The House can readily create an ad hoc select committee —to consider measures or matters that fall within the jurisdiction of two or more standing committees, to take action on measures or matters that standing committees have not considered, or for another reason. To create such a committee, the House approves a simple resolution, or incorporates language creating a select committee into another resolution, such as the ones reported by the Rules Committee or the House Administration Committee. The resolution may create a study committee, with directions to make recommendations for legislation, or it could grant legislative authority to the select committee—authority to report legislation to the House. If the select committee is authorized to report legislation, the legislation could be considered on the floor without action by the standing committee(s) with jurisdiction, or it could be referred to some or all of the standing committee(s) with jurisdiction, whether before or after the select committee's consideration. In establishing select committees in the past, the House has carefully defined a select committee's legislative authority and its relationship to the standing committees of jurisdiction. In addition to resolutions that might be reported from the Rules or House Administration Committee, other current authority and procedures for creating and assigning Members to select committees with legislative authority date to the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974. Section 101 of the Committee Reform Amendments authorized the Speaker to— ...refer the matter to a special ad hoc committee appointed by the Speaker with the approval of the House (from the members of the committees having legislative jurisdiction) for the specific purpose of considering that matter and reporting to the House thereon.... Today, House Rule XII, dealing with the referral of measures and matters, allows the Speaker to— ...refer the matter to a special, ad hoc committee appointed by the Speaker with the approval of the House, and including members of the committees of jurisdiction, for the specific purpose of considering that matter and reporting to the House thereon.... The sole change from the original language concerns membership, changing the language to "including members of the committees of jurisdiction" from "from the members of the committees having legislative jurisdiction." In addition, House Rule I, cl. 11 gives appointment power for certain committees to the Speaker: "The Speaker shall appoint all select, joint, and conference committees ordered by the House. At any time after an original appointment, the Speaker may remove Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner from, or appoint additional Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner to, a select or conference committee." The Speaker's authority to appoint members of select committees has existed in House rules since 1880. Authority for the Speaker to remove or add members to select and conference committees after the initial appointment of members was added in the 103 rd Congress. By custom, the minority leader proposes to the Speaker the names of minority-party Members to be appointed to a select committee. One reason for including the change related to select committees in the Committee Reform Amendments was another change contained in this legislation. The Committee Reform Amendments supplanted the existing referral system, whereby a measure was referred to a single committee, with a new system that became known as "multiple referral" and providing the Speaker with referral options: Every referral of any matter...shall be made in such manner as to assure to the maximum extent feasible that each committee which has jurisdiction under clause 1 [of Rule X] over the subject matter of any provision thereof will have responsibility for considering such provision and reporting to the House with respect thereto. ...the Speaker may refer the matter simultaneously to two or more committees for concurrent consideration or for consideration in sequence (subject to appropriate time limitations in the case of any committee after the first), or divide the matter into two or more parts (reflecting different subjects and jurisdictions) and refer each such part to a different committee.... The rules change created three forms of multiple referral, which became known as joint referral of a measure to more than one committee, sequential referral to one committee and then to another or others, and split referral of specific parts of a measure to specific committees. Proponents of allowing committees with a jurisdictional stake in a measure to have an opportunity to consider the measure nonetheless recognized that there could be circumstances under which more centralized committee consideration might be desirable. In those circumstances, the House could create an ad hoc select committee, to which the Speaker could refer legislation or other matters. When the Republican majority organized the House in the 104 th Congress (1995-1997), the rules package adopted changed referrals to direct the Speaker to designate a committee of primary jurisdiction when a measure was referred to more than one committee. Referral to second or other committees under this process has been referred to as "additional initial referral." Sequential and split referrals, in addition to referral to an ad hoc committee created by the House, remained as referral options. In the 108 th Congress (2003-2005), the Speaker was authorized not to designate a primary committee "where he determines that extraordinary circumstances justify review by more than one committee as though primary." The House has sometimes created a select committee to bring focus to a specific, significant issue. When jurisdiction over subject matter was so fragmented