The direction of business in the Senate is in the hands of the chairman of the majority caucus and his immediate friends. The general direction and coördination of legislative business in both houses is vested in an unofficial "steering committee" composed of several leading Senators and the six majority members of the House committee on rules. The Committees of Congress.1 IV. As a part of the general process by which the houses endeavor to meet the business coming before them, there has been evolved an extensive committee system. The student of our national government should, therefore, bear in mind that the legislative work of each house is largely done by committees, and 1 In December, 1909, there were seventy-two standing committees in the Senate and sixty-one in the House. The following table gives the most important committees, the name of the chairman of each, and the length of his service in Congress: since 1895. Finance: Aldrich of Rhode Island - since 1881. Public Expenditures: Hale since 1881. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES seven terms. Appropriations: Tawney of Minnesota — nine terms. ten terms. seven terms. The number of members on the several committees varies, but on the most important it ranges from four or five to nineteen. The rules committee in the House has ten members. that each committee is controlled by a majority of members representing the dominant party. In the lower house, the committees and their chairmen are named by the Speaker,1 but he has by no means a free hand, for the supporters of his candidacy for this high office are not unmindful of their pound of flesh. The Speaker must also take into account the interests of his party, and as a general rule the men who have served the longest terms, i.e., shown their practical talent in retaining an exceedingly slippery office, are appointed to the leading positions on committees.2 In the Senate the committees are nominally chosen by the body itself, but in reality the majority of each committee is named by a committee on committees selected by the caucus of the majority party in that house. A committee of the minority caucus likewise selects the committee members from that party. The task of arranging and rearranging committees, says Mr. Hale, "is intrusted to a select committee, raised by the conferences of the two organizations, who go over the whole subject-matter and report to their respective parties. The final report of the two committees is embodied in a resolution. . . . It is invariably the habit and the method of doing business that Senators' wishes respecting committees are consulted."3 Sometimes, as we have seen above, the choice of the caucus is merely nominal, the real power being in the inner circle that dominates the caucus. It is in the committee room usually behind closed doors and secure from public scrutiny that the real legislative work is done." Every bill, important or unimportant, is sent to the committee having jurisdiction over the subject-matter to which it relates. 1 Except the committee on rules which was made elective by the house on March 19, 1910. This committee chooses its own chairman. 3 2 Reinsch, American Legislatures, pp. 65 ff. Congressional Record, Vol. XL, part 1, p. 538; 59th Cong., 1st Sess. 4 Above, p. 268. 5 Only bills which are reported favorably from committees have much chance of being acted upon, and when a bill is once favorably reported by a committee, its chances of passage are very high. For example, in the Fiftyeighth Congress, 19, 209 bills were introduced in the House; the committees reported 4904; and 4041 were passed. Hinds, Precedents, Vol. V, p. 286. Bills of a private nature are referred by the clerk of the House to the committees indicated by the introducers. Public bills are referred by the Speaker, but his reference may be changed by the House. The recommendations contained in the President's message are likewise so distributed. Quite frequently the committees originate the bills especially appropriation bills relating to the matters placed under their jurisdiction. Thousands of bills which go to committees are not considered at all, but a measure which a committee reports receives an analysis and criticism more or less severe, according to the character of the bill. On a measure of vital importance, papers and documents relating to the subject may be secured from the head of the executive department to whose duties it relates; or the officer himself may be requested to appear personally and answer a multitude of questions propounded by the committee members. Friends and opponents of the measures pending in committees are frequently admitted to state the reasons for their positions; hearings may even be held in various points throughout the country, and witnesses may be required to attend the committee meetings and give evidence very much in the same manner as in a courtroom. In almost every case the measures in charge of a particular committee are considered or formulated by a sub-committee (in which the minority receives scant recognition), and the whole committee generally accepts its report. On purely party questions, such as the tariff, the majority members of the committee draft the bill, and, when the measure is complete, they may invite the minority members in to vote on it as a matter of form. With regard to any measure referred to it, a committee may recommend its adoption, amend it, report adversely, delay the report indefinitely, or ignore it altogether. In the House it rarely happens that a member is able to secure the consideration