the importance of committee assignments

6c. The Importance of Committees

Bills begin and end their lives in committees , whether they are passed into law or not. Hearings from interest groups and agency bureaucrats are held at the committee and subcommittee level, and committee members play key roles in floor debate about the bills that they foster.

Committees help to organize the most important work of Congress — considering, shaping, and passing laws to govern the nation. 8,000 or so bills go to committee annually. Fewer than 10% of those bills make it out for consideration on the floor.

Types of Committees

There are four types of congressional committees:

Committee Assignments

After each congressional election , political parties assign newly elected Representatives and Senators to standing committees. They consider a member's own wishes in making the assignments, but they also assess the needs of the committees, in terms of region of the country, personalities, and party connections.

Since the House has 435 members, most Representatives only serve on one or two committees. On the other hand, Senators often serve on several committees and subcommittees . Committee assignment is one of the most important decisions for a new member's future work in Congress. Usually, members seek appointment on committees that will allow them to serve their districts or state the most directly. However, a members from a "safe" district — where his or her reelection is not in jeopardy — and who wants to be a leader in Congress, may want to be named to a powerful committee, such as Foreign Relations, Judiciary, or the House Ways and Means . There they are more likely to come into contact with current leaders and perhaps even gain some media attention.

Standing Committees of Congress (as of 2021)

Report broken link

If you like our content, please share it on social media!

Copyright ©2008-2022 ushistory.org , owned by the Independence Hall Association in Philadelphia, founded 1942.

THE TEXT ON THIS PAGE IS NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN AND HAS NOT BEEN SHARED VIA A CC LICENCE. UNAUTHORIZED REPUBLICATION IS A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION Content Usage Permissions

• Lesson Plans
• Teacher's Guides
• Media Resources

Congressional Committees and the Legislative Process

U.S. Capitol dome.

Library of Congress

This lesson plan introduces students to the pivotal role that Congressional committees play in the legislative process, focusing on how their own Congressional representatives influence legislation through their committee appointments. Students begin by reviewing the stages of the legislative process, then learn how committees and subcommittees help determine the outcome of this process by deciding which bills the full Congress will consider and by shaping the legislation upon which votes are finally cast. With this background, students research the committee and subcommittee assignments of their Congressional representatives, then divide into small groups to prepare class reports on the jurisdictions of these different committees and their representatives' special responsibilities on each one. Finally, students consider why representation on these specific committees might be important to the people of their state or community, and examine how the committee system reflects some of the basic principles of American federalism.

Guiding Questions

What role do Committees play during the legislative process?

How is Committee membership determined?

What role do Committees play with regard to oversight and checks and balances?

Learning Objectives

Analyze the legislative process of the United States Congress by focusing on the role of Committees. 

Evaluate how Congressional representatives can influence legislation through their specific committee assignments.

Evaluate how Committees uphold the Constitutional responsibilities of the Legislative Branch. 

Lesson Plan Details

NCSS.D2.His.1.9-12. Evaluate how historical events and developments were shaped by unique circumstances of time and place as well as broader historical contexts.

NCSS.D2.His.2.9-12. Analyze change and continuity in historical eras.

NCSS.D2.His.3.9-12. Use questions generated about individuals and groups to assess how the significance of their actions changes over time and is shaped by the historical context.

NCSS.D2.His.12.9-12. Use questions generated about multiple historical sources to pursue further inquiry and investigate additional sources.

NCSS.D2.His.14.9-12. Analyze multiple and complex causes and effects of events in the past.

NCSS.D2.His.15.9-12. Distinguish between long-term causes and triggering events in developing a historical argument.

NCSS.D2.His.16.9-12. Integrate evidence from multiple relevant historical sources and interpretations into a reasoned argument about the past.

Begin this lesson by guiding students through the basic process by which a bill becomes law in the United States Congress. The Schoolhouse Rock cartoon "I'm Just a Bill" below provides a look at the process and can be accompanied by a flow-chart diagram of this process.

A detailed explanation of the legislative process is available through EDSITEment at the CongressLink website. At the website homepage, click "Table of Contents" in the lefthand menu, then look under the heading, "Know Your Congress" for the link to How Our Laws Are Made , which describes lawmaking from the House of Representatives' point of view.

For a corresponding description from the Senate's perspective, look under the "Know Your Congress" heading for the link to "Information about Congress," then select "... The Legislative Process," and click " ... Enactment of a Law ." CongressLink also provides access to a more succinct account of the legislative process: on the "Table of Contents" page, scroll down and click "Related Web Sites," then scroll down again and click THOMAS , a congressional information website maintained by the Library of Congress. Click "About the U.S. Congress" and select "About the U.S. Congress" from the list that follows for a chapter from the U.S. Government Manual that includes this outline of the process:

• When a bill ... is introduced in the House, [it is assigned] to the House committee having jurisdiction.
• If favorably considered, it is reported to the House either in its original form or with recommended amendments.
• If ... passed by the House, it is messaged to the Senate and referred to the committee having jurisdiction.
• In the Senate committee the bill, if favorably considered, may be reported in the form it is received from the House, or with recommended amendments.
• The approved bill ... is reported to the Senate and, if passed by that body, returned to the House.
• If one body does not accept the amendments to a bill by the other body, a conference committee comprised of Members of both bodies is usually appointed to effect a compromise.
• When the bill ... is finally approved by both Houses, it is signed by the Speaker ... and the Vice President ... and is presented to the President.
• Once the President's signature is affixed, the measure becomes a law. If the President vetoes the bill, it cannot become law unless it is re-passed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses.

Point out to students the important role that Congressional committees play in this process. Public attention usually focuses on the debate over legislation that occurs on the floor of the House and Senate, but in order for a bill to reach the floor on either side, it must first be approved by a committee, which can also amend the bill to reflect its views on the underlying issue. Congressional committees, in other words, largely control the legislative process by deciding which bills come to a vote and by framing the language of each bill before it is debated.

Provide students with background on the organization and operation of Congressional committees, using resources available through the U.S. Congress  website. A schedule of Congressional committee hearings can be used to identify topics currently under consideration. 

• Although committees are not mentioned in the Constitution, Congress has used committees to manage its business since its first meetings in 1789.
• Committees enable Congress to divide responsibility for its many tasks, including legislation, oversight, and internal administration, and thereby cope effectively with the great number and complexity of the issues placed before it.
• There are today approximately 200 Congressional committees and subcommittees in the House and Senate, each of which is responsible for considering all matters that fall within its jurisdiction.
• Congress has three types of committees: (1) Standing Committees are permanent panels with jurisdiction over broad policy areas (e.g., Agriculture, Foreign Relations) or areas of continuing legislative concern (e.g., Appropriations, Rules); (2) Select Committees are temporary or permanent panels created to consider a specific issue that lies outside the jurisdiction of other committees or that demands special attention (e.g., campaign contributions); (3) Joint Committees are panels formed by the House and Senate together, usually to investigate some common concern rather than to consider legislation, although joint committees known as Conference Committees are formed to resolve differences between House and Senate versions of a specific measure.
• Many committees divide their work among subcommittees, upon which a limited number of the committee members serve. Subcommittees are responsible for specific areas within the committee's jurisdiction and report their work on a bill to the full committee, which must approve it before reporting the bill to its branch of Congress.
• Party leaders determine the size of each committee, which average about 40 members in the House and about 18 members in the Senate, and determine the proportion of majority and minority committee members. The majority party always has more seats on a committee and one of its members chairs the committee. Each party also determines committee assignments for its members, observing rules that have been adopted to limit the number and type of committees and subcommittees upon which one member can serve.
• Each committee's chairperson has authority over its operation. He or she usually sets the committee's agenda, decides when to take or delay action, presides at most committee meetings, and controls the committee's operating budget. Subcommittee chairpersons exercise similar authority over their smaller panels, subject to approval by the committee chair.
• The work of Congressional committees begins when a bill that has been introduced to the House or Senate is referred to the committee for consideration. Most committees take up only a small percentage of the bills referred to them; those upon which the committee takes no action are said to "die in committee." The committee's first step in considering a bill is usually to ask for written comment by the executive agency that will be responsible for administering it should it become law. Next, the committee will usually hold hearings to gather opinions from outside experts and concerned citizens. If the committee decides to move forward with the bill, it will meet to frame and amend the measure through a process called markup. Finally, when the committee has voted to approve the bill, it will report the measure to its branch of Congress, usually with a written report explaining why the measure should be passed.
• Once a bill comes to the floor of the House or Senate, the committee that reported it is usually responsible for guiding it through debate and securing its passage. This can involve working out parliamentary strategies, responding to questions raised by colleagues, and building coalitions of support. Likewise, if the House and Senate pass different versions of a bill, the committees that reported each version will take the lead in working out a compromise through a conference committee.

