H.R.

3801 and S. 1824, respectively).

H.R. 3801 was referred to the House Committees on Rules, House

Administration, and Government Operations. The 103rd Congress adjourned without

considering H.R. 3801. However, the House did act on legislation embodying that

portion of H.R. 3801 that would apply several worker safety and employment laws

to Congress. On August 10, 1994, the House passed H.R. 4822, the Congressional

Accountability Act, by a vote of 427- 4. The Senate did not act on the legislation.

In the final days of the Congress, the House enacted H.Res. 578, legislation that

amended the House rules in a manner similar, but not identical, to H.R. 4822. The

main difference between H.R. 4822 and H.Res. 578 was that the resolution did not

allow for judicial review of employee complaints.

S. 1824 was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.

After a series of hearings, the committee conducted a markup and reported out S.

1824, as amended, and two reform resolutions, one dealing with committees and one

dealing with floor procedure. The Senate sponsors of S. 1824 subsequently made an

unsuccessful attempt to attach an amendment embodying its provisions to the District

of Columbia appropriations bill; however, this effort was stopped by a point of order.

The 103rd Congress adjourned without further consideration of the Senate bills.

Republican Control, 104th Congress (1995-1996)

In 1995, Republicans gained the majority in both chambers for the first time in

40 years. In many respects, the reforms adopted by the 104th Congress grew out of

previous Republican and congressional efforts to enact committee system and other

changes. Many of the reform items had been included in substitute amendments

offered by the Republicans to successive new Congress’s rules packages drafted by

the Democrats.

House Committee System. Following the election, Speaker-designate

Newt Gingrich reportedly contacted Representative David Dreier, the vice-chair of

the JCOC and a leader on congressional reform, and told him and other members of

CRS-55

the Republican transition team to identify a reform agenda.22 Soon thereafter, four

prospective committee restructuring plans were submitted to the Republican

leadership:

! Option 1 was the most incremental plan, abolishing the District of Columbia

Committee and Post Office and Civil Service Committee and merging them

with the Government Operations Committee to form a new Committee on

Reform and Government Oversight. In addition, the Merchant Marine and

Fisheries Committee would be abolished and its jurisdiction divided among

three committees, and the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and

House Administration Committee would be merged into a new panel on

Ethics and Administration.

! Option 2 was a stronger version of Option 1. In addition to the committee

changes envisioned by Option 1, jurisdictional transfers dealing with railroads,

securities, nutrition, and welfare policy would be implemented.

! Option 3 was a more extensive plan than Option 4. In addition to abolishing

all the committees envisioned in Option 1, it also abolished the Small

Business Committee and envisioned extensive realignment of jurisdictions.

! Option 4, the plan preferred by Representative Dreier,23 envisioned extensive

changes to the committee system. Health issues would be consolidated in a

Committee on Commerce and Health, with jurisdiction over energy,

transportation, and the environment transferred out of the Committee on

Energy and Commerce. An Empowerment Committee would consolidate

jurisdiction over welfare. Environmental issues would be consolidated in a

panel with public lands and other natural resources issues. Financial services

issues would be consolidated in the Banking Committee.

The Republican leadership elected to go with a reorganization based on a

modification of Option 1. The plan included:

! elimination of the District of Columbia Committee and the Post Office and

Civil Service Committee, and transfer of their jurisdiction to the Government

Reform Committee (to be called Government Reform and Oversight);

! abolition of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and redistribution

of its jurisdiction among the Armed Services Committee (renamed National

Security), which gained the merchant marine; the Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee which gained jurisdiction over the Coast Guard; and

the Resources Committee, which gained jurisdiction over fisheries and

endangered species; and

! reallocation of some issues from the Energy and Commerce Committee to

numerous other committees; specifically, primary jurisdiction over the GlassSteagall Act was given to the Financial Services Committee; jurisdiction over

railroads was transferred from the Energy and Commerce Committee to the

22

Wolf, Richard and William Welch, “GOP Puts its House in Order,” USA Today, Nov. 17,

1994, p. 11A.

23

Evans, C. Lawrence and (name redacted),

Mifflin Co., 1997), p. 95.

Congress Under Fire (Boston: Houghton-

CRS-56

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; and jurisdiction over the TransAlaska pipeline to the Resources Committee.

In addition to jurisdictional changes, the House made several other

modifications affecting the committee system:

! House rules were amended to impose a three-term limit on committee and

subcommittee chairs and a four-term limit on the Speaker;24

! joint referrals were abolished; the Speaker was authorized to designate a

“primary” committee of referral;

! proxy voting was abolished;

! Members were limited to service on two standing committees and four

subcommittees;

! committee reports were required to include the votes cast for and against, and

the names of members voting for and against, amendments in markup and the

motion to report;

! committees were limited in the number of subcommittees they could create;

! committee and subcommittee chairs could designate a vice chair without

consideration of a Member’s committee or subcommittee seniority;

! committees were required to prepare oversight agendas and an end-ofCongress report summarizing actions taken; and

! committee staff was reduced by one-third.