or overlapping that no single committee could claim either established or leading jurisdictional responsibility, leaders and issue proponents might have perceived the development of a coordinated approach to most likely occur through the use of a select committee. Since select committees with legislative authority may be designed in a number of ways, including in their relationship to the standing committees and their reporting authority, leaders and issue proponents might have perceived advantages of efficiency and expeditiousness in using a select committee. Leaders and issue proponents might also have made political determinations that a strategic policy goal might best be achieved through a select committee since committee members are chosen by the Speaker, and a select committee might be more responsive to the majority leadership or majority sentiment in the House than specific standing committees might be. Creating a select committee also provides additional committee slots, especially chair and ranking minority member positions. Top select committee positions could be filled with Representatives lacking the rank or seniority to merit such an assignment on a standing committee. On the other hand, leaders and Members might believe that such positions call for previous or current committee leadership experience to gain consensus or guide a measure through the legislative process. The chair and ranking minority member could be drawn from one of the committees of jurisdiction or from outside that set of committees. A decision on membership may nonetheless generate controversy. Should membership include representation solely from the standing committees with jurisdiction? Should there be representation from each of the affected committees? Which other interested Representatives might serve as members? What states or regions must be represented? What caucuses or viewpoints within each party must membership reflect? What ratio of majority to minority is desired or desirable by each party? Final authority to weigh these considerations and make appointments rests with the Speaker. There are also disadvantages to creation of a select committee. A select panel may duplicate, or intrude on, the efforts and jurisdictional prerogatives of one or more standing committees. A select committee's recommendations or work product, once reported, might be opposed, watered down, or ignored by the standing committees, thereby obviating the select panel's original purpose. Service on a select committee places an additional workload burden on individual Representatives and on the distribution of work in the House generally. Although select committees create additional opportunities for more Representatives, they also tend to add tension to the legislative process. Select committees have not been extensively used in recent years, however, despite proposals made or discussed in each Congress. The House has been hesitant to create new select, special, or even joint committees, and four long-existing select committees with oversight authority were discontinued by the House in the 103 rd Congress (1993-1995). There have also been attempts in both the House and Senate to abolish existing joint committees. There have been four ad hoc select committees with legislative authority created since 1974— Ad Hoc Select Committee on the Outer Continental Shelf (94 th -95 th Congresses), Ad Hoc Select Committee on Energy (95 th Congress), Select Committee on Homeland Security (107 th Congress), and Select Committee on Homeland Security (108 th Congress). The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is not included in this group or this analysis since it is a permanent committee. The balance of this report is divided into three parts. In the next part, the creation and organization of each of the four select committees is examined. An analysis of similarities and differences in key aspects of the select committees, along with observations concerning these facets, appears in the second part. The final part of conclusions analyzes the reasons why the House might choose to employ a select committee and some factors in their success. The principal explanation offered in creating each of the four select committees with legislative authority was that their creation solved jurisdictional problems. The proponents in each case indicated that multiple committees claimed jurisdiction over a subject and that the House would be unable to legislate, or at least legislate efficiently, in the absence of a select committee. The reason advanced for creating the Select Committee on Homeland Security in the 108 th Congress was slightly different: it provided a transition committee responsible for homeland security while the House decided whether and how to reorganize its committees to accommodate the new Department of Homeland Security. Members of the standing committees of jurisdiction held all of the seats but two on the Outer Continental Shelf select committee and dominated seats on the Energy select committee. The two more recent select committees were not so constituted. The Homeland Security select committee in the 107 th Congress comprised only members of the party leadership. The 108 th Congress Homeland Security select committee included members serving on nearly every other House committee, and no committee or small set of committees dominated the membership. Each of the select committees had a defined relationship to the standing committees of jurisdiction, ranging from nearly complete independence to, arguably, equality. The relationship between the Energy select committee and the Homeland Security select committee (107 th Congress) and the standing committees was carefully defined, but standing committees had a much more influential role in the legislation reported by the Energy select committee.