Navigating Congress: Understanding Standing Committees vs. Select Committees

Last updated 4 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

When most people think of Congress, they picture dramatic debates on the House or Senate floor. But the real work of lawmaking happens in smaller, specialized groups called congressional committees.

These committees are where proposed laws get their most thorough examination, where government actions face scrutiny, and where diverse voices contribute to policy decisions. They’re the engines of the legislative branch, and understanding how they work—particularly the difference between standing and select committees—is key to understanding American governance.

Committees handle the massive legislative workload that would overwhelm Congress if every member had to become an expert on every issue. Instead, they allow focused examination of particular subjects by members who develop specialized knowledge over time.

Why Committees Control What Becomes Law

These “little legislatures” wield enormous power as gatekeepers of legislation. Every year, thousands of bills get introduced in Congress, but only a small fraction ever reach a vote by the full House or Senate.

After a bill gets introduced, it goes to the appropriate committee for intensive examination, debate, and potential amendment. Many bills never make it past this stage—they “die in committee” for various reasons. Some duplicate existing laws, others seem impractical, and many lack sufficient support. Some get introduced mainly to raise awareness about issues rather than with any real expectation of passage.

This means committees effectively shape the congressional agenda by determining which legislative proposals advance for broader consideration. The decisions made within these relatively small groups of lawmakers can determine the fate of policy ideas, making them critical players in the American political system.

The Committee System: Congress’s Essential Workhorses

Congress faces a vast array of responsibilities, from creating laws to overseeing the sprawling federal bureaucracy. To manage this immense workload, Congress divides its legislative, oversight, and administrative tasks among more than 200 committees and subcommittees.

This division isn’t just organizational convenience—it’s crucial for effective legislative functioning. Committees allow Congress to handle high volumes of proposed legislation and complex issues simultaneously.

Building Policy Expertise

The committee system’s primary benefit is developing policy expertise among members. By serving on specific committees, often for many years, members of Congress cultivate specialized knowledge in particular areas like agriculture, finance, or foreign affairs. This deep understanding is vital for crafting well-informed legislation and conducting meaningful oversight of government programs.

Think of congressional committees like specialized departments within a large university. Just as a university has distinct departments like Biology, History, or Engineering where professors focus on specific academic disciplines, Congress uses committees to allow members to concentrate on particular areas of public policy.

Types of Committees

While there are several committee types, this guide focuses primarily on standing and select committees. Here’s a brief overview of all major types:

Standing Committees are permanent panels established by House and Senate rules, with fixed jurisdictions over broad policy areas. They’re the primary legislative workhorses.

Select (or Special) Committees are typically established temporarily to perform specific tasks, like conducting investigations into particular events or studying emerging issues that don’t clearly fall within any single standing committee’s jurisdiction.

Joint Committees include members from both the House and Senate. They usually have narrow jurisdictions and focus on oversight, research, or administrative tasks like overseeing the Library of Congress. Generally, joint committees can’t report legislation.

Subcommittees are smaller units operating within standing committees and occasionally other committee types. They focus on specialized aspects of their parent committee’s broader mandate and conduct much of the detailed legislative work.

The Power of Subcommittees

While full committees often capture public attention, subcommittees shouldn’t be underestimated. These smaller units frequently handle the initial, detailed groundwork on legislation. Most standing committees form subcommittees to divide specific tasks within their jurisdiction.

Subcommittees focus on highly specialized aspects of their parent committee’s policy areas, conducting in-depth hearings and streamlining the legislative process. The degree of autonomy and influence varies considerably. Some parent committees delegate significant authority, allowing subcommittees with sizable staff and budgets to routinely take the lead in framing issues, drafting measures, and holding initial markups. Other full committees retain more control.

This variability means that in certain policy domains, a relatively small and perhaps less visible subcommittee can exert considerable influence over initial formulation and direction of proposed laws. For citizens and advocates, this highlights the importance of identifying the relevant subcommittee when seeking to provide input or track legislation on specific issues.

Standing Committees: The Enduring Pillars of Congress

Standing committees are the bedrock of the congressional committee system, serving as permanent fixtures that handle the bulk of legislative and oversight responsibilities. Their enduring nature and broad policy mandates make them central to both the House and Senate.

What Makes Them “Standing”

A standing committee is a permanent legislative panel established by and identified in the official rules of each chamber. House Rule X governs House committees, while Senate Rule XXV covers Senate committees. These committees specialize in particular subject areas and, unlike temporary committees, continue operating from one two-year Congress to the next, ensuring continuity in legislative and oversight efforts.