In addition, Republican Conference rules were changed to:

! increase the influence of the leadership over committee assignments;

! limit Members to only one full or one subcommittee chair;

! allow full committee chairs to appoint subcommittee chairs;

! abolish independent subcommittee staff; and

! allow the Republican leader to appoint House Administration Committee

members.

Administrative Proposals. A chief administrative officer (CAO) of the

House was established, taking over most of the duties previously performed by the

director of non-legislative and financial services. Under rules adopted late in the

102nd Congress, the director of non-legislative and financial services was a

nonpartisan appointee named by the Speaker upon the joint recommendation of the

majority and minority party leaders. The director was to assume responsibility for

administrative functions transferred to the director’s control by order of the former

Committee on House Administration, renamed in the 104th Congress the Committee

on House Oversight.25 At the time the director's post was created, the House also

abolished the Office of House Postmaster and transferred all responsibility for

congressional mail service to the director.

The House abolished the separate office of doorkeeper and merged its functions

into those of the sergeant at arms. More than a dozen staff in the doorkeeper's office

24

The Speaker’s term limit was abolished in the 108th Congress.

25

House Oversight was again renamed House Administration in the 106th Congress.

CRS-57

were discharged after the sergeant at arms completed an evaluation of House security

needs in the consolidated office.

Pending appointment of a new House historian in the 104th Congress, the clerk

of the House and the Committee on House Oversight agreed to reorganize certain

information functions within the clerk's office. A new unit, the Legislative Resource

Center, was established, combining the historian's office, the House Document

Room, the House Library, and the Office of Registration and Records, in which

financial and lobbying disclosure reports were filed.

The first public law enacted by the 104th Congress ended long-standing

exemptions for Congress and its employees from standards applicable to workers and

businesses in the private sector. In all, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995

(P.L. 104-1) applied provisions of 11 major labor laws to Congress and its employees

for the first time. The House had agreed by resolution in the 103rd Congress to be

bound by such laws, but that action was not permanent and provided congressional

employees with only limited rights to pursue violations of workplace protections.

All House officers were required to report semiannually to the House Oversight

Committee on the financial operations of their offices, the performance of statutory

functions, and the development or implementation of new performance plans. The

Committee on House Oversight acquired jurisdiction over franking and congressional

mail regulations from the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, which was

abolished.

New regulations issued by the Committee on House Oversight banned informal

Member groups from obtaining their own office space. All activities of an informal

group were to be conducted out of the personal office of a sponsoring Member.

Furthermore, Members were to defray group costs from their official funds by

employing group staff on their personal payrolls and paying group-related expenses

from their official expense allowances.

Until the 104th Congress, House Members were authorized three separate

accounts through which to defray their Washington and district offices' operating

expenses. The “clerk hire allowance” provided funds to employ up to 18 full-time

staff and up to four staff not employed on a permanent or full-time basis. The

"official expense allowance" was provided to Members to defray the cost of renting,

equipping, and operating offices in Washington and their districts and the cost of

their travel and that of their staffs on official business. Mail costs were covered by

an "official mail allowance." Members could transfer only a limited amount of

money from one allowance to another; for example, up to $75,000 could be

transferred from a Member's clerk hire account to the official expenses account, or

vice versa.

Effective with the beginning of FY1996, the three separate allowances were

consolidated into one account. Members were given more discretion in the allocation

of their personnel and expense funds, with the stipulation that no Member could

employ more than 18 full-time and four less-than-full-time staff. The total allocation

and expenditures for each Member, including official mail costs, were to be made

public quarterly. Necessary conforming changes in statute were made later by P.L.

CRS-58

104-186 (110 Stat. 1718, August 20, 1996), the House of Representatives

Administrative Reform Technical Corrections Act. The House Oversight Committee

issued a revised and simplified Members' Congressional Handbook explaining the

new allowance regulations.

Postal Operations. In the 102nd Congress, the House abolished the Office of

House Postmaster and transferred responsibility for House mail operations to the then

director of non-legislative and financial services. In the 104th Congress, all external

House mail operations were transferred under contract to the U.S. Postal Service,

with internal mail services provided under contract by Pitney-Bowes Corp.

Restaurant Operations. In the 104th Congress, all House food services,

including Member dining rooms, catering services, cafeterias, and snack bars, were

provided under contract to the House by Marriott Corp.

Personal Services. The barber and beauty shops had been operated on a

partially self-supporting basis. In the 104th Congress, the House converted the shops

into businesses operated by private contractors and expanded services by opening a

shoeshine stand in the Cannon Building basement, also operated by a private

contractor.

