House Committees: A Framework for Considering Jurisdictional Realignment

Congressional research reportFeb 23, 2005

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Order Code RL32661

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

House Committees: A Framework for

Considering Jurisdictional Realignment

Updated February 23, 2005

name redacted

Senior Specialist in American National Government

Government and Finance Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

House Committees: A Framework for

Considering Jurisdictional Realignment

Summary

The House has chosen to handle committee jurisdiction in a number of ways.

It has chosen to concentrate jurisdiction over an issue in new, existing, and temporary

committees. It has chosen to keep jurisdiction over components of an issue

distributed among several committees. And, it has chosen to vest in one committee

jurisdiction over a narrow subject matter that could just as readily have been

considered a component of subject matter within another committee’s jurisdiction.

Rules relating to referral and the Speaker’s referral authority have also been changed

to deal with jurisdictional issues. The House’s most recent decision to create a

standing Committee on Homeland Security reflected the several values that can bear

on jurisdictional alignment (H.Res. 5, 109th Congress, and an accompanying

legislative history of House Rule X changes contained in the resolution).

While the House and Senate consolidated and reduced the number of

committees in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, and for the first time

vested each committee with specific jurisdiction, the House did not adopt wideranging committee reorganizations in 1974 or 1994. Rather, the House on a number

of occasions since 1946 has chosen incremental change in committee jurisdictional

realignment.

The House is expected to study its committee organization during the 109th

Congress.

Related CRS reports are as follows:

CRS Report RL32711, Homeland Security: Compendium of Recommendations

Relevant to House Committee Organization and Analysis of Considerations for

the House, by (name redacted);

CRS Report RS21901, House Select Committee on Homeland Security: Possible

Questions Raised If the Panel Were to Be Reconstituted as a Standing

Committee, by (name redacted);

CRS Report RL31835, Reorganization of the House of Representatives: Modern

Reform Efforts, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted);

and

CRS Report RL31572, Appropriations Subcommittee Structure: History of Changes,

1920-2005, by (name redacted).

Contents

Jurisdictional Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Unity of Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Differing Policy Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Temporary Committees and Permanent Realignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Temporary Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Realigning Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Referral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Primary Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Special Jurisdictional Protections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Oversight Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Joint Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

House Committees: A Framework for

Considering Jurisdictional Realignment

In analyzing the organization of legislative committees, congressional scholars

have suggested three potential models for committee systems. The first model,

distributional, explains the relationship between the creation of committees and the

opportunity for Members to choose committee assignments that are most relevant to

their reelection. The second model, informational, explains a legislature’s need for

specialization, expertise, and knowledge of the executive branch, and the opportunity

for Members to choose committee assignments that bring differing perspectives to

committees. The third model, party, explains the relationship between party

priorities and committee members’ support of those priorities.1

Each possible scheme for organizing congressional committees emphasizes a

different set of values. The House, beginning with the Legislative Reorganization

Act of 1946,2 has chosen to handle committee jurisdiction in a number of ways. The

1946 act itself consolidated and reduced the number of committees in both the House

and Senate, and for the first time vested each with specific jurisdiction. While the

House has made many incremental changes to committee jurisdictions since 1946,

its attempts at wide-ranging committee reorganization in 1974 and 1994 were

unsuccessful.3

The House most recently considered the organization of its committees to

handle the set of issues related to the policy area of homeland security. In a report

released July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission emphasized “unity of effort” in its

proposals for organization of the executive branch and for committee organization

in Congress, related to intelligence and homeland security.4 The commission stated:

“Unity of effort in executive management can be lost if it is fractured by divided

congressional oversight.”5 Regarding the commission’s specific recommendation of

(name redacted) and Roger H. Davidson, Congress and Its Members, 9th ed. (Washington:

Congressional Quarterly Inc., 2004), pp. 194-195.

60 Stat. 812.

For a detailed history of House efforts since 1946, see CRS Report RL31835,

Reorganization of the House of Representatives: Modern Reform Efforts, by (nam

e redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Report: Final

Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

(Washington: GPO, July 22, 2004), pp. 399 et seq.

(Available online at

[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911], visited Feb. 11, 2005.)

Ibid., p. 420.

CRS-2

a single authorizing committee in each house for homeland security, the commission

explained its recommendation:

Through not more than one authorizing committee and one appropriating

subcommittee in each house, Congress should be able to ask the secretary of

homeland security whether he or she has the resources to provide reasonable

security against major terrorist acts within the United States and to hold the

secretary accountable for the department’s performance.6

The House studied committee organization related to homeland security policy

area in the 108th Congress and created a standing Committee on Homeland Security

in the 109th Congress.7

The commission spoke for efficiency and accountability in its recommendation.