For the 119th Congress (2025-2026), House rules were adopted via H.Res.5, which included amendments like renaming the “Committee on Education and the Workforce” to “Committee on Education and Workforce.” The complete text of House Rule X, detailing all standing committees and their responsibilities, can be found in the Rules and Manual of the House of Representatives.

Each standing committee has jurisdiction over a defined, broad policy area like agriculture, armed services, or foreign relations. This legislative jurisdiction means bills and issues related to their designated subjects typically get referred to them for initial consideration.

Core Functions and Powers

Standing committees are multi-functional bodies playing critical roles in lawmaking, government oversight, and the federal budget process.

Lawmaking Central

Standing committees’ primary function is processing legislation:

Bill Consideration: They’re the first stop for most bills introduced in Congress. Here, proposed legislation undergoes its most intensive scrutiny, with members examining merits, potential impacts, and conformity with existing law.

Hearings: Committees gather information and expert testimony through various types of public hearings. Legislative hearings focus on specific bills, allowing members to hear from proponents, opponents, and subject-matter experts. Oversight hearings monitor the executive branch’s implementation of laws. Investigative hearings examine allegations of wrongdoing or significant public problems. In the Senate, confirmation hearings consider presidential nominations for executive and judicial positions.

Markup: This critical formal meeting is where committee members debate bill specifics and consider amendments. It’s a transparent process, typically open to the public, where legislative language gets refined. A markup session concludes when the committee votes, by majority, to “report” the bill to the full chamber, meaning they recommend it for further consideration. Committees rarely schedule markups unless there’s expectation the bill will receive majority support for reporting.

During markup, a committee can report a bill that was referred to it, with recommended changes reflecting adopted amendments. Alternatively, it might report an “original” or “clean bill”—essentially new legislation drafted during the markup process itself.

Reporting Legislation: If a bill is approved in markup, the committee “reports” it to the full House or Senate. This typically includes a formal committee report explaining the bill’s purpose, provisions, the committee’s actions and amendments, and reasons for recommendations. This report serves as a key document for informing the full chamber’s subsequent debate and consideration.

Government Watchdogs

Standing committees are the primary vehicles for congressional oversight of the federal government. They monitor agencies, programs, and activities within their respective jurisdictions, ensuring laws are being implemented as Congress intended, federal funds are being spent efficiently and effectively, and executive branch agencies are accountable for their actions. This oversight function is a critical component of the system of checks and balances between government branches.

Oversight hearings are a principal tool for this function, allowing committees to question agency officials, review performance, and identify areas needing legislative or administrative correction.

Funding and Budgetary Roles

Standing committees play significant roles in the federal budget and appropriations process:

Most standing committees are authorizing committees, meaning they create federal programs and recommend authorized funding levels—essentially setting caps on how much money can be spent on programs within their jurisdiction.

However, actual provision of funds is handled by the Appropriations Committees in both chambers. These powerful committees recommend legislation providing “budget authority”—the actual money—for federal agencies and programs.

The Budget Committees in each chamber establish overall levels for federal spending and revenue through the annual budget resolution, serving as a guideline for both authorizing and appropriating committees.

The distinction between “authorization” and “appropriation” is crucial and represents a significant power dynamic within Congress. An authorizing committee might create a new federal program and set a funding limit of $100 million per year. However, this authorization doesn’t guarantee any funding. The Appropriations Committee decides how much money, if any, will actually be allocated to that program in a given fiscal year.

This two-step process means a program can legally exist (be authorized) but remain dormant or underfunded if the Appropriations Committee doesn’t provide necessary resources. This separation gives Appropriations Committees immense influence over virtually all government activities.

An analogy often used: authorizing committees decide the size of the glass, while appropriating committees decide how much water to pour into it. Tracking both authorization and appropriation bills is vital to understanding the true trajectory of federal policy.

Investigative Authority

Standing committees possess broad authority to conduct investigations within their assigned policy areas. They gather information, compare and evaluate legislative alternatives, identify policy problems, propose solutions, and investigate allegations of wrongdoing or maladministration. To carry out these functions, committees have significant investigatory tools, including the power to issue subpoenas to compel witnesses to testify and produce documents.

How Committee Membership Works

The process of assigning members to standing committees is largely driven by political parties.

Party Ratios and Size

Before individual assignments are made, party leaders in each chamber negotiate and decide the total size of each committee and the proportion of majority party to minority party members. This ratio generally reflects the overall partisan balance in the full House or Senate.

