Senate Committee Priority Form: Fill & Download for Free

Without question, the House Committees on Appropriations, Budget, and Ways and Means top the list of the most powerful in Congress.Given that the Constitution requires that “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives,” these three Committees by collectively setting the starting points for revenue-and-spending targets for the US government command the most power. Even if those targets are chipped away in subsequent debates in the House, Senate, and in Conference between the two, the fact that they get to set the initial benchmark is a huge advantage.Granted, this power has been a fair bit diminished with the decades-spanning collapse of the regular budget procedure in Congress, but long-serving Representatives still tend to aspire to seats on those Committees above all others.Following from that, the Senate Committees on Appropriations and the Budget take priority, with the latter being more often cited as the Senate’s powerhouse. Even though they get the second cut at the budget after the House finishes its work, the fact that they essentially form the Senate’s response to the House’s targets – and, in effect, put the Senate’s fingerprints on the nation’s spending priorities – is a big deal.Moving away from the government’s operations, the House Committee on Rules commands prestige by virtue of its ability to shape the course of debate on bills pending before the whole House. The committee’s members are basically a “Who’s who” of the House leadership’s loyalists who can be relied upon to ensure that the leadership’s views are reflected in the rules of debate. It stands much higher on the totem than the correlating Senate Committee on Rules and Administration by virtue of the “continuing” nature of the Senate’s standing rules (namely, their near impossible nature to change) and the deference to the personal application of those rules by the Senate’s leadership.After the budget and rules committees, the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Relations (Senate)/Affairs (House), and Intelligence stand at the top of the list of power and prestige. These are the committees that shape and hold to account the US’ military and foreign policy which, given the US’ superpower status, is a massive responsibility. The Senate edges out the House here through its powers of confirming presidential appointees to positions of authority within the foreign-defense-intelligence apparatus, and power to review and ratify treaties.Next down is the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This committee is pretty much top dog when it comes to investigating the operations of the Federal government, even over the various standing committees with specific jurisdiction over certain agencies’ affairs. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs should be considered on the same level, but its members don’t tend to have the same kind of laser-like focus on issues as the House Committee does.From there, Standing Committees rise and fall in prominence depending on the major controversies or pressing political issues of the day. Generally, though, any committee dealing with economics (eg, Senate Finance Committee), homeland security (eg, House Committee on Homelands Security) or law enforcement (eg, House and Senate Judiciary Committees) will consistently trend towards the top of this pack. Otherwise, the committees that concern regular, non-controversial government operations will quietly do their work until some kind of national scandal under their jurisdiction presents itself.At the bottom of the prestige list are the Ethics Committees (don’t be surprised) and the Joint Committees. I mean, you would think that the Joint Committee on Taxation would be a hugely prestigious committee; however, its members are drawn from the Senate Finance Committee and the House Committee on Ways and Means, and so they already have prestige and sway over taxation, making their membership on the Joint Committee somewhat superfluous.And for the other Joint Committees, well, ask yourself: Which ambitious Member of Congress is going to get excited over having oversight of the Government Printing Office or the Library of Congress? None.And the only reason why the Committee on House Administration (the mundane day-to-day of the House) doesn’t fall into this bottom tier is because it at least has oversight of the conduct of Federal elections, which these days is getting interesting.So yeah, when Members of Congress are jockeying for committee assignments and wanting to leverage seniority, they’re looking to get as close to the levers of the Federal budget and foreign policy as possible. Everything else is secondary unless assignment to a particular committee would specifically benefit their constituents……thereby helping to ensure their re-election, thus boosting their seniority and enabling them to more strongly claim a seat on a prestigious committee.

