Reorganization of the Senate: Modern Reform Efforts

Order Code RL32112
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Reorganization of the Senate:
Modern Reform Efforts
October 15, 2003
nam eredacted
Specialist on the Congress
Colton Campbell
nameredac te d
name redacted
Analysts in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Reorganization of the Senate: Modern Reform Efforts
Summary
Numerous reviews of the operations and structure of the Senate have been
conducted in the past 60 years. Three joint committees, two select committees, two
commissions, one study group, one standing committee, and party conferences have
studied various aspects of the Senate and its committee system.
The contemporary Senate is primarily a product of two major laws and a
significant overhaul of Senate Rules. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946,
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
work of the Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System
(Stevenson Committee) resulted in major changes in Senate committee jurisdiction.
Other overhaul efforts had a narrower scope or were disregarded at the time of
the activity. The work of the Commission on the Operation of the Senate (Culver
Commission) focused on the administrative structure of the Senate. The Study
Group on Senate Practices and Procedures (Pearson-Ribicoff Study Group) issued
a wide-ranging set of recommendations concerning Senate Rules and procedures.
The Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System (Quayle
Committee) addressed committee assignments. The Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration undertook a study to improve Senate operations, and subsequently
reported a number of proposals on jurisdictional organization. The Joint Committee
on the Organization of Congress (JCOC) recommended altering aspects of
congressional organization and operations.
Changes in party conference rules and practices have also influenced the
contemporary Senate.
This report discusses efforts to modify Senate operations and structure since the
1940s, including the origin and makeup of the various reform entities, their
recommendations, and the consequences of those recommendations for the Senate.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
For related information on congressional reorganization efforts, see CRS Report
RL31825, Reorganization of the House of Representatives: Modern Reform Efforts,
by (nam e/redacted), (name/reda
c te d), and (name /redacted).

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 79th Congress (1945-1947) . . . . . . 1
Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Recommendations Relating to Committee Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Senate Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
House Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Recommendations on Jurisdiction and Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Recommendations on Other Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Final Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, 91st Congress (1969-1971) . . . . . . 6
Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Recommendations Relating to Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Senate Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
House Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Recommendations Relating to Staffing and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Joint Recommendations That Apply to Both Chambers . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Final Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Party Reforms, 92nd - 94th Congresses (1971-1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Commission on the Operation of the Senate, 94th Congress
(1975-1977) (Culver Commission) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Recommendations Relating to Committee Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Recommendations on Other Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Organization and Administration of the Senate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Use of Senators’ Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Technology and Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Senators’ Compensation, Financial Disclosure, and
Code of Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Foresight, Oversight, and the Utilization of Support Agencies . . 15
Final Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee
System, 94th and 95th Congresses (1975-1977 and 1977-1979)
(Stevenson Committee) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Recommendations Relating to Committee Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
S. Res. 4, As Introduced by the Stevenson Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
S. Res. 4, As Reported by the Committee on Rules and
Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
S. Res. 4, As Agreed To . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Recommendations on Committee Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Recommendations on Other Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
The Study Group on Senate Practices and Procedures, 97th and
98th Congresses (1981-1983 and 1983-1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

---

Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Recommendations Relating to Committee Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Recommendations on Other Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
The Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate
Committee System, 98th Congress (1983-1985)
(Quayle Committee) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Recommendations Relating to Committee Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Recommendations Relating to Committee Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Recommendations on Other Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Final Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Report of the Committee on Rules and Administration,
100th Congress (1988 -1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 102nd and
103rd Congresses (1991-1992 and 1993-1995) (JCOC) . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Recommendations Relating to Committee Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Recommendations Relating to Committee Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Recommendations on Other Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Budget Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Ethics and Application of Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Proxies and Committee Votes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Floor Procedure and Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Staffing and Support Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Legislative-Executive Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Final Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1995 Senate Republican Working Group, 104th Congress (1995-1997) . . . 34
The authors wish to thank Michael Koempel for extensive review that
contributed to the development of this report.
The authors also wish to thank Patricia Johns Grant for assistance with the
production of this report.

---

Reorganization of the Senate: Modern
Reform Efforts
Introduction
Issues such as overlapping committee jurisdictions, scheduling practices, or
imbalanced workloads have prompted periodic efforts to reorganize the Senate.1
Since the Second World War, 10 different reform efforts have been launched, the
most recent in 1995. Most major changes in rules and procedures have resulted from
landmark legislation, including the 1946 and 1970 Legislative Reorganization Acts
and one significant Senate reorganization in 1977. More incremental changes have
been the consequence of formal reorganization committees or study commissions,
such as the Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System
(commonly called the Stevenson Committee) or the Commission on the Operation
of the Senate (commonly called the Culver Commission). Other attempts at self-
examination, such as the Study Group on Senate Practices and Procedures (Pearson-
Ribicoff Study Group), have generated recommendations on procedural issues, only
for the Senate to disregard them. The principal goal behind most of these reform
efforts in the Senate has been either to revise institutional rules and processes in order
to increase efficiency or to broaden the scope of participation in the decision-making
process, or to do both.
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 79th Congress
(1945-1947)
Creation. Congress established the Joint Committee on the Organization of
Congress with passage of H. Con. Res. 18 on February 19, 1945.
The joint
committee was authorized to take testimony and make recommendations about the
structure of Congress. The panel was authorized for the two 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 to “recommend
improvements in such organization and operation with a view toward strengthening
the Congress, simplifying its operations, improving its relationship with the other
branches of the United States Government and enabling it better to meet its
responsibilities under the Constitution.”
Membership. The joint committee consisted of 12 Members, six from each
chamber, equally divided by party. Senator Robert M. La Follette Jr., a Progressive
from Wisconsin who caucused with the Republicans, chaired the joint committee.
The vice chair was House Democrat A.S. “Mike” Monroney, a Representative from
Oklahoma. In addition to La Follette, Senators on the committee were: Elbert D.
1 See also CRS Report RL31825, Reorganization of the House of Representatives: Recent
Reform Efforts, April 1, 2003, by (nam e/redacted), (name/redac te d), and (name /redacted).

---

CRS-2
Thomas (D-UT); Claude Pepper (D-FL); Richard Russell (D-GA); Wallace White
(R-ME); and C. Wayland Brooks (R-IL). Other House Members on the committee
were: Eugene Cox (D-GA); Thomas J. Lane (D-MA); Earl Michener (R-MI); Everett
Dirksen (R-IL); and Charles Plumley (R-VT).
Recommendations Relating to Committee Jurisdictions. The joint
committee held 39 hearings, took testimony from 102 witnesses over four months,
and issued its final report (H.Rept. 1675) on March 4, 1946. The report called for a
series of major changes to congressional operations. At the core of the plan was a
reorganization of the House and Senate committee systems.
Senate Committees. In relation to committees and their jurisdictions, the
joint committee recommended that the Senate’s 33 standing committees be
consolidated into 16 panels, with jurisdictions redrawn as shown below:
! Agriculture and Forestry: Formed from the existing Agriculture
Committee.
! Appropriations:
Formed from the existing Appropriations
Committee.
! Armed Services: Formed from the merger of the Military Affairs
and Naval Affairs Committees.
! Banking and Currency:
Formed from the existing Banking
Committee.
! Claims:
Formed by the existing Claims Committee.
To be
dissolved when claims were transferred to the courts.2
! Civil Service: Formed from the merger of the Civil Service and the
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.3
! Expenditures in the Executive Departments: Formed from the
existing Expenditures in the Executive Departments Committee.
! Finance: Formed from the existing Finance Committee.
! Foreign Relations: Formed from the existing Foreign Relations
Committee.
! 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 from
2 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.
3 President Harry S Truman proposed granting home rule to the residents of the District of
Columbia during his presidency, but the final version of the 1946 legislation did not include
this provision.

---

CRS-3
the Post Office and Post Roads Committee, which would be
abolished.
! Interstate Commerce: Formed from the merger of the Interstate
Commerce and the Manufacturers Committees.
! Judiciary: Formed from the merger of the Judiciary, Patents, and
Immigration Committees.
! Labor and Public Welfare: Formed from the existing Labor and
Education Committee and the Social Security jurisdiction of the
Finance Committee.
! Rules and Administration of the Senate: Formed from the merger
of the Audit and Control, Enrolled Bills, Library, Printing, Privileges
and Elections, and Rules Committees.
! Veterans’ Affairs:
Formed from the merger of the Pensions
Committee and the veterans jurisdiction of the Finance Committee.
House Committees. The joint committee recommended that the House’s 48
standing committees be reduced to 18, largely through consolidating the jurisdictions
of existing committees. The 18 committees recommended in the report were:
! Agriculture: Formed from the existing Agriculture Committee.
! Appropriations:
Formed from the existing Appropriations
Committee.
! Armed Services: Formed from the merger of the Military Affairs
and Naval Affairs Committees.
! 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.
! Expenditures in the Executive Department: Formed by the
existing Expenditures in the Executive Department Committee.
! Foreign Affairs:
Formed by the existing Foreign Affairs
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.
! Interstate and Foreign Commerce:
Formed by the existing
Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee.
! Judiciary:
Formed from the merger of the Judiciary, Patents,
Revision of the Laws, and Immigration and Naturalization
Committees.
! Labor:
Formed by the merger of the Labor and Education
Committees.
! Merchant Marine and Fisheries:
Formed from the existing
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee.