Assignment Process

Members are typically assigned through a three-step process:

Party Committees on Committees (Steering Committees): Each major party has its own internal “committee on committees” or “steering committee” responsible for making initial recommendations for committee assignments for their members. At the beginning of a new Congress, members express preferences for committee assignments to their respective party’s steering committee. Incumbent members often prefer remaining on committees where they’ve already served to build upon policy expertise and accumulate seniority.

Party Conference/Caucus Approval: Assignment slates prepared by steering committees are submitted to the full party conference (Republicans) or caucus (Democrats) for approval. While often granted easily, the conferences/caucuses have procedures for potentially disapproving recommended members and nominating alternatives.

Full Chamber Approval: Finally, each party’s approved committee assignment list is formally submitted to the full House or Senate for official approval. This approval is generally granted, often by unanimous consent, as a matter of comity between parties.

Seniority and Expertise

While strict adherence to seniority (length of continuous service on a committee) for determining committee chairmanships has been modified over time, it still plays a significant role in committee assignments and influence. Gaining expertise in a committee’s subject area is a key benefit of long-term service.

Limits on Service

To ensure members can effectively manage responsibilities, chamber rules typically limit the number of standing committees and subcommittees on which a member can serve. House Rule X generally limits members to service on no more than two standing committees and no more than four subcommittees, although waivers can be granted by party caucuses. The Senate also has rules limiting committee assignments a senator may hold.

The process of securing assignments to influential committees is often highly competitive and involves internal party politics not always visible to the public. Members actively lobby party leadership and steering committees for desirable posts. Factors like expertise, regional background, electoral needs, fundraising ability, and loyalty to party leadership can all play roles.

Assignments to “exclusive” committees in the House (like Appropriations, Rules, Ways and Means) or “Super A” committees in the Senate (like Appropriations, Armed Services, Finance, Foreign Relations) are particularly sought after due to their broad legislative jurisdictions and substantial workloads.

Key Standing Committees

Both chambers have standing committees covering diverse policy areas. As of the 119th Congress, the House has 20 standing committees, and the Senate has 16.

House Standing Committees (119th Congress)

A full list is available from the Clerk of the House and House.gov. Key examples include:

• House Committee on Agriculture
• House Committee on Appropriations
• House Committee on Armed Services
• House Committee on the Budget
• House Committee on Education and the Workforce
• House Committee on Energy and Commerce
• House Committee on Financial Services
• House Committee on Foreign Affairs
• House Committee on Homeland Security
• House Committee on the Judiciary
• House Committee on Natural Resources
• House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
• House Committee on Rules
• House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
• House Committee on Ways and Means

Senate Standing Committees (119th Congress)

A full list is available from Senate.gov and Congress.gov. Key examples include:

• Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
• Senate Committee on Appropriations
• Senate Committee on Armed Services
• Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
• Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
• Senate Committee on Finance
• Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
• Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP)
• Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
• Senate Committee on the Judiciary

The Unique Power of the House Rules Committee

One unique and powerful standing committee is the House Committee on Rules. Often called the “Speaker’s committee” or the “traffic cop” of the House, it exerts significant control over the legislative process.

Unlike other standing committees that focus on specific policy areas, the Rules Committee’s primary jurisdiction is the process by which legislation is considered on the House floor. For most major bills, after being reported by a policy committee, they must go to the Rules Committee.

This committee issues a special “rule” for each bill, dictating the terms of its debate, including how much time will be allotted for discussion and, crucially, what amendments, if any, can be offered on the floor. A “closed rule” might prohibit all amendments, while an “open rule” might allow any germane amendment.

Because the majority party holds a disproportionate number of seats on the Rules Committee, it effectively allows the Speaker and majority leadership to control the flow of legislation and shape conditions under which bills are debated and voted upon. This gatekeeping function is a powerful tool for managing the House agenda and can significantly influence legislative outcomes.

Select (or Special) Committees: The Focused Problem-Solvers

Distinct from permanent standing committees, select (or special) committees are typically created to address specific issues or perform particular tasks that fall outside the ordinary scope or capacity of the standing committee system. They’re Congress’s way of forming specialized task forces for focused missions.

What Makes Them “Select”

A select committee (often called a special committee in the Senate) is generally established by a separate resolution of its respective chamber to perform a special function. These functions often involve conducting investigations, undertaking studies on particular topics, or overseeing specific governmental operations.