Activity 1. Research the committees and subcommittees

Begin by viewing the Library of Congress video on Congressional Committees . Have students research the committees and subcommittees upon which their Congressional representatives serve, using library resources or the resources available through the U.S. Congress  website.

• To help students find out who your Congressional representatives are, use the U.S. Congress  website to search by state.
• Click on the name of each representative for a profile, including a photograph, which lists the representative's committee assignments.
• The U.S. Congress  website page provides information pertaining to sponsored and cosponsored legislation, member websites, and allows users to track legislation.
• To find out which committees and subcommittees a representative serves on, use the U.S. Congress Committee Reports page .
• For an overview of Congressional committees and their jurisdictions, use the  U.S. Congress Committee Reports page .

Congressional Committee Activity:

Divide the class into small groups and have each group prepare a report on one of the committees (or subcommittees) upon which one of your Congressional representatives serves, including the size of the committee, its jurisdiction, and whether your representative has a leadership post on the committee. Encourage students to include as well information about legislation currently before the committee. They can find this information using library resources or through the  U.S. Congress Committee Reports page . 

After students present their reports, discuss how committee assignments can affect a Congressional representative's ability to effectively represent his or her constituents.

• Do your representatives have seats on committees with jurisdiction over issues that have special importance for your state or community? If so, how might their presence on these committees help assure that Congress takes action on questions of local interest?
• Do your representatives have seats on committees with jurisdiction over important legislative activities, such as budget-making or appropriations? If so, how might their presence on these powerful committees help assure that your community's views receive careful Congressional consideration?

After exploring these questions, have students debate the extent to which a Congressional representative's committee vote may be more influential than his or her vote on the floor of the House or Senate. Which vote has more impact on legislation? In this regard, have students consider President Woodrow Wilson's observation that "Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in its committee-rooms is Congress at work."

Activity 2. How do Congressional committees reflects some of the fundamental principles of federalism?

Conclude by having students consider how the structure and function of Congressional committees reflects some of the fundamental principles of federalism. For a broad discussion of federalism, have students read The Federalist No. 39 , in which James Madison highlights the Constitution's provisions for a federal, as distinguished from a national, form of government.

Have students imagine, for example, that they are members of a Congressional committee that is considering a bill with special importance for the people of your community.

• How would they balance their responsibilities to their constituents with their responsibilities to the nation as a whole?
• To what extent is this a question each Congressional representative must answer individually?
• To what extent is it a question that the mechanisms of our government answer through the legislative process?

Related on EDSITEment

Commemorating constitution day, a day for the constitution, balancing three branches at once: our system of checks and balances.

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Aims and Scope
• About The Hansard Society
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

• < Previous

Committee Assignments: Theories, Causes and Consequences

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Shane Martin, Tim A Mickler, Committee Assignments: Theories, Causes and Consequences, Parliamentary Affairs , Volume 72, Issue 1, January 2019, Pages 77–98, https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsy015

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Conventional wisdom suggests that a strong legislature is built on a strong internal committee system, both in terms of committee powers and the willingness of members to engage in committee work. Committee assignments are the behavioural manifestation of legislative organisation. Despite this, much remains unknown about how committee assignments happen and with what causes and consequences. Our focus in this article is on providing the context for, and introducing new research on, what we call the political economy of committee assignments —which members get selected to sit on which committees, why and with what consequences.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• About Parliamentary Affairs
• Contact the Hansard Society
• Despatch Box
• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1460-2482
• Print ISSN 0031-2290
• Copyright © 2024 Hansard Society
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• < Previous

Home > Academic Units > Behavioral and Social Sciences > Political Science and International Studies > Pol Sci- Int Studies Fac Pubs > 368

Department of Political Science and International Studies Faculty Publications

Committee assignments in the u. s. senate.

James W. Endersby , University of Missouri Karen M. McCurdy , Georgia Southern University Follow

Document Type

Publication date, publication title.

Legislative Studies Quarterly

10.2307/440180

Because fundamental control over the legislative process occurs not on the floor but in standing committees, and because assignment to important standing committees increases members' power to control the legislative agenda, congressional committee assignments are important in determining the political and electoral success of incumbents. Changing membership patterns of committees over time provide some clues on the importance of seats on the committees. Using data on committee membership for the U.S. Senate for congresses from World War II to the 103d Congress, we measure the relative value of seats on Senate committees. We assume that senators who transfer from one committee to another are increasing their political and electoral capital. Two different measures developed by Bullock and Sprague and Munger are employed to create an ordering of Senate committee membership prestige. Committee assignment allocation processes in the House of Representatives and the Senate produce similar, expected rankings of legislator preferences among seats on standing committees.

Recommended Citation

Endersby, James W., Karen M. McCurdy. 1996. "Committee Assignments in the U. S. Senate." Legislative Studies Quarterly , 21 (2): 219-233: Washington University. doi: 10.2307/440180 https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/poli-sci-facpubs/368

Legislative Studies Quarterly © 1996 Washington University

Since April 14, 2021

Search GS Commons

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS

Browse GS Commons

• Collections
• Disciplines
• SelectedWorks Profiles

About GS Commons

• Department of Political Science & International Studies

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

The Effects of the Seniority System on How Congress Works

How Power Is Amassed in Congress

• History & Major Milestones
• U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights
• U.S. Legal System
• U.S. Political System
• Defense & Security
• Campaigns & Elections
• Business & Finance
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government
• M.S., Agricultural Economics, Virginia Tech
• B.A., Journalism, University of Georgia

The term "seniority system" is used to describe the practice of granting special perks and privileges to members of the  U.S. Senate  and  House of Representatives  who have served the longest. The seniority system has been the target of numerous reform initiatives over the years, all of which have failed to prevent the most senior members of Congress from amassing tremendous power.

Senior Member Privileges

Members with seniority are allowed to choose their own offices and committee assignments. The latter is one of the most important privileges a member of Congress can earn because committees are where most of the important legislative work actually happens , not on the floor of the House and Senate.

Members with a longer term of service on a committee are also assumed to be senior, and therefore they have more power within the committee. Seniority is also usually, but not always, considered when each party awards committee chairmanships, the most powerful position on a committee.

History of the Seniority System

The seniority system in Congress dates back to 1911 and a revolt against House Speaker Joseph Cannon, writes Robert E. Dewhirst in his "Encyclopedia of the United States Congress." A seniority system of sorts was already in place, but Cannon nonetheless wielded tremendous power, controlling nearly every aspect governing which bills would be introduced in the House.

Leading a reform coalition of 42 fellow Republicans, Nebraska representative George Norris introduced a resolution that would remove the Speaker from the Rules Committee, effectively stripping him of all power. Once adopted, the seniority system allowed members of the House to advance and win committee assignments even if the leadership of their party opposed them.