The House in its choices over committee organization has demonstrated an interest

in a wider range of values, including in choosing the jurisdiction it vested in the new

Homeland Security Committee and the jurisdiction over homeland-security-related

issues it retained in existing committees.

The House is expected to further study its committee organization during the

109 Congress.8

Jurisdictional Approaches

House Rule X, clause 1 contains a jurisdictional statement for each standing

committee. Other clauses in this rule set out additional powers or duties of standing

committees. A separate clause governs the Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence. These jurisdictional statements employ for the most part subject-matter

terminology rather than law, program, or agency names.

Unity of Effort. The jurisdiction vested by Rule X in the Armed Services

Committee seems to reflect the kind of “unity of effort” in committee organization

that was sought by the 9/11 Commission. The Armed Services Committee has

jurisdiction over the “Department of Defense generally, including the Departments

of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, generally.” Other, more specific subject matter

is also listed in the committee’s jurisdictional statement.9 Creation of this committee

occurred by merger of the separate Military Affairs and Naval Affairs Committees,

pursuant to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, and preceded by one

Ibid., p. 421.

H.Res. 5, §2(a); H.Res. 5 was agreed to in the House Jan. 4, 2005.

U.S. House, Committee on Rules, Oversight Plan of the House Committee on Rules for

the 109th Congress. (Available online at [http://www.house.gov/rules/rules_over_109.htm],

visited Feb. 22, 2005.) See also Richard E. Cohen, “House Leadership: Rules Panel Eyes

More Active Role in Shaping Legislation,” CongressDaily PM, Jan. 25, 2005; and “Veteran

Rules Staffer to Retire Next Month,” CongressDaily AM, Jan. 26, 2005, p. 12.

House Rule X, cl. (1)(c).

CRS-3

Congress the creation of the National Military Establishment, later redesignated the

Department of Defense.10

However, due in part to dissatisfaction in the 1970s with the Armed Services

Committee’s and other committees’ conduct of intelligence oversight, the House

created what ultimately became the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and

gave it jurisdiction over the Central Intelligence Agency, “intelligence and

intelligence-related activities of all other departments and agencies of the

Government including the tactical intelligence and intelligence-related activities of

the Department of Defense,” organization or reorganization of an agency as it “relates

to a function or activity involving intelligence or intelligence-related activities,” and

similar subject matter.11 The House also provided the select committee with a

rotating membership that was partially drawn from specified committees, in addition

to designating the Speaker and minority leader as ex officio members (without voting

privileges). The House chose a committee organization that created a separate

committee, that was open to more Members, and that allowed Members with

differing policy perspectives to have a role in oversight of intelligence.12

More recently, since enactment of the Financial Services Modernization Act of

1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA),13 the House has concentrated

jurisdiction over financial services in the Financial Services Committee. In the 107th

Congress, the Banking and Financial Services Committee was renamed the Financial

Services Committee, and gained jurisdiction over insurance generally and over

securities and exchanges from the Energy and Commerce Committee. The changes

embodied in GLBA were propelled in part by changes in the financial services sector

that required a new regulatory framework to deal with technology, competition,

Jurisdiction over Defense Department appropriations remains split among several House

Appropriations Committee subcommittees.

As recently as the 108th Congress,

appropriations for the Defense Department were largely split among three appropriations

subcommittees: Defense, Energy and Water, and Military Construction. In the 109th

Congress, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Lewis announced a reorganization

of appropriations subcommittees. Jurisdiction over Defense Department appropriations is

still largely split among three subcommittees: Defense, Energy and Water, and Military

Quality of Life. See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, “Chairman Lewis

Major Reorganization of the House Appropriations Committee and Slate of Subcommittee

Chairmen,” news release, Feb. 9, 2005, at [http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?Fuse

Action=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=439], visited Feb. 22, 2005.

House Rule X, cl. 11(b)(1). The select committee was created pursuant to H.Res. 658,

agreed to in the House July 14, 1977.

“U.S. Intelligence Agencies Probed in 1975,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac 1975,

vol. XXXI (Washington: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1976), pp. 387-408; and

“Intelligence Committee,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac 1977, vol. XXXIII

(Washington: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1977), pp. 376-377.

The creation of the intelligence committee might be an example of the informational

model of committee organization. Under such a system, the differing perspectives of the

committee’s members allow the committee to develop policy recommendations to settle

policy disputes.