Select committees are usually created to examine emerging issues that don’t fit neatly within established jurisdictions of existing standing committees, or that cut across boundaries of multiple standing committees. They can also address matters not adequately covered by standing committees or respond to specific events or crises requiring focused congressional attention.

How They’re Created

Select committees aren’t permanent fixtures defined by chamber rules like standing committees. Instead, they’re created on an ad hoc basis through passage of a resolution in the House or Senate. This authorizing resolution is critical, as it outlines the select committee’s specific duties, powers (like authority to hold hearings or issue subpoenas), procedures for appointing members, and often duration or reporting deadlines.

For example, in the 118th Congress, H.Res.11 established the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, detailing its composition, investigative jurisdiction, and reporting requirements.

Core Functions and Powers

Select committees’ primary roles revolve around in-depth inquiry and policy advice:

Targeted Investigations

A hallmark of select committees is their ability to conduct focused investigations into specific events, complex issues, or allegations of wrongdoing. Through hearings, document reviews, and witness interviews, they gather information and seek to uncover facts, often on matters of significant public concern.

Policy Recommendations

Following investigations or studies, select committees typically produce comprehensive reports detailing their findings. These reports often include specific policy recommendations directed to the full chamber, relevant standing committees, or the executive branch. These recommendations can form the basis for future legislative action or changes in government operations.

Specialized Oversight

Select committees can be tasked with overseeing specific government functions or addressing particular concerns that may not be the central focus of any single standing committee. In some cases, they handle general oversight or housekeeping responsibilities for the chamber.

Subpoena and Hearing Powers

If granted by their authorizing resolution, select committees generally possess the same powers as standing committees to hold public or closed hearings and to issue subpoenas compelling witness testimony and document production. Specific rules and procedures for issuing subpoenas can vary by committee and chamber.

Legislative Authority: Usually Indirect

A key distinction for most select committees is their legislative authority.

General Rule

Unlike standing committees, select committees typically don’t have power to report legislation directly to the floor for a vote by the full chamber. Their primary legislative output is in the form of investigative reports and policy recommendations, which are then submitted to standing committees with relevant legislative jurisdiction.

Important Exceptions

Some select committees are granted legislative jurisdiction in their authorizing resolution, allowing them to draft and report bills. A prominent example is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which has jurisdiction over authorizations for appropriations for all intelligence agencies and programs.

Even without direct legislative power, select committee findings and recommendations can significantly influence the legislative agenda and content of bills considered by standing committees.

Membership: Leadership Appointments

Select committee composition is generally determined by party leadership. Members are typically appointed by leaders of their respective chambers and parties, such as the Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, and Senate Minority Leader.

The authorizing resolution often specifies the total number of members, the ratio of majority to minority party members, and the appointment process. Service on certain select committees may be exempted from a member’s overall limit on committee assignments.

Duration: Temporary by Design, With Exceptions

The lifespan of select committees varies significantly.

Typically Temporary

Most select committees are created for limited duration. They often expire upon completion of their designated duties, such as submitting a final report, or at the end of the two-year congressional session in which they were created. The authorizing resolution frequently specifies a termination date or reporting deadline that effectively marks the end of the committee’s mandate.

Permanent Select Committees

Due to the ongoing and critical nature of certain issues, some select committees have been made permanent. These committees often function similarly to standing committees, possessing legislative jurisdiction and continuing oversight responsibilities:

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), established in 1977, provides oversight of the U.S. Intelligence Community and related activities.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, established in 1976, oversees U.S. intelligence activities and has legislative and authorization jurisdiction for intelligence programs.

The Senate Select Committee on Ethics is a permanent bipartisan committee responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct by Senators and staff, interpreting and enforcing Senate ethics rules, and providing ethics guidance.

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee, while now often listed with standing committees, originated as a select committee and retains focused jurisdiction on issues affecting Native Americans.

The existence of “permanent select committees” might seem contradictory, given that select committees are generally temporary. However, this unique status highlights areas of governance that demand continuous, specialized attention but may operate under different structural rules or possess scope distinct from typical standing committees.

These committees frequently deal with highly sensitive, complex, and enduring issues like national security or ethical conduct of members, which benefit from dedicated, specialized bodies. Their “permanent select” status signifies a hybrid nature: they combine the focused mandate characteristic of a select committee with the ongoing operational necessity of a standing committee.

Historical and Modern Examples

Select committees have played significant roles throughout U.S. history, leading to major policy changes and shaping public understanding of critical events.