Effects of the Seniority System

Congress members favor the seniority system because it is seen as a nonpartisan method for selecting committee chairmen, as opposed to a system that employs patronage, cronyism, and favoritism. “It is not that Congress loves seniority more,” a former House member from Arizona, Stewart Udall, once said, “but the alternatives less.”

The seniority system enhances the power of the committee chairs (limited to six years since 1995) because they are no longer beholden to the interests of party leaders. Because of the nature of the terms of office, seniority is more important in the Senate (where the terms are for six years), than in the House of Representatives (where the terms are for only two years).

Some of the most powerful leadership positions—speaker of the House and majority leader—are elected positions and therefore somewhat immune to the seniority system.

Seniority also refers to a legislator's social standing in Washington, D.C. The longer a member has served, the better his office location and the more likely he or she will be invited to important parties and other get-togethers. Since  there are no term limits for members of Congress , this means members with seniority can, and do, amass great amounts of power and influence.

Criticism of the Seniority System

Opponents of the seniority system in Congress say it gives advantage to lawmakers from so-called “safe” districts (in which voters overwhelmingly support one political party or the other) and doesn’t necessarily guarantee that the most qualified person will be chair. All it would take to end the seniority system in the Senate, for instance, is a simple majority vote to amend its Rules. Then again, the chances of any member of Congress voting to decrease his or her own is zero to none.

Dewhirst, Robert E. "Encyclopedia of the United States Congress." Facts on File Library of American History, Facts on File, October 1, 2006.

• The Congressional Committee System
• The Powers of Congress
• How Do Congressional Conference Committees Work?
• The U.S. House of Representatives
• Why No Term Limits for Congress? The Constitution
• The Debate Over Term Limits for Congress
• Congressional Majority and Minority Leaders and Whips
• Allowances Available to Members of US Congress
• Why the Congressional Reform Act Will Never Pass
• What Is a Bicameral Legislature and Why Does the U.S. Have One?
• About the Legislative Branch of U.S. Government
• How Bills Become Laws According to the U.S. Legislative Process
• Bella Abzug
• Where, When, and Why Does the US Congress Meet?
• History of Ethics Violations and Expulsion in the U.S. Congress
• Can You Recall a Member of Congress?

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Planet Money

• Planet Money Podcast
• The Indicator Podcast
• Planet Money Newsletter Archive
• Planet Money Summer School

• LISTEN & FOLLOW
• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts
• Amazon Music

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

The Most (And Least) Lucrative Committees In Congress

Andrea Seabrook

Alex Blumberg

This story is part of Planet Money's series on money in politics . This post was originally published on March 30. It was updated on April 6.

Most of the nitty-gritty action in Congress happens in committees.

Not surprisingly, campaign contributions flow to members of the committees that big donors are really interested in — like, say, the ways and means committee, which oversees the tax code.

This makes a huge difference to lawmakers, who need a steady stream of donations to fund their re-election campaigns.

Both parties rank each committee for its fundraising potential. There are lists of the A, B, and C committees, and fundraising targets for the members. Those lists aren't public. Many lawmakers say these lists exist, but no one would give one to us.

So we created our own list, based on publicly disclosed fundraising numbers. At our request, Lee Drutman of the Sunlight Foundation, crunched data going back to the early '90s .

The analysis found that Ways and Means is the most valuable committee for fundraising. Lawmakers on the Ways and Means committee raise an extra $250,000 a year compared to the average Congressman.

The judiciary committee was the worst. Congressmen on that committee raised $182,000 less than the average Congressman.

Here's a list of the bottom three and top three committees:

Source: The Sunlight Foundation

Credit: Lam Thuy Vo / NPR

One thing this graph doesn't show: The value of being a chairman.

Being a committee chairman carries huge power in Congress. Not surprisingly, it also leads to a huge fundraising boost. But the lawmakers who land these spots are expected to raise lots of money, and turn it over to the party, which spreads it around to other members.

"Where much is given, much is required," says Rep. Jeff Flake. "You're given dues, assessments, and if you're a senior member on committees that lend themselves to fundraising, and you're either a ranking member or a chairman, then you're expected to raise a lot of money. When you come up every two years to either retain your position or move to another committee, those things are certainly taken into account"

• Money in Politics

Committee Assignment Process in the U.S. Senate: Democratic and Republican Party Procedures

January 23, 2003 – November 3, 2006 RL30743

Because of the importance of committee work, Senators consider desirable committee assignments a priority. The key to securing favorable committee slots is often said to be targeting committee seats that match the legislator’s skills, expertise, and policy concerns.

After general elections are over, one of the first orders of business for Senate leaders is setting the sizes and ratios of committees. Although the size of each standing committee is set in Senate rules, changes in these sizes often result from inter-party negotiations before each new Congress. Senate party leaders also negotiate the party ratios on standing committees. Determinations of sizes and ratios usually are made before the process of assigning Senators to committees.

Once sizes and ratios of standing committees are determined, a panel for each party nominates colleagues for committee assignments. Senate Republicans primarily use a Committee on Committees for this purpose, although the Republican leader nominates Senators for assignment to some standing committees. Senate Democrats use a Steering and Outreach Committee to nominate Democrats for assignment to all standing committees. The processes these panels use are distinct. Republicans rely on a seniority formula to make nominations, while Democrats make nominations on a seat-by-seat basis, considering a variety of factors.

The processes also have many common features. After the general election, each panel solicits preferences for committee assignment from party colleagues, then matches these preferences with vacancies on standing committees. Senate rules, along with party rules and practices, guide the work of the Committee on Committees and the Steering and Outreach Committee. Senate rules, for instance, divide the standing and other Senate committees into three groups, the so-called “A” “B” and “C” categories. Senators must serve on two “A” committees and may serve on one “B” committee, and any number of “C” committees. Exceptions to these restrictions are sometimes approved by the Senate. Both parties place further limitations, for example, by generally prohibiting two Senators from the same party and state from serving on the same committee.

The nominations of each of these panels require the approval of the pertinent full party conference and ultimately the Senate. Approval at both stages usually is granted easily, because of the debate and decision-making earlier in the process.

Specific rules regarding Senate membership on and appointments to non-standing committees vary from committee to committee, but party leaders usually are included in the process.

For more information on Senate and party rules governing assignment limitations, see CRS Report 98-183, Senate Committees: Categories and Rules for Committee Assignments.

Introduction

Overview of assignment process, types of committees, coverage of report, committee ratios and sizes, chamber categories and limitations, republicans, the nomination process, republican conference and full chamber approval, democratic conference and full chamber approval, non-standing committees.

Because of the importance of committee work, Senators consider desirable committee assignments a priority. The key to securing favorable committee slots is often said to be targeting committee seats that match the legislator's skills, expertise, and policy concerns.

The processes also have many common features. After the general election, each panel solicits preferences for committee assignment from party colleagues, then matches these preferences with vacancies on standing committees. Senate rules, along with party rules and practices, guide the work of the Committee on Committees and the Steering and Outreach Committee. Senate rules, for instance, divide the standing and other Senate committees into three groups, the so-called "A" "B" and "C" categories. Senators must serve on two "A" committees and may serve on one "B" committee, and any number of "C" committees. Exceptions to these restrictions are sometimes approved by the Senate. Both parties place further limitations, for example, by generally prohibiting two Senators from the same party and state from serving on the same committee.

For more information on Senate and party rules governing assignment limitations, see CRS Report 98-183, Senate Committees: Categories and Rules for Committee Assignments .

Committee sizes and ratios are determined before Senators are assigned to committees. Although the size of each committee is set in Senate rules, changes to these rules often result from interparty negotiations before each Congress. Senate party leaders also negotiate the party ratio of each committee during the discussions of committee size.

