1789-1800

Federalist

Work done in committee of the whole. Hamilton in effect served as prime minister and largely ran the House. Start to create party systems (informal caucuses) to decide plans in advance and coordinate between executive and legislative branches. Members could not introduce legislation; committees could not introduce legislation except when requested to by the committee of the whole. (Petitions were a mechanism to get permission to have legislation introduced.)

1800-1812

Jeffersonian

Work was still largely done in the committee of the whole, where policies and principles were hashed out first and then a select committee was created to draft the legislation. Saw emergence of a few standing committees. President Jefferson ran the Congress through floor leaders he chose & recruited. Power of the Speaker started to grow because of his ability to make most committee appointments (although mostly committee appointments were to draft implementing legislation).

1812-1825

Party Caucus (Clay)

Presidential control deteriorated under Madison (1808-) and ended up in the hands of the House Speaker, Henry Clay, who developed that position into a power center. In 1809, for the first time the Speaker was elected by a majority of those present. Clay used party caucuses, which became powerful, to run the House;  the party caucus had major control over who became president.  Standing committees became more strongly established in 1816. Journalists were party organs from 1789 until the end of this era. Committees membership become focused more on expertise and less about whether a member supported an idea.

1825-1860

Slavocracy

(Multi-party)

The political parties began to break down because of slavery resulting in mutiple parties in the House and splits in the parties. Emergency of a separate national party committee to select the president changed presidential dependence on House members. The Jacksonian era (Democrats) in 1828 led ultimately to reaction and diffusion, including the separation of the Democratic party between pro-slavery and anti-slavery Dems before the civil war (and migration of anti-slavery Dems to combine with failing Whigs into Republicans). Republicans split during and after the war between radical Republicans, who wanted strong reconstruction, and other Republicans (split between conservatives & half-breeds.) High levels of physical violence in the chamber used to maintain pro-slavery control and prevent debate on slavery. Standing committees became enshrined for consideration of business + expert. In 1841, the Rules Committee gained power to report measures at all times; in 1853 its reports were given priority; in 1858 the Speaker became chair of the Rules Committee. Also see emergence of independent journalists in 1830s with the telegraph, which gave populist element and affected party incentives & popular understanding of Congress.

1860-1890

Vetocracy Minority rule)

No party organization; caucus is weak; in the earlier years big fights between “radical” and “moderate” Republicans. Minority rule: House rules allowed easy blockage of measures such as through the disappearing quorum, filibusters, and ability of the heirs of the slavocracy to block measures. Delaying tactics could block just about any measure.

1890-1910

Czar (Strong Speaker)

Speaker Reed pushed through two major reforms: ending the disappearing quorum and preventing the use of dilatory tactics (such as privileged motions for the House to adjourn.) The role of the House was to effectuate the will of the majority. The House Rules Committee ruled the House, composed of a triumvirate of the Speaker and two chief lieutenants (usually Chairman of Appropriations and Ways and Means.) Had absolute power. Cannon took over after Reed and ruled the House with an iron fist. Could appoint the committees of the House and designate their chairs. Had unlimited power to grant or withhold recognition of members. Could control, through the Rules committee, which business the House would consider.

1910-1918

King Caucus

Revolt against the speaker system and Speaker “Czar” Cannon. The Speaker was a figurehead and the majority party caucus, and the floor leader over the caucus, became dominant. Decisions made at caucus meetings bound the members to those decisions. While the concept of “floor leader” had existed for a long time, often in the position of chair of Ways and Means or Appropriations, in 1910 the floor leader came to preeminence and the caucus was a harsh tool of discipline. Majority floor leader — who ran Ways and Means, which also served as the committee on committees and chose committee members — could ask and obtain recognition to make motions to restrict debate or preclude amendments. The floor leader was elected by secret ballot of the party caucus, and later no longer served on committees. The caucus chose its own officers, nominated party candidates for Speaker and elsewhere, and also now decided matters of legislative policy and defined the legislative program. The Speaker was kicked off the Rules Committee, which was expanded from 5 to 10 members (to weaken the power of its chair).  The Rules Committee was controlled by the floor leader and the caucus. In 1909 adoption of calendar Wednesday, where authorized members could bring unprivileged (committee) bills to the floor

1918-1950

Strong Jim Crow (Committee Chair government)

Coalition of southern democrats and liberal republicans largely ran the House. The House moved from being focused on effectuating the will of a party to reflecting the views of a majority of its members as expressed through the committee chairs. Leadership lost control of the House rules committee in 1939, where some Democrats joined with Republicans to block controversial administration bills. Also see start of discharge rule in 1910, which over time was expanded from 100 signatures to a majority (in 1924). Seniority system in the committees prevailed. Party caucuses rarely were used. Rules committee was weakened in the 1920s (couldn’t call up a bill on the same day it was submitted; can’t report on a bill not yet introduced; chair can’t pocket veto bills by allowing members of the rules committee to bring up measures on the floor within a short period of time.) Rules committee power temporarily curbed post WWII and used to strengthen committee chairman, especially with use of 21 day rule (1949-1951), which empowered committee chairmen to bring to the floor any reported bill that the Rules Committee had not structured for debate within three weeks. Rules committee expanded in 1961 to curb southern power.

