House Committees

Agriculture

Thus the Committee on Agriculture was created on May 3, 1820. The population of the country
was about 9 million and there were 213 Representatives in the House. Seven of these
Representatives, under the chairmanship of Thomas Forrest, of Pennsylvania, were assigned to the
new committee. Six other States were represented in this group: Maryland, New Hampshire, New
York, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia. (The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry was founded December 9, 1825.)

Lewis Williams, a Representative from Surrey County, N.C., elected to the 14th and 13 succeeding
Congresses, and known as the "Father of the House," was the sponsor of the resolution proposing a
Committee on Agriculture, and at the time of its introduction, April 29, 1820, he had this to say on the
floor of the House:

Gentlemen, say that there are, in this country, three interests, the agricultural, commercial, and
manufacturing. And how happens it, sir, that the agricultural, the great leading and substantial
interest in this country, has no committee; no organized tribunal in this House to hear and determine
on their grievances? If the commercial or manufacturing interests are affected, the cry resounds
throughout the country; remonstrances flow in upon us; they are referred to committees appointed
for the purpose of guarding them, and adequate remedies are provided. But, sir, when agriculture is
oppressed, and makes complaint, what tribunal is in this House to hear and determine on the
grievances?2

While originally consisting of seven Members, the committee gradually increased in size. In 1835, the
23rd Congress increased the membership to nine, and then not until the 42nd Congress, in 1871, was
it again increased, this time to 11. From then on there was a steady increase until the maximum was
reached in the 107th Congress, 2001, when 51 Members were assigned to the committee and its five
subcommittees.

At the present time, the committee, chaired by the Honorable Collin C. Peterson, a Democrat
representing the 7th District of Minnesota, consists of 46 Members, 28 Democrats and 18 Republicans.

Hon. Harold D. Cooley, a Democrat from North Carolina, served eight terms as chairman (1949-1953
& 1955-1976), longer than any previous head of the committee. Other chairman who served for long
periods include James W. Wadsworth (New York) and Gilbert N. Haugen (Iowa), both Republicans,
who served for six terms each. Marvin Jones, a Texas Democrat, and William H. Hatch, a Missouri
Democrat, each served as chairman for five terms. Edmund Deberry, a North Carolina Whig, served
for four terms.

The jurisdiction of the committee, as originally defined, covered simply "subjects relating to
agriculture." In the revision of the rules of the House in 1880, the Committee on Rules proposed the
same simple rule: "subjects relating to agriculture: to the Committee on Agriculture." However, during
consideration by the House the words "and forestry" were inserted on motion of Mark H. Dunnell, of
Minnesota, who said that bills relating to tree culture had formerly gone to the Public Lands
Committee, but more recently had gone to the Agriculture Committee. Thus the broad field of forestry
was included in the committee's jurisdiction. More important was an amendment by D. Wyatt Aiken, of
South Carolina, adding these words to the description of the committee's jurisdiction: "who shall
receive the estimates and report the appropriations for the Agricultural Department." Although there
existed an Appropriations Committee, the Committee on Agriculture reported on Department of
Agriculture appropriations from 1880 until July 1, 1920, when another revision of the rules of the
House returned to the Appropriations Committee all jurisdiction over appropriations.
The committee has, by direct action of the House, secured jurisdiction over agriculturally related
subjects. Thus the committee assumed jurisdiction for farm credit when the House referred to it the
President's message dealing with the refinancing of farm-mortgage indebtedness on April 4, 1933,
73rd Congress.

The jurisdiction as presently defined in the Rules of the House of Representatives was made effective
January 2, 1947, as a part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, and is as follows:

1. Adulteration of seeds, insect pests, and protection of birds and animals in forest reserves.
2. Agriculture generally.
3. Agricultural and industrial chemistry.
4. Agricultural colleges and experiment stations.
5. Agricultural economics and research.
6. Agricultural education extension services.
7. Agricultural production and marketing and stabilization of prices of agricultural products, and
commodities (not including distribution outside of the United States).
8. Animal industry and diseases of animals.
9. Commodity exchanges.
10. Crop insurance and soil conservation.
11. Dairy industry.
12. Entomology and plant quarantine.
13. Extension of farm credit and farm security.
14. Inspection of livestock, poultry, meat products, and seafood and seafood products.
15. Forestry in general, and forest reserves other than those created from the public domain.
16. Human nutrition and home economics.
17. Plant industry, soils, and agricultural engineering.
18. Rural electrification.
19. Rural development.
20. Water conservation related to activities of the Department of Agriculture.

In carrying out its responsibilities, the committee conducts hearings, some public and some in
executive session, to consider various legislative proposals. It affords the general public the
opportunity to express its views. Among the witnesses are representatives of farm organizations,
consumer groups, and ordinary citizens. The sessions are held to perfect the details of the legislation.
As the role of the farmer becomes more technical and industrialized, so will the role of this committee
become more complex.

One of the very important functions of any committee is the reporting of legislation to the House.
Designed to fully explain each piece of legislation approved by the committee, a "report" takes the
form of a formal printed document and accompanies a bill as it goes to the House floor for action. It is
also a reflection of the committee's interests. In recent Congresses, the reports of the Committee on
Agriculture generally fill one volume of a few hundred pages. By comparison, all of the reports from
the Agriculture Committee from the 16th to the 49th Congresses are bound in one volume.3

Of course, there have been many momentous and historical reports on legislation by the committee
which have had a profound and lasting effect on the agricultural community and the Nation. The first
reference to a Department of Agriculture was in "Ho. of Reps. Rep. No. 595," April 12, 1842:

The Committee on Agriculture, to which was referred the petition of Joseph L. Smith and others,
praying for the establishment of a department of agriculture and education, have had the same under
consideration, and beg leave to report the following resolution: Resolved. That it is inexpedient to
grant the prayer of petitioners.

Proposals for a Department of Agriculture were made many times and in House Report 321 of August
5, 1856, the committee had this to say:
Agriculture is the basis of our national prosperity. It is the substratum of all other interests; and the
degree of advancement which marks the progress of our country and its people in wealth, enterprise,
education, and substantial independence, is measured by the prosperity of its rural interests. It is one
of those arts which, from the earliest periods, have been deservedly held in the highest estimation.
One of the first injunctions upon our original progenitor, after his expulsion from the Garden of Eden,
was that he should "till the soil."

It was not until 1862 that a favorable report was acted on, which led to the establishment of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture on May 15, 1862. But it was not of Cabinet rank. The first Commissioner of
Agriculture was Isaac Newton, who inherited the staff of nine employees and facilities of the
Agricultural Division of the Patent Office. The embryo department, a year later, had a horticulturist, a
chemist, an entomologist, a statistician, an editor, and 24 others. Experimental work was done in a
propagating garden bounded by what is now Madison and Adams Drives, and Fourth and Sixth
Streets. When no longer needed by the Union Army for a cattle yard, a larger area between
Independence and Constitution Avenues, and 12th and 14th Streets was transferred to the
Department. The appropriation for the first year was $80,000.

Although many urged that the Department be an executive department with a secretary who would be
a member of the President's Cabinet, it was 27 years before Congress elevated it to a Cabinet status
in 1889. At this time, the Department consisted of 488 employees and an had annual appropriation of
$1.1 million.

When the committee was established in 1820, the Nation was in its infancy. The population was
9,618,000, having more than doubled from the first census taken in 1790. By 1862, when the
Department of Agriculture was founded, the population was up to 33 million. It had reached almost
107 million in 1920 when the committee marked its centennial, and the Census Bureau estimate for
May of 2004 is over 300 million.

So, with a glance back at the growth of the United States, and a look ahead at the continued growth
of both our domestic and the global population, it becomes unmistakably clear that nothing is more
important to the welfare of Americans than the maintenance of a healthy agriculture, which is the
continuing prime objective of the committee.

1: From the Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States," 16th Cong., 1st sess.,
May 3, 1820.
2: From "Annals of the Congress of the United States," 16th Cong., 1st sess., Saturday, Apr. 29,
1820.
3: Reports of the Committee on Agriculture from the organization of the committee May 3, 1820, to
the close of the 49th Congress, 1887, inclusive. Compiled. under the direction of the Joint Committee
on Printing, by T. H. McKee, clerk, document room, U.S. Senate.

Appropriations

On March 2, 1865, the House of Representatives separated the appropriating and banking and currency duties
from the Committee on Ways and Means, which was first established in 1789, and assigned them to two new committees -
the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Banking and Currency.

