University of Virginia Library

Robert Gillmore

Reformation
Of The House

WASHINGTON-The House of
Representatives is at least formally
considering real if modest reforms
in its seniority system, which has
governed the selection of committee
chairmen for most of this
century.

Both parties last March
appointed "broadly-based"
committees to study the
seniority system and alternatives to
it. Both committees now appear
that they will at least narrowly
favor reform.

The 11-member Democratic
committee includes two former
chairmen of the reform-minded
Democratic Study Group, James
O'Hara (Mich.) and Frank
Thompson (N.J.); two more DSG
members, Philip Burton (Cal.) and
Shirley Chisholm (N.Y.); and three
members generally described as
moderates: committee chairwoman
Julia Hanson (Wash.), freshman Ed
Jones (Tenn.) and Neal Smith
(Iowa).

Override Conservative Votes

The Democratic reformers believe
that with their four "sure"
DSG member votes and at least two
of the three moderates, they can
wring a reform report from the
committee - overriding, if necessary,
the votes of Chicago Daley
Democrat Frank Annunzie, Wayne
Hays (Ohio), Phil Landrum (Ga.)
and Olin Teague (Tex.), members
whose conservatism and long
service may make them enemies of
even the smallest change in the
seniority system.

The Democratic committee,
then, appears to reflect accurately
the Democratic House membership,
which is almost certain to approve
seniority reform only narrowly, if
at all, and only by out-voting
Southern and Machine Democrats
who benefit so much from the
present system.

The 19-member Republican
"Task Force" now probing
seniority reform includes six outspoken
reformers: chairman Barber
Constable (N.Y.), Edward Biester
(Pa.), James Cleveland (N.H.), Paul
(Pete) McCleskey (Cal.), Albert
Quie (Minn.) and William Steiger
(Wis.).

The reformers expect additional
support from freshman Glenn Beall
(Md.) and David Dennis (Ind.) and
junior members Clarance Brown
(Ohio); Jack Edwards (Ata.), John
Erlenborn (Ill.), Durward Hall
(Mo.), James Harvey (Mich.), Tom-Kleppe
(N.D.), Burt Talcott (Cal.),
and Wendall Wyatt (Ore.).

Seniors Unopposed

Even the group's senior members,
John Byrnes (Wis.), ranking-Ways
and Means Committee Republican,
William Springer (Ill.),
ranking Interstate Commerce Committee
Republican, and John
Rhodes (Ariz.), GOP Policy Committee
chairman, are not known to
oppose reform.

The Republican Task Force,
then, also appears to be "representative"
of GOP House membership
in that Republican support
for the seniority system is nowhere-not
even among its most
senior members-as great as it is
among Southern or some Northern
Democrats.

The reason, as one Task Force
member said, "is that we Republicans
are a more homogeneous
party. And therefore we don't have
the seniority hangups that they
do."

By that he meant that the
Democrats — in the House as in the
nation - are on contrast to the
Republicans, a heterogeneous or
"coalition" party. Their Southern
and rural interests are often incompatible
with their Northern and
urban ones.

Southerners Will Fight

And Southern Democrats are
going to fight all attempts to take
away their greatest weapon in their
unending and bloody intra-party
House battles.

Republicans, on the other hand
— in the House as in the nation —
are actually more united. Their
ultra-conservative and liberal
wings-unlike the Democrats'-are
only rather small appendages to the
much larger and moderate body of
Republicans.

As a result, House Republicans
ride rather easily under their leadership.

For a few Republicans—leaders
or led—represent urban, intellectual
and/or labor constituencies with
predominately liberal interests; and
few Republicans—leaders or
led—represent, for example, the
antediluvian constituencies of the
Bible belt.

Republicans — young and old,
junior and senior, leader and led —
tend to be suburban and rural,
middle class and more moderate
than anything else.

Which is why, for example, men
like John Byrnes and William
Springer have little to fear from any
tampering with the seniority
system. They are not at all as
obnoxious to any of their fellow
party and committee members as,
for example, Memdel Rivers or
H.R. Peage are to some of theirs.

Democrats lean heavily to a reform
whereby the caucus (all House
Democrats) selects chairmen.

For urban Democrats often
chafe at some committee's regional
bias (westerners and Southerners,
for example, predominate on
Interior and Agriculture), whereas
Republicans have few urban or
other liberal members to make such
a complaint.

House Democrats therefore
want to integrate their far-flung
"coalition" by caucus control.

Republicans, of course, have
such integration already.

Avoid Rivalries

But they will nevertheless propose
that their Committee on Committees
(which names committee
members) nominate chairman and
that the GOP Conference (the Republican
caucus) elect them.

Their object, according to Republican
sources, is to avoid potential
intra-committee leadership
rivalries which would likely occur if
committees nominated and elected
their own chairmen.

It is certain, however, that both
parties will continue to elect chairman
on a seniority basis — because
seniority does usually bring with it
great Parliamentary and substantive
expertise and because seniority is a
valuable House reward.

It is unlikely, then, that many
committee chairmanships will
change hands.

For the threat of being voted
out of a chairmanship will probably
be enough pressure to force any
otherwise deviant chairman into
step with his party.

When the GOP Task Force produces
its reform recommendations
House Republicans are equally
likely to adopt them — because of
their party homogeneity and for
two other reasons:

First, an unusually large number
of Republicans are themselves of
low seniority. For in the 1964
debacle, as one member said, "the
Goldwater thing cut away a lot of
our dead wood." This pruning and
the large GOP gains in 1966 and 68
make more than one of every three
Republicans only a freshman or
sophomore.

Which, in turn, means that fully
a third of the Republican House
membership has felt only the sting
and none of the benefits of the
present seniority system.

Elected Chairman

Second, House Republicans are
aware that they are now sitting on a
splendid issue: In the coming
elections GOP candidates could
proclaim that Democrats and the
Democratic-approved seniority
system are responsible for Congressional
unresponsiveness but that
they, if allowed to control Congress,
will instead elect their chairman.

That is why the Republican
Task Force will try to bring its
reform report out before the
elections.

And that is why the Democratic
committee — whose party may ultimately
reject seniority reform —
will delay their (probably favorable)
report until after the elections.

Then, the Democratic reformers'
best hope for change may be GOP
pressure.