Printing Services. For many years, the House appointed and paid from

appropriated funds majority and minority “printing clerks,” who supervised the

preparation of mass mailings, newsletters, and other specialized printing services for

Members, and the work of staff in the “folding rooms.” The House no longer

provides these services and Members must now pay private firms from Members'

official expense allowances any costs associated with the preparation of mass

mailings and newsletters.

Floor Procedures. In addition to committee and administrative changes, the

new majority modified floor procedures in the resolution adopting the rules for the

104th Congress, H.Res. 6.

Approving Tax Legislation. In Section 106, H.Res. 6 required a three-fifths

vote to approve certain changes in tax law. Specifically, a three-fifths vote (of the

Members voting, a quorum being present) was required to pass a bill or joint

resolution or agree to an amendment or conference report “carrying a Federal income

tax rate increase.”

Retroactive Tax Increases. The resolution prohibited any bill, joint resolution,

amendment, or conference report from including a “retroactive Federal income tax

rate increase.” The resolution defined an income tax rate increase as being

retroactive if it applied to any period of time “beginning prior to the enactment of the

provision.”

District of Columbia Business. The resolution abolished the Committee on

the District of Columbia and transferred its jurisdiction to the newly renamed

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. In Section 202(d) of H. Res 6,

the resolution made a conforming change to make floor consideration of measures

relating to the District privileged on certain days if reported by the committee of

CRS-59

jurisdiction. The rules change replaced the reference in this clause to the District of

Columbia Committee with the name of its successor.

Motions to Recommit. Section 210 assured the right of the minority to offer

a motion to recommit a bill to committee, with instructions that the committee report

the bill back to the House immediately with an amendment incorporated in the

motion. The rule had provided for a recommittal motion, but it had not explicitly

stated that the motion could include instructions containing an amendment. Section

210 amended the clause to protect such a motion if it was offered by the minority

leader or a designee.

Delegate Voting in Committee of the Whole. Section 212 of the resolution

prohibited Delegates and the Resident Commissioner from voting in the Committee

of the Whole. The rules of the 103rd Congress had permitted them for the first time

to vote in the Committee of the Whole, subject to re-votes in the House in cases in

which their votes might have been decisive.

Automatic Roll-Call Votes. Section 214 required a roll-call vote on final

passage or adoption of any bill, joint resolution, or conference report "making general

appropriations or increasing Federal income tax rates," and on final approval of any

concurrent budget resolution or the conference report on a budget resolution.

Limitation Amendments to Appropriations Bills. An existing rule bestowed

precedence to a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report after

disposing of all amendments affecting the funding provisions of a general

appropriations bill. If adopted, such a motion precluded consideration of one or more

limitation amendments. Section 215(a) of H.Res. 6 gave such a motion precedence

only if offered by the majority leader or a designee.

Amendments Making Offsetting Appropriations Changes. In Section

215(c), Members were permitted to offer en bloc a pair of amendments to a general

appropriations bill if the only effect of the amendments was to transfer amounts of

money from one place in the bill to another "without increasing the levels of budget

authority or outlays in the bill." Without this provision, it often was not in order for

a Representative to offer amendments to move funds from one paragraph or title to

another.

Reserving Points of Order. Also with regard to general appropriations bills,

Section 215(e) provided for all points of order to be considered as reserved when a

general appropriations bill was reported. Previously, it had been necessary for a

Member to rise on the floor and reserve all points of order against each general

appropriations bill at the time it was reported back to the House from the

Appropriations Committee.

Ban on Commemoratives. Section 216 banned the introduction and

consideration of commemoratives, defined as measures or amendments providing for

"any remembrance, celebration, or recognition for any purpose through the

designation of a specified period of time."

CRS-60

Numbering Printed Amendments. Section 217 provided for amendments to

be numbered when submitted for printing in the Congressional Record before being

offered on the floor. This amendment was intended to make it more convenient to

identify such amendments, for example, in a special rule that permitted only certain

identified amendments to be offered to a bill on the floor.

Pledge of Allegiance. Section 218 incorporated the Pledge of Allegiance into

the daily order of business, to follow the approval of the Journal of the House of

Representatives of the United States (The Journal). This amendment to the rules

codified a practice that the House had followed since 1988.

Signatures on Discharge Petitions. Section 219 provided for publication of,

and other means of public access to, the names of Members who signed discharge

petitions. Before the 103rd Congress, the names of signatories were not made public

unless and until the required 218 Members had signed a petition. During the 103rd

Congress, the House amended its rules to provide for public disclosure of discharge

petition signatures. The purpose of Section 219 was to clarify and specify how such

disclosure was to take place.