Until 1865, all "general" appropriations bills had been controlled in the House by the Committee on Ways and Means - also
in charge of revenue measures and some other classes of substantive legislation.

Membership of the Committee

The new Committee on Appropriations - six Republicans and three Democrats - was appointed on December 11, 1865, in
the 1st session of the 39th Congress, and first reported the general appropriations bills for the fiscal year 1867. By 1920, the
number of members had grown to 21. It was changed that year to 35 and gradually increased to 50 by 1951, and now
numbers 66 members.

Committee Chairmen
Thirty men, including the present incumbent, the Honorable Jerry Lewis of California, have served as chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations. The Honorable Clarence Cannon of Missouri, served as chairman nearly 19 years, although
his term as chairman was of broken continuity. The Honorable George Mahon of Texas, served as chairman continuously
longer than any other person, from May 18, 1964 to January 3, 1979. Several chairmen went on to higher or other important
offices. One, James Garfield of Ohio, became President. Three, Samuel Randall of Pennsylvania, Joseph Cannon of Illinois,
and Joseph Byrns of Tennessee, became Speaker of the House. Three later served in the U.S. Senate. One became
Governor of his State. The list of distinctions is long. Interesting biographical sketches of 21 of the men are contained in
House Document No. 299 of the 77th Congress.

The Growth of Expenditures

In the early years of the Congress, a single general appropriation bill from the Ways and Means Committee met the needs of
the country. The first bill, in 1789, appropriated $639,000 and covered 13 lines of the printed statutes. Five years later, in
1794, the Army was supplied in a separate bill, then the Navy in 1799. This trend continued until in 1865, there were 10 bills
passed over to the new Committee on Appropriations, not including deficiency bills. For fiscal year 1997, 13 appropriations
bills have provided a total of $794.9 billion.

Until recent years, large sustained spending increases of the Federal Government usually occurred only in connection with
wars. For several years prior to the Civil War, Federal expenditures averaged $60,000,000 annually. By the peak of the war,
in fiscal year 1865, expenditures amounted to $1,297,555,224. The year following the war - fiscal year 1866 - spending was
reduced to $520,809,417.

In the first year for which the new Committee on Appropriations reported the general bills, fiscal year 1867, total
expenditures of the Government were $357,542,675. In the ensuing 100 years the lowest expenditure level was
$236,964,327 - in fiscal year 1878. The Spanish-American War period marked the high point for the remainder of the
century; in fiscal year 1899 expenditures reached $605,072,179, but by 1902 had dropped back to $485,234,249. With the
onset of World War I expenditures again crossed the billion-dollar mark in fiscal year 1917, reached a war peak of
$18,514,879,955 in fiscal year 1919, and receded by fiscal year 1927 to $2,974,029,674, the lowest subsequent level.

By 1940, spending in appropriations bills had climbed to $14.6 billion as a result mainly of various New Deal legislation -
when we began meeting local problems with national programs. Since 1934, our national wealth has increased 41 times.

By 1943, the fiscal high point of World War II, some $143.8 billion was being spent. After World War II, spending declined to
the $30 billion range and then increased to $91.1 billion in 1951 in connection with the Korean War.

After the Korean War, Federal spending in appropriations bills decreased to $47.6 billion in 1954. This is the last period in
the Federal budget in which spending has decreased. Every year after 1954 spending has steadily increased in order to help
meet the needs facing the country.

The Budget Process

By the early 1970's new forces were at work calling for changes in the way in which Congress handled the budget and
appropriations process.

One of the most compelling of these forces, although it was largely a temporary problem, was due to the "impoundment" of
funds in fiscal year 1974 by the President. This was, in effect, a line item veto of funds for programs that were initiated or
increased by the Congress. Many Members of Congress and certain special interest groups were outraged and extremely
frustrated by the impoundments. Numerous court suits on various impoundments had been filed and were in the process of
being heard.

A more serious reason for budget reform was due to the widely held belief that the budget was out of control. Deficits were
mounting; so-called "uncontrollable" spending was climbing; and "back door" spending, i.e. spending provided other than
through the Appropriations Committee, was increasing. It was also becoming clear that there was little, if any coordination
between raising and spending revenues.

Additionally, there was a feeling among some Members of Congress that there needed to be other or additional ways to
change the priorities of Federal spending. Because of these and other concerns, formal work was begun on improving the
congressional budget process through the establishment of the Joint Study Committee on Budget Control.
The work of this Committee, the House Rules Committee, the Senate Committee on Government Operations, and the
Senate Rules Committee eventually resulted in the adoption of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of
1974.

Armed Services

The committee is committed to ensuring that the U.S. military is properly postured to
meet the complex security demands of the 21st century. This will involve closely reviewing how
the National Defense Strategy and the National Military Strategy articulate those demands and
thoroughly evaluating how the Department of Defense (DOD) postures itself to meet those
demands. The committee will pay particular attention to how the Department continues to adapt
to evolving irregular warfare and stability operations-related security challenges while also
ensuring that the Department remains capable of executing its traditional missions. Therefore,
the committee will provide oversight to ensure that all DOD activities, capabilities and functions,
including doctrine, organization, training, education, exercises, materiel, leadership, personnel,
facilities, and planning appropriately reflect the necessity to meet the full range of security
requirements.

Furthermore, when considering the overall posture of the Department, the committee will
continue to monitor the implementation of the recommendations delineated in the 2006
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and engage the Department as it embarks upon the next
QDR, the report of which is due in 2010. This will include: the adequacy of active and Reserve
Component force structure, and especially the continuing evolution of the National Guard into a
modern, operation-oriented reserve force with an enhanced role in homeland defense; an
examination of the technological, doctrinal, and other factors affecting the long-term
transformation of the conduct of military operations; a review of the roles and responsibilities of
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and of the combatant commands, including the newly
created U.S. Africa Command; the evolving mission of other recently established or modified
commands; an examination of the roles and missions of the armed services and their implications
for modernization requirements and the development of major weapons systems; the emergence
of modern piracy as a security challenge that threatens global commerce; the impact of climate
change; and other relevant areas.

Most critically, the committee will conduct all the activities mentioned above within the context
of a comprehensive approach to understanding the strategic risk facing the United States. In so
doing, the committee will seek to determine what level of strategic risk is acceptable, what
factors increase that risk, and what factors reduce it.

Through its constitutional responsibility arising from article I, section eight, to raise and support
armies and to provide and maintain a Navy, the committee has a responsibility to ensure that the
military can meet its future missions, as well as today’s operational requirements. The
committee’s examination of strategic risk, in simple terms, will look to ensure that these joint
forces retain the ability, regardless of present operational pressures, to deter any potential foe,
respond to any contingency that threatens U.S. interests, and defeat any adversary who might
threaten America’s interests, in the worst case. In this regard, the committee will closely examine
the Department of Defense’s range of assumptions about future threats made in strategy
documents to assess the adequacy of forces, the resources available, and the likely level of
strategic risk. By the same token, the committee will also look at current operational demands
and whether those demands—through readiness and force strains or through other impacts such
as on potential coalition partners—increase our strategic risk for meeting future challenges. The
committee will continue to monitor strategic risk and take action to mitigate it when necessary.

Budget

Established during an era of unprecedented institutional reform in Congress, the Committee on

the Budget’s function derives from the constitutional mandate that fixes control of the nation’s purse in
the U.S. House of Representatives. Although Congress has always possessed the legal authority to
exercise power over federal appropriations, a formal institutional mechanism to manage taxes and
spending did not exist until 1974. Three developments precipitated the need for a formal mechanism:
increasing conflicts between Congress and the President over the federal budget; the challenge of
managing long-term programs such as Social Security and Medicare; and budget deficits in the latter
20th century.i

The committee originated with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (PL 93-
344), which permitted Congress to develop an independent means to analyze the Presidential budget,
reconcile it with congressional plans, and develop a fiscal policy of its own. The act established
permanent standing budget committees in both houses of Congress, as well as a Congressional Budget
Office to provide Congress with independent, nonpartisan analyses.