P.L. 106-102; 113 Stat. 1338.

CRS-4

globalization, and the breakdown in differences between types of financial

institutions.14 The new jurisdictional arrangement in the House reflected these

changes in the financial sector of the economy.

Sometimes jurisdictional overlaps can be worked out with an agreement

between the affected committees that recognizes important collateral policy areas.

That happened, for example, shortly after the House adopted the changes to the

Energy and Commerce and Financial Services Committees’ jurisdiction. The

changes were facilitated with a memorandum of understanding, which the Speaker

inserted in the Congressional Record. The memorandum protected the Energy and

Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction over “regulation and [Securities and Exchange

Commission] oversight of multistate public utility holding companies and their

subsidiaries, which remain essentially matters of energy policy,” while allowing the

transfer of jurisdiction over securities and exchanges to the Financial Services

Committee. The memorandum also protected the Energy and Commerce

Committee’s jurisdiction over “consumer affairs and consumer protection,” while

allowing the transfer of jurisdiction over insurance to the Financial Services

Committee. The memorandum also clarified other jurisdictional matters.15

In the 109th Congress, in creating a standing Committee on Homeland Security,

the House accepted the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, other outside

experts, and its own Select Committee on Homeland Security to centralize

jurisdiction over homeland security.16 The House had created the Select Committee

on Homeland Security in the 108th Congress with legislative and oversight authority

over the Homeland Security Act of 2002,17 and in addition charged it with studying

the “operation and implementation of the rules of the House, including rule X

[providing committees’ jurisdiction], with respect to the issue of homeland

security.”18 On September 30, 2004, the select committee recommended creation of

See CRS Report RL30375, Major Financial Services Legislation, The Gramm-LeachBliley Act (P.L. 106-102): An Overview, by F. Jean Wells and (name redacted); and CRS

Report RL30516, Mergers and Consolidation Between Banking and Financial Services

Firms: Trends and Prospects, by (name redacted).

Speaker Hastert, “Memorandum of Understanding between Energy and Commerce

Committee and Financial Services Committee,” remarks in the House, Congressional

Record, daily edition, vol. 147, Jan. 20, 2001, p. H67. This memorandum was updated in

the 109th Congress. See “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional

Record, daily edition, vol. 151, Jan. 4, 2005, p. H35.

For a detailed examination of the recommendations and of the events in the 107th and 108th

Congresses leading up to the creation in the 109th Congress of the standing Committee on

Homeland Security, see CRS Report RL32711, Homeland Security: Compendium of

Recommendations Relevant to House Committee Organization and Analysis of

Considerations for the House, by (name redacted).

P.L. 107-296; 116 Stat. 2135.

H.Res. 5 was agreed to in the House Jan. 7, 2003. The study of House rules was mandated

in §4(b)(3).

CRS-5

a standing homeland security committee and the curtailment of homeland-securityrelated jurisdiction in six existing standing committees.19

The House, however, did not go as far as its select committee recommended, but

retained homeland-security-related jurisdiction in a number of committees. In debate

over H.Res. 5 on January 4, 2005, providing for the adoption of the House’s rules for

the 109th Congress, Rules Committee Chairman Dreier inserted in the Congressional

Record a “legislative history” concerning the changes in Rule X to explain the

jurisdiction of the new committee vis-à-vis the existing standing committees and the

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.20

The legislative history first explained that the new committee’s legislative

jurisdiction over “overall homeland security policy” was to be interpreted “on a

government-wide or multi-agency basis similar to the Committee on Government

Reform’s jurisdiction over ‘overall economy, efficiency, and management of

government operations and activities....’” The legislative history stated further:

“Surgical addresses of homeland security policy in sundry areas of jurisdiction

occupied by other committees would not be referred to the Committee on Homeland

Security on the basis of ‘overall’ homeland security policy jurisdiction.”21

Second, the legislative history interpreted the new committee’s legislative

jurisdiction over DHS’s “organization and administration” to be “confined to

organizational and administrative efforts and would not apply to programmatic

efforts within the Department of Homeland Security within the jurisdiction of other

committees.”22

Third, the legislative history explained the new committee’s homeland security

oversight jurisdiction. The new committee would have oversight jurisdiction over

the “homeland security community of the United States.” However, as noted in the

legislative history, this jurisdiction would not necessarily circumscribe the oversight

jurisdiction of other committees:

Nothing in this clause shall be construed as prohibiting or otherwise restricting

the authority of any other committee to study and review homeland security

activities to the extent that such activity directly affects a matter otherwise within

the jurisdiction of that committee.23

House Select Committee on Homeland Security, Recommendations of the Select

Committee on Homeland Security on Changes to the Rules of the House of Representatives

with Respect to Homeland Security Issues, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., Sep. 30, 2004. (Available

online at [http://hsc.house.gov/files/mini_report_sigs.pdf], visited Feb. 11, 2005.)