Previous Question Votes. Two provisions of Section 223 expanded the

authority of the Speaker to postpone votes on ordering the previous question and to

reduce to five minutes the time for votes that immediately followed votes on ordering

the previous question. Previously, the Speaker's authority under both clauses had

applied only to instances in which there was to be a roll-call vote on ordering the

previous question on a special rule that the Rules Committee had reported.

House Select Committee on Homeland Security, 108th

Congress (2003-2004)

Creation, Membership, and Funding.

Creation. On January 7, 2003, pursuant to H.Res. 5, the House created a

Select Committee on Homeland Security. One of its responsibilities was to conduct

a “thorough and complete study of the operation and implementation of the rules of

the House, including Rule X, with respect to the issue of homeland security.” The

select committee is required to submit its recommendations on possible changes to

the Committee on Rules not later than September 30, 2004.

The panel created five subcommittees, four of which reflect the structure of the

new Department on Homeland Security, the fifth responsible for the committee’s

mandate regarding possible rules changes in the House. The five subcommittees are:

Infrastructure and Border Security; Emergency Preparedness and Response;

Cybersecurity, Science, and Research and Development; Intelligence and

Counterterrorism; and Rules.

Membership. On February 12, 2003, the Speaker of the House announced the

appointment of 27 Republicans and 23 Democrats to the select committee.

Representative Christopher Cox (R-CA) was named chair and Representative Jim

Turner (D-TX) was named ranking minority member.

CRS-61

Republican Members of the select committee, in addition to Chairman Cox, are

Jennifer Dunn (WA); C.W. “Bill” Young (FL); Don Young (AK), F. James

Sensenbrenner (WI); W.J. “Billy” Tauzin (LA); David Dreier (CA); Duncan Hunter

(CA); Harold Rogers (KY); Sherwood Boehlert (NY); Lamar Smith (TX); Curt

Weldon (PA); Christopher Shays (CT); Dave Camp (MI); Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL);

Bob Goodlatte (VA); Ernest Istook (OK); Peter King (NY); John Linder (GA); Porter

Goss (FL); John Shadegg (AZ); Mark Souder (IN); Mac Thornberry (TX); Jim

Gibbons (NV); Kay Granger (TX); Pete Sessions (TX); and John Sweeney (NY).

The Democratic Members, in addition to Ranking Member Turner, are Bennie

Thompson (MS), Loretta Sanchez (CA), Edward Markey (MA); Norman Dicks

(WA); Barney Frank (MA); Jane Harman (CA); Benjamin Cardin (MD); Louise

Slaughter (NY); Peter DeFazio (OR); Robert Andrews (D-NJ); Eleanor Holmes

Norton (DC); Nita Lowey (D-NY); Zoe Lofgren (D-CA); Karen McCarthy (MO);

Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX); Bill Pascrell (NJ); Donna Christensen (VI); Bob Etheridge

(NC); Charles Gonzalez (TX); Ken Lucas (KY); James Langevin (RI); and Kendrick

Meek (FL).

Funding. On February 13, 2003, the House passed H.Res. 77, which provided

$700,000 in “seed money” to the select committee. Additional funds are expected

to be requested through the traditional committee funding resolution process.

CRS-62

Table 2. Summary of Reform Entities

Congressional

Entity

Congress/Year

Chamber

Issues Studied

Joint Committee on

the Organization of

Congress

79th Congress

1945-1946

Bicameral

Committee system

generally

Committee

jurisdiction

Staffing

Administrative

structure

Legislative

Reorganization

Act of 1946 (P.L.

79-601)

Joint Committee on

the Organization of

the Congress

89th Congress

1965-1966

Bicameral

Committee system

Committee procedure

Staffing

Budget process

Administrative

structure

Legislative

Reorganization

Act of 1970 (P.L.

91-510)

Democratic Caucus

92nd Congress

1971-1972

House

Committee

assignments,

chairmanships

Caucus rules

changes adopted

93rd Congress

1973-1974

Committee

assignments

Party organization and

procedure

Caucus rules

changes adopted

94th Congress

1975-1976

Committee

assignments

Caucus rules

changes adopted

Committee

chairmanships/ranking

slots

Conference rules

changes adopted

Republican

Conference

92nd Congress

1971-1972

House

Disposition

Comments

CRS-63

Congressional

Entity

Congress/Year

Chamber

Issues Studied

Disposition

Comments

House Select

Committee on

Committees

(Bolling

Committee)

93rd Congress

1973-1974

House

Committee

jurisdiction

Committee procedure

Early organization

meetings

Proposals

referred to

Democratic

Caucus for

modification

Caucus

alternative agreed

to House rules

and Democratic

Caucus rules

changed

House Commission

on Administrative

Review (Obey

Commission)

94th Congress

1975-1976

95th Congress

1977

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.