---

CRS-4
! Public Lands:
Formed by the merger of the Public Lands,
Territories, Irrigation and Reclamation, Mines and Mining, Insular
Affairs, and Indian Affairs Committees.
! Public Works: Formed by the merger of the Flood Control, Public
Buildings and Grounds, Rivers and Harbors, and Roads Committees.
! Rules: Formed from the existing Rules Committee.
! Un-American Activities: Formed from the existing Un-American
Activities Committee.
! Veterans’ Affairs: Formed by the merger of the Pensions, Invalid
Pensions, and World War Veterans’ Legislation Committees.
! Ways and Means: Formed from the existing Ways and Means
Committee.
The Claims panel and the War Claims panel were to be abolished.4
Recommendations on Jurisdiction and Oversight.
The joint
committee recommended that, for the first time, the jurisdictions of each standing
committee be written into the rules of the Senate and the House. During opening
debate on the Senate legislation that incorporated the joint committee’s proposal,
Joint Committee Chair La Follette described how jurisdictions had been determined
under Senate practices prior to the 1946 Act:
Under the practice of the Senate, the jurisdiction of committees has grown up in
part as a result of their names and in part because of the general field of
legislation which they normally would cover. Committees have also acquired
jurisdiction simply because they have had the power to initiate a particular piece
of legislation, especially in a new field.
As a result of this practice, the
jurisdictional lines between our committees are confused not only because they
overlap, but also because of the practice of having jurisdiction attach to a
particular committee if by chance it may have considered original legislation in
some new field. Through the years, as the activities of the Federal Government
have grown in scope and complexity, the result has been, naturally, to complicate
an already complicated situation insofar as jurisdictional conflicts between the
present committees are concerned. It is in the hope of simplifying that situation
and, insofar as possible, of anticipating and avoiding future conflicts of
jurisdiction that we have attempted in this measure to spell out the jurisdiction
of the standing committees which we propose.5
The jurisdictional definitions, according to the joint committee, “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.”6
4 Title IV of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1940 (P.L. 601, 79th Cong.) transferred
adjudication of claims against the government to the Court of Claims, which is now the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims.
5 Robert M. La Follette, “Organization of Congress,” remarks in Senate, Congressional
Record, vol. 92, June 5, 1946, pp. 6344-6345.
6 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of the
(continued...)

---

CRS-5
The joint committee also recommended that committees exercise regular
oversight of those portions of the executive branch within their jurisdictions. As a
part of that oversight, the panel recommended that each committee be given authority
to issue subpoenas, and to begin investigations of the executive branch on its own,
without advance permission of the full House or Senate.
Because of these
recommendations, which would empower standing committees, the joint committee
also called for a ban on the creation of new special committees, particularly those
charged with conducting investigations.
Recommendations on Other Matters. The committee also recommended
a series of wide-ranging changes that were designed to modernize Congress. The
joint committee recommended:
! Limit House Members to one major committee assignment.
! Authorize each standing committee to hire four “highly skilled”
professional staff. The staff were to be paid between $6,000 and
$8,000 a year and were to work on committee business only. The
panel also suggested that committees be authorized to employ up to
six clerical staff.
! Increase pay for Members by 50% to $15,000 from $10,000, and
allow Members to participate in the federal retirement system;
increase staff pay as well.
! Create party policy committees in both chambers that would be
authorized to hire staff and meet regularly with representatives of the
executive branch.7
! Establish the position of personnel director, selected by the leaders
of the two chambers, who would set up a system for finding and
evaluating staff for the legislative branch.
! Require lobbyists to register with the government and disclose the
sources of their funding.
! Create a budget process for Congress that would require the
Appropriations and revenue committees in both chambers to draft a
budget each year; prohibit appropriating more than estimated
receipts for a given year unless Congress also passed an increase in
the national debt; authorize the President to reduce appropriations by
a uniform percentage in all programs if expenditures exceeded
receipts.
! Prohibit the introduction of bills to build specific bridges and certain
other bills involving claims against the United States.
! Set an annual adjournment date of June 30, with Members to return
to Washington for an autumn session; experiment with schedules
that called for committees to conduct their work on certain days and
the House floor to conduct its work on different days.
! Limit conference reports to items in disagreement between the two
chambers.
6 (...continued)
Congress, 79th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 1675 (Washington: GPO, 1946), p. 5.
7 See CRS Report RL32015, Senate Policy Committees, by (name/ re dacted).

---

CRS-6
! Require the General Accounting Office to do an annual audit of each
government agency.
! Require hearings and meetings of the Appropriations Committee to
be open to other Members of Congress, the press, and the public.
Final Action.
Senator La Follette drafted legislation (S. 2177), which
incorporated the recommendations of the joint committee. The Senate passed the bill
on June 10, 1946, by a vote of 49-16. During floor debate, Senators agreed by voice
vote not to create a new Veterans’ Affairs Committee. Instead, Members allowed the
Finance Committee to retain jurisdiction over veterans’ issues generally, pensions for
all wars, government-issued life insurance for veterans, and compensation of
veterans. The new Labor and Public Welfare Committee would get jurisdiction over
vocational rehabilitation for veterans, veterans’ hospitals and readjustment to civilian
life, and veterans’ issues that had been handled by the Pensions Committee, which
would be abolished. (A Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee was later created as a
part of the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act, which is discussed below.) The
legislation was adopted by voice vote.
In the House, the bill sat at the Speaker’s table for weeks while Members
negotiated its contents. On July 25, the House approved an open rule for
consideration of the measure. The House passed the bill on the same day by a
division vote of 229-61, after adopting several amendments. It deleted provisions
authorizing a top administrative aide for Member offices, and creating party policy
committees and a stenographic pool for Members. The House also struck all
provisions related to the proposed budget process. Finally, Members voted to
increase their salary to $12,500 instead of the $15,000 recommended, but then also
authorized an additional $2,500 for expenses for each Member.
The Senate adopted the revised bill by voice vote the next day, clearing the
measure for the President. President Harry S Truman signed it into law on August
2, 1946 (P.L. 601, 79th Cong.).
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, 91st Congress
(1969-1971)
Creation. The 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act was the product of more
than five years of effort, from 1965 through 1970. It began with the creation of a
Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress in 1965 and concluded with
legislation reported out by the House Rules Committee in 1970, which was based in
large measure on the recommendations of the joint committee. As in 1946, the joint
committee was charged with studying the organization and operation of Congress
with an eye to making recommendations for improvement.
The 1965 Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress was created by
S. Con. Res. 2, which was agreed to by both chambers on March 11, 1965. The
resolution stated that the joint 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 toward

---

CRS-7
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.”
In the five years the reorganization effort took to make its way to enactment,
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. Congress moved to assert its role with passage, over the President’s
veto, of the 1973 War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148). President Richard M. Nixon
also disagreed with Congress over spending appropriated funds. The budget fights
contributed to passage of the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control
Act (P.L. 93-344), which created House and Senate Budget Committees and the
Congressional Budget Office, and outlined a budget process for Congress to follow,
separate from the executive branch. The 1970 Act occurred at the beginning of this
broad effort by Congress to assert its authority over the executive branch and to
increase its access to information.
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,
including Members of Congress, political scientists, and government officials. The
committee issued its final report (S. Rept. 1414) on July 28, 1966. 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 7, 1967, but the measure saw no action in the House.
On April 22, 1969, Representative William M. Colmer (D-MS), chair 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 Representative John Young (D-TX).
In 1969, the House Rules Committee’s Special Subcommittee on Legislative
Reorganization held meetings 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 on 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. The hearings were published in a 453-page volume early in 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, with amendments, on
May 12 (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

---

CRS-8
House concurred in the Senate amendments on October 8, by voice vote, sending the
measure to the White House. President Nixon signed the bill into law on October 26,
1970 (P.L. 91-510).
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).
Senator Monroney and Representative Madden co-chaired the panel.
When
Representative Griffin resigned from the House in 1966 to accept appointment to the
Senate, he was replaced by Representative James C. Cleveland (R-NH).
Recommendations Relating to Committees. Unlike the 1946 Act, the
1970 Act focused more on rules governing committees than on the committee
structure itself. One of the complaints heard most frequently from Members at the
time was that committee chairs wielded too much power. Many of the changes in the
process were designed to give greater voice to minority Members on committees and
to make sure that a chair could not always override the wishes of a majority of the
committee.
The 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act was the product of a combination of
processes. First, the 1965 joint committee issued a set of recommendations, in 1966,
for both the Senate and the House.
The Senate passed its version of those
recommendations on March 7, 1967. The House took no action until creation of the
House Rules special subcommittee in 1969. That October, the panel issued its
version of recommendations, based on the work of the 1965 joint committee and the
legislation passed by the Senate.
While the House special subcommittee’s
recommendations dealt with both the House and the Senate, the subcommittee did
not materially change the provisions of the reorganization act that the Senate had
passed. The 1970 law was the direct result of the special subcommittee’s work.
For both the House and the Senate, the joint committee recommended that each
committee establish a set of rules to govern its actions, make it easier for a majority
of a committee to call a meeting without the approval of the chair, and allow
committee members three days in which to file additional or minority views with
committee reports.
Senate Recommendations. Each standing committee would be required
to establish a regular meeting day, not less than once a month, under the proposal.
The Senate recommendations called for changing Senate Rules to empower a
majority of a committee’s members to call a meeting over the objections of the
committee’s chair. Committee reports would be required to be filed within seven
days of committee action.
And, all business meetings, except those of the
Appropriations Committee, would be open unless a majority of the committee voted
to close them. All hearings, again except for Appropriations, would be open unless
closed for national security reasons.