Unlike its Senate counterpart, the House Budget Committee has a larger membership (43 in the House
compared to 21 in the Senate); ratios are determined at the beginning of every Congress based on party
strength. The committee handles broad questions about federal spending and taxation and ensures that
the House follows the 1974 law. This committee also has a rotating membership. None of its members
may serve more than six out of 10 years. And, in contrast to the Senate whose chair is permanent, the
House elects a new chair at the beginning of each Congress. The House also requires that the
committee’s membership be drawn from the Ways and Means Committee (5), the Appropriations
Committee (5), one from each of the 11 authorizing committees, and one member from the leadership of
the Democratic and Republican [Link]

As the first panel to examine the President’s annual budget message, the Budget Committee’s chief
responsibility is to draft a concurrent resolution that reconciles spending details with the overall
comprehensive budget package. The committee is required to draft a budget resolution, agreed to by
April 15 of each year, which establishes total targets in five budget areas: authority; outlays; revenues;
surplus or deficit; and public debt. The resolution also sets budget authority and outlay targets for each
of the 21 spending categories. Although Congress originally planned to have two budget resolutions per
year, the committee eventually eliminated the second resolution date because of the effectiveness of the
reconciliation [Link] Finally, the committee prepares guidelines in the annual budget resolution for
cutting programs to meet spending [Link]

For much of its history, the Budget Committee’s agenda has been directed by centrist House Members
who advocated fiscal responsibility while crafting compromises between the President’s budget and
Congress’s appropriations interests. Although much of the committee’s activity was directed toward
reconciling executive and congressional budget goals, the legislative interests of individual committee
chairmen also has played a role in steering the committee focus. v

Although the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 outlined the purpose and
jurisdiction of the committee, two subsequent acts further shaped the committee’s work. In 1985,
Senators Phil Gramm of Texas, Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, and Ernest Hollings of South Carolina
sponsored the Gramm– Rudman–Hollings Acts of 1985 and 1987, which required a gradual reduction of
the federal deficit by setting target deficit rates within six years. If the projected deficit exceeded the
deficit target, the act provided for automatic cuts (or “sequestration”) in other areas of the federal
budget to meet the [Link]  The second piece of legislation was the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. A
compromise measure between congressional leaders and President George H. W. Bush, this act
contained significant revisions from Gramm–Rudman–Hollings. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990
“placed yearly caps on all discretionary spending, required that any reduction in revenues must be
accompanied by an equal reduction in entitlement spending, nullified the Gramm– Rudman–Hollings
legislation, and provided pay-as-you-go provisions for any new spending.” vii

Throughout its history, the Committee on the Budget has fulfilled its role as an institutional check on
federal spending in two ways. First, the committee has consistently provided independent analyses of
federal spending through the Congressional Budget Office. Second, the committee negotiated with its
counterparts in the executive branch and the Senate. As a result of the institutional reforms that created
the Budget Committee, Congress strengthened its hand in shaping the budget and appropriations
process.

Energy and Commerce

The history of the Committee on Energy and Commerce is the story of American prosperity and
opportunity.

Our Committee was born on December 14, 1795 as the Committee on Commerce and Manufactures
when the growing demands of the young nation required that Congress establish a permanent panel to
exercise its constitutional authority to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States."

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, the oldest standing legislative committee in the U.S. House of
Representatives, remains today as the body's principal guide in the promotion of commerce, public
health, energy and technology.

The Committee is vested with the broadest jurisdiction of any congressional authorizing committee. Today
it has responsibility for the nation's telecommunications, consumer protection, food and drug safety,
public health research, environmental quality, the availability of affordable energy, and the continuance of
interstate and foreign commerce. It oversees multiple cabinet-level departments and independent
agencies, including the departments of Energy, Health and Human Services, and Transportation, as well
as the Federal Trade Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Federal Communications
Commission.

As the new United States grew and Congress created new committees to deal with expanding policy
concerns, this Committee asserted and maintained its dominant central position as the House's monitor of
commercial progress. Its traditional role and changing focus is reflected in the evolution of its name,
jurisdiction and practices.

In 1819, we became the Committee on Commerce as Committee responsibilities expanded beyond the
creation of navigational aids and oversight of the nascent federal health service to include foreign trade
policy. The name changed again in 1891, becoming the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
That durable title sufficed for 90 years, when the Committee assumed its present name in 1981 to
emphasize its leading role in the nation's energy policy.
Today, the wide-ranging work accomplished by the Committee on Energy and Commerce builds on a
breathtaking record of achievement that began with building lighthouses and supervising the federal
government's health service for sick and disabled seaman, a function that developed into the Public
Health Service and National Institutes of Health. The Committee's overarching role in health, safety, and
commerce can be traced to passage of the milestone legislation like the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,
the Clean Air Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Our Committee's prominent place in Congress is the direct consequence of the men and women who
served here and who kept pace with the changing world for more than two centuries. The essence of the
work of ensuring economic growth now encompasses responsibility for the technological advance of a
lifetime, the Internet.

From welcoming merchantmen home from treacherous seas and caring for disabled sailors, to
overseeing commerce by ship, rail and then aircraft, to our work on drugs, food and advancing freedom in
the burgeoning digital marketplace, the House Energy and Commerce Committee continues to assure the
health and wealth of the richest nation in human history.

Education and the Workforce

The Committee's basic jurisdiction is over education and workforce

matters generally. While Congress has been concerned over education
and workforce issues since its beginning, attempts to create a
Committee with jurisdiction over education and labor failed in early
Congresses due to Representatives' concern over the constitutional
grounds for such a federal role and the belief that education was more
properly the responsibility of the states. 

The first Committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Education and

Labor, was established on March 21, 1867 in the aftermath of the Civil
War and the growth of American industry. On December 19, 1883, the
Committee on Education and Labor was divided into two standing
committees: Committee on Education and Committee on Labor. On
January 2, 1947, the Legislative Reorganization Act again combined the
Committees, renamed the Committee on Education and Labor. On
January 4, 1995, the Committee was renamed the Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities. On January 7, 1997, the
Committee was renamed the Committee on Education and the
Workforce; on January 5, 2007, it became the Committee on Education
and Labor; most recently, on January 5, 2011, the Committee was given
its current name, the Committee on Education and the Workforce. 
Financial Services

Government Reform

Welcome, and thank you for visiting the Web site of the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform. We hope you will find the information here useful, interesting and easily accessible.

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has legislative jurisdiction over the District of
Columbia, the government procurement process, federal personnel systems, the Postal Service and other
matters. Our primary responsibility, however, is oversight of virtually everything government does – from
national security to homeland security grants, from federal workforce policies to regulatory reform and
reorganization authority, from information technology procurements at individual agencies to government-
wide data security standards.
As the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, we will work with our colleagues in the minority
to exercise effective oversight over the federal government and will work proactively to investigate and
expose waste, fraud, and abuse.

Homeland Security

The Committee on Homeland Security was established in 2002 to provide Congressional oversight for
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and better protect the American people against a possible terrorist
attack. In 2005, the House of Representatives granted the Committee on Homeland Security permanent status;
that same year, U.S. Rep. Peter T. King (NY), was named Chairman of the Committee. Under Chairman King’s
leadership, Committee Republicans passed several landmark pieces of bipartisan homeland security legislation,
including the SAFE Port Act, Chemical Plant Security legislation, and FEMA reform. King served as Ranking
Member during the 110th and 111th Congresses before returning as Chairman for the 112th Congress.   

The Committee was chartered to hold hearings and craft legislation for issues specific to homeland security.
The Committee on Homeland Security has six Subcommittees; each specializing in a subset of the Full
Committee’s jurisdiction:
 

House Administration

The Committee on House Administration is the committee of the House of

Representatives charged with the oversight of federal elections and the day-to-day
functions of the House of Representatives.

With the 110th Congress, two additional subcommittees were added to the Committee's
jurisdiction: the Subcommittee on Capitol Security, which is focused on securing the
Capitol complex and providing oversight of the Capitol Police and their emergency
response procedures; and the Subcommittee on Election Reform, which examines
issues related to elections and voting systems, including the adoption of Help America
Vote Act (HAVA) provisions at the state level.

Election Reform
The Committee's jurisdiction over federal elections requires it to consider proposals to
amend federal election law and to monitor Congressional elections across the United
States. The Committee was instrumental in the passage of the Help America Vote Act
of 2002, which former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter called the most
meaningful improvement in election laws and voting safeguards in a generation. This
law provided more than $3 billion dollars for the improvement of voting equipment and
procedures to make the voting process more accessible and to guard against fraud.

