Guest Blogger: Hannah Church

On Friday, we started a discussion in class about congressional committees. The main purpose of the committees is to control the congressional agenda and guide legislation. According to the text, “With more than 11,000 bills submitted by members every two years, some winnowing is essential. Every bill goes to a committee, which has virtually the power of life and death over it.” To cover the over 11,000 bills there are numerous committees, of all different focuses. Committees like the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee, the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, the Endangered Species Committee, and various others. Each committee is made up of both Republicans and Democrats. However, the numbers are not typically distributed evenly. The majority party sets the proportion of minority members to majority members. So the majority party has an advantage. Is this justifiable? Should the committees change so that the two parties have equal representation? It would be ideal if the committees were evenly distributed. That way, the majority wouldn't pass legislation purely because it would be in the interest of that party. In theory it would be beneficial, because the members would have to negotiate. That could mean more thought being put into each bill and better legislature going through. However, I also think the uneven committees can be justified. Legislation could standstill if the numbers were even. Each party would want the bills more suited to the principles of their party. As previously stated, the members could negotiate. There is a higher chance that the members would be stubborn, persistent to forward the legislation they want. With equal numbers, there would be a struggle to pass the bills that they are given; especially if each party wants to forward a different set of bills. That would be the the reason legislation would standstill. So, it would be fair if the committees had equal party representation however it would likely be too impractical.