---

CRS-9
To help protect the rights of the minority, Senate committee meetings would
have to be announced at least one week in advance. During at least one day of a
hearing, the minority would have the right to call witnesses. And, if a committee
member announced during a business meeting that he or she wanted to have
dissenting or supplemental views included in the report on the matter or measure at
hand, the Senator would have three days in which to do so.
Under the proposal, floor consideration of a measure or matter would be
prohibited unless the accompanying report on it had been available for at least three
calendar days, though the majority and minority leaders could agree to waive this
rule. Any Senate report would have to contain the breakdown on the vote on the
motion to report if there had been a roll-call vote. The Senate proposal also called
for broadcasting committee meetings, subject to rules that would be determined by
each committee.
The special subcommittee recommended that the Senate agree 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 to be reduced
in size, and, for future assignments, Senators were to be restricted to service on two
major committees and one minor one. The proposal also restricted Senators to
service on only one of the following committees at a time: Appropriations, Armed
Services, Finance, and Foreign Relations. In the future, Senators could not hold more
than one chairmanship, or more than one subcommittee chairmanship on any major
committee. The Senate was to rename its Banking and Currency Committee the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and give it jurisdiction over
urban affairs generally. During floor debate on the proposal, the Senate created a
Committee on Veterans’ Affairs with jurisdiction transferred from three other
standing committees.
House Recommendations. Each committee would adopt written rules,
which could not be inconsistent with House Rules, and select a regular meeting day
to conduct its business, although additional meetings could be scheduled at the
discretion of the chair. Like the Senate recommendations, those of the House would
allow a majority of a committee to call a special meeting without the assent of the
committee chair, and a majority of the minority party could call witnesses during at
least one day of hearings. Hearings would be announced at least one week in
advance, unless the committee determined it could not meet this deadline, in which
case the hearing date 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 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 would have to 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

---

CRS-10
three days in advance of the floor action. The House Rules Committee was exempted
from many of these proposals. The special subcommittee recommended that a
committee business meeting or hearing be open to the public unless a majority of the
committee voted to close it. On each motion to report, a committee would be
required to record the votes for and against the motion and include the votes in its
report.
The special subcommittee recommended that House committees allow their
hearings to be broadcast, via radio, television, and still photography, when authorized
by the majority vote of a committee.
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 committees, Rules, Appropriations, Government
Operations, Internal Security, and Standards of Official Conduct, could meet. And,
it called on committees to provide an annual report of their activities of the previous
year, except for Appropriations, Rules, House Administration, and Standards of
Official Conduct.
The special subcommittee recommended that, in the House, the reading of the
Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States be dispensed with and
that a vote on the Journal be non-debatable. This recommendation came in response
to the perceived use of the reading of the Journal, and votes on its approval, as
dilatory tactics by the minority.
The House parliamentarian, according to the recommendations, should prepare
and have printed new compilations of House precedents every five 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 public tours of the Capitol.
Recommendations Relating to Staffing and Funding. Only if the two
party floor leaders agreed would committees be allowed to sit while the Senate was
in session.
For both the House and the Senate, the special subcommittee
recommended that conference procedures be 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.
The Senate recommendations called for an authorization of two additional
professional staff aides for each standing committee, bringing the total to six. Of
those, the minority party was afforded the right to hire two. Senate staff salary
maximums were increased to roughly match the House maximums. The
recommendations called for a funding process for all committees, in which each
committee was to file a single, annual funding request for its work. If the committee
exceeded its approved spending, it would have to explain to the Senate why it needed
additional funding.

---

CRS-11
The special subcommittee recommended a funding process for House
committees similar to the one for the Senate panels: each committee was to file a
single, annual funding request. If a committee exceeded its approved spending, it
would have to explain to the House why it needed additional funding.
The number of professional staff authorized for each House committee would
be increased to six from four, and committees would be authorized 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 fill one of the six
clerical positions, subject to approval of the majority vote of a committee. Any staff
member could be fired by a majority vote of a committee. The Committees on
Standards of Official Conduct and Appropriations would be 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
a year. This recommendation was designed to match the structure in the Senate,
which already authorized a top office staff member.
Joint Recommendations That Apply to Both Chambers. The special
subcommittee in the House recommended that Congress set up a budget process. As
a part of that proposal, it 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 would
provide analysis of existing programs and provide, to committees, staff expertise in
doing cost-benefit analysis. The special subcommittee also called on the President
to provide five years’ worth of detailed information for each program — the current
fiscal year and four succeeding ones.
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
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 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 the abolition of the Joint
Committee on Immigration and Nationality Policy.

---

CRS-12
Final Action. Several of the recommendations of the House subcommittee
were changed during floor consideration. 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 votes8 taken in the Committee of the
Whole, and to allow as few as 20 Members to obtain a roll-call vote when in
Committee of the Whole. 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. The final
bill established a Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, which was 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.
The House passed the Legislative Reorganization Act (H.R. 17654) on
September 17, 1970, by a vote of 326-19. The Senate passed the bill, amended, on
October 6, by a vote of 59-5. The House concurred in the Senate amendments on
October 8, by voice vote, clearing the measure for President Nixon, who signed it on
October 26 (P.L. 91-510).
Party Reforms, 92nd - 94th Congresses (1971-1975)
In 1971, Senate Democrats voted to allow any Democratic Senator to challenge
any nomination by the Steering Committee of a committee chair.
Senate
Republicans, at the same time, adopted a proposal that a Senator could be the ranking
member of only one standing committee.
In 1973, Senate Republicans decided to allow their top ranking committee
Members to be chosen without regard to seniority, and also adopted a plan to allow
Members of each standing committee to elect the top ranking Republican on that
committee, subject to the approval of the Republican Conference.
In 1975, Democrats voted to choose committee chairs without regard to
seniority, and required that a secret ballot would be used whenever one-fifth of their
caucus demanded it.
Commission on the Operation of the Senate, 94th Congress
(1975-1977) (Culver Commission)
Creation. The Commission on the Operation of the Senate was created on July
29, 1975, with the Senate’s passage by voice vote of S. Res. 227. The resolution
directed the newly-formed temporary commission to:
8 A teller vote is a House voting procedure, that is used only infrequently. Members cast
their votes by passing through a center aisle to be counted by other Members who are
appointed by the Speaker. Vote totals are announced, but not the vote of each individual
Member.