House Operations

House Administration manages the daily operations that keep the House of
Representatives running smoothly. The budget authorizations for expenses of House
committees, and those for expenses of Members of Congress, are set by the
Committee. Additionally, the Committee is responsible for oversight of the House
officers, including the administrative and technical functions of the House.

Capitol Security

The security of the Capitol Complex has become an even higher priority since the
devastating attacks of September 11, 2001. The House Administration Committee,
which oversees security on the House side of the Capitol Complex, works closely with
the Capitol Police to ensure that every effort is made to keep the Capitol Complex
extremely secure while maintaining accessibility for the millions of constituents who visit
every year.

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

International Relations

The House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs (known as the Committee on

International Relations from 1995 until 2007) traces its origins to November 29, 1775, when the
Continental Congress created a committee, by resolution "for the sole purposes of corresponding with our
friends of Great Britain, Ireland, and other parts of the world." Chosen for this Committee were Benjamin
Franklin—who served as chairman and guiding spirit—Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Johnson, Jr., John
Dickinson, and John Jay. Originally known as the Committee of Correspondence, then as the Committee
of Secret Correspondence, it was the first institution created to represent the United States in the foreign
affairs field. The House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs (as well as the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee) is a lineal descendant of the Committee of Correspondence. Under Benjamin
Franklin's leadership, the Committee quickly entered into communication with various persons in Europe
for the purpose of ascertaining sentiment there toward the Colonies and obtaining any other information
which might be useful in the struggle with England, even designating its own secret agents abroad.

After the Congress of the United States was organized under the Constitution in 1789, select committees
to oversee foreign affairs were appointed. In the years before the second World War, congressional
foreign affairs was dominated by the Senate by design of the Constitutional Convention. Although the
division of powers stipulated Congress should "advise and consent," treaty-making power went to the
smaller body in an effort to maintain "secrecy and dispatch." In 1807, during the Jefferson Presidency, a
House committee was established in response to predatory actions by both the French and British against
American commercial shipping. Following the British search and seizure of the U.S. frigate Chesapeake
miles off the Virginia coast, the House appointed a special Foreign Relations Committee, known as the
Aggression Committee. Its findings led President Madison to send a war message to Congress on June
1, 1812, and three days later, the House of Representatives passed the first declaration of war by a vote
of 79 to 49. Ten years after the War of 1812, seven inaugural Members of Congress co-founded the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, newly designated a standing committee of the House of Representatives.

Though the Executive Branch does take the lead on nearly every aspect of foreign policy, the
congressional committees have used their "power of the purse" to exert influence upon the President's
agenda. In 1947, after lengthy hearings in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Marshall Plan—the
Economic Cooperation Act of 1948—was agreed to by a vote of 329 to 74. This support of the
Administration's proposal draws a stark comparison to the use of the purse in 1970, to curb the expansion
of the geographic region that the U.S. would deploy forces. To end U.S. participation decisively in
Vietnam, on August 15, 1973, Congress prohibited the use of funds that would directly, or indirectly,
support combat activities in North and South Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia. The Vietnam War encouraged
the Committee to scrutinize the actions of the Executive Branch more closely, and the role of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee has, as a result, gained more prestige and earned more respect.

In 1985, the Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Dante B. Fascell, coordinated efforts
with the Chairman of the House Budget Committee to introduced H.R. 1460, the " Anti-Apartheid Act of
1985," which was later limited by the Executive Order of President Reagan. Legislation now heralded as
having been pivotal to ending the Apartheid government in South Africa can be credited to the Africa
Subcommittee, which approved H.R. 4868 to increase economic sanctions, which was enacted over
President Reagan's veto, with a vote of 313 to 83 in the House and 78 to 21 in the Senate. Legislation
passed through the Committee on Foreign Affairs has affected citizens of the U.S. and the rest of the
world.

Throughout history, the Committee has been composed of some of America's most able legislators and
statesmen. Two American Presidents have served on it: James K. Polk, from 1827 to 1931, and John
Quincy Adams, who became Chairman in 1842 after he returned to the House following his term as the
Chief Executive. In more recent times, J. Danforth Quayle, former Vice President, served on the
Committee in the 96th Congress.

Many former Chairmen of the Committee have their names written in history books, such as Francis W.
Pickens, who chaired the Committee from 1839 to 1841, who later became Governor of South Carolina
and authorized the firing of Fort Sumter, which preceded the Civil War. Serving as Chairman in the
aftermath of World War I, Stephen G. Porter of Pennsylvania came to be one of the most influential
figures in the determination of American foreign policy in the early 1920s. Former Chairmen Sol Bloom of
New York and James P. Richards of South Carolina have been recognized for their contributions to
America's leadership in the immediate post-World War II period. The longest tenure as Chairman in the
history of the Committee was that of Thomas E. Morgan of Pennsylvania who served in that position from
1959 until the end of the 94th Congress in 1976.

Judiciary

About the Judiciary Committee

The jurisdiction of the The House Committee on the Judiciary as
follows:

1. The judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil and criminal.

2. Administrative practice and procedure.
3. Apportionment of Representatives.
4. Bankruptcy, mutiny, espionage, and counterfeiting.
5. Civil liberties.
6. Constitutional amendments.
7. Criminal law enforcement.
8. Federal courts and judges, and local courts in the Territories
and possessions.
9. Immigration policy and non-border enforcement.
10. Interstate compacts generally.
 
11. Claims against the United States.
12. Members of Congress, attendance of members, Delegates, and
the Resident Commissioner; and their acceptance of
incompatible offices.
13. National penitentiaries.
14. Patents, the Patent and Trademark Office, copyrights, and
trademarks.
15. Presidential succession.
16. Protection of trade and commerce against unlawful restraints
and monopolies.
17. Revision and codification of the Statutes of the United States.
18. State and territorial boundary lines.
19. Subversive activities affecting the internal security of the
United States.

 Resources

The Committee on Natural Resources can trace its jurisdictional history to the House Committee on Public Lands, which was
created on December 17, 1805, on a motion by Representative William Findley, a Democratic-Republican from Pennsylvania.  Its jurisdiction
would not change until the 1940’s. 

In the 80th Congress, after the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, various committee jurisdictions were combined into the Committee on
Public Lands in the House.  In particular, five former standing Committees from the 19th and early 20th Century were combined into the
House Committee on Public Lands.  These five committees, along with years they were created, were; Territories (1825), Mines and Mining
(1865), Indian Affairs (1821), Irrigation and Reclamation (1893) and Insular Affairs (1899).  After the 82nd Congress, on February 2, 1951,
the House Committee on Public Lands was renamed the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, which later became the House Committee on
Natural Resources.  Finally, in the 104th Congress (1995), the jurisdiction of the House Merchant Marines and Fisheries Committee (1887)
was transferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

The Committee has always been tasked with overseeing the nation’s public lands.  Conflicts between preserving the land as wilderness and
use it for logging, grazing and mining often fall to this committee and then Congress to resolve.  The panel also oversees water projects, many
environmental issues and even management of wildlife refuges.  The committee is crucial to Representatives with many of the nation’s public
lands in its districts, especially those from the West.

Rules

About

The Rules Committee

The Committee on Rules is among the oldest standing committees in the House, having been
first formally constituted on April 2, 1789. The Committee is commonly known as “The
Speaker’s Committee” because it is the mechanism that the Speaker uses to maintain control of
the House Floor, and was chaired by the Speaker until 1910. Because of the vast power wielded
by the Rules Committee, its ratio has traditionally been weighted in favor of the majority party,
and has been in its “2 to 1 1” (9 majority and 4 minority members) configuration since the late
1970s.
 
The Rules Committee has two broad categories of jurisdiction: special orders for the
consideration of legislation (known as “special rules” or “rules”) and original jurisdiction
matters. A special rule provides the terms and conditions of debate on a measure or matter,
consideration of which constitutes the bulk of the work of the Rules Committee. The Committee
also considers original jurisdiction measures, which commonly represent changes to the
standing rules of the House, or measures that contain special rules, such as the expedited
procedures in trade legislation.
 
The Committee has the authority to do virtually anything during the course of consideration of a
measure, including deeming it passed. The Committee can also include a self-executed
amendment which could rewrite just parts of a bill, or the entire measure. In essence, so long as
a majority of the House is willing to vote for a special rule, there is little that the Rules
Committee cannot do.
 

