Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T12:40:11.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Nature of Congressional Committee Jurisdictions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

David C. King
David C. King
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Jurisdictions are the defining characteristics of committee systems, and they are central in any discussions about the U. S. Congress; yet we know little about them. Where do committee property rights come from? Are they rigid? Are they flexible? I introduce a distinction between statutory jurisdictions (which are written in the House and Senate Rules) and common law jurisdictions (which emerge through bill referral precedents). Turf is gained through common law advances, not through formal rules changes (like the “reforms” passed by the House in 1946, 1974, and 1980). Jurisdictional change is ongoing and incremental. The analysis draws on an examination of hearings held by the House Commerce Committee from 1947 through 1990.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 88 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 48 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Political Science Association, Committee on Congress. 1945. The Reorganization of Congress. Washington: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Arthur, Brian W. 1988. “Self-Reinforcing Mechanism in Economics.” In The Economy as an Evolving Complex System, vol. 5, ed. Anderson, P. W., Arrow, Kenneth, and Pines, David. Santa Fe: Addison–Wesley.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D.. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boiling, Richard. 1965. House Out of Order. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
Cannon, Clarence. 1963. Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives. Washington: GPO.Google Scholar
Collie, Melissa P., and Cooper, Joseph. 1989. “Multiple Referral and the ‘New’ Committee System in the House of Representatives.” In Congress Reconsidered, 4th ed., ed. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I.. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly Almanac. 1974. Vol. 30. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly Almanac. 1988. Vol 43. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Congressional Record. 1959. Cong., sess., vol., pt‥Google Scholar
David, Paul A. 1975. Technical Choice Innovation and Economic Growth. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Roger H. 1990. “The Advent of the Modern Congress: The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 15:357–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Roger H., Kovenock, David M., O'Leary, Michael K.. 1966. Congress in Crisis: Politics and Congressional Reform. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Davidson, Roger H., and Oleszek, Walter J.. 1977. Congress Against Itself. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Roger H., and Oleszek, Walter J.. 1992. “From Monopoly to Management: Changing Patterns of Committee Deliberation.” In The Postreform Congress, ed. Davidson, Roger H.. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
Davidson, Roger H., and Olsezek, Walter J.. 1994. Congress and Its Members. 4th ed.Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Davidson, Roger H., Oleszek, Walter J., and Kephart, Thomas. 1988. “One Bill, Many Committees: Multiple Referrals in the U.S. House of Representatives.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 13:3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deschler, Lewis. 1977. Deschler's Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives. Washington: GPO.Google Scholar
Dodd, Lawrence C. 1986. “A Theory of Congressional Cycles.” In Congress and Policy Change, ed. Wright, Gerald, Rieselbach, Leroy, and Dodd, Lawrence C.. New York: Aga thon.Google Scholar
Dodd, Lawrence C. 1993. “Political Learning and Political Change: Understanding Development Across Time.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Dodd, Lawrence C., and Schott, Richard L.. 1979. Congress and the Administrative State. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Dopfer, Kurt. 1991. “Toward a Theory of Economic Institutions: Synergy and Path Dependency.” Journal of Economic Issues. 25:535–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galloway, George B. 1946. Congress at the Crossroads. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Galloway, George B. 1955. The Legislative Process in Congress. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Galloway, George B. 1961. History of the House of Representatives. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Heller, Robert. 1945. Strengthening the Congress. Washington: National Planning Association.Google Scholar
Henning, Charles. 1989. The Wit and Wisdom of Politics. Golden, CO: Fulcrum.Google Scholar
Hinds, Asher C. 1907. Hind's Precedents of the House of Representatives. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Holmes, Oliver Wendell. 1963. The Common Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hunter, Louis C. 1949. Steamboats on the Western Rivers: An Economic and Technological History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D., Baumgartner, Frank R., and Talbert, Jeffery C.. 1993. “The Destruction of Issue Monopolies in Congress.” American Political Science Review 87:657–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Charles O., and Strahan, Randall. 1985. “Crisis Response in Washington: The Case of Oil Shocks.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 10:151–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, David C. 1992. “Committee Jurisdictions and Institutional Change in the U.S. House of Representatives.” Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith, and Lavin, James. 1993. “Are Legislative Institutions Backed by Leaders? A Re-examination of the 1987 Smoking Ban on Domestic Flights.” Stanford Business School. Typescript.Google Scholar