---

CRS-13
... make a comprehensive and impartial study of the organization and operation
of the United States Senate. Such study shall include but not be limited to 1. the
functioning of Members, officers, and employees of the Senate in the light of the
responsibilities of the Senate in the areas of law-making, representation and
oversight; 2. conflicts in the programming of business; 3. office accommodations
and facilities; 4. information resources; and 5. internal management and
administrative support structure (including electronic and technical aids,
foresight capacity, accommodation for and coverage by the news media,
workload, lobbying, pay and allowances, and conflicts of interest).
The idea of a commission to examine Senate administrative operations was first
put forward in the Senate Democratic Conference by John C. Culver (D-IA), a
Senator who was active in congressional reform efforts as a Member of the House
in the 93rd Congress’s Select Committee on Committees (commonly known as the
Bolling Committee, 1973-1975). Because of his central involvement in its creation,
the Commission on the Operation of the Senate is commonly called the Culver
Commission even though Senator Culver did not serve on the panel.
In arguing for passage of S. Res. 227, Senator Culver explained:
There is hardly a Senator in this body who does not sense the need for assessing
and improving the operations of the Senate ... The growth in the scale of Senate
operations and staffs, the rising tide of the workplace, the unresolved issues of
pay and allowances, the uncertain linkages to new sources information and
technological support — these pertain to all of us as we seek to fulfill our
legislative tasks.9
Majority Leader Mike Mansfield further indicated that the commission would make:
... an impartial, independent, and comprehensive study of the Senate’s
administrative structure, machinery and practices ... The commission would ...
make specific recommendations with a view to modernizing and improving
working conditions and methods and efficiency in the Senate.10
Membership. The Culver Commission was composed of nine persons from
private life and two ex officio commissioners who were officers or employees of the
Senate and who participated without voting.11 Commissioners were appointed by the
president of the Senate upon the joint recommendations of the majority and minority
leaders.
Harold E. Hughes, former Governor of Iowa and Member of the U.S. Senate
from 1969 to 1975, was appointed commission chair. Archie R. Dykes, chancellor
of the University of Kansas, was named vice chair. Other members were: Willard
L. Boyd, president of the University of Iowa; Robert P. Huefner, director of the
9 Sen. John C. Culver, remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 121, July 29, 1975,
p. 25654.
10 Sen. Mike Mansfield, remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 121, July 29,
1975, p. 25653.
11 Ibid., p. 25653

---

CRS-14
Institute of Government at the University of Utah; Juanita M. Kreps, vice president
of Duke University; Carl E. Sanders, former Governor of Georgia; William H. Scott,
managing partner in the firm of Peat, Marwick, and Mitchell; J. Mark Trice, former
secretary of the Senate; and Wilson W. Wyatt, former mayor of Louisville, Kentucky.
The two ex officio members of the commission were Francis R. Valeo, then secretary
of the Senate, and Gerald W. Frank, the administrative assistant to Senator Mark O.
Hatfield (R-OR).
Recommendations Relating to Committee Jurisdiction. The Culver
Commission did not make recommendations regarding the legislative jurisdiction of
Senate committees. That task was delegated to a concurrent committee (known as the
“Stevenson Committee”) chaired by Senator Adlai E. Stevenson III (D-IL). During
floor consideration of S. Res. 227, Majority Leader Mansfield stated:
The question of the distribution of committee jurisdiction is not included in the
purview of the [Culver] Commission. That question is already being dealt with
by the Rules Committee in connection with consideration of Senate Resolution
109 which is sponsored by Senators Stevenson and Brock.12
Likewise, S. Res. 227 stated that the Culver Commission’s study should “not include
an examination of the jurisdictions of the committees of the Senate over subject
matter.”
Senator Culver indicated that committee jurisdictional reform was an important
aspect of overall Senate reform, and that the work of the Commission on the
Operation of the Senate and the work of the Stevenson Committee were related parts
of a larger reform effort. During floor debate on S. Res. 227, he said:
A primary obligation we have also is to modernize and realine [sic] committee
jurisdictions to meet our contemporary needs. If this mission is also undertaken,
then the Senate of the 94th Congress can set standards of responsible reform
which are worthy of our National Bicentennial.13
Recommendations on Other Matters. The commission’s final report,
filed on December 31, 1976, made recommendations in five broad areas of Senate
operation and administration.14
Organization and Administration of the Senate.
! Consolidate
all
administrative
functions
under
a
Senate
administrator.
! Establish an administrative council to oversee Senate administration.
12 Sen. Mike Mansfield, remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 121, July 29,
1975, p. 25653.
13 Sen. John C. Culver, remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 121, July 29,
1975, p. 25654.
14 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Report on Senate
Operations, S. Prt. 100-129, 100th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO 1988), pp. 14-17.

---

CRS-15
! Simplify the system of committee budgeting and accounting.
! Consolidate management, assignment, and control of space in one
office.
! Reform and modernize the Senate personnel system.
Use of Senators’ Time.
! Designate specific days each week for floor sessions only or
committee work only.
! Develop a computerized scheduling system to minimize meeting
conflicts.
! Hold an early organizational meeting at the outset of each Congress.
! Give Senators a minimum of six weeks each year in which the
Senate is not in session, allowing them to devote their attention to
business back home.
Technology and Communication.
! Develop automated systems for general Senate management
functions, including in areas such as individual office operations,
legislative information, and policy analysis.
! Broadcast Senate proceedings live via closed circuit television.
! Hold daily formal news briefings on Senate business for the media.
Senators’ Compensation, Financial Disclosure, and Code of Ethics.
! Increase Senators’ annual pay.
! Eliminate honoraria income.
! Establish a clear and comprehensive code of ethics for the Senate.
Foresight, Oversight, and the Utilization of Support Agencies.
! Committees should devote more time and attention to program
oversight.
! The Senate should improve its oversight of support agencies such as
the Congressional Budget Office, General Accounting Office, and
Congressional Research Service.
Final Action. While few recommendations of the Culver Commission were
adopted at the time, many have subsequently been implemented, including a
simplified system for committee budgeting, modernization of the Senate personnel
system, a form of centralized scheduling of meetings through the Daily Digest,
televised Senate proceedings, and the adoption of a comprehensive code of ethics.

---

CRS-16
Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee
System, 94th and 95th Congresses (1975-1977 and 1977-1979)
(Stevenson Committee)
Creation. On March 31, 1976, the Senate adopted S. Res. 109, which provided
for a temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System (commonly
called the Stevenson Committee). The central responsibility of the panel was to
evaluate Senate committee structure and activities to eliminate overlapping
jurisdictions, strengthen legislative oversight, increase legislative output, and provide
a more equitable distribution of responsibility and workload among Senators and
Senate committees.15 Such reorganization, Senator Adlai E. Stevenson, the panel’s
chair, stated, “democratizes the Senate, rationalizes jurisdiction and cuts far back on
multiple committee assignments, which pull and haul senators into time conflicts
every day.”16
Membership. The Stevenson Committee was composed of 12 Members
evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Senator Stevenson (D-IL) was
its chair; Senator Bill Brock (R-TN) was its co-chair. Other Members were: Frank
E. Moss (D-UT); Lee Metcalf (D-MT); Gaylord Nelson (D-WI); Lloyd Bensten (D-
TX); Lawton Chiles (D-FL); Clifford P. Hansen (R-WY); Barry Goldwater (R-AZ);
Bob Packwood (R-OR); Pete V. Domenici (R-NM); and Jesse Helms (R-NC).
Senator Brock was defeated for re-election in 1976 and was replaced as co-chair by
Senator Packwood.
Recommendations Relating to Committee Jurisdiction. The select
committee held hearings in July and September 1976.
It reported out its
recommendations
later
that
same
year.
Concerns
over
jurisdictional
recommendations prompted the Senate Rules and Administration Committee to
consider and modify the select committee’s proposal. Further changes were made
during the Senate floor consideration.17
S. Res. 4, As Introduced by the Stevenson Committee. S. Res. 4 was
introduced by Senator Stevenson on January 4, 1977, the end product of the
temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System.18
The
Stevenson reform plan called for extensive revisions to Senate Rule XXV,
establishing three categories of committees, referred to as “A,” “B,” and “C” for
assignment purposes, and limiting the number of subcommittees on which Senators
could serve, according to the new committee categories. It also called for redefining
15 Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 123, part 3 (Feb. 4, 1977), p. 3671.
16 Quoted in Congress and the Nation, vol. v (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc.,
1981), p. 881.
17Judith A. Parris, “The Senate Reorganizes Its Committees, 1977,” Political Science
Quarterly, vol. 94, no. 2 (Summer 1979), p. 324.
18 The resolution was essentially identical to S. Res. 586, submitted in the 94th Congress
(1975-1977) by Senators Stevenson and Brock after the Temporary Select Committee to
Study the Senate Committee System had made its report.

---

CRS-17
and consolidating committee jurisdictions in several broad, overlapping policy areas.
Specifically, the plan called for:
! Realigning the jurisdiction of Senate committees.
! Merging the 31 existing committees into 15 committees (14 standing
committees and one temporary select committee).
! Giving expanded duties and responsibilities to committees for
comprehensive policy oversight in major policy areas.
! Reducing the number of committee and subcommittee assignments
of Senators.
! Limiting the number of chairmanships a Senator may hold.
! Establishing procedures for multiple referral of bills by motion to
two or more committees.
! Authorizing joint leadership appointment of ad hoc committees with
legislative authority over “complex or new subjects” that “straddle
the jurisdiction of permanent” panels.
! Restricting committee and Senate scheduling procedures.19
The 15 committees proposed by the Stevenson Committee were:
! Agriculture and Small Business
! Appropriations
! Armed Services
! Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
! Budget
! Commerce, Service, and Transportation
! Energy and Natural Resources
! Environment and Public Works
! Finance
! Foreign Relations
! Governmental Affairs
! Human Resources
! Judiciary
! Rules, Administration, and Standards
! Select Intelligence
Under the proposed merger, all special, select, and joint committees, with the
exception of the Select Intelligence Committee, along with four standing committees
(District of Columbia, Post Office and Civil Service, Aeronautical and Space
Science, and Veterans’ Affairs), would be eliminated.
The recommended reduction in the number of committees to 15 from 31
required changes in committee jurisdiction. Eleven of the proposed standing panels
19 U.S. Congress, Senate Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee
System, Structure of the Senate Committee System: Jurisdictions, Numbers, and Sizes, and
Limitations on Memberships and Chairmanships, Referral Procedures, and Scheduling, 94th
Cong., 2nd sess., S. Rept. 94-1395 (Washington: GPO, 1976), p. 17.