Science

The Committee on Science has its roots in the intense reaction to the Soviet launch of Sputnik on
October 4, 1957. Early in 1958 Speaker Sam Rayburn convened the House of Representatives, and the
first order of the day was a resolution offered by Majority Leader John McCormack of Massachusetts. It
read, "Resolved that there is hereby created a Select Committee on Astronautics and Space
Exploration...."

The Select Committee performed its tasks with both speed and skill by writing the Space Act creating the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and chartering the permanent House Committee
on Science and Astronautics, now known as the Committee on Science, with a jurisdiction comprising
both science and space.

The Science and Astronautics Committee became the first standing committee to be established in the
House of Representatives since 1946. It was also the first time since 1892 that the House and Senate
acted to create a standing committee in an entirely new area.

The Committee officially began on January 3, 1959, and on its 20th Anniversary the Honorable Charles
Mosher said, the committee "was born of an extraordinary House Senate joint leadership initiative, a
determination to maintain American preeminence in science and technology…."

The formal jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and Astronautics included outer space - both
exploration and control - astronautical research and development (R&D), scientific R&D, science
scholarships, and legislation relating to scientific agencies, especially the National Bureau of Standards ,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Council and the
National Science Foundation.

The Committee retained this jurisdiction from 1959 until the end of the 93rd Congress in 1974. While the
Committee's original emphasis in 1959 was almost exclusively astronautics, over this 15 year period the
emphasis and workload expanded to encompass scientific research and development in general.
In 1974, a Select Committee on Committees, after extensive study, recommended several changes to the
organization of the House in H. Res. 988, including expanding the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Science and Astronautics, and changing its name to the Committee on Science and Technology.

Jurisdiction over energy, environmental, atmospheric, civil aviation R&D, and the National Weather
Service issues was added to the general realm of scientific research and development.

In addition to these legislative functions, the Committee on Science and Technology was assigned a
"special oversight" function, giving it the exclusive responsibility among all Congressional standing
committees to review and study, on a continuing basis, all laws, programs and government activities
involving Federal nonmilitary research and development.

In 1977, with the abolition of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, the committee was further assigned
jurisdiction over civilian nuclear research and development thereby rounding out its jurisdiction for all
civilian energy R&D.

A committee's jurisdiction gives it both a mandate and a focus. It is, however, the committee's chairman
that gives it a unique character. The Committee on Science and Technology has had the good fortune to
have nine very talented and distinctly different chairmen, each very creative in his own way in directing
the committee's activities.

Congressman Overton Brooks was the Science and Astronautics Committee's first chairman, and was a
tireless worker on the committee's behalf for the two and one half years he served as chairman.

When Brooks convened the first meeting of the new committee in January of 1959, committee Member
Ken Hechler recalled, "There was a sense of destiny, a tingle of realization that every member was
embarking on a voyage of discovery, to learn about the unknown, to point powerful telescopes toward the
cosmos and unlock secrets of the universe, and to take part in a great experiment." With that spirit the
committee began its work.

Brooks worked to develop closer ties between the Congress and the scientific community. On February 2,
1959, opening the first official hearing of the new committee Chairman Brooks said, "Although perhaps
the principal focus of the hearings for the next several days will be on astronautics, it is important to
recognize that this committee is concerned with scientific research across the board." And so, from the
beginning, the committee was concerned with the scope of its vision.

Overton Brooks died of a heart attack in September of 1961, and the chairmanship of the committee was
assumed by Congressman George Miller of California.

Miller, a civil engineer, was unique among Members of Congress who rarely come to the legislature with a
technical or scientific background. He had a deep interest in science, and his influence was clearly
apparent in the broadening of the charter of the National Science Foundation and the establishment of the
Office of Technology Assessment. He pioneered in building strong relationships with leaders of science in
other nations. This work developed the focus for a new subcommittee established during his
chairmanship, known as the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development.

Just a few months before Miller became Chairman, President John F. Kennedy announced to a joint
session of Congress the national commitment to land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth
before the end of the decade. Thus, during Miller's 11 year tenure as chairman, the committee directed its
main efforts toward the development of the space program.

Chairman Miller was not reelected in the election of 1972, so in January of 1973, Olin E. Teague of Texas
took over the helm of the committee. Teague, a man of directness and determination, was a highly
decorated hero of the Second World War. He was a long standing Member of Congress and Chairman of
the Veterans Committee before taking over the chairmanship of the Science and Technology Committee.
Throughout the 1960's and early 1970's, Teague chaired the Science Committee's Manned Space Flight
Subcommittee, and in that capacity firmly directed the efforts to send a man to the moon.

As chairman of the committee, Teague placed heavy emphasis on educating the Congress and the public
on the practical value of space. He also prodded NASA to focus on the industrial and human applications
of the space program.

One of Teague's first decisions as chairman was to set up a subcommittee on energy. During his six year
leadership of the committee, energy research and development became a major part of the committee's
responsibilities.

In 1976, Chairman Teague saw the fruition of three years of intensive committee work to establish a
permanent presence for science in the White House. The Office of Science and Technology Policy was
established with a Director who would also serve as the President's Science Advisor.

Throughout his leadership, he voiced constant concern that the complicated technical issues the
committee considered be expressed in clear and simple terms so that Members of Congress, as well as
the general public, would understand the issues.

After six years as Chairman, Teague retired from the committee and the Congress due to serious health
problems and was succeeded by Don Fuqua, a representative from northern Florida.

Fuqua became Chairman on January 24, 1979, at the beginning of the 96th Congress. Don Fuqua came
to the Congress after two terms in the Florida State Legislature and was, at age 29, the youngest
Democrat in Congress when he was elected in 1962.

Fuqua's experience on the Committee dated back to the first day of his Congressional service. Since
1963, he served as a Member of the Committee's Manned Space Flight Subcommittee. When Olin
Teague became chairman of the full Committee in 1973, Fuqua took Teague's place as chairman of the
subcommittee.

As the subcommittee chairman he was responsible for major development decisions on the Space Shuttle
and the successful Apollo Soyuz link up in space between American astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts.
Later, the subcommittee's responsibility was expanded to cover all other NASA activities and was
renamed the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications.

As Chairman of the Committee, Fuqua's leadership could be seen in the expansion of committee
activities to include technological innovation, science and math education, materials policy, robotics,
technical manpower, and nuclear waste disposal. He worked to strengthen the committee's ties with the
scientific and technical communities to assure that the committee was kept abreast of current
developments, and could better plan for the future.

During the 99th Congress, the Science and Technology Committee, under Fuqua's chairmanship, carried
out two activities of special note:

" The Committee initiated a study of the nation's science policy encompassing the 40 year period between
the end of the Second World War and the present. The intent was to identify strengths and weaknesses in
our nation's science network. At the end of the 99th Congress, Chairman Fuqua issued a personal
compilation of essays and recommendations on American science and science policy issues in the form
of a Chairman's Report.

" The second activity was a direct outgrowth of the Space Shuttle Challenger accident of January 28,
1986. As part of the Committee's jurisdictional responsibility over all the NASA programs and policies, a
steering group of Committee Members, headed by Congressman Robert Roe, the Ranking Minority
Member, conducted an intensive investigation of the Shuttle accident. The Committee's purpose and
responsibility were not only the specific concern for the safe and effective functioning of the Space Shuttle
program, but the larger objective of insuring that NASA, as the nation's civilian space agency, maintain
organizational and programmatic excellence across the board.

Chairman Fuqua announced his retirement from the House of Representatives at the termination of the
99th Congress. He had served 24 years on the Committee on Science and Technology and eight years
as its Chairman.

Congressman Robert A. Roe of New Jersey, a long time Member of the Committee, became its new
Chairman at the beginning of the 100th Congress. Congressman Roe was trained as an engineer and
brought that broad knowledge and understanding to bear on the Committee's issues from the first day of
his tenure.

Congressman Roe's first official act as Chairman was to request a change in the Committee's name from
the Committee on Science and Technology to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. This
change was designed not only to reflect the Committee's broad space jurisdiction, but also to convey the
importance of space exploration and development to the Nation's future.

In the 100th Congress, under Chairman Roe's stewardship, the Committee kept close scrutiny over
NASA's efforts to redesign and reestablish the space shuttle program. The successful launch of the
Space Shuttle Discovery in September 1988 marked America's return to space after 32 months without
launch capability.

The vulnerability of having the nation's launch capability concentrated singularly in the Space Shuttle, and
the rapid increase of foreign competition in commercial space activities, precipitated strong Committee
action to help ensure the competitive posture of the Nation's emerging commercial launch industry.