“Legislative History to Accompany Changes to Rule X,” Congressional Record, daily

edition, vol. 151, Jan. 4, 2005, pp. H25-H26.

Ibid., p. H25.

CRS-6

Fourth, the legislative history interpreted the “individual committee concerns”

between the new committee on the one hand and nine standing committees and the

Intelligence Committee on the other. This section of the legislative history detailed

jurisdictional relationships covering a number of specific policy and programmatic

areas. In addition, in further explanation of the relationship between the new

committee and the Ways and Means Committee, the legislative history contained a

copy of the “Delegation from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Secretary of

Homeland Security of general authority over Customs revenue functions vested in

the Secretary of the Treasury as set forth in the Homeland Security Act of 2002.”24

In addition, in the Speaker’s announcements on policies in the 109th Congress,

the Speaker stated that “referrals of measures to the Select Committee on Homeland

Security of the 108th Congress will not constitute precedent for referrals to the new

[standing Committee on Homeland Security].”25

In remarks to the House, Chairman Dreier commented on the jurisdictional

arrangements over homeland security affecting the House’s standing committees:

... This change in House rule X, which governs the committees and their

legislative jurisdictions, is a delicately crafted architecture. It creates a primary

committee while recognizing the other legitimate oversight roles of existing

committees. We envision a system of purposeful redundancy. By that, we mean

more than one level of oversight and an atmosphere in which the competition of

ideas is encouraged.

With this jurisdiction and the legislative history that I [have placed] in the

Record, the Department of Homeland Security will have more certainty as to

which committee has the primary responsibility for homeland security. At the

same time, the American people will live with the assurance that we are working

to prevent anything from falling through the cracks.26

The Committee on Homeland Security was the first standing committee of the

House to be created since the Committee on the Budget in 1974, and the first

permanent committee to be created since the Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence in 1977.

Differing Policy Perspectives. An example of the House choosing

openness and differing policy perspectives over jurisdictional clarity was its abolition

of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (JCAE). The joint committee, created in

law in the Atomic Energy Act of 1946,27 presided over the development of nuclear

weaponry and the commercialization of nuclear energy. By the 1970s, public health

and environmental concerns were part of the policy debate over nuclear energy’s

Ibid., pp. H25-H26.

“Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.

151, Jan. 4, 2005, p. H35.

Rep. David Dreier, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151,

Jan. 4, 2005, p. H14.

60 Stat. 755.

CRS-7

future, and the joint committee was criticized for its closeness to the nuclear power

industry. The jurisdiction and influence of the joint committee eroded, until the

House abolished it in 1977, dispersing its jurisdiction to several committees.28

Issues can often be looked at from more than one jurisdictional perspective, and

the House has sometimes chosen to grant jurisdiction over an issue to a committee

with a specific rather than a general interest. For example, the Education and the

Workforce Committee has jurisdiction over “education or labor generally,”29 but

jurisdiction over the education of veterans is vested in the Veterans’ Affairs

Committee, over mining schools in the Resources Committee, over international

education in the International Relations Committee, and over agricultural colleges in

the Agriculture Committee.30 Jurisdiction over the federal civil service is vested in

the Government Reform Committee, and over transportation labor in the

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.31 Although the Government Reform

Committee has jurisdiction over the federal civil service, the Armed Services

Committee has jurisdiction over “pay, promotion, retirement, and other benefits and

privileges of members of the armed forces.”32

In a similar vein, the House in some instances has not chosen to consolidate

arguably related issues under the jurisdiction of one or even two committees. For

example, while the International Relations Committee holds jurisdiction over

“relations of the United States with foreign nations generally,” the Ways and Means

Committee has jurisdiction over the international relations issue of trade and the

Financial Services Committee over the issue of international financial and monetary

organizations.33 Programs administered by the Environmental Protection Agency are

principally within the jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Energy and Commerce,

Resources, Science, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Ways and Means

Committees,34 in addition to the agency’s discretionary spending being within the

jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee and its personnel and procurement

being covered by laws within the jurisdiction of the Government Reform Committee,

See CRS Report RL32538, 9/11 Commission Recommendations: Joint Committee on

Atomic Energy — A Model for Congressional Oversight?, by (name redacted); and

“Atomic Energy Committee,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac 1977, vol. XXXIII

(Washington: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1977), pp. 660-661.