---

CRS-18
were slated for change while three were relatively unchanged. Committees in
parentheses below would lose their jurisdictions under the Stevenson proposal:
! Agriculture and Small Business: Existing jurisdiction from the
Agriculture Committee and small business (Select Committee on
Small Business); small business jurisdiction (Banking Committee);
irrigation and reclamation and land use planning (Interior and Insular
Affairs Committee); regional economic development (Public Works
Committee); nutrition and human needs (Select Committee on
Nutrition and Human Needs); food from fresh waters and the sea
(Commerce); school lunch program (Labor and Public Welfare).
! Armed Services: Existing Armed Services Committee jurisdiction,
with the addition of national security aspects of atomic energy (Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy).
! Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: Existing Banking
Committee jurisdiction, with export promotion (Commerce);
international financial and monetary organizations and foreign trade
promotion (Foreign Relations); veterans’ housing (Veterans’
Affairs); all the jurisdiction of the Joint Defense Production
Committee; urban affairs, international economic problems, and
economic growth (Joint Economic Committee).
! Budget: Existing Budget Committee jurisdiction, with economic
policy priorities and economy in government, annual economic
report, and report on annual current services budget (Joint Economic
Committee).
! Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Existing Commerce
Committee jurisdiction, with non-military aeronautical and space
sciences, and science, engineering, and technology policy
(Aeronautical Space Sciences); maintenance and operation of the
Panama Canal (Armed Services); urban mass transit (Banking);
National Science Foundation (Labor and Public Welfare);
construction and maintenance of highways and highway safety
(Public Works); consumer economics (Joint Economic Committee);
consumer interests of the elderly (Special Committee on Aging).
! Energy and Natural Resources: Existing jurisdiction of Interior
and Insular Affairs, with solar heating and cooling (Aeronautical and
Space Sciences); naval petroleum and oil shale reserves (Armed
Services); applications of energy conversion, conservation and
research and development, and solar energy (Banking); oil and gas
production, distribution, outer continental shelf lands, and deep
water ports (Commerce); deep water ports, hydroelectric power, and
coal production, distribution and utilization (Public Works); nuclear
energy development (Joint Committee on Atomic Energy); energy
(Joint Economic Committee).
! Environment and Public Works: Existing jurisdiction from Public
Works Committee, with oceans, weather, and atmospheric activities,
fisheries, wildlife, coastal zone management, outer continental shelf
lands, ocean dumping, solid waste, toxic substances, and pesticides
(Commerce); outer continental shelf lands, fisheries, environmental
protection policy, water resources, deep water port facilities, marine

---

CRS-19
wildlife sanctuaries, and land and water conservation (Interior and
Insular Affairs); nuclear energy regulation (Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy).
! Finance: Existing Finance Committee jurisdiction, with financial
policy (Joint Economic Committee).
! Governmental Affairs: Existing jurisdiction from Government
Operations Committee, with all measures relating to the District of
Columbia except appropriations (District of Columbia); acquisition
of land and buildings for embassies (Foreign Relations); insular
possessions of the United States except revenue and appropriations
(Interior and Insular Affairs); labor, economic, and social statistics
(Labor and Public Welfare); federal civil service, postal service,
census, national archives, voter registration, federal employee
retirement, and federal employees and their benefits (Post Office and
Civil Service); public buildings, federal buildings within DC,
Capitol and congressional buildings, and construction and
maintenance of Smithsonian, Library of Congress, and Botanical
Garden buildings (Public Works).
! Human Resources: Existing Labor and Public Welfare jurisdiction,
with agricultural colleges (Agriculture); overseas education of
civilian and military dependents (Armed Services); Native American
education, health, social services and loan programs (Interior and
Insular Affairs); veterans’ measures except housing (Veterans’
Affairs); employment and retirement income (Special Committee on
Aging); employment and unemployment in the United States (Joint
Economic Committee).
! Rules, Administration and Standards: Existing jurisdiction from
the Rules Committee, with rules, and complaints and investigations
concerning improper conduct by Members, officers, or employees of
the Senate (Standards and Conduct); study and recommendations
concerning congressional organization and operation, identification
of judicial activities relating to the houses of Congress (Joint
Committee on Congressional Operations); Library of Congress
(Joint Committee on the Library); Government Printing Office (Joint
Printing Committee).
With regard to other provisions, the plan would:
! Divide committees into major and minor committees, limiting
Senators (except for chair and a few with temporary “grandfather”
rights) to service on two major (standing or class A) committees and
one minor (select or class B) committee.
! Limit the number of subcommittee assignments, with Senators
serving on two subcommittees on each major committee and one
minor committee and subcommittee.
! Limit Senators to one full committee chairmanship.
! Authorize party floor leaders to make referrals of legislation, jointly
or sequentially, in whole or in part, to two or more committees, with
instructions.

---

CRS-20
! Authorize the joint leadership to review the performance of the
Senate committee system at the close of each Congress.
! Introduce computerized scheduling of meetings.
! Prohibit committees from meeting after the conclusion of the first
two hours of a daily session or after 2:00 p.m. (except for the
Appropriations
and
Budget
Committees,
and
conference
committees) without permission from the joint leadership or their
designees.
S. Res. 4, As Reported by the Committee on Rules and
Administration. The Senate Rules and Administration Committee began hearings
on S. Res. 4 on January 5, 1977. Twenty days later, on January 25, the committee
unanimously reported S. Res. 4. The Rules Committee made a number of changes
related to committee jurisdiction in the original resolution.20 Five committees were
preserved: Veterans’ Affairs Committee, Select Committee on Small Business, Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct (renamed Ethics), Joint Economic Committee,
and Joint Committee on Taxation. These changes, in turn, prompted modifying the
original resolution’s formula for committee assignments.21
The Senate Rules
Committee also voted to defer action on the Joint Committee on the Library and the
Joint Committee on Printing, and to establish a new temporary Select Committee on
Indian Affairs to review national policy on Indian affairs.
The Rules Committee also clarified certain jurisdictional references in S. Res.
4. Whereas the Stevenson proposal would have consolidated most transportation
matters in the new Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Rules
Committee retained the status quo.
Highway construction remained in the
Environment and Public Works Committee; urban mass transit stayed with the
Banking Committee; and most other transportation issues were assigned to the
Commerce Committee.22 The original resolution also sought to consolidate all
environmental issues within the new Environment and Public Works Committee.
The Rules Committee reversed the resolution to retain the existing system, allowing
the Commerce Committee to retain its jurisdiction over coastal zone management
programs and marine fisheries, and the letting the Agriculture Committee maintain
control of pesticides.
One amendment offered during the Rules Committee markup to increase the
total number of committees and subcommittees on which a Member could serve to
11 from eight (to three from two on each major committee and to two from one on
each minor committee) was approved by voice vote. One objective was to assure an
equitable distribution of committee assignments among all Senators, so that no
individual Senator would be inequitably overburdened or serve on fewer committees
20U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Committee System
Reorganization Amendments of 1977: Open Markup Sessions on S. Res. 4, 95th Cong., 1st
sess. (Washington, GPO, 1977).
21 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Committee Systems
Reorganizations Amendments of 1977, 95th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 95-2 (Washington: GPO,
1977), p. 4.
22 Ibid.

