House Democrats reject effort to limit tenure atop committees 

House Democrats on Tuesday rejected a change to the party’s internal rules designed to facilitate more turnover among committee heads.

The closed-door vote was not close — the ratio was roughly 2-to-1 against the measure — indicating that despite some grumbling about the long tenure of many committee heads, there remains little appetite within the caucus to install a term-limit system like Republicans have had for years.

Leaving the vote, the overwhelming message from proponents of the status quo hinged on the idea that, because current guidelines already allow for any lawmaker to challenge a committee head prior to the start of each new Congress, there was no need to change the rules to encourage more competition. 

“If something’s not broken, no need to fix it,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “We have accountability and transparency now. Every two years a chair has to go and be approved by the [Democratic] Steering Committee and the full body. So therefore there is no real fix here, because nothing is broken.” 

Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), who sponsored the rule change, disagreed, saying the current system ensures only that newer talent is forced to wait longer to climb into the ranks of committee leadership — a wait that will harm both the party and the legislative process.

“Those members who are being held back by our current system are the younger, more diverse members. And so ultimately we give those younger, more diverse members an earlier shot at leadership positions if my amendment had passed,” Foster told reporters after the vote. “And I don’t think that was fully appreciated.”

The effort to apply term limits to committee leadership seats has been long debated within the caucus, but this year marked the first time the issue had come up for a formal vote. The proposal coincided with a huge shake-up in the top leadership of the party, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her leading deputies — House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and James Clyburn (D-S.C.) — are all stepping out of those spots at the end of the term. 

Pelosi had sought to install committee term limits the first time she took the Speaker’s gavel, in 2007, but she said it was shot down informally by the caucus, which favored a system of rewarding longevity. The seniority system has been particularly popular among the Congressional Black Caucus, helping its members to assume the top spots on a number of prominent House committees, including Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, Homeland Security, and Education and Labor.

Foster’s proposal did not adopt explicit term limits but would have required those serving longer than six years to receive a waiver from the full caucus. 

“It was a compromise that would allow members to serve indefinitely,” Foster said. “But those exceptional members who wish to serve longer would have a slightly higher hurdle.”

Critics of the change said it’s simply unnecessary. 

“We have term limits already,” said Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), who heads the House Education and Labor Committee. 

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) agreed, saying the proposed rule change would have more credibility if the proponents had ever sought to challenge a sitting chair under the existing system.

“Those who feel like there need to be new mechanisms to challenge and potentially replace certain chairs ought to at least try the existing rules first,” Huffman said. “It’s not like we have some sort of tenure hard-wired into our caucus rules. You can challenge a sitting chair or ranking member any day. 

“If an incumbent’s doing a lousy job, challenge them,” he added.

House Democrats on Tuesday also shot down another proposed rule change, sponsored by Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), that was designed to fast-track legislation with broad bipartisan support. 

Meeks said the argument against the proposal centered on the importance of preserving the power of Democratic leaders to dictate what bills reach the floor, whenever they return to the majority. 

“The leadership and committee chairs and others sometimes have to have some discretion,” Meeks said.