Senate rules call for the election of Senators to standing committees by the entire membership of the chamber. Senate Rule XXIV, paragraph 1 states: "In the appointment of the standing committees, or to fill vacancies thereon, the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, shall by resolution appoint the chairman of each such committee and the other members thereof." 1 These elections are based on nominations made by the parties, but Senators do not officially take seats on committees until they are elected by the entire Senate.

While Senate rules are fairly clear regarding how nominations are to be approved , they do not address how the nominations of Senators to committees are to be made . In practice, each party vests its conference with the authority to make nominations to standing committees. Senate Republicans primarily use a Committee on Committees for this purpose, although the Republican leader nominates Senators for assignment to some standing committees. Senate Democrats use a Steering and Outreach Committee to nominate Democrats for assignment to all standing committees. The processes these two panels use are distinct, but the nominations of each panel require the approval of the full party conference and, ultimately, the Senate. Senate approval of the committee nominations of its parties usually is pro forma because the Senate respects the work of each party.

It has been customary for third-party and independent Senators to caucus with one of the major parties. At least for committee assignment purposes, such a Senator is considered a member of that conference and receives his or her committee assignments from that conference through its regular processes.

As used in this report, the term "standing committees" refers to the permanent panels identified in Senate rules. The rules also list the jurisdiction of each committee. Within their jurisdictions, the standing committees consider bills and issues, recommend measures for consideration by the Senate, and conduct oversight of agencies, programs, and activities. Most standing committees recommend authorized levels of funds for government operations and for new and existing programs within their jurisdiction.

The term "non-standing committee" is used here to describe joint committees, and select, special, and other Senate committees. Congress currently has four joint committees that are permanent and that conduct studies or perform housekeeping tasks rather than consider legislation. Members of both chambers serve on them. The assignment of Senators to conference committees (temporary joint committees formed to resolve differences in House- and Senate-passed versions of a measure) is not addressed by this report.

On occasion, the Senate has created select, special, and other committees. Sometimes such panels are created for a short time to complete a specific task, as in the case of the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters. The committee was created on May 17, 1995, and expired on June 17, 1996.

Select, special, and other committees have sometimes existed for many years. Some, like the Special Committee on Aging, conduct studies and investigations. Others, such as the Select Committee on Intelligence, have legislative jurisdiction, meaning they consider measures and recommend them for action by the Senate.

This report focuses primarily on how Senators are elected to standing committees. It first relates how standing committee sizes and ratios are set. It then identifies the classification of committees the Senate uses for assignment purposes, and the chamber limitations on committee service. It next describes the procedures that each party uses to recommend Senators for assignment to standing committees, and how the full chamber approves these recommendations. Finally, it summarizes the processes used to appoint Senators to non-standing committees.

The report does not address how committee chairs and ranking minority members are selected, or how subcommittee members and leaders are chosen.

Following general elections, one of the first orders of business for leaders of both parties in the Senate is the setting of standing committee ratios and sizes. Committee ratios and sizes usually are set simultaneously because of their interrelationship. These determinations usually are made before assigning Senators to standing committees because the party organizations that make committee assignments need to know the numbers of seats available to each party on each committee. The determination of ratios and sizes sometimes is made with an awareness of Senators' specific desires for seats on particular panels.

The ratio of Republicans to Democrats on each standing committee usually is determined at early organization meetings held in the interval between the general election and the beginning of a Congress. Since the rules of the chamber do not contain provisions regarding committee ratios generally, the majority party possesses the potential to set them unilaterally. In practice, however, ratios generally are set after negotiation between leaders of the two parties. Committee ratios usually parallel the overall party ratio in the Senate, with each party occupying a percentage of seats on all committees consistent with the percentage of seats it has in the Senate.

Senate Rule XXV sets out the number of Senators allowed on each committee. However, these committee sizes typically are amended at the beginning of a Congress through Senate approval of one or more resolutions. Under Senate rules, the majority and minority leaders may agree to adjust temporarily the size of one or more standing committees, by up to two members, to accord the majority party a majority of the membership of every standing committee (a "working majority"). In many cases, however, amendments to committee sizes are made to accommodate the interests and needs of Senators in serving on committees. These amendments, and therefore committee sizes, are usually the product of consultation between the party leaders.

The sizes of standing committees normally differ. In the 109 th Congress, the Senate standing committees ranged from 13 to 28 members. Committees with broader jurisdictions generally are larger than those whose jurisdiction is more narrowly defined. Committees considered more prestigious or otherwise sought-after also tend to be larger. The Senate Select Committee on Ethics has an equal party ratio pursuant to the resolution which created the panel.

The rules of the Senate divide its standing and other committees into categories for purposes of assigning all Senators to committees. In particular, Rule XXV, paragraphs 2 and 3 establish the categories of committees, popularly called the "A," "B," and "C" committees. The "A" and "B" categories, are as follows: 2

" A " COMMITTEES Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Appropriations Armed Services Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Commerce, Science, and Transportation Energy and Natural Resources Environment and Public Works Finance Foreign Relations Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Judiciary Select Committee on Intelligence

" B " COMMITTEES Budget Rules and Administration Small Business and Entrepreneurship Veterans' Affairs Special Committee on Aging Joint Economic Committee

The "C" category comprises three non-standing committees: the Select Committee on Ethics, the Committee on Indian Affairs, and the Joint Committee on Taxation. 3 The Joint Committee on the Library and the Joint Committee on Printing are not listed in any category, but are treated as "C" committees for assignment purposes.

Rule XXV, paragraph 4 places restrictions on Senators' committee membership based on these categories. The restrictions are intended to treat Senators equitably in the assignment process. Essentially, each Senator is limited to service on two of the "A" committees, and one of the "B" committees. Service on "C" committees is unrestricted.

Exceptions to the restrictions are recommended by the pertinent party conference and then officially authorized through Senate approval of a resolution affecting one or more Senators. Sometimes these exceptions are authorized to accord the majority party a working majority on a committee, whereas at other times exceptions are made to accommodate the preferences and needs of individual Senators.

The committee assignment process used by Senate Republicans involves three steps. First, the Committee on Committees and the Republican leader nominate Republican Senators for committee assignments. Second, these recommendations are submitted for approval to the Republican Conference, the organization of all Republican Senators. Third, the recommendations are incorporated into one or more Senate resolutions and approved by the full Senate.

The chair and other members of the Committee on Committees are appointed by the chair of the Republican Conference, subject to confirmation by the Republican Conference. The size of the Committee on Committees fluctuates from Congress to Congress. In recent Congresses, it consisted of nine members, including the majority leader, who served on the committee ex-officio and did not chair the panel. The Committee on Committees is relatively small, in part because it relies on a seniority formula in assigning both returning and newly elected Republican Senators. The formula makes the assignment process somewhat automatic; the absence of significant debate and voting thus requires comparatively few members.

Under Republican Conference rules, the Committee on Committees nominates Republicans for assignment to all category "A" committees, as well as to the Committee on Rules and Administration. According to Conference Rule V, nominations for assignment to other committees are made by the Republican leader (unless otherwise specified by law). In practice, the Republican leader also has nominated members to serve on the Committee on Rules and Administration.

Following a general election, all Republican Senators are asked to submit their committee assignment preferences to the Committee on Committees. The committee prefers that these requests be listed in order of priority. It is considered useful for new Republican Senators to consult with party leaders and the chairs (or ranking members) of desired committees to assess the likelihood of receiving a desired assignment. Under the seniority system used by Senate Republicans, for example, a freshman is likely to have more success if his or her first choice is not a committee seat desired by an incumbent or a "more senior" freshman. Informing party and committee leaders of one's committee preferences also acts to alert them to one's substantive policy interests.