Historically Impactful Select Committees

Church Committee (Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, 1975-1976): Chaired by Senator Frank Church, this committee conducted a sweeping investigation into abuses by U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and FBI. Its findings led to landmark reforms, including establishment of permanent intelligence oversight committees in both chambers and passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. More details are available on the Senate’s historical page.

Kefauver Committee (Senate Special Committee to Investigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce, 1950-1951): Led by Senator Estes Kefauver, this committee held the first widely televised congressional hearings, captivating the nation and dramatically raising public awareness of organized crime’s extent and influence in America. While its direct legislative achievements were modest, the committee’s investigation spurred significant action by local and state law enforcement agencies. More information is available here.

Watergate Committee (Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, 1973-1974): This committee’s investigation into the Watergate scandal and related abuses of power by the Nixon administration led to impeachment proceedings and President Richard Nixon’s eventual resignation, triggering major reforms in campaign finance and government ethics.

Recent Examples

House Select Committee on the January 6th Attack (117th Congress): Investigated the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

House Select Committee on Benghazi (2014-2016): Investigated the 2012 attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya. The committee’s work was lengthy, costly, and highly partisan. An inadvertent outcome was discovery of then-former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, which prompted a separate FBI investigation.

House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party (118th-119th Congresses): Tasked with investigating and submitting policy recommendations concerning the multifaceted competition between the U.S. and the Chinese Communist Party. It explicitly lacks legislative jurisdiction to report bills.

Senate Special Committee on Aging: This permanent special committee focuses on issues affecting older Americans, conducting hearings and issuing reports to inform policy.

The creation and operation of select committees often highlight a dual nature: they are instruments for genuine problem-solving and in-depth investigation, but their high-profile and focused mandates can also transform them into platforms for partisan messaging or political maneuvering. Because select committees are typically formed to address pressing, often controversial, issues, their work naturally attracts significant public and media attention.

The appointment process, heavily influenced by party leadership, means that the committee’s direction and emphasis can be shaped by partisan priorities. Consequently, select committees can be utilized not only for objective fact-finding and policy solution development but also to amplify particular narratives, scrutinize political opponents, or advance a party’s broader agenda.

Conversely, some select committees, like the Church Committee, have managed to achieve remarkable bipartisan consensus and produce recommendations that lead to widely accepted and lasting reforms. This duality requires citizens to critically evaluate the work and reports of select committees, considering both their stated investigative purpose and the potential political dynamics influencing their operations and conclusions.

Standing vs. Select Committees: Key Differences at a Glance

To clearly distinguish between these two vital components of the congressional committee system, here’s a side-by-side comparison:

This table highlights core distinctions. While standing committees are the continuous, policy-focused engines of Congress, select committees are the specialized, often investigative, task forces assembled for particular challenges. Both are indispensable to Congress’s ability to legislate, oversee government, and respond to the nation’s evolving needs.

Why These Committees Matter to You

The work of congressional committees, whether standing or select, isn’t an abstract governmental exercise—it has profound and direct consequences for American citizens’ daily lives, the laws that govern them, and government accountability.

Shaping Laws That Affect Daily Life

Decisions made within committee rooms directly translate into policies and laws that shape society.

Standing committees are at the forefront of this process. The House Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Committee on Finance have jurisdiction over taxation, Social Security, and trade policies, all of which have significant financial implications for individuals and businesses.

National healthcare policy is largely forged in committees like the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which also deals with consumer protection and environmental policies.

Education policies affecting students, families, and educators are developed within the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Senate HELP Committee.

Select committees, through their investigations and recommendations, can also lead to new laws or significant changes in government operations that protect citizens or address pressing national problems. A clear example is the Church Committee’s work in the 1970s. Its investigation into intelligence agency abuses directly led to passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a law that continues to govern how the U.S. government conducts surveillance for national security purposes, impacting privacy and civil liberties.

Ensuring Government Accountability

Committees are a primary mechanism through which Congress exercises its vital oversight function, holding government accountable to the people.

Standing committees routinely oversee federal agencies and programs within their specific jurisdictions. They conduct hearings, review agency performance, and investigate potential waste, fraud, or abuse, ensuring laws are being implemented as Congress intended and taxpayer money is being spent wisely and effectively.

Select committees are often formed specifically to investigate major government failures, instances of misconduct, or national crises. Their focused inquiries can bring public attention to problems and compel accountability from government officials and institutions.