Chairman Roe's leadership to stabilize and direct the Nation's space program led to the Committee's first
phase of multi year authorizations for research and development programs with the advent of three year
funding levels for the Space Station.

Within the national movement to improve America's technological competitiveness, Chairman Roe
headed the Committee's initiative to expand and redefine the mission of the National Bureau of Standards
in order for it to aid American industry in meeting global technological challenges.

The Science Committee has a long tradition of alerting the Congress and the Nation to new scientific and
technological opportunities that have the potential to create dramatic economic or societal change.
Among these have been recombinant DNA research and supercomputer technology. In the 100th
Congress, Members of the Committee included the new breakthroughs in superconductivity research in
this category.

Several long term efforts of the Committee came to fruition during the 101st Congress. As the community
of space faring nations expanded, and as space exploration and development moved toward potential
commercialization in some areas, the need arose for legal certainty concerning intellectual property rights
in space. Legislation long advocated by the Science Committee defining the ownership of inventions in
outer space became public law during this Congress.

Continuing the Committee's interest in long range energy research programs for renewable and
alternative energy sources, a national hydrogen research and development program was established to
lead to economic production of hydrogen from renewable resources its use as an alternative fuel.

At the end of the 101st Congress, the House Democratic Caucus voted Representative Roe Chairman of
the Public Works and Transportation Committee to fill the vacancy in that Committee's Chairmanship.

The hallmark of Representative Roe's four year tenure as Chairman was his articulation of science,
space, and technology as the well spring for generating the new wealth for America's future economic
growth and long term security.

At the beginning of the 102nd Congress in January 1991, Representative George E. Brown, Jr. of
southern California became the sixth Chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
Trained in industrial physics, Brown worked as a civil engineer for many years before entering politics.

Elected to the Congress in 1962, Brown was a member of the Science, Space, and Technology
Committee since 1965. During his more than two-decade tenure on the Committee before becoming its
Chairman, he chaired subcommittees on the environment, on research and technology, and on
transportation and aviation R&D.

Whether from his insightful leadership as a subcommittee chairman or from the solitary summit of a
futurist, Brown brought a visionary perspective to the Committee's dialogue by routinely presenting ideas
far ahead of the mainstream agenda.

George Brown talked about conservation and renewable energy sources, technology transfer, sustainable
development, environmental degradation, and an agency devoted to civilian technology when there were
few listeners and fewer converts. He tenaciously stuck to these beliefs.

Consistent with his long-held conviction that the nation needed a coherent technology policy, Brown's first
action as Chairman was to create a separate subcommittee for technology and competitiveness issues.
During his initial year as Chairman, Brown developed an extensive technology initiative that was
endorsed by the House of Representatives in the final days of the 102nd Congress. The work articulated
Brown's concept of a partnership between the public and private sectors to improve the nation's
competitiveness.

The culmination of the 102nd Congress saw Brown's persistent efforts to redirect our national energy
agenda come to fruition. The first broad energy policy legislation enacted in over a decade included a
strong focus on conservation, renewable energy sources, and the expanded use of non-petroleum fuels,
especially in motor vehicles.

In Brown's continuing concern to demonstrate the practical application of advances in science and
technology, he instituted the first international video-conferenced meetings in the U.S. Congress. In
March of 1992, Members of the Science Committee exchanged ideas on science and technology via
satellite with counterparts from the Commonwealth of Independent States. This pilot program in the
House of Representatives resulted in a decision to establish permanent in-house capacity for video-
conferencing for the House.

As a final activity in the 102nd Congress, Brown issued a Chairman's report on the Federally funded
research enterprise. The work was intended to as the starting point for a comprehensive review and
revision of federal science policy currently in the planning stage.

The 1994 congressional elections turned over control of the Congress to the Republican Party. The
House Republican Conference acted to change the official name of the Committee from Science, Space,
and Technology to the Committee on Science. Robert S. Walker of Pennsylvania became the Science
Committee's first Republican Chairman, and the seventh Committee Chairman. Walker had served on the
Science Committee since his election to Congress in 1976, and had been the Ranking Member since
1989.

Chairman Walker acted to streamline the subcommittee structure from five to four subcommittees: Basic
Research, Energy and Environment, Space and Aeronautics, and Technology. This action reflected the
new Congress' mandate to increase efficiency and cut expenses, and also reflected Walker's personal
desire to refocus the Committee's work. Due to the reduction in the number of subcommittees and a
sharper focus on the issues, the number of hearings was reduced, while the number of measures passed
by the House and signed into law increased.
Chairman Walker chose to use the Full Committee venue to hold hearings exploring the role of science
and technology in the future. The first hearing, "Is Today's Science Policy Preparing Us for the Future?"
served as the basis for much of the Committee's work during the 104th Congress.

For the first time in recent Science Committee history, the Committee and the House of Representatives
passed authorizations for every agency under the Committee's jurisdiction. To preserve and enhance the
core Federal role of creating new knowledge for the future, the Science Committee sought to prioritize
basic research policies. In order to do so, the Committee took strong, unprecedented action by applying
six criteria to civilian R&D:

1. Federal R&D efforts should focus on long-term, non-commercial R&D, leaving economic feasibility and
commercialization to the marketplace.
2. All R&D programs should be relevant and tightly focused to the agencies' missions.
3. Government-owned laboratories should confine their in-house research to areas in which their
technical expertise and facilities have no peer and should contract out other research to industry, private
research foundations and universities
4. The Federal Government should not fund research in areas that are receiving, or should reasonably be
expected to obtain, funding from the private sector.
5. Revolutionary ideas and pioneering capabilities that make possible the impossible should be pursued
within controlled, performance-based funding levels.
6. Federal R&D funding should not be carried out beyond demonstration of technical feasibility. Significant
additional private investment should be required for economic feasibility, commercial development,
production and marketing.

The authorization bills produced by the Science Committee reflected those standards, thereby protecting
basic research and emphasizing the importance of science as a national issue. As an indication of the
Science Committee's growing influence, the recommendations and basic science programs were
prioritized accordingly.

During the 104th Congress, the Science Committee's oversight efforts were focused on exploring ways to
make government more efficient; improve management of taxpayer resources; expose waste, fraud and
abuse, and give the United States the technological edge into the 21st century.

The start of the 105th Congress brought another change in leadership to the Committee.

Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Republican from Wisconsin, became the eighth Chairman
after Chairman Walker retired from Congress. Sensenbrenner had been a member of the Committee
since 1981 and prior to his appointment as Committee head, he served as Chairman of the Subcommittee
on Space and Aeronautics.

At the start of the 105th Congress, the Speaker of the House charged the Science Committee with the
task of developing a long-range science and technology policy. Chairman Sensenbrenner appointed the
Committee's Vice Chairman, Representative Vernon Ehlers of Michigan, to lead a study of the current
state of the Nation's science and technology policy. The National Science Policy Study, entitled
"Unlocking Our Future Toward A New National Science Policy" was unveiled in September 1998 and was
endorsed by the Full House on Oct. 8, 1998. The Science Policy Study continues to serve as a policy
guide to the Committee, Congress and the scientific community.

The Science Committee played a crucial role in numerous issues of national and international significance
during Chairman Sensenbrenner's tenure. Acting in accordance with the Committee's jurisdiction over
climate change issues, Chairman Sensenbrenner was chosen by the Speaker of the House to lead the
U.S. delegation to the Kyoto (Dec. 97), Buenos Aires (Nov. 98), and The Hague (Nov. 2000) global
warming conferences. Under Chairman Sensenbrenner's leadership, the Committee examined the
science supporting the Kyoto Protocol and the economic impacts the treaty could have on the country.

Much of the world anxiously awaited midnight of January 1, 2000 to see if the Year 2000 (Y2K) computer
problem would cause the catastrophe that some had predicted. The Science Committee through the
Subcommittee on Technology, Chaired by Constance Morella (R-MD), held its first hearing on the Y2K
problem in 1996 and held or participated in over 30 hearings on the subject. The Committee's aggressive
oversight pushed federal agencies to meet their deadlines to ensure the safety and well being of
American citizens. Thankfully, the U.S. and the world experienced very minor problems associated with
the Y2K rollover.

Over many years, and during the tenure of several chairmen, the Science Committee closely monitored
development of the International Space Station. In October of 2000, a crew of American and Russian
astronauts became the first inhabitants of the space station.

