From the welfare of laying hens to the legality of Brexit, committee members are busy working on a variety of issues. But some of the most interesting committee news comes when they meet to debate legislation, often after hearing from witnesses who may have different views on how best to approach a particular issue.
These meetings are open to the public and can be heard online or by tuning into the House broadcast. The date, time and subject of each hearing are made public in advance of the meeting, and usually a transcript is available shortly afterward. The rules also require committees to make publicly available their draft reports, which are often more detailed than the final report that the committee sends up to the full House.
When a select committee publishes a report, the government has to provide a response within two months. Sometimes, the committee will receive responses from more than one source, and in these cases the responses are published together. The government can either publish its response as a Command Paper, or it can ask the committee to use a memorandum for publication purposes.
Select committees have many powers, including the ability to investigate specific allegations. They can conduct interviews with witnesses, demand documents from the executive branch or the European Union and request information from the public. Depending on the nature of the inquiry, they can also ask witnesses to come and give testimony in person.
If the House votes to establish a select committee, it can take on a wide range of issues, from health and education to Brexit and trade. In fact, it is common for a committee to have several subcommittees that work on specific areas of interest.
Despite these many tasks, select committees can run into problems when they are investigating a sensitive subject. A case in point is the House Judiciary Committee, which last year launched a probe into alleged wrongdoing at the Trump campaign and administration. The panel has drawn controversy over a number of issues, from its membership to its leadership.
In the end, though, a judge ruled that there were no grounds for challenging the committee’s legitimacy in court. Its membership was not as broad as the resolution called for, but the judge said that this did not matter in light of the committee’s stated purpose: to conduct a serious and independent investigation of President Donald Trump and his associates.
As for its leadership, the court ruled that the chair and vice chairs of the committee were not partisans and therefore were qualified to serve. The decision also ruled that the committee could keep the ranking member position held by Democrat Jan Schakowsky, even though she is not the most senior Democrat on the panel. In a separate ruling, the Justice Department had no objection to the committee’s chairman, Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, a seasoned investigator and a longtime member of the Judiciary Committee.