The JCAE case might be an example of both the distributional and informational

models of committee organization and what can happen. Under a distributional system, selfselection leads to committees that are homogeneous compared to the larger, more

heterogeneous parent chamber. The chamber majority might reject or amend a committee’s

policy recommendations, or it might ultimately disband the committee.

House Rule X, cl. 1(e)(6).

House Rule X, cl. 1(s)(3), cl. 1(m)(14), cl. 1(k)(8), and cl. 1(a)(4), respectively.

House Rule X, cl. 1(h)(1) and cl. 1(r)(20), respectively.

House Rule X, cl. 1(c)(10).

House Rule X, cl. 1(k)(1), cl. 1(t)(2), and cl. 1(g)(6), respectively.

House Rule X, cl. 1(a), cl. 1(f), cl. 1(m), cl. 1(o), cl. 1(r), and cl. 1(t), respectively.

CRS-8

recognizing the different expertise and competing interests at stake in environmental

regulation.

Temporary Committees and Permanent Realignments

Yet other considerations have led to different responses by the House in

creating, dissolving, and realigning committees. These responses have been tailored

to particular legislative situations or have resolved more long-standing concerns.

Temporary Committees. When jurisdiction over an important issue has

spanned the jurisdictions of several or many committees, the House has sometimes

created temporary committees, with temporary, specific jurisdiction, to handle a

specific piece of legislation. One example of this kind of committee, where the

legislation reported became law, was the Select Committee on the Outer Continental

Shelf, which was created to write a new offshore leasing law.35 The committee’s

work resulted in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978.36

In the 107th Congress, the President’s proposal to create the Department of

Homeland Security was referred “in addition” to a number of standing committees

with jurisdiction, with primary referral to the Select Committee on Homeland

Security, which the House created to “develop recommendations and report to the

House on such matters that relate to the establishment of a department of homeland

security as may be referred to it by the Speaker.” The Speaker was authorized to set

a time limit for each standing committee to “submit its recommendations on the bill

only to the select committee.”37 The select committee’s work resulted in the

Homeland Security Act of 2002.38

The House created a new Select Committee on Homeland Security for the

duration of the 108th Congress, and vested it with the following jurisdiction:

(1) LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION — The select committee may develop

recommendations and report to the House by bill or otherwise on such matters

that relate to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) as may

be referred to it by the Speaker.

(2) OVERSIGHT FUNCTION — The select committee shall review and study

on a continuing basis laws, programs, and Government activities relating to

homeland security.39

Created pursuant to H.Res. 412, agreed to in the House Apr. 22, 1975. The committee’s

existence was extended in the 95th and 96th Congresses; it was disbanded in 1980.

P.L. 95-372; 92 Stat. 629.

Created pursuant to H.Res. 449, agreed to in the House June 19, 2002. The Speaker is

authorized to appoint members and refer legislation to a “special, ad hoc” committee with

the approval of the House, pursuant to House Rule XII, cl. 2(c)(4).

P.L. 107-206; 116 Stat. 2135.

Section 4(b)(1) and (2) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House Jan. 7, 2003. During debate

(continued...)

CRS-9

The jurisdiction of the select committee provided the House with a focus for

homeland security legislation and oversight, without immediately changing the

jurisdictions of the standing committees that held jurisdiction over aspects of

homeland security.

As mentioned earlier, the House also assigned the select committee the

additional function of assisting the House in determining how it might organize itself

vis-à-vis the issue of homeland security in the future.40

Realigning Committees. The House on occasion has chosen to reduce the

number of its committees by eliminating those perceived to have a narrow or

redundant jurisdiction and by transferring that jurisdiction to other committees. For

example, with the beginning of the 104th Congress, the House terminated the District

of Columbia and Post Office and Civil Service Committees, and added their

jurisdiction to that of the Government Reform Committee. It also eliminated the

Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, and distributed its jurisdiction among the

Armed Services, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Resources Committees.41

Previously, in the 103rd Congress, the House eliminated four select committees

(having no legislative jurisdiction): Aging; Children, Youth, and Families; Hunger;

and Narcotics Abuse and Control.42

The House has also chosen to redistribute a committee’s jurisdiction when it has

perceived that the jurisdiction is too broad, that components of the jurisdiction are

closely related to the jurisdiction of other committees, or that a redistribution of

jurisdiction would better distribute House committees’ workload. For example, in

adopting rules for the new 104th Congress, the House redistributed some of the

jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee: the Glass-Steagall Act to what

is now the Financial Services Committee; inland waterways and railroads to the

(...continued)

on the rules changes proposed to the House, Rep. Oberstar, the ranking member of the