Well now, interesting question that is deeper than it knows. There are threads of power here and lessons to be taught in history. Let's begin.In short: full repeal, no, not during this Congress; defund, maybe, but more likely to trigger a full-blown governmental shutdown crisis.The House: RepealThe Republicans are going to be controlling the US House of Representatives as of January 3 (h/t Gary Teal), where they will hold a 242-192 majority. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2010) This majority comes with a variety of rights, such as setting the legislative calendar, controlling committees, and seating the Speaker. The Speaker has numerous additional powers, that have fluctuated significantly over time. One right that has come and gone has been the power to control the Rules Committee.Rules CommitteeThe Rules Committee in the House is the key power committee. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Rules) It determines the rules under which pending legislation comes to the House floor. These are rules that fix the length of the debate, whether or not a majority is sufficient to pass legislation, and the types and forms of amendments that can be proposed. This is a "process" committee that is all-but unknown and wields enormous power. The ranking member is currently David Dreier of La Canada and the outgoing chair is Louise Slaughter, who shepherded through the so-called "Slaughter Solution" of deem-and-pass to get the recent Affordable Care Act (ACA) across the finish line of the House-Senate Committee. (See: Dreier's press release on same: http://rules-republicans.house.gov/ShortTopics/Read.aspx?id=345) I'll repeat that one, the Rules Committee set up the situation in which the final procedural road blocks for so-called 'Obamacare' were overcome. Rules is serious business.One of the more important, subtle rules of the House is germaneness. (See: http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/germane_over.htm) The word means whether or not something is related to the subject currently being discussed. One tactic used in the past was to introduce specific legislative language into every bill to have an opportunity to debate and win earned media coverage. (See: Caro's Master of the Senate, Brownell Civil Rights Act). The gist here is that this tactic was used as a negotiating chip to force full debate on the bill itself without using tabling or another procedural tactic to avoid the issue. (See: What does 'tabling a bill' mean?) Similar conversation-defining legislative tactics have been seen repeatedly in the past (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_rule, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmot_Proviso) The germaneness rules are strict enough today and the issue large enough that it will take the passage of a bill dedicated to the repeal of the ACA rather than an amendment, or rider, to a must-pass bill to be effective.LeadershipIn 2011, Boehner will likely be Speaker but with a fractious caucus. Boehner is no Czar Cannon (See: Joseph Cannon, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Gurney_Cannon); he will not dominate his caucus, rather it will dominate him. Rep. Michele Bachmann was just rejected in her leadership bid for the no. 3 position in favor of a loyalist, but she and other tea party backbenchers will be throwing plenty of rhetorical bombs on the House floor. They also gained a "freshman" leadership position and plan on organizing, meaning they will have the power to extract significant inside-game, procedural concessions from the leadership. Almost certainly, these individuals will demand a full repeal-and-replace of the ACA.Committee ProcessLet's just limit ourselves to a full repeal bill first. We'll talk about defunding next, as well as why it might lead--and perhaps is even likely to lead--to a full-blown governmental shutdown. A full repeal bill under this House would be able to pass through a favorable committee. The relevant committee in the House is the Energy and Commerce Committee, Health Subcommittee. Oh, man. That's insanely unfavorable. Rep. Henry Waxman is almost certainly going to be the ranking member of the full committee, and he is a beast as procedural fighting. Rep. Frank Pallone is the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, don't know too much about him, but he's a solid liberal from NJ. Rep. John Dingell's also on the committee, and he's the one who taught Waxman most of what he knows about legislative fighting. He's also the source of one of my favorite legislative quotes: "If I let you write substance and you let me write procedure, I'll screw you every time." The Democrats will be a solid wall in committee against repeal. There's a ton you can do to slow down the process within committee, but I don't know enough about it to get into it at this time. Note that every bill has a two year deadline to become law; if not, then it has to be reintroduced and start again, no matter how far it gets. Contentious bills can clog up the legislative pipeline, risking other important priorities, which is one reason the filibuster works in the Senate. Even with full Republican support--which isn't guaranteed in committee, since eyes are generally off committee votes, they are less often on party lines--getting a repeal bill through the committee would be difficult.The House FloorAssuming the bill gets onto the House floor, a rule needs to be drafted for its consideration. Republicans could try and bring it up under suspension of the rules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_the_rules_in_the_United_States_Congress) to restrict debate and amendments, but that requires a 2/3 vote to pass something, which is unachievable in this case. As a result, assuming strict party line votes, the House could pass a bill repealing the ACA. On a side note, there are also some legislative tricks like calling up the bill under the Committee of the Whole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_the_Whole_(United_States_House_of_Representatives)) that have some promise, but again, my knowledge is limited there for now.The Senate and Executive Branch: RepealAnd then the bill hits a dead halt in the Senate. It's not getting unanimous consent, and since the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, it's not even getting onto the calendar. In this case, it would get tabled immediately