La Follette, Robert M. 1943. “A Senator Looks at Congress.” Atlantic Monthly, July, pp. 91–96.Google Scholar
LaRue, James B., and Rothenberg, Lawrence S.. 1992. “Institutional Features of Congressional Decisions: The Fight To Prohibit Smoking on Airlines.” Public Choice 73:301–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Edward H. 1949. An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Loomis, Burdert. 1988. The New American Politician: Ambition, Entrepreneurship, and the Changing Face of Political Life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Maass, Arthur. 1983. Congress and the Common Good. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Matthews, Donald R. 1981. “American Political Science and Congressional Reform.” Social Science History 5:91–120.Google Scholar
Moore, John W. 1993. “Raging Bulls.” National Journal, 23 January 1993, pp. 192–96.Google Scholar
Munger, Michael. 1988. “Allocation of Desirable Committee Assignments: Extended Queues Versus Committee Expansion.” American Journal of Political Science 32:317–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadel, Mark V. 1971. The Politics of Consumer Protection. New York: Bobbs–Merrill.Google Scholar
Oleszek, Walter J. 1989. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. 3d ed., Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Oleszek, Walter J., Davidson, Roger, and Kephart, Thomas. 1986. “The Incidence and Impact of Multiple Referrals in the House of Representatives.” Typescript. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington.Google Scholar
Perkins, John A. 1944. “Congressional Self-Improvement.” American Political Science Review 38:499–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W. 1968. “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives” American Political Science Review 62:144–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W., Gallaher, Miriam, Rundquist, Barry S.. 1969. “The Growth of the Seniority System in the U.S. House of Representatives.” American Political Science Review 63:787–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, David E. 1979. Policymaking in Congressional Committees: The Impact of “Environmental” Factors. Tuscon: University of Arizona, Institute of Governmental Research.Google Scholar
Rieselbach, Leroy N. 1986. Congressional Reform. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1980. “Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions.” American Political Science Review 74:432–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripley, Randall. 1969. “Power in the Post–World War II Senate.” Journal of Politics 31:465–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, Nicholas. 1989. Rules and Institutions. New York: Philip Allan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1978. The Giant Jigsaw Puzzle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1986. “Institutional Equilibrium and Equilibrium Institutions.” In Political Science: The Science of Politics, ed. Weisberg, Herbert. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1988. “Representation and Governance: The Great Legislative Trade-off.” Political Science Quarterly 103:461–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipan, Charles R. 1992. “Individual Incentives and Institutional Imperatives: Committee Jurisdiction and Long-Term Health Care.” American Journal of Political Science 36:877–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipan, Charles R. N.d. “Looking for a Smoking Gun: Committee Jurisdictions and Congressional Voting Decisions.” Public Choice.Google Scholar
Siff, Ted, and Weil, Alan. 1975. Ruling Congress: A Study of How the House and Senate Rules Govern the Legislative Process. New York: Grossman.Google Scholar
Smith, Steven S., and Deering, Christopher J.. 1990. Committees in Congress. 2d ed.Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Stanfield, Rochelle L. 1988. “Plotting Every Move.” National Journal, 26 03 1988, pp. 792–97.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Terry. 1984. Procedural Structure. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Tiefer, Charles. 1989. Congressional Practice and Procedure: A Reference, Research, and Legislative Guide. New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
United States. House. 1795. Journal. 3d and 4th Congress, 14 December.Google Scholar
United States. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. 1983. Hosting the 1986 Soccer World Cup. 98th Cong., 1st sess., April 7, 1983.Google Scholar
United States. House. Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. 1956a. Traffic Safety. 84th Cong., 2d sess., July 16, 23; August 8–10, 27–31; September 25–28, 1956.Google Scholar
United States. House. Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. 1956b. Transportation of Migrant Farm Workers. 84th Cong., 2d sess., May 18, 1956.Google Scholar
United States. House. Select Committee on Committees. 1974. Final Report, Committee Reform Amendments of 1974. 93d Cong., 2d sess., H. Rep. 93–916.Google Scholar
United States. Public Health Service. Office of Administrative Management. 1976. History, Mission, and Organization of the Public Health Service. Washington: Public Health Service.Google Scholar
Uslaner, Eric M. 1989. Shale Barrel Politics: Energy and Legislative Leadership. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Weingast, Barry R., and Marshall, William. 1988. “The Industrial Organization of Congress.” Journal of Political Economy 96:132–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Garry, and Cooper, Joseph. 1993. “Multiple Referral and the Transformation of House Decision Making.” In Congress Reconsidered, 5th ed., Dodd, Lawrence C., and Oppenheimer, Bruce I.. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Zorack, John L. 1990. The Lobbying Handbook: A Comprehensive Lobbying Guide. Washington, DC: The Professional Lobbying and Consulting Center, Inc.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.