In December or January following the general election, the Committee on Committees first meets to nominate Senators to committees. Senate Rule XXV, as described above, sets out the rules and restrictions that guide the committee in distributing standing committee seats. The Republican Conference has established additional rules and guidelines that govern the procedures of the Committee on Committees. One such rule generally prohibits any Republican from serving on more than one of the "Super A," or "big four" category "A," committees: Appropriations, Armed Services, Finance, and Foreign Relations. 4 Conference rules also generally prohibit two Republican Senators from the same state from serving on the same panel. 5

Republicans usually nominate Senators to "A" committees before filling vacancies on other committees. The seniority formula used by the Committee on Committees in making assignment nominations is as follows. First, in order of seniority in the chamber, each incumbent chooses two committee assignments; incumbents may decide to retain current committee seats or choose among existing vacancies. However, a Senator who has served on a committee and lost a seat due to a change in the party ratio has priority over any and all Senators to claim the first vacancy on the committee. While such instances have been rare, they have occurred when party control of the Senate has changed.

Second, each newly elected Senator chooses seats in order of seniority, based on previous service in the Senate; previous service in the U.S. House of Representatives and length of service in the House; and previous service as a state governor. 6 Ties in seniority of freshmen are broken by draw. In addition, every newly elected Senator receives one assignment before any newly elected Senator receives a second assignment.

The Republican Leader has the authority to appoint half of all vacancies on each "A" committee. If there is an odd number of vacancies, the Leader can appoint half plus one of all vacancies.

Effective in the 108 th Congress, all Republican Members are offered two "A" committee slots in order of seniority. Each Member can retain only one "B" committee assignment from the previous Congress. Following this process, the Republican Leader makes any remaining "A" committee assignments.

Conference rules provide a guideline governing the time frame for Senators to choose among assignment options presented by the Committee on Committees. If a Senator is presented with selection options before noon on a given day, the Senator should notify the Committee on Committees of his or her decision by the close of business on that day. If a Senator is presented with selection options after noon on a particular day, then a decision should be made by noon on the next business day. This provision is designed to expedite the assignment process by preventing Senators from engaging in lengthy deliberation that could delay the assignment of Senators with less seniority.

Rank on each committee generally is determined by length of continuous service on the committee. If a Senator leaves a committee and returns in a subsequent Congress, the Senator likely would lose his or her previous seniority. However, the chair (or ranking member) of a committee need not be the Member with the longest committee service. 7

While nominations for assignment to "non-A" committees (except, officially, Rules and Administration) are at the discretion of the Republican leader, the leader generally follows the seniority formula used by the Committee on Committees. Moreover, the leader usually works in close cooperation with the chair and other members of the Committee on Committees.

Through this system, the assignment process is relatively consensus-oriented and automatic, and formal votes on nominees usually are not necessary. In assigning freshmen, the Committee on Committees does not consider the multiple factors relied upon by the Senate Democrats' party organization (discussed below); instead, the most important factor appears to be Senators' requests. Personal efforts to compete for committee seats appear to be minimal (though not unknown) as compared with Senate Democrats.

When the Committee on Committees and the Republican leader have finished their work, they submit their recommendations for assignment to the Republican Conference. For each committee, a slate of committee members in order of proposed seniority is presented for consideration. Voting by recorded written ballot, as specified by conference rules, ordinarily is not necessary. The conference usually adopts the recommendations by unanimous consent, presumably because they are based largely on seniority.

Once accepted by the Republican Conference, the assignment recommendations are packaged into one or more Senate resolutions that are submitted to the full Senate for approval, usually by the Republican leader. Because the resolutions are privileged, they can be brought up at any time. These resolutions are amendable and any Senator may demand a separate vote on the appointment of the chair or on the other members of a standing committee. However, the resolutions usually are adopted without incident. 8 Nominations rarely are challenged on the floor because it is in the parties where decisions are made; by custom, neither party has challenged the nominations of the other party. Indeed, the routine character of the Senate's approval of nominations highlights the importance of the nomination process.

In filling vacancies that occur on standing committees after their initial organization, Senate Republicans follow the same procedure used for each new Congress. Committee vacancies may occur during the course of a Congress because party leaders decide to change a committee's size or party ratio, or because Members die, change parties, or resign from the Senate. A new Senator replacing a late or former Senator may be chosen to fill the vacated committee seats. However, if the new Senator is of the opposite party from the departed Senator, adjustments in sizes and ratios often are needed to make slots for the new Senator. Moreover, incumbents also might seek to compete for the newly open committee seats, especially if they occur on one of the more prestigious panels, such as the Appropriations Committee or the Finance Committee. When an incumbent is chosen to fill a committee vacancy, that Senator often gives up an existing assignment to comply with party or chamber assignment limitations (although a waiver might be granted). This may cause a chain reaction involving a series of shifts of committee assignments.

There are three steps in the nomination and assignment process for Senate Democrats. The first is for the Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee to make nominations for committee assignments. The second consists of approval of the nominations by the Democratic Conference, which comprises all Democrats in the Senate. The final step is for the assignment rosters to be incorporated into one or more Senate resolutions and considered and approved by the full Senate. Senate Democrats do not have written rules governing this assignment process, as do Senate Republicans.

The size of the Steering and Outreach Committee is set by the Democratic Conference. The Democratic leader serves on the committee and appoints its members, subject to ratification by the conference. Steering and Outreach Committee members (except party leaders) may not serve simultaneously on the Democratic Policy Committee. Instead of chairing the panel, in the past few Congresses the Democratic leader has named another Senator as chair. In appointing Senators to vacancies, the Democratic leader attempts to achieve regional balance on the committee under a system that divides the country into four regions. The Steering and Outreach Committee continues from Congress to Congress, appointing Democratic Senators to vacancies as they arise.

In the 109 th Congress, the Steering and Outreach Committee had 18 members, including the Democratic leader, the Democratic whip, the chief deputy Democratic whip, and a deputy Democratic whip. While it is not composed exclusively of the most senior Democrats, the Steering and Outreach Committee includes many committee ranking members.

Once elected to the Senate, it is customary for new Democratic Senators to communicate committee preferences to the Steering and Outreach Committee. While the Democratic leader and the Steering and Outreach Committee chair generally solicit committee preferences from new Senators, incumbents desiring to switch committees usually initiate contact. Democrats are encouraged to submit their requests for assignment as early as possible. A Senator who delays risks the potential of not securing primary or even secondary requests. While the Steering and Outreach Committee does not require Senators to rank order their assignment preferences, many have done so in the past to give the committee alternatives if it is unable to grant initial requests.

It appears to be important for Senators-elect, in formulating their preferences, to consult with party leaders, Steering and Outreach Committee members, and the chairs (or ranking members) of preferred committees. This consultation acts both to notify senior Senators of a freshman's substantive interests and to inform the freshman Senator of the likelihood that he or she will be assigned to preferred committees.

The Steering and Outreach Committee organizes, and begins the process of making committee assignments, in November or December following the general election. Unlike its Senate Republican counterpart, the committee nominates Senators for assignment to every standing committee. Given that most returning Senators choose to retain their assignments from the previous Congress, most of the committee's work involves matching freshman Democrats with vacancies created by retirement or electoral defeat, as well as by adjustments in committee sizes and ratios.

In making nominations for committee assignments, the Steering and Outreach Committee is bound by the categories of committees and the limitations on committee assignments contained in Senate Rule XXV, discussed earlier. Within the confines of these restrictions, the Democratic Conference has formulated additional restrictions for its own members. One such restriction generally limits each Senator to service on no more than one of the "Super A," or "big four" "A," committees: Appropriations, Armed Services, Finance, and Foreign Relations. Senate Democrats also have an informal practice of prohibiting two Democratic Senators from the same state from serving on the same committee.

In addition to these chamber and party restrictions, the Steering and Outreach Committee considers many factors. These include Senators' preferences, state demographics, length of time since the state was last represented on the committee, perceived willingness to support the party, policy views, and personal and occupational backgrounds. Personal intervention, by the requesting Senator or another Senator, is sometimes helpful.

