The minority Democrats also employed task forces. A Democratic drafting group, for instance, bypassed Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee and devised a comprehensive welfare reform bill that was endorsed by the Democratic Caucus. But with Republican control, we need to broaden the base on every issue in the Caucus. The second session of the 104th witnessed somewhat more emphasis on the committee system. Clearly, task forces are flexible and adaptable devices for addressing problems that do not fall neatly within committees' jurisdictional boundaries.
Informal groups can complement and supplement the regular committees.
Relevant expertise can be mobilized from the House's membership to address issues which cross-cut the responsibilities of several standing committees. On the other hand, a system of standing committees is well-suited for providing continuity, expertise, and representation to congressional policymaking and for overseeing the administration of laws. Members' careers, reputations, and actions are often shaped by their committee work. These permanent structural units, then, serve important institutional and individual purposes. In sum, there appears to be role for both adhocracy and permanency in the House's committee system.