---

CRS-21
than others. Stevenson made an unsuccessful motion to table the amendment.23
Also, under an amendment sponsored by Senator Robert P. Griffin (R-MI), the Rules
Committee, by a 5-4 vote, included a provision authorizing the minority party to
obtain, upon request, one-third of a committee’s funds, other than those used for
central administrative and clerical purposes. The Griffin amendment also authorized
the joint leadership to propose multiple referrals of bills by privileged motion rather
than by unanimous consent.
And, the Rules Committee reported that it, in
consultation with the joint leadership, would review the operation of the committee
system as well as the Standing Rules of the Senate and report any recommendations
at the close of each Congress.
Finally, the Rules Committee deleted the leadership’s ability to propose, under
privileged procedure, ad hoc committees with authorizing jurisdictions.24 Members
of the Rules Committee were concerned that the original proposal to allow for
establishment of ad hoc committees to manage future unforeseen legislative issues
involving jurisdictional lines would encourage the “proliferation of additional,
temporary committees.”25
S. Res. 4, As Agreed To. On February 4, 1977, by a vote of 89-1, the Senate
adopted S. Res. 4, which contained eight titles, dealing with committees,
jurisdictions, and sizes; committee assignments and chairmanships; multiple
referrals; scheduling; continuing review of the committee system; other amendments
to the Senate’s standing rules; committee staffs; and miscellaneous matters.
The full Senate voted to retain the Special Committee on Aging, and to extend
the life of the Select Committee on Nutrition for the duration of 1977. It rejected an
effort to keep the Post Office and Civil Service Committee.26 As agreed to, the
resolution eliminated six committees (standing committees on Space, District of
Columbia, and Post Office and Civil Service; joint committees on Atomic Energy,
Congressional Operations, and Defense Production), reducing the number of
committees to 25 from 31.
The responsibilities of those panels abolished under the resolution were
transferred to other Senate committees as shown below:
! Jurisdiction of Aeronautical and Space Sciences Committee was
transferred to the Commerce Committee.
! Jurisdiction of the District of Columbia and Post Office and Civil
Service Committees was transferred to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
23 Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, “Senate Approves Committee Changes,” vol. 35,
Feb. 12, 1977, p. 3.
24 Parris, “The Senate Reorganizes,” p. 328.
25 See also Committee Systems Reorganizing Amendments of 1977, p. 4.
26Ibid.

---

CRS-22
! Jurisdiction of the Select Nutrition Committee was transferred after
Dec. 31, 1977, to the Agriculture Committee, renamed the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
! Jurisdiction of the Joint Atomic Energy Committee was transferred
to three committees: Armed Services, Energy and Natural
Resources, and Environment and Public Works.
! Jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on Defense Production was
transferred to a committee to be determined by subsequent
legislation.
! Jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations
and the Select Committee to Study the Committee System was
transferred to the Rules Committee.27
Other jurisdictional changes included:
! Responsibility for school lunch legislation was transferred to the
Agriculture Committee from the Human Resources Committee
(previously the Labor and Public Welfare Committee).
! Foreign commerce and veterans’ housing programs under the
Commerce and Veterans’ Affairs Committees were transferred to the
Banking Committee.
! Responsibility for naval petroleum reserves and oil shale reserves in
Alaska and for water power was transferred to the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee from the Armed Services and Public
Works Committees.
Recommendations on Committee Assignments.
! Limit each Senator (except for a few with temporary “grandfather”
rights) to no more than three committees (two major or class A
committees and one minor or class B committee).
! Limit each Senator to no more than three subcommittees on each of
Senator’s major committees (excluding the Appropriations
Committee).
! Limit each Senator to no more than two subcommittees on each
minor committee.
! Prohibit any Senator from holding more than two chairmanships at
the full committee or subcommittee level of major committees and
more than one on a minor committee.
In summary, the resolution established a system in which each Senator would
normally be assigned to: two class A committees, six class A subcommittees (three
per committee), one class B committee, and two class B subcommittees (two per
committee).28 It also would:
27 Congress and the Nation, vol. v, p. 885.
28 CRS, Title II of the Committee System Reorganization Amendments of 1977, S. Res. 4, 9th
Congress, 1st Sess., by Walter Kravitz and John R. Schaibley, Dec. 15, 1977.

---

CRS-23
! Prohibit a Senator from serving as chair of more than one full
committee at any one time.
! Prohibit a Senator from serving as chair of more than one
subcommittee on each committee.
! Prohibit the chair of a major committee from serving as chair of
more than one subcommittee on his or her major committee and as
the chair of more than one subcommittee on his or her minor
committee (effective two years after the resolution passed).
! Prohibit the chair of a minor committee from chairing a
subcommittee on that committee and prohibit him or her from
chairing more than one of each of his or her major committee’s
subcommittees.
Recommendations on Other Matters.
! Provide the minority of each committee with one-third of each
committee’s staff budget. (Committees were given up to four years
to phase in this provision.)
! Authorize party floor leaders to move multiple referrals of
legislation with instructions as well as prohibit a committee from
adding amendments outside its jurisdiction to bills it reports without
the referral of each amendment to the appropriate committee.
! Require the Rules Committee to establish a centralized computer
system to schedule the meetings of Senate committees and
subcommittees, and to continue to review the committee system,
reporting its findings, every two years.
! Prohibit any committee from establishing a subcommittee without
approval from the full Senate.
! Permit committees and subcommittees to meet without special leave
up to the conclusion of the first two hours of a Senate session or up
to 2:00 p.m., whichever was first, and allow the deadline to be
extended by the joint leadership.
The Study Group on Senate Practices and Procedures, 97th
and 98th Congresses (1981-1983 and 1983-1985)
Creation. On May 11, 1982, the Senate adopted S. Res. 392, which provided
for the creation of the study group on Senate Practices and Procedures (commonly
called the Pearson-Ribicoff Study Group).
Membership. The study group consisted of former Senators James B. Pearson
(R-KS) and Abraham A. Ribicoff (D-CT).
Recommendations Relating to Committee Jurisdiction. On April 5,
1983, the study group issued a wide-ranging report of findings and
recommendations.29
29CRS Report LTR 83-577, A Discussion of the Pearson-Ribicoff Study Group Report, April
(continued...)

---

CRS-24
Regarding committee jurisdiction, the study group recommended that the Senate
reduce the number of standing committees to 12 or 13 by merging seven standing,
select, and special committees. The panels slated for merger were: Budget (functions
absorbed by Appropriations and Finance); Veterans Affairs (subsumed by Armed
Services); Small Business (taken over by Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs);
Special Aging (functions integrated into Labor and Human Resources); Select Ethics
(functions incorporated into Rules and Administration); Select Indian Affairs
(functions put under Energy and Natural Resources); and Select Intelligence
(subsumed by Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign Affairs). Additionally,
the study group recommended that all joint committees (Economic, Library, Printing,
and Taxation) be terminated, with their functions taken over by standing committees
with the appropriate legislative jurisdictions.30
Recommendations on Other Matters.
The study group also made
recommendations concerning Senate party leadership and agenda setting, chamber
operations, and floor procedures, committee operations, and the congressional budget
process. Specifically, the committee recommended the Senate:
! Adopt an annual agenda listing the issues it will consider.
! Create a permanent presiding officer.
! Consider controversial matters no more than one time in the same
session.
! Reestablish certain abandoned procedures, such as: morning
business and morning hour immediately following statements by the
party floor leaders; party-appointed Calendar Committees with the
responsibility of compiling information from their colleagues as to
their opposition to passing any bills on the call of the calendar;
permission for a motion to recess when the Senate has become
stalemated over particular bills or pending business; permission for
the presiding officer to count quorums.
! Televise Senate floor proceedings.
! Require debate to be germane to pending business when considering
legislation unless waived by motion or unanimous consent.
! Place restrictions on the length of debate of motions to consider.
! Prohibit Senators (except the joint leadership and bill mangers) from
offering more than two amendments to be considered after cloture
is invoked, but permit the division of amendments if they contain
distinct propositions that can stand independently of one another.
! Require germaneness of amendments after a specific period of
debate.
! Require that all amendments offered for printing have a capsule
resume at some place under the title of the amendment setting forth
a statement of its purpose, and that all major amendments be printed
(...continued)
1983, by Roger H. Davidson and (name/ re dacted).
30U.S. Congress, Senate, Report on Senate Operations, p. 27.

---

CRS-25
a day in advance of their consideration unless ordered otherwise by
unanimous consent.
! Require major amendments, as modified, be made available in
written form to all Senators prior to the start of a vote, unless
unanimous consent to the contrary is granted.
! Disallow consideration of amendments when no further time is left
for debate.
! Consider eliminating the “question of germaneness” with the
exception of general appropriations bills.
! Prohibit all staff for subcommittees.
! Modify the budget process by adopting a two-year budget and
appropriations cycle, and abolishing the Budget Committee, shifting
its functions to a subcommittee comprising members of the
Appropriations and Finance Committees.
! Refer any measure involving procedure to the Rules Committee
before the Senate acts on it.
! Minimize the number of roll-call votes.
On May 9, 1983, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee held a hearing
on the Pearson-Ribicoff report. The Senate took no further formal action on the
study group’s proposals.
The Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate
Committee System, 98th Congress (1983-1985) (Quayle
Committee)
Creation. The Senate passed S. Res. 127 by voice vote on June 6, 1984, to
establish the Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System
(also known as the Quayle Committee, for its chair, Senator Dan Quayle (R-IN)).
The committee was charged with making a “thorough study of the Senate committee
system” and reporting back options for improving it.
Membership. In addition to Senator Quayle, members of the committee were:
Charles McC. Mathias Jr. (R-MD); Jake Garn (R-UT); Malcolm Wallop (R-WY);
Bob Kasten (R-WI); Warren B. Rudman (R-NH); Wendell H. Ford (D-KY); Russell
B. Long (D-LA); John Melcher (D-MT); J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA); Spark M.
Matsunaga (D-HI); and Alan J. Dixon (D-IL).
Recommendations Relating to Committee Jurisdiction.
The
committee called for sequential referral of legislation reported out of one committee
that contained matter in the jurisdiction of another committee. Under existing Senate
Rules, bill referral was based on which committee had jurisdiction over the
predominant subject of the bill:
The Select Committee does not believe that it is possible to draw such neat
jurisdictional lines that all matters within a bill will always fall within the
jurisdiction of a single committee. Subject areas inevitably overlap, and the
tendency for bills to become longer and more complex increases the difficulty