1950-1970

Weakening Jim Crow

(Apex of committee government)

Parties continue to have diffuse control because of the alliance of southern conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans and the use of the seniority system to maintain Jim Crow control. This control was largely effectuated through the Rules Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. The mechanism of how power survived was based on the seniority system, where members were automatically reappointed to a committee. The Rules committee had come to be controlled by an alliance of southern Democrats and liberal Republicans who were opposed to civil rights and social innovations (like the Great Society). The creation and ultimate demise of the 21-day rule (1949-1951, and again in 1965-1967), allowed bills that the Rules Committee refused to set for debate within 21 days to go to go directly the floor and also to allow conference reports to bypass the rules committee, thus allowing the movement of some important legislation, including social programs and civil rights legislation. Also 1965-1967 saw a change in the composition of the Ways and Means Committee, which also served as the Committee on Committees. The ratio changed from 15 MAJ to 10 MIN to 17 MAJ to 8 MIN, giving leadership control over the committee for the first time in more than 20 years. This in turn allowed for the appointment of newly elected members to other committees, especially in the 1965 landslide, which changed the nature of many other committees. During this time the House reflected the views of the entire chamber, not the majority party, and seniority gave committee chairs nearly overwhelming control that slowly was being eroded by leadership and the new members, especially in the late 60s. There was slow reemergence of policy committees and Democratic use of the Democratic Study Group to begin to organize against the Jim Crow bipartisan alliance.

1970- 1994

Bipartisan era (coalition between Republicans and conservative Democrats)

The legislative reorganization act of 1970 and efforts in 1974 were designed to push back against the power of southern committee chairs. In 1975, the Speaker gained power to nominate all members of the Rules Committee, which gave the Speaker increasing power to appoint caucus loyalists and undermine power of the committees (and everyone else). The major reforms of 1970 and 1974 added transparency to the committee process and providing power to committee members, weakening the misrule of southern committee chairs, by allowing others to call for committee proceedings, forcing bills out of committee by operation of a majority, allowing for measures to go to the floor circumventing the committees, and so on. As part of the effort to combat southern committee chairs, saw the revival of party caucuses and a party system that is gaining power. The Democratic Study Group wrested power from the seniority system for some southern Democrats, but this alliance between progressives and leadership decades later was used by leadership to sideline rank and file and empower the Speaker. Nominations to fill vacancies made by Steering and Policy Committee, many of whose members are appointed by party leaders or the Speaker.

Watergate and the post-Nixon era in the 1970s led to a reinvestment in the structures of the legislative branch and new powers for Congress to rein in the Executive Branch (e.g. establishment of CBO, strengthening of CRS, more staff, enactment of impoundment act, war powers resolution, etc.). Also revelation of massive intelligence abuses, efforts to undermine our democracy, etc., led to creation of intel committees and (for a while) more oversight of those matters, making some sensitive issues more subject to control oversight.

In the 80s, groundwork laid towards more antagonism between the parties with the rise of Gingrich, which culminated in the 90s and a fundamental revolution in political power. Speaker Wright in the late 80s was increasingly autocratic and powerful, pointing to the shift in where power resides in the chamber.

1995-2022

Strong Congressional Party Leaders

The Gingrich revolution fundamentally shifted power in the House of Representatives. First, it cemented the nationalization of congressional elections, which meant that congressional candidates were held accountable for the national platform, causing the increasing disappearance of heterodox (southern) Democrats.

Second, Gingrich built on Speaker Wright’s legacy and (1) centralized power in leadership hands and (2) destroyed other power centers in the chamber.

Committee staff, personal staff, and support agencies were cut by 20% or more. The Legislative Service Organizations were disempowered, eliminating a competing system to committee chairs. Committee chairmanships, awarded by the steering committee, reflected in significant part the ability to fundraise and the favor of the Speaker. Power was centralized in the Speakership (or majority leader under Dennis Hastert). Even when party control flipped, Democratic leadership refused to restore the Democratic Study Group and continued to centralize power. This led to gerontocracy among Democratic leadership and a lack of turnover, also the reliance on factions within the Democratic caucus to maintain a largely seniority system for Democrats in committees even as Republicans moved to term limits (which elevated party control for R leadership). The House Rules Committee in effect is an alter ego of leadership. Era of strong Speaker control through control of party. The House reflects the will of the majority, as embodied in the Speaker. Speaker, Majority Leader, and Majority whip may reflect the factions within the party. Committees matter, but policy flows more through leadership, committees become more conduits than a power center. When the president and the speaker are of the same power, the president largely dominates.

We are seeing the re-emergence of factions within the parties with the willingness to depose leaders who work with the other party against the wishes of a majority of their party. At the same time, the parties have fully emerged as urban or rural parties and, with the nationalization of congressional elections, heterodox members are becoming scarce.