of a bill which the committee in charge opposes; but in the Senate a greater freedom is enjoyed in this respect. Owing to the pressure of business in the House, it is impossible to consider each bill on its merits and arrive at a vote after searching debate and mature deliberation; and within recent years even very important measures have been forced through as they have come from committee without any serious debate or a single amendment. This, of course, places an enormous power in the 1 1 Many speeches which appear in the Congressional Record are not delivered in the House at all, but are prepared by members for the benefit of their constituents. hands of committees and changes the House from a deliberative into a ratifying assembly. There has been a great deal of criticism of the committee system, but no acceptable substitute has as yet been suggested. As early as 1880, the Independent National, or Greenback, party demanded absolute democratic rules for the government of Congress, placing all representatives of the people upon an equal footing, and taking away from committees "a veto power greater than that of the President." Complaints are constantly being made in the House itself, especially by members of the minority. "You send important questions to a committee," said Mr. Sherley, in the House in 1905; "you put into the hands of a few men the power to bring in bills, and then they are brought in with an ironclad rule, and rammed down the throats of members; and then those measures are sent out as being the deliberate judgment of the Congress of the United States when no deliberate judgment has been expressed by any man." 1 This division of each house of Congress into a large number of separate committees, no doubt, does lead to many deplorable results. These committees work with little or no reference to one another, each preparing its own bills with slight regard to the measures in the other committees. The committee on ways and means has no official communication with the committees in charge of appropriations, for example. That is, the committee on raising revenues has no way of balancing its accounts over against the estimated expenditures as they are shaped by the several committees on appropriation measures. The result of this practice is not only unfortunate as far as revenues and expenditures are concerned; it often leads to ill-adjusted and conflicting legislation even on matters of fundamental importance matters which in England would receive the careful attention of the Cabinet, composed of the leaders of the majority party. There are serious constitutional difficulties in the way of our creating such a system of Cabinet responsibility for legislation, but it may be that, while retaining the committee system now in force, we may secure responsibility by frankly recognizing the power in the hands of the chairmen of important committees, and by holding them definitely accountable as party leaders. Indeed, there are signs that we are going in that direction." 1 Congressional Record, Vol XL, part 1, p. 455; 59th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 Reinsch, American Legislatures, p. 49. The Speaker of the House of Representatives1 V. In this tendency to develop some sort of responsibility for legislative policies at Washington, the power of the Speaker of the House of Representatives assumes an important place. In every large body with a great amount of business to transact there must be some directing authority to see that the necessary measures are disposed of promptly, and to prevent procedure from falling into chaos. In England, this leadership is avowedly vested in the Prime Minister, who is the acknowledged head of the majority party in the House of Commons, and is chiefly responsible for the successful realization of the party policy in Parliament. The Speaker of the House of Commons under these circumstances does not feel any responsibility in this matter, and accordingly maintains an attitude of impartiality in his rulings and decisions at least in theory. In the beginning of our federal government, the Speaker was regarded as a mere moderator, but as the House grew in size and the business to be transacted increased enormously, it became impossible for him to sit passively and see the measures of his party delayed or defeated by the dilatory tactics of the minority. Hence it has come about that the Speaker is now a party leader holding the minority in such control as will enable the majority to carry its principal measures. "The Speaker's control over legislation is now, under the rules and practices of the House, almost absolute," said an editorial writer in 1897. "The people know this now. The time has passed when the Speaker could exercise his vast power unsuspected. Nor can he shirk his responsibility. No bill can pass the House without his passive approval, and that in effect is the same thing as active advocacy." While the conduct of any particular Speaker may be criticised, the inevitableness of this development in the office which he holds is apparent to any person 1 Follet, The Speaker. Readings, pp. 256 ff. The dissatisfaction with Mr. Cannon's policy during the last two or three years led to many strong attacks on him in the House, even by members of his own party, and on March 19, 1910 the "insurgents" were able to oust him from the rules committee and make that committee elective by the House. This may be the beginning of a new régime in the House. On this, see current periodical lit erature. 2 The Nation, quoted in Reinsch, American Legislatures, p. 49. |