The Steering and Outreach Committee usually fills vacancies on "A" committees before slots on other panels. Because the Steering and Outreach Committee does not rely on a seniority formula in assigning Senators, its process is relatively less automatic than that of Senate Republicans. For Democrats, there are no rules guaranteeing priority in assignment to incumbents switching committees, or governing the seniority of freshmen in choosing assignments. However, a Senator who served on a committee but lost the seat due to a change in the party ratio generally receives priority in assignment to a vacancy on that committee.

Nominations for assignment are made on a seat-by-seat basis, and Steering and Outreach members usually make nominations by consensus. However, if significant competition exists for a particular seat, then secret balloting usually is conducted and the majority-vote winner is granted the nomination. Senators who do not win election to their most preferred committee seat are protected by the "Johnson Rule," providing that all Democrats are appointed to one "A" committee before any Senator receives a second assignment. 9

Rank on each committee generally is determined by length of continuous service on the committee. If a Senator leaves a committee and returns to it in a subsequent Congress, the Senator likely would lose his or her previous seniority. However, the ranking member (or chair) need not be the Member with the longest committee service. The committee rankings of Senators assigned to a committee at the same time generally are determined by their seniority in their party in the Senate. When an incumbent and a freshman are assigned to a committee at the same time, the incumbent ordinarily ranks higher than the freshman. Similarly, when elected, each freshman is given a seniority ranking among Senate Democrats, and his or her rank on committees is based on this overall chamber ranking.

Once all veteran and freshman Democratic Senators have been recommended for assignment, the roster is forwarded to the Senate Democratic Conference. While separate votes are possible, the conference usually ratifies the entire slate of assignments by unanimous consent.

After ratification, the assignment recommendations are packaged into one or more Senate resolutions and submitted on the Senate floor for adoption. The resolutions usually are submitted by the Democratic leader, and they can be brought up at any time because they are privileged. The resolutions also are amendable, and any Senator may demand a separate vote on the appointment of any member. However, the resolutions containing the committee rosters usually pass without debate, by voice vote. It is in the party where significant debate and decision-making already has occurred regarding committee assignments.

In filling vacancies that occur on standing committees after their initial organization, Senate Democrats follow the same procedure used for each new Congress. Committee vacancies may occur during the course of a Congress because party leaders decide to change a committee's size or party ratio, or because Members die, change parties, or resign from the Senate. A new Senator replacing a late or former Senator may be chosen to fill the vacated committee seats. However, if the new Senator is of the opposite party from the departed Senator, adjustments in sizes and ratios often are needed to make slots for the new Senator. Moreover, incumbents also might seek to compete for the newly open committee seats, especially if they occur on one of the more prestigious panels, such as the Appropriations Committee or the Finance Committee. When an incumbent is chosen to fill a committee vacancy, that Senator often gives up an existing assignment to comply with party or chamber assignment limitations (although a waiver might be granted.) This may cause a chain reaction involving a series of shifts of committee assignments.

Non-standing committees are divided between the so-called category "B" committees and category "C" committees. The Special Committee on Aging and the Joint Economic Committee, along with four standing committees, are included in the "B" category of committees. Under Senate rules, no Senator may serve on more than one "B" committee, whether standing or non-standing. The Select Committee on Ethics, the Committee on Indian Affairs, and the Joint Committees on Taxation, the Library, and Printing essentially are treated as "C" committees, although Joint Library and Joint Printing are not explicitly listed as such in Senate rules. The "C" committees are exempt from the assignment limitations in Senate rules, so a Senator may serve on any number of them without regard to his or her other assignments.

Specific rules regarding Senate membership on and appointments to non-standing committees often are contained in the legislation creating these panels. Thus, the procedures vary from committee to committee. A review of the legislation establishing the non-standing committees, and the appointment practices that have evolved, reveal that party leaders are usually included in the process.

The members of the Select Committee on Ethics and the Special Committee on Aging are elected by the Senate by resolution, essentially in the same manner as the standing committees. The Ethics Committee is the only Senate committee with an equal party ratio, consisting of three Senators from each party. 10 Republican members of both committees are chosen by the Republican leader and confirmed by the Republican Conference before election by the full Senate. Democratic members of the Ethics Committee are selected initially by the Democratic leader. In contrast, Democrats on the Aging Committee are nominated by the Steering and Outreach Committee and confirmed by the Democratic Conference before election by the full Senate.

Majority-party Senators are appointed to the Select Committee on Intelligence on the recommendation of the majority leader, and minority-party Senators on the recommendation of the minority leader. Senators are appointed to this committee from the Appropriations, Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and Judiciary Committees, as well as from the Senate "at large." The majority and minority leaders, as well as the chair and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee serve on the committee as ex-officio , non-voting members. The resolution creating the Intelligence Committee provided for a rotation of membership; no Senator could serve on the committee for more than eight years of continuous service. To the extent practicable, one-third of the Senators appointed to the committee at the outset of each Congress should be Senators who did not serve on it in the preceding Congress. 11 S.Res. 445 , adopted October 9, 2004, ended the eight-year limitation on the Intelligence Committee.

The majority and minority leaders recommend Senators for appointment to the Committee on Indian Affairs, but the members are officially appointed by the President of the Senate (the Vice President of the United States). 12 Appointments to the Committee on Indian Affairs are announced to the Senate from the chair.

Ten Senators, six from the majority party and four from the minority party, are appointed to the Joint Economic Committee by the President of the Senate. The Senate membership of the Joint Committee on Taxation consists of five Senators from the Committee on Finance, three from the majority and two from the minority, chosen by the Finance Committee. 13 Appointments to both joint committees are announced to the Senate from the chair.

The Senate participants on the Joint Committee on the Library and the Joint Committee on Printing are selected by the Committee on Rules and Administration from among the committee's members. The chair and four other members of the Rules Committee are to serve on each joint committee. 14 However, in some Congresses, the House and Senate have agreed to a concurrent resolution allowing another member of the Senate Rules Committee to serve on the Joint Committee on the Library in place of the Rules Committee's chair. The membership of the Joint Committee on Printing typically includes not only the chair but also the ranking minority member of the Senate Rules Committee. Members of both joint committees are elected by the Senate by resolution.

• Bills this Week
• Office of the Clerk
• Majority Leader
• Committee on Rules
• U.S. House of Representatives

• Document Search

Markup of H.R. 4574, (Mr. Correa) the “Cooperation on Combatting Human Smuggling and Trafficking Act”; H.R. 6229, (Ms. Titus) the “DHS Special Events Program and Support Act”; H.R. 7311, (Mr. Guest) the “Combatting International Drug Trafficking and Human Smuggling Partnership Act of 2024”; H.R. 8150, (Mr. Gonzales of Texas) a bill to require the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to establish procedures for conducting maintenance projects at ports of entry at which the Office of Field Operations conducts certain enforcement and facilitation activities; H.R. 8631, (Mr. Gimenez) the “Decoupling from Foreign Adversarial Battery Dependence Act of 2024”; H.R. 8645, (Mr. Thanedar) the “Improved Screening for Veterans and Passengers with Disabilities Act”; H.R. 8654, (Mr. Ezell) the “Streamlining Law Enforcement Information Sharing Act”; H.R. 8655, (Mr. Gimenez) the "Federal Air Marshal Enhancing Airport Security Act of 2024"; H.R. 8658, (Mr. Higgins) the “Emerging Digital Identity Ecosystem Report Act of 2024”; H.R. 8662, (Mr. Kennedy) the “TSA Commuting Fairness Act”; H.R. 8663, (Mr. LaLota) the “Detection Equipment and Technology Evaluation to Counter the Threat of Fentanyl and Xylazine Act of 2024” or the “DETECT Fentanyl and Xylazine Act of 2024”; H.R. 8664, (Ms. Lee) the ‘‘DHS Intelligence and Analysis Oversight and Transparency Act’’; H.R. 8671, (Mr. Pfluger) the “DHS Intelligence Rotational Assignment Program and Law Enforcement Support Act”; and H.R. ____, (Mr. Garbarino) the “Repair of the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System Act of 2024” Committee on Homeland Security