---

CRS-26
of vesting complete jurisdiction in one committee. Sequential referral seems to
be the appropriate procedure for dealing with these jurisdictional overlaps.31
The Quayle Committee proposed that if a committee reported out a bill that
contained material in the jurisdiction of another committee, that second committee
would get a sequential referral of the bill upon request of its chair. The sequential
referral would last for 30 calendar days, not including days when the Senate was not
in session.
The Quayle panel also recommended that a similar process be followed for
appropriations bills. If an appropriations bill were reported that contained legislative
provisions, the committee with jurisdiction over that subject matter would be given
an opportunity for a sequential referral, though the time would be limited to five
days, not the 30 proposed for other legislation. “It is the opinion of the Select
Committee that, without this kind of provision, the tendency for appropriations bills
to become cluttered with authorizing and other legislation will continue to seriously
undermine the jurisdiction of authorizing committees.”32
Recommendations Relating to Committee Assignments. Central to
the select committee’s plan was a reduction in the number of committee assignments
each Senator could have.
The committee found that Senators had too many
committee assignments. The report said: “It is the belief of our committee that if
Senators will agree to reduce their committee assignments, our committees will be
better able to perform their duties and the Senate as a whole will be taken more
seriously as a reliable and informed national policy-maker.”33
To this end, the panel recommended that each Senator be limited to service on
two of the “A” committees and one of the “B” committees, with no exceptions.
Existing rules at the time allowed some 55 exceptions to this restriction.
The Quayle Committee then recommended that the number of committee
assignments available to Senators be decreased. The total number of slots on the “A”
committee would drop to 209 from 231; for “B” committees, the total would go from
109 slots to 97 slots. The limits would be strengthened by limiting Senators to nine
total positions on all the full committees and subcommittees to which they belonged;
Appropriations Committee members would be limited to 11.
Senators would be limited to one full committee chair on one of their “A”
committees and one “A” subcommittee of all the “A” committees they served on.
For “B” committees, the full committee chair could not chair a subcommittee on that
panel. Finally, the committee recommended that the majority and minority leaders
not be counted when counting for a quorum during a business meeting on a vote to
report a measure or matter.
31 U.S. Congress, Senate Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee
System, Report Together with Proposed Resolutions, S. Rept. 98-254, 98th Cong., 2nd sess.
(Washington: GPO, 1984), p. 11.
32 Ibid, p. 12.
33 Ibid, p. 5.

---

CRS-27
Recommendations on Other Matters. The committee recommended
creating a Joint Committee on Intelligence and a temporary committee to study a
two-year budget process. It also recommended that debate rules in the Senate be
changed so that there would be a time limit on debate on motions to proceed and to
create a new device that would enable the Senate, with a 60-Member vote, to allow
only germane amendments to be offered to legislation.
Final Action.
The Quayle Committee made its recommendations on
November 29, 1984. Senator Quayle introduced the panel’s recommendations on
January 3, 1985 (S. Res. 31), but the resolution saw no action. During its committee
assignment process in 1985, the Senate did pare down some assignments, reducing
the number of seats on several committees, which Senator Quayle reportedly said
was a “marginal success.... Anytime you take away 17 committee assignments from
17 Senators, you’re moving in the right direction.”34
Report of the Committee on Rules and Administration, 100th
Congress (1988 -1989)
Pursuant to its responsibility under Rule XXV to study and report to the Senate
on the organization and operation of the Senate, the Senate Rules and Administration
Committee in 1988 undertook a study to improve Senate operations, and
subsequently reported a number of proposals for consideration. The committee
concluded that a jurisdictional reorganization of the Senate committee system was
unnecessary. It also determined that problems with the committee system were
generally attributable to the large sizes of committees and the increasing number of
assignments to each Senator. Accordingly, the committee recommended that the
Senate enforce the rules already in existence and resist exception and waivers to
assignment rules.35
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 102nd and
103rd Congresses (1991-1992 and 1993-1995) (JCOC)
Creation. The 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 with the
effectiveness and public perception of the institution of Congress.
Representative Lee H. Hamilton (D-IN), Representative Bill Gradison (R-OH),
Senator David L. Boren (D-OK), and Senator 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 a Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress.
34 Jacqueline Calmes and Diane Granat, “Senate Cuts Committee Slots; Members Assigned
to Panels,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 42, Feb. 23, 1984, pp. 348-349.
35 U.S. Congress, Committee on Rules and Administration, Report on Senate Operations
1988, 100th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Prt. 100-129 (Washington: GPO, 1988).

---

CRS-28
At the time, there was a sense among 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”36 in their
decision. Additionally, Congress was beset by a string of high-profile scandals that
hurt public opinion, beginning in 1989 with the resignation of House Speaker Jim
Wright (D-TX), and followed in 1990 and 1991 by allegations that certain 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 gained momentum 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. Senator Boren focused
on this national mood in remarks on the Senate floor, saying:
As an institution, Congress is in trouble. The American people have described
it as wasteful, inefficient, and compromised by the way it finances its campaigns.
During this year’s congressional campaigns, the American people have sent an
unmistakable message to Congress: If you refuse to set your House in order, we
will elect those who will do it for you ...[.] the longer we delay the reform of this
troubled institution, we allow it to slip deeper into bureaucratic disarray.37
H. Con. Res. 192 was approved on June 18, 1992, by a vote of 412-4 in the
House and unanimously after one amendment in the Senate on July 30, 1992. The
Senate amendment barred the joint committee from conducting business prior to
November 15, 1992, and was intended to keep the joint committee free from the
potential pressures of election-year politics. The House concurred in the Senate’s
amendment on August 6, 1992.
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
other branches of the United States Government, and improve the orderly
consideration of legislation.” That broad mandate echoed that of the 1946 and 1965
reform committees.38
36 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of the
Congress, Final Report of the Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress, 103rd
Cong., 1st sess., S. Rept. 103-215, vol. ii, (Washington: GPO, 1993), p. 1.
37 Sen. David L. Boren, remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 138, July 30,
1992, p. 20479.
38 Ibid., p. 20480.

---

CRS-29
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.39
The Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress conducted an extensive
information-gathering and policy-analysis process. The joint committee held six
months of hearings (from January to July 1, 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 joint committee held 36 hearings, took testimony from 243 witnesses —
133 House Members, 37 Senators, 14 former Members, 15 current and former staff
members, and 44 outside experts.40 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.41
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.42 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 the institution.
Membership. The JCOC consisted of 28 members, 14 from each chamber,
equally divided between Republicans and Democrats. That number included the
majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, who served as ex-officio,
39 Ibid., p. 20480.
40 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of the
Congress, Final Report of the House Members of the Joint Committee on the Organization
of the Congress, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 103-413, vol. i (Washington: GPO, 1993),
p. 9.
4 1
H o u s e
C o m m i t t e e
o n
R u l e s ,
O f f i c i a l
W e b
s i t e ,
[http://www.house.gov/rules/JointComm.htm], visited on Aug. 3, 2003.
42 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of the
Congress, Final Report of the House Members, p. 4.

---

CRS-30
voting members of the joint committee. The joint committee was made up of two
subcommittees, one in 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.
Senator David Boren and Representative Lee Hamilton were appointed co-
chairs of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, and Senator Pete
Domenici and Representative Bill Gradison were named vice chairs. Committee
Member Representative David Dreier (R-CA) was appointed to assume the duties of
House vice chair when Representative Gradison resigned from the House on January
31, 1993. Representative Jennifer Dunn (R-WA) was then appointed to fill the open
seat.
Other House Members of the joint committee were: Wayne Allard (R-CO);
Bill Emerson (R-MO); Sam Gejdenson (D-CT); Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC);
David Obey (D-WI); Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-NY); John M. Spratt, Jr. (D-SC); Al
Swift (D-WA); and Robert S. Walker (R-PA).
Senate Members of the joint
committee were: William S. Cohen (R-ME); Wendell H. Ford (D-KY); Nancy L.
Kassebaum (R-KS); Trent Lott (R-MS); Richard D. Lugar (R-IN); David Pryor (D-
AR); Harry Reid (D-NV); Paul S. Sarbanes (D-MD); Jim Sasser (D-TN); and Ted
Stevens (R-AK).
Recommendations Relating to Committee Jurisdiction. The Joint
Committee on the Organization of Congress conducted eight days of hearings
between April 20 and May 13, 1993, exclusively on the issue of committee structure.
At these hearings, “jurisdictional questions were addressed more often than any other
theme ..[;]. a number of witnesses cautioned that jurisdictional changes would
engender a great deal of internal resistance that could possibly bring down the entire
reform package.”43 Former Senator Adlai Stevenson, for example, citing lessons
learned by the Stevenson Committee, cautioned against recommending broad
jurisdictional realignments that could endanger support for the JCOC’s final work
product.
The Senate subcommittee of the JCOC ultimately avoided advocating
wholesale committee jurisdictional realignment. As Senators Kassebaum, Cohen,
Lott, and Lugar wrote in additional views to the Senate subcommittee report:
We believe that significant restructuring of committee jurisdictions, to bring the
two houses more nearly into line with each other and with the executive branch,
would do much to clarify lines of responsibility, reduce wasteful overlap and
duplication of effort, and make the Congress more effective, more efficient and
43 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of the
Congress, Final Report, pp. 23-24.

