[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 3. Party Organization]
[B. Party Caucus or Conference]
[§ 10. Policy Determination; Party Decisions as Binding]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 188-191]
CHAPTER 3
Party Organization
B. PARTY CAUCUS OR CONFERENCE
Sec. 10. --Policy Determination; Party Decisions as Binding
[Note: The following is descriptive of the practices in some
Congresses. For discussion of current
[[Page 189]]
practices that may differ in some particulars from those stated, see
supplements to this edition as they appear.]
The party caucus or conference develops party positions with
respect to specific issues. Thus, a consensus may be reached in the
caucus or conference with regard to legislation or rules changes
currently under consideration, or desired to be presented for
consideration, by the House or committees in the House. Party leaders
and other members are thus advised of the party's sentiment on
particular issues, and actions may be authorized in the House based on
the decisions of the caucus or conference.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For remarks indicating that particular resolutions were offered
``by direction of the . . . caucus'' or ``under instructions of
the . . . caucus,'' see for example, 117 Cong. Rec. 132, 92d
Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 1971 (remarks of Mr. William M.
Colmer [Miss.]); and 111 Cong. Rec. 23, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.,
Jan. 4, 1965 (remarks of Mr. Carl Albert [Okla.]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an example of how a caucus decision may be reflected in action
taken in the House, a view adopted by the Democratic Caucus with
respect to certain committee procedures was incorporated in a
resolution introduced to the House in the 92d Congress. A resolution
expressing the sense of the Democratic Caucus(19) stated, in
part,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Democratic Caucus Rules (July 20 1971), addendum, paragraph 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Democratic Caucus that .
. .
9. All committees shall provide in their rules of procedure for
the application of the 5-minute rule in the interrogation of
witnesses until such time as each member of the committee who so
desires has had an opportunity to question the witness.
The above provision was incorporated in a resolution introduced in the
House on Jan. 21, 1971.(20) The same House resolution
reflected another paragraph of the caucus resolution,(1)
containing a recommendation ``that the Select Committee on Small
Business be made a permanent select committee of the House without
legislative jurisdiction except to make investigations and reports.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See H. Res. 5 at 117 Cong. Rec. 14, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
1. Democratic Caucus Rules (July 20, 1971), addendum, paragraph 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Democratic Caucus Rule provides:(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Democratic Caucus Rules (July 20, 1971), Rule 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. In deciding upon action in the House involving party policy
or principle, a two-thirds vote of those present and voting at a
caucus meeting shall bind all members of the caucus; provided, the
said two-thirds vote is a ma
[[Page 190]]
jority of the full Democratic membership of the House: and provided
further, that no Member shall be bound upon questions involving a
construction of the Constitution of the United States or upon which
he made contrary pledges to his constituents prior to his election
or received contrary instructions by resolutions or platform from
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
his nominating authority.
The rule permitting decisions of the caucus in some instances to bind
all Democratic Members is one of long standing.(3) It has
been applied to permit the caucus to issue directives to Democratic
members of House committees with respect to disposition of matters
under consideration,(4) and to assure party members' support
of party positions taken with respect to issues before the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 3605, 3609. For recent changes
in the caucus rules, and the current practice, see supplements
to this edition.
4. See discussion in Galloway, George B., History of the House of
Representatives, Thomas Y. Crowell (New York, 1961), pp. 137,
140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 92d Congress, the following remarks were made with reference
to a caucus decision regarding the right of the minority to funds for
staffing:(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 117 Cong. Rec. 44, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 21, 1971. For other
remarks of a similar nature relating to the unit rule of the
caucus, see 117 Cong. Rec. 433, 434, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan.
25, 1971 (remarks of Mr. Benjamin B. Blackburn (Ga.), and
related materials, including a copy of the Democratic Caucus
Rules inserted in the Record).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, the
act of the Democratic caucus binding Democratic Representatives to
vote for repeal of the minority staffing provision which we enacted
into law last fall is a shocking breach of faith . . . [U]nder the
rules of the Democratic caucus, as they have been explained to me,
all Members of the Democratic Party are bound to vote to repeal the
minority staffing provisions. Debate cannot change their votes.
Neither can their consciences nor senses of fairness change their
votes. . . .
Cannon quotes remarks of Speaker Champ Clark, of
Missouri,(6) made in 1913 when the caucus rules were
substantially as they are now,(7) to the effect that caucus
action taken by a two-thirds vote is not binding on constitutional
questions or ``matters of conscience or where a Member has made
promises or pledges in his campaign for election.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Cannon's Precedents 3605.
7. See the caucus rules set forth in 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3609.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Republicans do not have a formal rule making the decisions of
the conference binding on all Republicans, although a consensus
developed in the conference is persuasive. (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Riddick, Floyd M., Congressional Procedure, Chapman and Grimes
(Boston, 1941), p. 35, to the effect that in some instances the
Republicans vote as uniformly in support of party positions as
do the Democrats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 191]]
In the course of a debate in the 92d Congress over the election of
Democratic Members to committees,(9) the following
discussion took place with respect to the existence of a ``unit rule''
in the Republican Conference and with respect to the views of the
Republican Party on the issues before the House:(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. 9.3, supra.
10. 117 Cong. Rec. 1712, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., Feb. 4, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Conyers [Jr., of Michigan]: . . . [T]he question is,
do the minority Members intend to simply ratify the decisions from
the majority caucus or are they entitled and obligated to make an
evaluatory determination as to what they think is correct regarding
who should be the chairmen of the various committees in this 92nd
Congress? . . .
Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: . . . We do not have a unit
rule on our side of the aisle. The Republican Conference does not
bind its Members to vote as a majority of the conference decides.
As Republicans, we do not dictate to our members.
Mr. Conyers: Then who were you speaking for when you said that
your party or your membership was going to ratify the Democratic
decisions if you do not have the unit rule?
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker if the gentleman will yield
further, our Members will have voted for our nominees for ranking
Members on each of the committees . . . we do not think under our
political system in America that you, the Democrats, should make
decisions for us. We do not think we should become involved in
making decisions for your party. . . .
We should not vote against the previous question. That is your
decision. We will take care of ourselves when the next resolution
is offered.
Mr. Conyers: In other words, the distinguished minority leader
leaves to the discretion of every Member on the other side of the
aisle the right to review in his own mind the validity of these
Democratic Caucus recommendations; is that correct?
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: That is correct. Each Member on our side
will make up his own mind. As I said a moment ago, we have no unit
rule in the Republican Party.
An instance has been cited wherein Republican Members failing to
abide by the action of their party caucus were disciplined by removal
from committees or reduction in rank.(11) The situation
described arose at a time when the power over committee assignments
resided in the Speaker, and when the caucus was dominated by Speaker
Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3606.
12. See Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the Congress to the United
States, Congressional Quarterly Service (Washington, D.C.,
1971), p. 141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 192]]