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, observed: “Mr. Speaker, the proposal

to create a new Select Committee on Homeland Security interestingly does not make any

changes in the legislative jurisdiction of the committees outlined in rule 10 of the rules of

the House.” He ended his remarks by asking a question of House Rules Chairman Dreier

about referral in the 108th Congress of a bill covering subject matter that, in the 107th

Congress, had been reported by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Chairman

Dreier responded: “Mr. Speaker, let me just say that it is very clear that the Speaker does

have authority to refer legislation, and it is his intent to ensure that we maintain the

jurisdiction of those committees.” Rep. James L. Oberstar and Rep. David Dreier, remarks

in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149, Jan. 7, 2003, p. H15.

Section 4(b)(3) of H.Res. 5.

H.Res. 6, agreed to in the House Jan. 5, 1995.

Permanent authority for the Select Committee on Aging was terminated by H.Res. 5,

agreed to in the House Jan. 5, 1993. The temporary authorities for the other three select

committees were not renewed.

CRS-10

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; and the trans-Alaska pipeline to the

Resources Committee.43

On the other hand, the Energy and Commerce Committee was the beneficiary

of changes to its jurisdiction in 1980 when the House agreed to a resolution based in

part on recommendations made by the Patterson Committee. Three years after the

creation of the Energy Department, the House redesignated the Interstate and Foreign

Commerce Committee as the Energy and Commerce Committee and gave it

jurisdiction over national energy policy generally and over many components of

energy policy.44 In this instance, the House chose to affirm and to a degree expand

the jurisdiction of an existing committee.

In creating the Committee on Homeland Security in the 109th Congress, the

House granted the committee jurisdiction over homeland security policy, the

organization and administration of DHS, and six functional areas of DHS

responsibility: “border and port security (except immigration policy and non-border

enforcement)”; “customs (except customs revenue)”; “integration, analysis, and

dissemination of homeland security information”; “domestic preparedness for and

collective response to terrorism”; “research and development”; and “transportation

security.” In order to effect the committee’s jurisdiction in these functional areas, the

House amended the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee with regard to

immigration and enforcement, that of the Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee with regard to transportation security, and that of the Ways and Means

Committee with regard to customs.45

Section 202 of H.Res. 6, agreed to in the House Jan. 7, 2003. Committees might also

reorganize their subcommittees for similar purposes. For example, on Jan. 29, 2003, House

Appropriations Committee Chairman Young announced the creation of the Homeland

Security Subcommittee to correspond to the new Department of Homeland Security. The

jurisdictions of the other subcommittees were realigned in order to retain 13 appropriations

subcommittees, including the new subcommittee. See U.S. Congress, House Committee on

Appropriations, “Chairman Young Announces Homeland Security Reorganization,” news

release, Jan. 29, 2003, at [http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Press

Releases.Detail&PressRelease_id=210&Month=1&Year=2003], visited Dec. 21, 2004. On

Feb. 9, 2005, the new House Appropriations Committee chairman, Jerry Lewis, announced

the committee’s further reorganization, reducing the 13 subcommittees to 10 in number and

realigning subcommittee jurisdictions. See U.S. Congress, House Committee on

Appropriations, “Chairman Lewis Major Reorganization of the House Appropriations

Committee and Slate of Subcommittee Chairmen,” news release, Feb. 9, 2005, at

[http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRele

ase_id=439], visited Feb. 22, 2005.

H.Res. 549, agreed to in the House Mar. 25, 1980. The House created the Select

Committee on Committees by agreeing to H.Res. 118 on Mar. 20, 1979. The select

committee took its popular name from its chair, Rep. Jerry Patterson.

H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House Jan. 4, 2005.

CRS-11

Referral

Jurisdiction and the referral of legislation are closely related, and the House has

resolved some jurisdictional questions with rules on referral. The cornerstone of the

House’s referral system is a directive to the Speaker, who refers legislation in the

House. The Speaker is to refer legislation so as to —

... ensure to the maximum extent feasible that each committee that has

jurisdiction under clause 1 of rule X [the clause and rule spelling out each

committee’s jurisdiction] over the subject matter of a provision thereof [of a

measure to be referred] may consider such provision and report to the House

thereon.46

Making legislative policy in the House, therefore, often requires the referral of

legislation to more than one committee.