and never discussed. If public opinion demands it be discussed, expect it to be reported unfavorably to the floor so it can be rejected. If public opinion is really against it and peels off sufficient numbers of Democrats that a majority is against it, expect a filibuster. A repeal bill is not getting through the Senate, let alone to the President's desk where it will be vetoed. To conclude, the chances for a full-blown repeal bill: 0% However, should a bill be passed by the House of Representatives--the People's House--that would give the Republicans a powerful rhetorical tool to use. And that would help them in their quest for any sort of scale-back or defunding.The House/Senate: DefundingBut what about the defunding? All appropriations must originate in the House, according to the Constitution, as the Senate stupidly rediscovered last week when passing the food safety bill. (See: http://www.rollcall.com/news/-201012-1.html) Generally, the Senate gets around this by gutting a House bill with an amendment (this article explains how using the stimulus bill as an example: http://www.projo.com/news/content/patrick_kennedy_bill_10-02-08_PEBPTH3_v12.19778fa.html). This year, there are something like 400 extra bills passed by the House, sitting idle in the Senate, so there are always plenty of appropriation shells to use. However, all bills must be passed by both Houses, and a bill like this would lead to some highly amusing conference action between the two chambers.Defunding is where germaneness really comes into play. There are 13 must-pass appropriations that make up the vast majority of the federal budget. (See: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app10.html) A Republican House could easily add amendments containing language to defund the ACA. However, the only bill in which this would be germane would be the Labor/HHS/Education bill. Here is where governmental shutdown becomes a possibility. The House passes that appropriations containing defunding language. The Senate strips it out--something that is subject to a filibuster, mind you--and then there is deadlock in the conference to iron out differences. With a good, tricky negotiator, the Senate language could be used as the base, and since deadlocks go against any proposals, the language would be unlikely to be reinserted. However, the House might not accept that if it comes back to them that way, depending on how high the brinkmanship goes. In this case, even a Continuing Resolution--a stopgap measure designed to keep the government funded at current levels when the appropriations process is going slow--wouldn't help, because a defunding provision would be germane here. The situation gets very, very dirty, very quickly at this point.I haven't touched on third-party influences on the legislative process. I don't know enough about that subject. Folks like the US Chamber of Commerce have a lot of sway on this issue, but right now, the Chamber is focused on influencing and weakening regulations not on repeal. If that situation changes, then the underlying dynamics will shift as well. For now, this is shaping up to be a shadow fight, knives in the dark. Definitely a long, huge answer, but I hope it helps explain this situation.

After being mainly a lurker here on Quora, I’ll take the bait on this one.While this question and the underlying assertion by Sen. Graham are meant to evoke an emotional response, I'll try to keep my response factual and not to editorialize.TL;DR: Not unfair, but, because of the president's and his defenders' behavior, dangerous to the rule of law.First, some basics that (unfortunately for some) need spelling out:1) Impeachment is not a criminal process that requires adherence to the normal, 5th Amendment concepts of due process. Instead, as clearly recognized by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 65, it is a purely political process (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp). Even the Constitution, in Article I, Section 3, specifically says, "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States...," though the impeached individual would still be subject to criminal liability outside the impeachment process (that's where your 5th Amendment due process rights would apply).2) The House of Representatives is granted the sole power of impeachment, under Article I, Section 2 (last paragraph), of the United States Constitution (https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec2.html).3) Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution spells out the impeachable offenses of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Along with the (probably) straightforward "Treason" and "Bribery," impeachable "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," according to Hamilton, represent "the abuse or violation of some public trust." As a purely political matter, though, and as recognized by former President Gerald Ford before he took office upon Nixon's resignation, "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." Succinctly, the absence of a crime does not equate to the absence of an impeachable offense.4) The Constitution doesn't spell out how the House is to go about its business in reaching a decision on impeachment. But generally speaking, the proceedings in the House must follow the House Rules adopted at the beginning of each "new" Congress. The House Rules adopted at the beginning of the current (116th) Congress are at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-116/pdf/HMAN-116.pdf, and they are reportedly, by and large, the same rules as adopted by the House when under a Republican majority (see https://www.nationalmemo.com/house-republicans-complain-about-rules-they-approved-in-2015/?cn-reloaded=1, which references a Republican-made change to the rules in 2015, that stripped minority committee members' say in subpoena issuance). I haven't found a House Rule that requires a vote of the entire House to begin an impeachment inquiry, and the Constitution itself is silent on that. As far as I can tell, standing committees, like Oversight and Foreign Affairs, generally have the authority and discretion to hold hearings to investigate matters within their respective purview in furtherance of a legislative purpose (including determining the need for, and the drafting of, legislation), without a vote of the full House. It follows, then, that each of these