Wednesday, June 12, 2024 (10:00 AM)

310 CHOB Washington, D.C.

Text of Legislation

• H.R. 4574, (Mr. Correa) the “Cooperation on Combatting Human Smuggling and Trafficking Act” [ PDF ]
• H.R. 6229, (Ms. Titus) the “DHS Special Events Program and Support Act” [ PDF ]
• H.R. 7311, (Mr. Guest) the “Combatting International Drug Trafficking and Human Smuggling Partnership Act of 2024”; [ PDF ]
• H.R. 8150, (Mr. Gonzales of Texas) a bill to require the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to establish procedures for conducting maintenance projects at ports of entry at which the Office of Field Operations conducts certain enforcement and facilitation activities; [ PDF ]
• H.R. 8631, (Mr. Gimenez) the “Decoupling from Foreign Adversarial Battery Dependence Act of 2024” [ PDF ]
• H.R. 8645, (Mr. Thanedar) the “Improved Screening for Veterans and Passengers with Disabilities Act”; [ PDF ]
• H.R. 8655, (Mr. Gimenez) the “Federal Air Marshal Enhancing Airport Security Act of 2024” [ PDF ] Updated 06/10/2024 at 10:10 AM
• H.R. 8654, (Mr. Ezell) the “Streamlining Law Enforcement Information Sharing Act” [ PDF ] Updated 06/10/2024 at 10:09 AM
• H.R. 8658, (Mr. Higgins) the “Emerging Digital Identity Ecosystem Report Act of 2024” [ PDF ] Updated 06/10/2024 at 10:10 AM
• H.R. 8663, (Mr. LaLota) the “Detection Equipment and Technology Evaluation to Counter the Threat of Fentanyl and Xylazine Act of 2024” or the “DETECT Fentanyl and Xylazine Act of 2024” [ PDF ] Updated 06/10/2024 at 10:10 AM
• H.R. 8664, (Ms. Lee) the ‘‘DHS Intelligence and Analysis Oversight and Transparency Act’’ [ PDF ] Updated 06/10/2024 at 10:10 AM
• H.R. 8671, (Mr. Pfluger) the “DHS Intelligence Rotational Assignment Program and Law Enforcement Support Act” [ PDF ] Updated 06/10/2024 at 10:10 AM
• H.R. ____, (Mr. Garbarino) the “Repair of the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System Act of 2024” [ PDF ]
• H.R. 8662, (Mr. Kennedy) the “TSA Commuting Fairness Act” [ PDF ] Updated 06/10/2024 at 10:10 AM

First Published: June 10, 2024 at 09:45 AM Last Updated: June 10, 2024 at 11:06 AM

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Speaker Johnson appoints two Trump allies to a committee that handles classified intelligence

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., and other Republican leaders meet with reporters to condemn former President Donald Trump’s guilty conviction in a New York court last week, at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, June 4, 2024. Johnson also called President Joe Biden the worst president in American history. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday appointed two far-right Republicans to the powerful House Intelligence Committee, positioning two close allies of Donald Trump who worked to overturn the 2020 presidential election on a panel that receives sensitive classified briefings and oversees the work of America’s spy agencies.

The appointments of GOP Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Ronny Jackson of Texas to the House Intelligence Committee were announced on the House floor Wednesday. Johnson, a hardline conservative from Louisiana who has aligned himself with Trump, was replacing spots on the committee that opened up after the resignations of Republican Reps. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin and Chris Stewart of Utah.

Committee spots have typically been given to lawmakers with backgrounds in national security and who have gained respect across the aisle. But the replacements with two close Trump allies comes as Johnson has signaled his willingness to use the full force of the House to aid Trump’s bid to reclaim the Oval Office. It also hands the hard-right faction of the House two coveted spots on a committee that handles the nation’s secrets and holds tremendous influence over the direction of foreign policy.

Trump has long displayed adversarial and flippant views of the U.S. intelligence community, flouted safeguards over classified information and directly berated law enforcement agencies like the FBI. The former president faces 37 felony counts for improperly storing in his Florida estate sensitive documents on nuclear capabilities, repeatedly enlisting aides and lawyers to help him hide records demanded by investigators and cavalierly showing off a Pentagon “plan of attack” and classified map.

Johnson did not release a statement on his picks for the committee.

Perry, who formerly chaired the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, was ordered by a federal judge last year to turn over more than 1,600 texts and emails to FBI agents investigating efforts to keep Trump in office after his 2020 election loss and illegally block the transfer of power to Democrat Joe Biden.

Perry’s personal cellphone was also seized by federal authorities who have explored his role in helping install an acting attorney general who would be receptive to Trump’s false claims of election fraud.

Perry and other conservatives have also pushed Congress to curtail a key U.S. government surveillance tool. They want to restrict the FBI’s ability to use the program to search for Americans’ data.

“I look forward to providing not only a fresh perspective, but conducting actual oversight — not blind obedience to some facets of our Intel Community that all too often abuse their powers, resources, and authority to spy on the American People,” Perry said in a statement.

Jackson, who was elected to the House in 2020, was formerly a top White House physician under former presidents Barack Obama and Trump. Known for his over-the-top pronouncements about Trump’s health, Jackson was nominated by Trump to be the secretary of Veterans Affairs.

He withdrew his nomination amid allegations of professional misconduct. An internal investigation at the Department of Defense later concluded that Jackson made “sexual and denigrating” comments about a female subordinate, violated the policy on drinking alcohol on a presidential trip and took prescription-strength sleeping medication that prompted worries from his colleagues about his ability to provide proper medical care.

Jackson has denied those allegations and described them as politically motivated.

The House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol also requested testimony from Jackson as it looked into lawmakers’ meetings at the White House, direct conversations with Trump as he sought to challenge his election loss and the planning and coordination of rallies. Jackson declined to testify.

The presence of Jackson and Perry on the committee could damage the trust between the president and the committee in handling classified information, said Ira Goldman, a former Republican congressional aide who worked as a counsel to the intelligence committee in the 1970s and 1980s.

He said, “You’re giving members seats on the committee when, based on the public record, they couldn’t get a security clearance if they came through any other door.”

TERRORISM TIES

House republicans call on white house to revoke non-profit status of palestine chronicle.

University of Minnesota pauses hiring of professor who called Israel’s war against Hamas ‘a textbook case of genocide’

Daily Kickoff

Daily kickoff: blinken lands in israel to government shakeup, exit announcement, gantz leaves government, accusing netanyahu of playing wartime politics .

POLL POSITION

Ajc survey finds significant majorities of jews concerned about antisemitism, support israel.

Palestinian journalist held Israeli hostages in home

ESCALATING TENSIONS

Foxx threatens to subpoena northwestern, accuses schill of false testimony.

Daily Kickoff: LGBTQ Jews on the margins of this year’s Pride celebrations

Broad coalition of Jewish groups urges ‘highest possible funding’ for Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights

cabinet shakeup

Gantz set to leave israeli government as his deadline for postwar plan looms.

The survey also shows that very few Biden voters in 2020 are backing Trump in 2024

Scott Olson/Getty Images

American and Israeli flags sit on the stage during an Israeli Independence Day celebration

A survey of the U.S. Jewish community by the American Jewish Committee found that a significant majority of American Jews harbor deep concerns about antisemitism in the United States and remain strongly supportive of Israel. It also finds that President Joe Biden is maintaining most of his support within the Jewish community in anticipation of a 2024 presidential rematch against former President Donald Trump. 