One of Chairman Sensenbrenner's priorities was to achieve a steady and sustained growth in Federal
R&D investments. During his tenure, funding for civilian Federal R&D increased by 39 percent. Funding
for the National Science Foundation increased percent, including its highest ever appropriation in
FY2001.

The start of the 107th Congress brought another change in the Committee's leadership. Representative
Sensenbrenner was elected Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and on January 3, 2001,
Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert from New York's 23rd Congressional District became the new
Chairman of the Committee on Science.

Boehlert had served on the Science Committee since first taking office in 1983 and had earned a
reputation for independence, moderation and thoughtful leadership. In his first speech as Chairman,
Boehlert pledged to "build the Science Committee into a significant force within the Congress," and "to
ensure that we have a healthy, sustainable, and productive R&D establishment - one that educates
students, increases human knowledge, strengthens U.S. competitiveness and contributes to the well-
being of the nation and the world."

With those goals in mind, Boehlert laid out three priorities for the Committee -- "The Three E's" - science
and math education, energy policy, and the environment - three areas in which Boehlert believed the
resources and expertise of the scientific enterprise could be brought to bear on issues of national
significance. Under Boehlert's leadership, the Committee succeeded in getting important legislation on
these and other priority areas signed into law.

Boehlert also reorganized the Subcommittees to reflect these new priorities. The four Subcommittees
became Research; Energy; Environment, Technology and Standards; and Space and Aeronautics.

In the energy area, the Committee unanimously approved the research and development portions of the
House-passed Energy bill (H.R. 4). Committee provisions were designed to reduce U.S. dependence on
foreign oil by investing in energy efficiency, renewable energy technologies, improved nuclear energy
technologies, and new fossil fuel technologies, including clean coal.

On education, the Committee saw its major initiatives in both K-12 and undergraduate education signed
into law as part of H.R. 4664, the National Science Foundation authorization. Among the education
initiatives were the Committee's version of President George W. Bush's proposal to establish National
Mathematics and Science Partnerships that will put our nation's universities and businesses to work to
help improve education.

On environment, the Committee passed legislation to strengthen science at the Environmental Protection
Agency and brought attention to the science behind several controversial issues, including arsenic in
drinking water, particulate air pollution and global climate change.

After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, terrorism moved to the forefront of the Committee's
agenda. Heeding Chairman Boehlert's admonition that "the war on terrorism will be won in the laboratory
as much as on the battlefield," the Science Committee worked to ensure that the Federal Government
was investing in the science and technology necessary to combat terrorism over the long term.
The Committee first turned its attention to cyberterrorism. Boehlert's legislation to address these
challenges had broad bipartisan support in Congress, and on November 27, 2002, the "Cyber Security
Research and Development Act" was signed into law.

Under Boehlert's leadership, the Committee also took the lead in responding to the concerns of family
members of September 11th victims, regarding the investigation into the collapse of the World Trade
Center. After two high-profile hearings into the matter, the Committee introduced legislation to enable the
government to respond more quickly to building failures and to overcome the problems that plagued the
World Trade Center investigation. Signed into law on October 1, 2002, the legislation puts the National
Institute of Standards and Technology in charge of all future building failure investigations.

The Committee also played a key role in the development of legislation establishing a new Department of
Homeland Security, and led the push to make science and technology a priority in the new Department.
Committee proposals creating an Under Secretary in charge of science and technology, and a Homeland
Security Advanced Research Projects Agency were included in the final legislation, signed into law on
November 22, 2002.

The Committee also held hearings on how to strike the proper balance between the need for openness to
conduct research successfully and the need for secrecy to protect homeland security.

Finally, continuing the six-decade commitment of the Science Committee "to maintain American
preeminence in science and technology," the Committee successfully enacted legislation that sets the
National Science Foundation (NSF) on a path to doubling its budget over five years. Chairman Boehlert
and Subcommittee on Research Chairman Nick Smith of Michigan led the bipartisan, bicameral effort to
ensure that future generations will continue to reap the benefits of NSF's invaluable basic research.

In the 108th Congress, the Science Committee focused its attention on charting space and ocean policy,
strengthening the U.S. economy by promoting research and innovation, and enabling the U.S. to better
respond to terrorism and other emergencies by helping first responders.

Less than two months into the 108th Congress, the Space Shuttle Columbia, with her crew of seven,
broke apart during reentry into Earth's atmosphere. This national tragedy renewed debate over the future
of human space exploration. The Committee held several high profile hearings into the cause of the
accident and exercised close oversight of the proceedings of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board
(CAIB), the independent investigative body convened by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) to determine the cause of the accident.

Since the CAIB report was issued in August 2003, the Committee actively oversaw NASA's return-to-flight
activities, particularly the implementation of the CAIB recommendation to establish an Independent
Technical Authority at NASA. The Committee also closely monitored the cost of return-to-flight activities,
and issues related to future Shuttle flights, including whether to launch a Shuttle mission to repair the
Hubble Space Telescope.

The Columbia accident also prompted the President to issue a new vision for NASA - to return humans to
the Moon and continue with a manned mission to Mars. Since that announcement, the Committee has
held hearings and numerous briefings to evaluate the President's plan. Chairman Boehlert applauded the
President for giving NASA a clear vision for the future, but also raised questions about the funding of the
proposal and about its potential impact on NASA's work in Space and Earth Science and aeronautics.

The Committee also passed two key bills related to NASA and space flight, both of which were signed
into law. The NASA Flexibility Act of 2004, introduced by Chairman Boehlert, gives NASA new personnel
tools to attract and retain a top-notch technical workforce. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments
Act of 2004, introduced by Space Subcommittee Chairman Dana Rohrabacher of California, creates a
regulatory regime at the Federal Aviation Administration for the commercial human space flight industry,
designed to encourage that industry's development while providing information on the inherent risks in
space tourism and limiting that risk, as appropriate.

While the Committee was engaged in space policy, it was also leading efforts to revamp ocean policy. In
May, 2004, Boehlert convened the first hearing in the House on the Preliminary Report of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy. The report described an oceanic ecosystem that is fragile, threatened, and
in dire need of national attention and commitment.

Among the more than 200 recommendations included in the report was a recommendation to pass an
organic act for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which would clearly define and
codify the agency's mission and functions. Representative Vernon Ehlers of Michigan, the Chairman of
the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, introduced such legislation and held a
hearing on it.

Recognizing that innovation is the key to U.S. economic success, the Committee also focused its efforts
on strengthening the U.S. research enterprise and American industry. In December 2003, President Bush
signed into law Chairman Boehlert's 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act,
which authorized a better funded and coordinated interagency program in nanotechnology - an emerging
field of science that the National Science Foundation estimates will be a $1 trillion industry within the next
decade.

The President also signed into law the Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act,
which was introduced by Energy Subcommittee Chairman Judy Biggert of Illinois. The Act will foster
research to improve U.S. supercomputers and make them more available to U.S. researchers.

Other Committee efforts to improve the economy included the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Research and Control Act, which will help combat a problem that costs U.S. fisheries millions of dollars;
and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act, which sets up a new interagency program to find ways
to limit damage caused by windstorms and which also reauthorizes the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program, which has been successfully discovering ways to limit earthquake damage since
1977. Both bills were signed into law. The algal bloom legislation was sponsored by Chairman Ehlers and
the windstorm bill by Representative Randy Neugebauer, a Republican from Texas. The earthquake
legislation began life as a separate bill introduced by Michigan Representative Nick Smith, Chairman of
the Subcommittee on Research.

Several other measures to help the economy were passed by the House, including the Manufacturing
Technology Competitiveness Act, introduced by Chairman Ehlers, and the Green Chemistry Research
and Development Act, introduced by Republican Representative Phil Gingrey of Georgia.

As important as any legislation was the Committee's effort to ensure that unnecessary visa delays did not
discourage the world's top students and researchers from becoming part of the U.S. research enterprise.
In a series of hearings and through a Government Accountability Office study, the Committee led a
successful effort to reduce the waiting time for visas. Chairman Boehlert pointed out repeatedly that
casting too wide a net in the visa process hurt America's research capacity while doing little to catch
terrorists because the effort was not appropriately targeted.