---

CRS-31
more accountable. However, committee members concluded early in our work
that producing an ideal report that would be dead on arrival benefitted no one.44
The Senate subcommittee opted instead for recommending reforms to the
organizational structure of committees under Rule XXV, as well as suggesting
changes in how Members were assigned to committees and limitations on committee
and subcommittee service.
All Senate and House joint committees — Economic, Library, Organization of
Congress, Printing, and Taxation — would be abolished and their functions
transferred to other entities. The functions of the Joint Economic Committee would
be transferred to the Senate Budget Committee; the Joint Library and Joint Printing
Committees’ work would shift to the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration; and the job of the Joint Tax Committee would shift to the
Congressional Budget Office.45
Recommendations Relating to Committee Assignments. Under their
recommendations, four categories of committees would be established under Senate
Rule XXV — “Super A,” “A,” “B,” and “C.” 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, Veterans Affairs.) Assignments on the Ethics and
Intelligence Committees would not count against these committee assignment
limits.46
44 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of the
Congress, Final Report of the Senate Members of the Joint Committee on the Organization
of the Congress, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 103-215, vol. i, (Washington: GPO, 1993),
p. 33.
45 Ibid., p. 28.
46 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of the
Congress, Final Report of the Senate Members, p. 4.

---

CRS-32
The recommended structure is reflected in the chart below:
Super A: Senators
A: Senators may
B: Senators may
C: No limit on the
may serve on no
serve on two if
serve on no more
number Senators
more than one.
they have no
than one.
may serve on.
“Super A.”
Appropriations
Agriculture,
Aging
Ethics
Armed Services
Nutrition and
Budget
Intelligence
Finance
Forestry
Indian Affairs
Foreign Relations
Banking, Housing
Rules and
and Urban Affairs
Administration
Commerce, Science
Small Business
and Transportation
Veterans Affairs
Energy and Natural
Resources
Environment and
Public Works
Governmental
Affairs
Judiciary
Labor and Human
Resources
“Super A” and “A” committees, except the Appropriations Committee, would
have no more than three subcommittees. “B” committees would have no more than
two subcommittees. Senators could belong to two subcommittees per “A” committee,
except Appropriations, and one subcommittee per “B” committee.
Senators could receive a waiver of those assignment limits only after obtaining
the permission of their party caucus and following a recorded vote of the full Senate.
The Senate subcommittee also proposed that the majority and minority leaders assign
Senators of their respective parties to committees in keeping with rules established
by the parties.
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. That provision was known as the “de minimus” rule.
The Senate subcommittee also recommended changes to Senate regular 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 exempt from those meeting
requirements, and could meet at any time.
Recommendations on Other Matters. The Senate subcommittee of the
JCOC made a number of other recommendations in areas outside jurisdictional
reform.47 They included:
47 Ibid., pp. 7-22.

---

CRS-33
Budget Process. Moving to a two-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 enjoy 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. The Senate subcommittee also
included a provision 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,” which bars the inclusion of extraneous matter in any
reconciliation legislation considered in the Senate, would be permanent and would
require three-fifths of all Senators to waive.
Ethics and Application of Laws. Regarding the ethics process and the
application of laws to Congress, whereas the House subcommittee made specific
recommendations for reform, the Senate subcommittee did not, instead deferring
recommendations on those issues to Senate leadership task forces that were
established to consider changes in these areas.
Proxies
and
Committee
Votes.
Under
the
subcommittee’s
recommendations, proxies could not be used in committee if they would affect the
outcome of a vote. The records of Senate committee attendance and voting would be
published semiannually in the Congressional Record.
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, a three-fifths vote would be required to overturn a ruling of the
chair, and quorum call time would count against the Senator who suggested the
absence of a quorum.
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 Congress or the 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 five years. In
addition, Congress would have to reimburse the executive branch and other agencies
such as the General Accounting Office for the expenses of staff detailed to the
Senate. Unused funds from Senate 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 the offices were budgeted for personnel. Also, the permanent
authorizations for GAO, CBO, CRS, GPO, and OTA would be repealed and replaced
with authorizations of eight years in length.

---

CRS-34
Legislative-Executive Relations. The Senate subcommittee recommended
that during the second session of Congress, GAO give priority to congressional
requests for audits and evaluations of executive branch programs. The Senate
subcommittee also made numerous specific suggestions relating to improving the
efficiency of the printing of congressional and government documents. It further
recommended that all standing committees prepare oversight agendas for the
programs under their jurisdictions.
Final Action. House and Senate Members introduced separate legislation on
February 3, 1994, embodying the final recommendations of the JCOC. These
packages became known as the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994 (H.R. 3801
and S. 1824, respectively).
S. 1824 was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
After a series of hearings, the committee conducted markups and reported out S.
1824, 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 the provisions of S. 1824
to the District of Columbia Appropriations bill; however, this effort was stopped
when a point of order was raised and sustained that it violated the Congressional
Budget Act.
The 103rd Congress (1993-1995) adjourned without further
consideration of the Senate bills.
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 the
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 substantial margin.
The Senate did not act on the
legislation. In the final days of the Congress, the House enacted H. Res. 578,
legislation that amended 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.
1995 Senate Republican Working Group, 104th Congress
(1995-1997)
Following the 1994 elections, incoming Majority Leader Robert Dole (R-KS)
named a Republican working group to explore reform options. The group was
headed by Senator Pete V. Domenici (R-NM), who served as Senate vice chair of the
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, and Senator Connie Mack (R-FL).
Many of the proposals made by the working group were based on the
recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. Included
were proposals to reduce the number of subcommittees, clamp down on excessive
committee assignments, curtail proxy voting in committee, cut staff resources,
implement a two-year budget and appropriations process, and impose a two-hour
limit for debate on motions to bring up legislation on the Senate floor. The working
group proposed that its recommendations be presented to the Senate in three separate
measures: committee structure, staffing, administration, and support agencies; budget

---

CRS-35
process; and floor procedure. The working group plan was never considered by the
Senate, although several components were acted on.
Other initiatives affecting the Senate were implemented in 1995, although they
affected Republican Senators only. A Republican Conference task force was created
to explore how party loyalty among committee leaders might be enhanced. Senator
Connie Mack headed the effort. Other task force members were Senators Rick
Santorum (R-PA), Trent Lott (R-MS), Larry Craig (R-ID), Fred Thompson (R-TN),
John Kyl (R-AZ), Don Nickles (R-OK), and Bob Packwood (R-OR).
The task force released an eight point reform plan that called for:
! Term limits for committee leaders.
! A requirement that indicted committee leaders relinquish their
position.
! A provision that Senators leaving and then returning to a committee
relinquish their seniority on the panel.
! A limit of one full or subcommittee leadership post per Member,
except for Appropriations.
! A provision allowing the Republican leader to fill vacancies on top
committees if two or more occurred simultaneously.
! An amendment to Senate Rules that the party caucuses have sole
authority to select and remove committee leaders.
! The establishment of a Republican legislative agenda at the
beginning of each Congress.
! A provision that the Republican leader nominate each committee
leader for confirmation by the full Republican Conference.
The Republican Conference passed a modified version of the Mack proposal.
The terms of Republican committee leaders were limited to six years as chair and six
years as ranking minority member, although the limits would not take effect until
1997. The proposal that the Republican leader nominate committee leaders failed in
favor of a Domenici substitute providing that committee leaders be selected by
Republican members of the panel and a vote in the full Republican Conference, both
by secret ballot. Also agreed to was a proposal to limit the terms of party leaders to
six years, with the Republican leader and President pro tempore exempted. The
conference also agreed to prohibit full committee chairs from heading
subcommittees, with the exception of Appropriations Committee chairs.

---

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to al Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentional y made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.

---