Primary Committees. To deal with the situation of several committees

having a jurisdictional claim to a measure, the House at the beginning of the 104th

Congress directed the Speaker to designate a “primary” committee in referring

measures and to designate other committees to receive referral in addition, or

sequentially.47 A committee receiving the referral sequentially usually does so for the

consideration of only those provisions within its jurisdiction.

In the 108th Congress, the Speaker was given discretion not to designate a

primary committee when he “determines that extraordinary circumstances justify

review by more than one committee as though primary.”48 The Speaker also has

other referral options in order to allow each committee with a jurisdictional claim to

have an opportunity to review a piece of legislation, and he may set “appropriate time

limitations” on a referral.49

So, for example, in referring legislation that ultimately resulted in enactment of

the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998,50 the Speaker designated the

International Relations Committee as the primary committee since the bill dealt

primarily with relations between the United States and other nations.

Although, when enacted, the bill would largely add to the foreign-policy work

of the State Department, the scope of legislative policy contained in the bill as

introduced was broader than the legislative jurisdiction of the International Relations

House Rule XII, cl. 2(b). See Sec. 101 of H.Res. 988, agreed to in the House Oct. 8, 1974.

House Rule XII, cl. 2(c)(1). See Sec. 205 of H.Res. 6, agreed to in the House Jan. 4, 1995.

Before this change, the House allowed the Speaker to make a joint referral of a measure to

two or more committees for concurrent consideration; other forms of referral were also

allowed and are generally in effect today. See Sec. 101 of H.Res. 988, agreed to in the

House Oct. 8, 1974. Previously, the Speaker referred a measure to just one committee.

House Rule XII, cl. 2(c)(1). See Sec. 2(i) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House Jan. 7, 2003.

House Rule XII, cl. 2(c).

H.R. 2431; P.L. 105-292; 112 Stat. 2787.

CRS-12

Committee. The measure also contained trade sanctions and was referred “in

addition” to the Ways and Means Committee, which had jurisdiction over trade. The

Judiciary Committee had jurisdiction over immigration, so the measure was referred

“in addition” to it since the bill contained immigration provisions. The bill contained

export controls, thereby triggering the jurisdiction of what is now the Financial

Services Committee, to which it was also referred “in addition.” Finally, the measure

contained a provision that established a legislative procedure to approve a future

international agreement on religious persecution in Sudan; this process was within

the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee, to which the measure was referred “in

addition.” With regard to the sequential referral, the Speaker set time limits for the

committees to act.

Special Jurisdictional Protections. House rules and precedents on referral

and related procedures uniquely protect the jurisdictions of the Appropriations and

Ways and Means Committees. Appropriations bills are drafted in or referred to the

Appropriations Committee, and measures reported from other committees that

contain new entitlement authority are referred to the Appropriations Committee.51

Tax measures are drafted in or referred to the Ways and Means Committee, and a

measure that contains a tax provision is referred to the Ways and Means

Committee.52 In addition, committees other than the Appropriations Committee are

proscribed from reporting a measure “carrying an appropriation,” and appropriations

amendments to measures reported by a committee other than the Appropriations

Committee are not in order. A point of order would lie against either form of

violation.53 Likewise, committees other than the Ways and Means Committee are

proscribed from reporting a measure “carrying a tax or tariff measure,” and such

amendments to measures reported by a committee other than the Ways and Means

Committee are not in order. A point of order would lie against either form of

violation.54

An example of the tax jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee was

demonstrated by the Transportation Equity Act, H.R. 3550 in the 108th Congress,

which would fund highways, highway safety, mass transit, and other transportation

programs. Funding for these programs comes from the Highway Trust Fund, which

is supported by gasoline and other taxes. While H.R. 3550 was referred to the

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and other committees to handle its

provisions, the Ways and Means Committee acted separately on the extension of the

Highway Trust Fund and changes to the taxes supporting it.55

Oversight Jurisdiction. Finally, in its rules, the House has also

distinguished between legislative and oversight jurisdiction. Several committees

House Rule X, cl. 1(b).

House Rule X., cl. 1(t).

House Rule XXI, cl. 4.

House Rule XXI, cl. 5.

Isaiah J. Poole, “House Panel Approves Pared-Down Bill for Highways and Transit

Projects,” CQ Weekly, vol. 62, no. 13, Mar. 27, 2004, pp. 747-748. The House passed H.R.