Terrorism was also on the Committee's mind in other ways. The Committee continued its close oversight
of research and development at the Department of Homeland Security, particularly in the area of
cybersecurity.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 also highlighted the critical role of our nation's first
responders. Two pieces of Committee legislation were enacted into law that would bolster Federal
support for U.S. fire and emergency medical services. The Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency
Response Act established a new program to provide grants to help fire departments hire firefighters. The
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Reauthorization Act of 2004 increased funding for the FIRE grant
program - which provides competitively awarded grants directly to fire departments for the purchase of
needed equipment, vehicles and training - and broadened the eligibility requirements to allow emergency
medical services to also apply for the grants.

The elections in November of 2006 brought a shift in the House, when the Democratic Party captured the
majority, and elected Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology.
 
One of the first pieces of legislation passed by the Committee was the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007. This was a collection of various provisions relating to conservation, renewable marine and
geothermal research and development, solar energy, bio-fuels, and the elimination of carbon from the
atmosphere.
 
The Committee also played an important role in the passage of the Methamphetamine Remediation
Research Act of 2007, which tasked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop new
detection technologies and oversee the cleanup of contaminated sites. It also created guidelines
concerning all aspects of the methamphetamine crisis at federal, state, and local levels of government.
 
The America COMPETES Act was the most significant piece of legislation passed during the first session
of the 110 Congress and signed into law by President Bush. The legislation, as enacted, put the budgets
of three key federal science agencies on a path to double over ten years. These core agencies are the
National Science Foundation (NSF),the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) and the
Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science. These goals were consistent with the Bush
Administration’s 2006 American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). America COMPETES also increased
science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) educational programs and focused on keeping
America competitive around the world in the fields of science and technology.

Small Business

On December 4, 1941, the U. S. House of Representatives created the first House

Select Committee on Small Business.  The select committee was established in response to a
growing number of small business activists and organizations advocating for more protections
and better government policies for America’s small businesses. While it had no legislative
authority, the select committee became popular with House members and was reauthorized
each Congress until January 5, 1975, when it was made a permanent standing committee.
House members then granted the new standing committee with certain areas of legislative
jurisdiction and oversight functions, increasing its scope and influence.

Standards of Official Conduct

The jurisdiction of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is derived from authority granted under
House Rules and federal statutes. The scope of the Committee’s jurisdiction under the various authorizing rules and
statutes is given below.

House Rule X, clause 1(q)

The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has jurisdiction over all bills, resolutions and other matters
relating to the Code of Official Conduct adopted under House Rule XXIII.

House Rule XI, clause 3

With respect to Members, officers, and employees of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct is authorized to undertake the following actions:
 A) Recommend administrative actions to establish or enforce standards of official conduct.

B) Investigate alleged violations of the Code of Official Conduct or of any applicable rules, laws, or
regulations governing the performance of official duties or the discharge of official responsibilities.
Such investigations must be made in accordance with Committee rules .

C) Report to appropriate federal or State authorities substantial evidence of a violation of any law
applicable to the performance of official duties that may have been disclosed in a Committee
investigation. Such reports must be approved by the House or by an affirmative vote of two-thirds
of the Committee.

D) Render advisory opinions regarding the propriety of any current or proposed conduct of a
Member, officer, or employee, and issue general guidance on such matters as necessary.

E) Consider requests for written waivers of the gift rule (clause 5 of House Rule XXV)
 

House Rule XXV, clause 5(h)

All provisions of the gift rule are to be interpreted and enforced solely by the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct. The Committee is authorized to issue guidance on any matter contained in the rule.

Ethics in Government Act (5 U.S.C. app. 4 § 101 et seq.; adopted as House Rule XXVI) 

The Ethics in Government Act (EIGA) designates the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as the
"supervising ethics office" for the House of Representatives and charges the Committee with duties and
responsibilities for Financial Disclosure Statements (Title I) and for Outside Employment (Title V) with
respect to Members, officers, and employees of the House of Representatives.

The statute also charges the Committee with duties and responsibilities with regard to (1) the Financial
Disclosure Statements of candidates for the House, and (2) the Financial Disclosure Statements and Outside
Employment of officers and employees of certain legislative branch agencies, including the Library of
Congress, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Printing Office, the Architect of the Capitol, the
United States Capitol Police, and the United States Botanic Garden. However, the Committee has delegated
much of its authority with regard to the officers and employees of those agencies to the heads of those
agencies.

Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act (5 U.S.C. § 7342) 

The Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act  designates the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as the
"employing agency" for the House of Representatives and charges the Committee to administer the
provisions of the FGDA with respect to Members, officers, and employees of the House of Representatives.
 

Gifts to Superiors  (5 U.S.C. § 7351)

Under 5 U.S.C. § 7351 , the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is designated the "supervising ethics
office" for the House of Representatives and charges the Committee with duties and responsibilities
regarding the statutory prohibitions against Members, officers, and employees of the House of
Representatives giving gifts to an official superior or receiving gifts from employees with a lower salary level.

Committee authority with regard to the employees of certain legislative branch agencies has been delegated
to the heads of those agencies (see the section on the Ethics in Government Act above).

Gifts to Federal Employees  (5 U.S.C. § 7353)

 Under 5 U.S.C. § 7353 , the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is designated the "supervising ethics
office" for the House of Representatives and charges the Committee with duties and responsibilities rega r
ding the statutory prohibitions against Members, officers, and employees of the House of Representatives
soliciting or receiving gifts.

Committee authority with regard to the employees of certain legislative branch agencies has been delegated
to the heads of those agencies (see the section on the Ethics in Government Act above).

Transportation and Infrastructure

Ever since the first Congress authorized a lighthouse on Cape Henry, Virginia as an aid to
ships sailing through Hampton Roads, the Congress of the United States has been involved in
providing for the nation’s transportation infrastructure.  In the more than two hundred years since the
Cape Henry Lighthouse first shown out across the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, the Committees of
the House of Representatives responsible for public works and infrastructure have changed names
and grown in scope.  What was once the Rivers and Harbors Committee is now the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.  However, the mission remains essentially the same: provide a
strong backbone upon which the nation’s people and commerce can flourish.

The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee currently has jurisdiction over all modes of
transportation: aviation, maritime and waterborne transportation, roads, bridges, mass transit, and
railroads.  But the Committee has jurisdiction over other aspects of our national infrastructure, such
as clean water and waste management, the transport of resources by pipeline, flood damage
reduction, the economic development of depressed rural and urban areas, disaster preparedness
and response, activities of the Army Corps of Engineers and the various missions of the Coast
Guard. 

When combined, these areas of jurisdiction provide a comprehensive view of how communities
across the United States are connected to one another, how infrastructure affects the growth and
flow of commerce at home and abroad, and how an effective government can improve the lives of its
citizens.

Since the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, much like other Congressional
Committees, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has necessarily approached its
traditional jurisdiction with a heightened level of concern for security.  The Committee strives to
secure transportation in our skies, across our lands, and over our waters, while also considering the
impacts that security measures can have on commerce.

The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, with 75 Members, is currently the largest
committee in Congress.  Its six subcommittees are:

 Aviation
 Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
 Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management
 Highways and Transit
  Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials
 Water Resources and Environment

Veterans Affairs

The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs reviews veterans' programs, examines

current laws, and reports bills and amendments to strengthen existing laws concerning veterans
and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), such as for health care, disability compensation,
GI bill education and job training, home loan guarantees, life insurance policies, and a
nationwide system of veterans' cemeteries.

Ways and Means

The Committee on Ways and Means is the oldest committee of the United States
Congress, and is the chief tax-writing committee in the House of Representatives. The
Committee derives a large share of its jurisdiction from Article I, Section VII of the U.S.
Constitution which declares, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives." 

First established as a select committee on July 24, 1789, it was discharged less than two months
later.  The committee was reappointed from the first session of the Fourth Congress in 1795, and was
formally listed as a standing committee in the House Rules on January 7, 1802.

Until 1865, the jurisdiction of the committee (referred to as the Committee of Ways and Means before
1880) included the critically important areas of revenue, appropriations, and banking. Since 1865, the
committee has continued to exercise jurisdiction over revenue and related issues such as tariffs,
reciprocal trade agreements, and the bonded debt of the United States.  Revenue-related aspects of the
Social Security system, Medicare, and social services programs have come within Ways and Means’
purview in the 20th century.

The roster of committee members who have gone on to serve in higher office is impressive.  Eight
Presidents and eight Vice Presidents have served on Ways and Means, as have 21 Speakers of the
House of Representatives, and four Justices of the Supreme Court.