{POL} Committee Chairs

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm sticking the {POL} tag on this (because it could certainlyl turn political at some point) but it's really more of a general governmental question.

Could someone refresh my memory on how majority parties determine who sits on what committee?

If memory serves, seniority determines chairs, but what about committee assignments? I know there's all sorts of backstage lobbying for people who want certain committees, and I certainly that all committees aren't created equal in terms of power nor status. But along with the personalities & the politics, isn't there usually some rhyme or reason to why people end up on certain panels? Or is some of this a matter of "once on a committee, you're on it until you leave Congress"? (which seems the most likely answer to me at this point)

What brings this question up is looking at a thumbnail of the upcoming Senate committee chairs, some of which has me scratching my head about some of the assignments.

-- Some of them do make sense (partisanship aside). For example, Kennedy on Health, Education, and Labor (long standing areas of interest for him) or Harkin on Agriculture (because of his location). Lieberman on Homeland Security is a logical choice IMO as well.

But on the other hand
-- Byrd as Appropriations chair? WTF? This is a guy who has probably gotten as much attention as a pork barrell king as anybody in history. It just seems as though this would have been an opportunity for the Dems to deflect some criticism & try to position themselves as good budget stewards by giving this to someone who doesn't have a reputation to live down.

-- Inouye goes to Commerce, Science and Transportation ... but wouldn't it seem to make more sense for him to either be on Defense or at least Veterans Affairs? Again, just seems like a missed opportunity to do some image work for the Dems, since Inouye has an identifiable connection to both those areas (and doesn't have a bad image on either issue AFAIK).

-- To a lesser degree, I wonder a little about Dodd of CT going to Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Nothing against him nor the state of Connecticut, but wouldn't there be a certain logic in assigning this to someone from a larger state that has more dealings with most of the areas covered by this committee. (Note: I'd have the same question about the current chairman, Shelby (R-AL) )

FTR, if anybody has a handy list of all the various GOP chairs, I'm more than open to the possibility/probability that it has similar oddities, I just don't happen to have an easy list at hand to compare.

As you probably know by now, I'm as partisan as they come & I'm not hesitant to admit it, so please believe me when I say this isn't meant as any sort of anti-Dem thing out of hand, I really mean it when I say it's more of an "how our government works" question. I'll admit to being fuzzy about the specifics of committee assignments.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm sticking the {POL} tag on this (because it could certainlyl turn political at some point) but it's really more of a general governmental question.

Could someone refresh my memory on how majority parties determine who sits on what committee?

If memory serves, seniority determines chairs, but what about committee assignments? I know there's all sorts of backstage lobbying for people who want certain committees, and I certainly that all committees aren't created equal in terms of power nor status. But along with the personalities & the politics, isn't there usually some rhyme or reason to why people end up on certain panels? Or is some of this a matter of "once on a committee, you're on it until you leave Congress"? (which seems the most likely answer to me at this point)

What brings this question up is looking at a thumbnail of the upcoming Senate committee chairs, some of which has me scratching my head about some of the assignments.

-- Some of them do make sense (partisanship aside). For example, Kennedy on Health, Education, and Labor (long standing areas of interest for him) or Harkin on Agriculture (because of his location). Lieberman on Homeland Security is a logical choice IMO as well.

But on the other hand
-- Byrd as Appropriations chair? WTF? This is a guy who has probably gotten as much attention as a pork barrell king as anybody in history. It just seems as though this would have been an opportunity for the Dems to deflect some criticism & try to position themselves as good budget stewards by giving this to someone who doesn't have a reputation to live down.

-- Inouye goes to Commerce, Science and Transportation ... but wouldn't it seem to make more sense for him to either be on Defense or at least Veterans Affairs? Again, just seems like a missed opportunity to do some image work for the Dems, since Inouye has an identifiable connection to both those areas (and doesn't have a bad image on either issue AFAIK).

-- To a lesser degree, I wonder a little about Dodd of CT going to Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Nothing against him nor the state of Connecticut, but wouldn't there be a certain logic in assigning this to someone from a larger state that has more dealings with most of the areas covered by this committee. (Note: I'd have the same question about the current chairman, Shelby (R-AL) )

FTR, if anybody has a handy list of all the various GOP chairs, I'm more than open to the possibility/probability that it has similar oddities, I just don't happen to have an easy list at hand to compare.

As you probably know by now, I'm as partisan as they come & I'm not hesitant to admit it, so please believe me when I say this isn't meant as any sort of anti-Dem thing out of hand, I really mean it when I say it's more of an "how our government works" question. I'll admit to being fuzzy about the specifics of committee assignments.

Usually it is done by seniority. So the longest serving members get first crack at the "premier" chair positions. That's why Byrd will probably be the Appropriations chair.

On a related note, it appears that the bitter redistricting battle in Texas a couple of years ago really hurt the influence for the state of Texas. Most of the redistrictings were specifically done to target longtime Democratic incumbents. All but one of the Democratic incumbents targeted by the redraw are no longer on Capitol Hill. There were several House chairs that would have gone to the former reps if they had been re-elected.

[JPhillips]

Committee Chairs are assigned at the discretion of the Speaker. Normally that means seniority, but it doesn't have to. When Hastert/Delay took over the House they ditched most seniority rules and instead offered chairs to those most loyal thus assuring that they held as much power as possible.

Pelosi is going to make some similar moves right away, notably with Harman on Intelligence. If she is able to hold power and the Dems keep the House in 2008 I would expect to see some of the senior House Chairs gone.

The Senate will still be more inclined to reward seniority, but loyalty and ideological purity are becoming a more important aspect there as well.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Question (I figure somebody here will probably know the answer): Are committee members technically/procedurally re-assigned from scratch with each session of Congress?

I'm assuming this is the case (since seats change with control of the chamber changing, etc) but it is government after all, so ... y'never know.

[JPhillips]

Yes, just as leadership positions are also re-assigned each term.