Congressional committees

The main work of Congress occurs within committees. Bills are amended, powerful figures are scrutinised and back-room deals are made in order to push the agenda forward. In contrast, the floor of the chamber is subject to debate and discussion of that which has already been presented to them via standing committees. Indeed, on the floor of the Senate very few members may be in attendance. If we also include conference committees, the overall significance of congressional committees is striking. As the twenty-eighth President Woodrow Wilson once said; “Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, while Congress in its committee rooms is Congress at work.”

As with other aspects of Congress, the committee system is hierarchical. A committee chair is in relative terms a major player on Capitol Hill. He or she can determine within certain boundaries the remit of the committee work and who might gain a seat on that particular committee. Freshmen will seek a position on a committee closest to their (or their constituents) interest. Gaining a seat on a committee awards power to a member of Congress, enabling them to get things done and perhaps more importantly claim credit for a useful amendment. Once appointed to a committee, members are often reluctant to leave. This reflects the informal seniority rule that operates in the corridors of Capitol Hill. According to the seniority rule, the committee member with the most experience should gain the top position. Critics however have called this the senility rule. Moreover, congressional leaders (including the Speaker of the House) have some level of flexibility here.

The personal chemistry and dynamics between senior members of congressional committees and the executive is of considerable importance to the policy-making process. A senior member of a congressional committee might try to persuade their members to adopt a particular line in return for favors from the executive branch. In the US, no one branch of government entirely dominates. Compromise and bargaining is therefore central towards the law-making process, and indeed central to how things are done in Washington DC. The style of the President is also worth touching upon here. Obama has delegated a great deal of this task to Joe Biden. Obama lacks the contacts that Biden does on Capitol Hill, and lacks the ‘personal touch’ of his veep. However, Bill Clinton was more hands-on. In politics as in everyday life, personality types can make a difference.

The party in control of Congress will have the majority of members (and the majority of chairs) within a committee. During a period of divided government, committees have a clear interest in adopting a more critical stance in relation the executive. As such, they will investigate areas and ask questions that are more likely to cause political damage to the President. Under unified government, this is far less likely to occur. Many of the most dramatic investigations into the executive (such as the House of Un-American Activities, the Fulbright committee into Vietnam and the investigation chaired by Carl Levin into the Iraq war) have occurred during a period of divided government. Yet having said this, there is usually some attempt within committees to resolve party differences. Frankly, it makes more of a statement when a committee publishes a report or issues its findings on a bipartisan platform. Partisan divisions within a committee inevitably weaken the impact of that particular committee.

Some committees are of course more significant than others. For instance, the House Rules Committee plays a major role within the lower chamber. It effectively decides which bills will be heard on the floor of the House and in congressional committees. It also decides which bills will be pigeonholed because Congress simply does not have enough time to hear all of them. Similarly, the conference committee plays a very important role when stalemate occurs between the two chambers. Conference committees are optional and could be criticized for their secretive and undemocratic character. That said, they may well offer an escape route from a difficult impasse – particularly when one party is in control of one chamber and the opposing party is in control of the other. Moreover, some committees are more important than others simply as a result of the areas in which they consider (such as the budget, nominations to the judicial branch or matters of national security).

As discussed in the opening section, the two most important roles performed by the legislature are scrutiny and law-making. In both cases, congressional committees play a very important role. Members of the executive, nominees to the judicial branch and other powerful figures are routinely held to account within committees. This may well occur in public view, which might therefore generate further media interest and thus provide even greater significance to the work of such committees. Similarly, the most important stage of the law-making process occurs within committees. These committees can also wield a negative power, in that potential legislation may well be defeated or severely amended within a committee. The overall importance of congressional committees is confirmed yet further by the observation that interest groups tend to concentrate their activities upon members of congressional committees. One must also recognize that committees hear cases that will ultimately decide the way government programs are funded. Inevitably, this places committee members in a powerful position in terms of distributing pork. Having said all this, congressional committees rarely make the final decisions on a proposed item of legislation.