3550 Apr. 2, 2004.

CRS-13

have oversight jurisdiction that allows them to look at the broader policy area that

contains their legislative jurisdiction. The Energy and Commerce Committee, for

example, “shall review and study on a continuing basis laws, programs, and

Government activities relating to nuclear and other energy and nonmilitary nuclear

energy research and development including the disposal of nuclear waste.”56 This

oversight jurisdiction was added in two stages, first, in relation to nuclear energy, in

1977 when the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy was dissolved, and second, in

relation to all energy, in 1980 when the House realigned committee jurisdiction over

energy.

Other examples of “special oversight functions” in Rule X include —

“domestic educational programs and institutions and programs of

student assistance within the jurisdiction of other committees,”

within the oversight jurisdiction of the Education and the Workforce

Committee;57

“operation of Government activities at all levels with a view to

determining their economy and efficiency,” within the oversight

jurisdiction of the Government Reform Committee;58 and

“customs administration, intelligence activities relating to foreign

policy, international financial and monetary organizations, and

international fishing agreements,” within the oversight jurisdiction

of the International Relations Committee.59

In creating the Committee on Homeland Security in the 109th Congress, the

House also granted it “special oversight functions,” as follows:

The Committee on Homeland Security shall review and study on a continuing

basis all Government activities relating to homeland security, including the

interaction of all departments and agencies with the Department Homeland

Security.60

The House has also created purely oversight committees, with no legislative

jurisdiction, when it has wished to supplement the work done in one or more

committees, or when it has perceived a lack of coordination or integration of

committees’ work in a policy area. Such committees are often directed to report

findings to legislative committees. For example, in 1974, the House created a

permanent Select Committee on Aging to conduct oversight of problems of and

programs for senior citizens. The creation of the committee had been a

House Rule X, cl. 3(c).

House Rule X, cl. 3(d).

House Rule X, cl. 3(e).

House Rule X, cl. 3(g).

House Rule X, cl. 3(f).

CRS-14

recommendation extending from the 1971 White House Conference on Aging. The

committee was abolished in 1993, as mentioned earlier.61

More recently, the House created the temporary Select Committee on U.S.

National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns With the People’s Republic of

China to investigate the transfer of technology and other information and products

that contributed to enhancement of China’s military capabilities.62

Joint Committees

The House and Senate have periodically created joint committees to study

particular matters. Some, such as the Joint Economic Committee, were created

permanently in law for a continuing purpose.63 Others were created temporarily by

resolution to study and make recommendations on a single matter. For example, the

Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress was to study the organization and

operation of Congress and recommend improvements “with a view toward

strengthening [Congress’s] effectiveness....”64 Other joint activities have been

undertaken, such as at the initiative of House and Senate committees. For example,

the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select

Committee on Intelligence conducted a “joint inquiry” into the “activities of the U.S.

Intelligence Community in connection with the terrorist attacks perpetrated against

our nation on September 11, 2001.”65

Finally, as mentioned earlier, Congress created the Joint Committee on Atomic

Energy in the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, and vested it with exclusive legislative

jurisdiction. While there are examples of temporary joint committees with legislative

jurisdiction, the JCAE was unique among joint committees in that it was a permanent

committee with such jurisdiction. As already mentioned, the House abolished the

committee in 1977, dispersing its jurisdiction.66

Conclusion

In the years since enactment of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the

House has made many choices on its committee organization, including choosing not

The select committee was created in H.Res. 988, agreed to in the House Oct. 8, 1974. The

committee was terminated in H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House Jan. 5, 1993.

Created pursuant to H.Res. 463, which was agreed to by the House June 18, 1998.

The joint committee was created in the Employment Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 23, 25-26).

H.Con.Res. 192, on which final action occurred in the House Aug. 6, 1992. The

committee’s authorization ended Dec. 31, 1993.

U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and House Permanent Select

Committee on Intelligence, Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and

after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, report, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 107792 (Washington: GPO, Dec. 2002), p. 1.

See CRS Report RL32538, 9/11 Commission Recommendations: Joint Committee on

Atomic Energy — A Model for Congressional Oversight?, by (name redacted).

CRS-15

to undertake wide-ranging reorganizations in 1974 and 1994. Most change has been

incremental, but the House has made clear decisions on a number of occasions to

expand, contract, or reaffirm the jurisdiction of various committees, and to create or

terminate committees. Through changes to the referral system, the House has added

to its flexibility in resolving jurisdictional questions. The House has also

distinguished between legislative and oversight jurisdiction, again adding to its

flexibility in resolving jurisdictional questions

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.