The survey of 1,001 Jewish adults was conducted online by research company SSRS from March 12 to April 6, with a 3.9% margin of error.

The survey found that 93% of Jews think that antisemitism is a problem, with 56% calling it a “serious” problem. And 87% said antisemitism has increased since the Oct. 7 attack on Israel, with 55% saying it has increased “a lot” since the attack.

On Israel, 85% of Jews said it’s important for the U.S. to continue to support Israel, with 60% rating it “very important.” Seventy-eight percent of Jews said they are paying more attention to news about Israel since Oct. 7.

The survey also found that pluralities of Jews feel more connected to Israel — 45% — and to their Jewish identities — 48% — since the Oct. 7 attack. In combination, 57% said they felt more connected to either Israel, their Jewish identities or both since the attack.

The survey found that the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack and the ensuing war have had an influence on many Jews’ behavior. Fifty-three percent of respondents said that the war has impacted personal or work relationships or that they have avoided talking about the war, 42% percent said they feel unsafe wearing Jewish symbols in public since Oct. 7; and 45% feel unsafe sharing their views about Israel on social media.

Jewish Democrats reported feeling more unsafe sharing their views on social media than Republicans — 49% of Democrats said they felt unsafe, as opposed to 39% of Republicans.

Seven percent of American Jews reported thinking about leaving the U.S. since Oct. 7 due to antisemitism, with a total of 9% saying they had considered leaving the country due to antisemitism since Oct. 7 or in the five years prior.

A smaller share of American Jews said that the war has led them to stop following someone on social media (29%), caused them to hide or not disclose their Jewish identity (27%), made them feel unsafe in a Jewish institution (27%), made them feel unsafe in conversation about the war (17%) or caused them to lose a friendship or relationship (13%).

Twelve percent said they’d ended a friendship or relationship because the person had expressed antisemitic views.

Looking to American politics, the survey suggested that some predictions that Trump would do significantly better among Jewish voters in 2024, driven by concerns over Democrats’ views on Israel, are overstated. Sixty-one percent of respondents said they plan to vote for President Joe Biden, roughly in line with the 64% who reported, in the same poll, having voted for Biden in 2020. (The Associated Press VoteCast voter analysis found that 68% of Jewish voters backed Biden in the 2020 election.) 

Trump won 23% of the Jewish vote in the AJC poll, while 10% of respondents said they planned to vote for someone else, and 6% said they did not plan to vote.The poll did not provide an undecided option. 

Only 2% of those who voted for Biden in 2020 said they planned to vote for Trump in 2024, while 2% of Trump voters in 2020 said they planned to vote for Biden this year.

Biden also remains significantly more popular in the Jewish community than in the population at large — 56% said they approve of the job Biden is doing as president, while 40% said they disapprove. 

But the poll suggested that a critical mass of Jewish voters is skeptical  of Biden’s record on Israel. Just under half (49%) of respondents said they view Biden as better for the U.S.-Israel relationship, as compared to 25% for Trump. 

The survey showed the community closely divided about Biden’s handling of the war: 48% percent of respondents said they approve of how Biden is handling the Israel-Hamas war, while 43% said they disapprove. The poll did not break down whether those who disapprove find Biden too supportive of Israel or not supportive enough.

The poll was conducted well before Biden announced he had suspended some shipments of arms to Israel and threatened to suspend more.

A majority of respondents — 55% — said Biden would be better at combating domestic antisemitism, while 20% said Trump would; 15% said neither would be better, while 9% said they were not sure.

The poll also found that Jews remain a predominantly Democratic-identifying population — 68% said they were Democrats or lean Democratic, while 31% said they were Republican or lean Republican. Fifty-nine percent of Jews who lean Democratic said they identify as progressives.

AJC officials highlighted in a press call last week that the survey results suggested a connection between level of education about Israel and greater feelings of connection to it since Oct. 7., stronger support for Israel and  higher levels of concern about antisemitism and about sharing their views on Israel.

Seventy-two percent of poll respondents said that being Jewish is very or somewhat important in their life. Religiously, 8% identified as Orthodox, 15% Conservative, 32% Reform, 2% Reconstructionist and 29% as secular.

Subscribe now to the Daily Kickoff

The politics and business news you need to stay up to date, delivered each morning in a must-read newsletter.

Subscribe to Our Newsletters to Access

Enter your email to gain access to our exclusive content

Essays That Worked

The essays are a place to show us who you are and who you’ll be in our community.

It’s a chance to add depth to something that is important to you and tell the admissions committee more about your background or goals. Below you’ll find selected examples of essays that “worked,” as nominated by our admissions committee. In each of these essays, students were able to share stories from their everyday lives to reveal something about their character, values, and life that aligned with the culture and values at Hopkins.

Read essays that worked from Transfer applicants .

Hear from the class of 2027.

These selections represent just a few examples of essays we found impressive and helpful during the past admissions cycle. We hope these essays inspire you as you prepare to compose your own personal statements. The most important thing to remember is to be original as you share your own story, thoughts, and ideas with us.

Ordering the Disorderly

Ellie’s essay skillfully uses the topic of entropy as an extended metaphor. Through it, we see reflections about who they are and who they aspire to be.

Pack Light, But Be Prepared

In Pablo’s essay, the act of packing for a pilgrimage becomes a metaphor for the way humans accumulate experiences in their life’s journey and what we can learn from them. As we join Pablo through the diverse phases of their life, we gain insights into their character and values.

Tikkun Olam

Julieta illustrates how the concept of Tikkun Olam, “a desire to help repair the world,” has shaped their passions and drives them to pursue experiences at Hopkins.

Kashvi’s essay encapsulates a heartfelt journey of self-discovery and the invaluable teachings of Rock, their 10-year-old dog. Through the lens of their companionship, Kashvi walked us through valuable lessons on responsibility, friendship, patience, and unconditional love.

Classical Reflections in Herstory

Maddie’s essay details their intellectual journey using their love of Greek classics. They incorporate details that reveal the roots of their academic interests: storytelling, literary devices, and translation. As their essay progresses, so do Maddie’s intellectual curiosities.

My Spotify Playlist

Alyssa’s essay reflects on special memories through the creative lens of Spotify playlists. They use three examples to highlight their experiences with their tennis team, finding a virtual community during the pandemic, and co-founding a nonprofit to help younger students learn about STEM.

More essays that worked

We share essays from previously admitted students—along with feedback from our admissions committee—so you can understand what made them effective and how to start crafting your own.

Application Workshops

Our interactive workshops—on topics like the college search process and essay preparation—will help you build your strongest application when you’re ready to apply.

REGISTER FOR AN APPLICATION WORKSHOP

Application tips in your inbox

Join our mailing list to receive insights from our admissions committee, event invites, and other resources for your college journey.

Quick Links:

• Majors, Minors & Programs
• Application Deadlines & Requirements
• College Planning Guide

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

APA Sample Paper

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

Note:  This page reflects the latest version of the APA Publication Manual (i.e., APA 7), which released in October 2019. The equivalent resource for the older APA 6 style  can be found here .

Media Files: APA Sample Student Paper  ,  APA Sample Professional Paper

This resource is enhanced by Acrobat PDF files. Download the free Acrobat Reader

Note: The APA Publication Manual, 7 th Edition specifies different formatting conventions for student  and  professional  papers (i.e., papers written for credit in a course and papers intended for scholarly publication). These differences mostly extend to the title page and running head. Crucially, citation practices do not differ between the two styles of paper.

However, for your convenience, we have provided two versions of our APA 7 sample paper below: one in  student style and one in  professional  style.

Note: For accessibility purposes, we have used "Track Changes" to make comments along the margins of these samples. Those authored by [AF] denote explanations of formatting and [AWC] denote directions for writing and citing in APA 7. 

APA 7 Student Paper:

Apa 7 professional paper:.