committees has a legitimate interest in the matters brought up by the whistleblower's complaint and confirmed by released documents and public statements of the president and his advisers.5) The president has not yet been impeached. Three House standing committees (Oversight, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs) are conducting the inquiry. The full House will get a chance to vote on impeachment itself if the committees find enough compelling evidence of one or more "violation[s] of some public trust" on the part of the president.That's it for the primer.I, of course, presume and believe that the circumstances leading up to and surrounding incident described in the whistleblower’s complaint form a reasonable basis for an impeachment inquiry. If you don’t agree with that premise, stop reading.So, first, has the process been "fair" on the part of the House leadership and the three standing committees jointly conducting the inquiry? This can be a subjective question, but if they are following established House rules, how can it not be fair? Near as I can tell, it's House Rule XI, clauses 2(g) and 2(k)(5) that allows the standing committees (including those involved in the impeachment inquiry) to hold closed hearings, to the exclusion of House members not on those committees. There's no evidence that the minority members of those committees are being excluded from participating in those closed-door hearings. In fact, I've read somewhere that a full quarter of the Republican-minority are in those closed-door hearings because they have membership on one of the committees conducting them. [Edit: Apparently, at least one of the House Republicans entitled to participate in the closed-door hearings isn’t even attending, nor has he bothered reading the testimony: GOP Congressman Admits He Could Have Gone to Impeachment Hearings But Didn’t, Hasn’t Read Testimony.]What I do think is not fair is that members of the House and Senate are drawing a salary meant to pay for their tending to the interests of the American public (the "General Welfare," so to speak), but, instead, they're seemingly spending their time defending the president, including time organizing and executing the storm-the-gates incident, etc. Another observation along these lines: How can one label the majority in the House as "do-nothing Democrats," when the majority leader in the Senate publicly brags about his chamber being the "legislation graveyard" for any Democratic legislative priority coming from the House. If the House majority were able to consider legislation without the certainty that their time was being wasted because of a majority in the Senate more focused on reshaping the judiciary, perhaps they'd have less time to scrutinize the president's behavior. Just sayin'.Has the impeachment inquiry so far been dangerous? Yes, but because of the actions of the president, his White House, and his allies in and out of his administration. The rule of law is in jeopardy. Our Constitution establishes that no one is above the law. The president swore his constitutional oath to "faithfully execute the Office of President," and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." 1) Impeachment is not a "phony" provision of the Constitution; and 2) any executive agency's refusal to supply documents requested by the Oversight Committee is a violation of 5 U.S.C 2954 (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section2954&num=0&edition=prelim). Yet the president claims the first (that impeachment is phony) -- in violation of his oath -- and directs his administration to ignore the second - in violation of his oath and of federal law. If Republicans don't believe the president should be held to account, then they claim, by extension, that the president (or any president) is above the law. Talk about slippery slopes; this one literally tops them all.So that's my answer.FWIW, I have a side note that illustrates the slippery slope. It's the matter of "moving the goal post," that the president and his defenders are engaging in. When the whistleblower complaint about the president's call with the Ukrainian president came out, the call was described as "perfect." As proof of it being a perfect call, the president confidently authorized the release of a memorandum of the call, the contents of which didn't quite live up to the "perfect" hype, and, instead, pretty much validated the whistleblower's complaint. (BTW: That validation rendered as moot the need for the testimony of the whistleblower, whose anonymity must be preserved for the sake of all future whistleblowers.) Then came (goal-post move #1) the defense of the content of the call, elucidated by the memo, as not containing a quid pro quo. [Here, I must explain to those who a) don't know Latin, or b) didn't go to law school, or c) had never heard the term: Quid pro quo means, literally, this for that -- an exchange of one thing (usually of value) for something else in return. Every time you go to the store and buy something, you've engaged in a quid pro quo with the store for that something. It could take the form of an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" situation.] Then came the admission (goal-post move #2) that it was a quid pro quo, but that those happen all the time in foreign relations. [Here, I don't think anyone could dispute that there are routine quid pro quo situations in foreign relations for the benefit of the people of the United States, but not for the personal benefit of its chief executive.] Then, finally, you have the (goal-post move #3) offense-defense, that abuse of power is not impeachable. [Here, I refer you back to Hamilton's words, "abuse or violation of some public trust," and ask Republicans who are defending the president's behavior whether they would feel comfortable with a word substitution in the presidential oath, making it "abuse the Office of the President of the United States."]EDIT 10/31/19: I clarified some language regarding the House Rules I cited as governing closed-door hearings. Those Rules aren’t limited to impeachment inquiries, but apply to any standing committee for any matter, including the three committees involved here, and including impeachment. Also, corrected due-process reference from 4th Amendment (search-and-seizure) to 5th Amendment (criminal due process). [Thank you, Chris Stevens, for pointing that out].Cheers,Vince