A Venue for Public Input and Diverse Perspectives

Congressional committee hearings provide a formal and public platform for gathering information from a wide array of sources, including government officials, academic experts, industry representatives, advocacy groups, and private citizens.

This process allows diverse viewpoints, concerns, and expertise to be heard and considered by lawmakers as they develop and refine policy. Many committee hearings are open to the public and often webcast, allowing citizens to observe proceedings directly. Witness testimony and hearing transcripts are frequently made available online, providing valuable resources for understanding the basis of policy decisions.

It’s important to recognize that while committees are designed to foster policy expertise and facilitate informed decision-making, they are also inherently political bodies. The assignment of members, selection of leadership, and setting of agendas are all influenced by party dynamics.

Consequently, committee work reflects not only expert analysis and evidence-based consideration but also the push and pull of political negotiation, ideological differences, and partisan interests. A legislative proposal might be sound from a purely policy perspective but encounter obstacles in committee due to political opposition, or conversely, a politically favored proposal might advance despite expert concerns.

Committee outcomes are thus products of both substantive policy considerations and the prevailing political landscape. Understanding this dual nature—as arenas of both expertise and political struggle—allows citizens to interpret committee actions more realistically and appreciate the complex interplay of factors that shape American governance.

Frequently Asked Questions

How are committee chairs chosen?

Traditionally, the most senior member (longest-serving on that committee) of the majority party automatically became chair. While seniority remains a significant factor, the process has evolved. Now, party caucuses or conferences often vote to approve committee chairs, and party leadership can exert considerable influence over these selections. House Republican Conference rules impose term limits on how long a member can serve as chair of a particular committee.

Why do so many bills “die in committee”?

Congressional committees receive far more bill referrals than they can realistically process in detail during a two-year Congress. The committee chair holds primary agenda-setting authority and decides which bills or issues the committee will formally act upon through hearings or markups.

Many bills are introduced for symbolic reasons, such as drawing attention to issues, without strong expectation they’ll become law. Others may be duplicative of existing legislation, deemed impractical, or simply lack sufficient support from committee members or party leadership. If a committee doesn’t take action on a referred bill, it’s effectively “killed” for that session of Congress.

Can citizens attend committee hearings?

Yes, in most cases. The majority of committee hearings and markup sessions are open to the public. There are rare exceptions, typically when a committee meets in closed or “executive” session to discuss sensitive matters like national security information or confidential personnel issues.

Committee hearing schedules are usually available on individual committee websites and on central congressional sites like Senate.gov. Many hearings are also webcast live and archived for later viewing.

What is a subcommittee and what does it do?

A subcommittee is a smaller, specialized unit within a full committee, composed of a subset of the full committee’s members. Subcommittees are created to focus on more specific aspects of the parent committee’s broader jurisdiction.

They conduct detailed work, including holding hearings on particular topics, gathering testimony, and often performing initial review and markup of legislation before it’s considered by the full committee. House rules generally limit most committees to five subcommittees, although some committees, like Appropriations, are permitted more due to their extensive workload.

How are members assigned to committees?

While members of Congress express preferences for committee assignments, actual assignments are made through a party-driven process. Each party has a steering committee or “committee on committees” that develops slates of assignments for its members. These recommendations are then typically ratified by the full party caucus or conference, and finally by the entire chamber.

Factors influencing assignments include a member’s seniority, expertise, policy interests, geographical representation, electoral considerations, and relationship with party leadership.

What’s the difference between a committee and a caucus?

Committees are formal, official subsidiary organizations of the House or Senate, established by chamber rules or resolutions. They have defined legislative jurisdictions, powers (like holding hearings and reporting legislation), and formally appointed members. Committees are integral to the official legislative and oversight processes of Congress.

Caucuses (also known as Congressional Member Organizations) are informal groups of members who share common interests or characteristics, such as regional ties, political or ideological leanings, ethnic backgrounds, or specific economic interests. Caucuses exist to allow members to discuss issues of mutual concern, conduct research, and coordinate policy positions, but they’re not formal parts of the legislative machinery like committees and generally don’t have official legislative powers.

What’s the difference between a committee and a commission?

Committees are internal bodies of Congress, composed exclusively of elected Members of the House or Senate (and their staff).

Commissions are often established by an act of Congress (or by the President) to study specific policy issues, provide independent advice, or perform commemorative functions. Commissions typically exist temporarily and report their findings and recommendations to Congress or the President. A key difference is that commission members can include private citizens, experts, and government officials from outside Congress, in addition to, or instead of, Members of Congress.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.