This is the third article in our four-part working in Congress guide (part 1, part 2, part 4). If you’re interested in working on the Hill, see also our role-specific guides to internships, full-time roles, and fellowships in Congress.

You’re likely motivated to work in Congress because you care about creating thoughtful policy that can make a positive difference on people’s lives. Everyone will have different priorities, but no matter what issues you want to work on, one important step in navigating working in Congress is figuring out which (sub)committees have jurisdiction over the relevant governmental functions and federal agencies, and which Members care about your issues. This part of our Congress guide will focus on how you can try to figure this out.  

Which committees have jurisdiction over your issue?

Many important policy issues are cross-cutting, which means there are multiple committees whose work touches on relevant government functions within any given policy area (for a broad overview of congressional committees, see Part 2). For instance, any of the following goals could be relevant to the same issue—using some bio-related examples for illustration—while falling (potentially) under the purview of different committees:

• Allocating research funds (e.g. for work on vaccine or other health tech innovation)
• Directing government technical or policy studies (e.g. on the sufficiency of public health-related stockpiles)
• Mandating data collection and/or dissemination (e.g. on the number, location, and activities of high biosafety research labs)
• Encouraging diplomatic activity on relevant international initiatives (e.g. the Biological Weapons Convention) 
• Regulating academic or industry activity (e.g. preventing companies from synthesizing dangerous viruses)

Unfortunately, figuring out which committee has jurisdiction over your issue or idea is not always straightforward. Partly this is because jurisdiction is often a source of conflict between committees. Take, for instance, financial regulatory reform in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis (which would end up producing the legislation known as “Dodd-Frank”¹). The House and Senate Agriculture committees ended up playing a surprisingly significant role in this story. This was because Agriculture has jurisdiction over the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), a federal agency that regulates futures trading; in 1974, when the CFTC was created, futures were mostly used for agricultural commodities. But by the late 2000s, the instrument had spread far beyond the agricultural sector. This was lucrative for Agriculture committee members: for the 2008 election cycle, Senators on Agriculture got nearly $29 million in contributions from the financial sector, more than double what they received from agribusiness ($11 million). They thus had a vested interest in retaining their committee’s oversight of the CFTC and in maximizing the role played by the CFTC in financial regulation. The Senate Banking and House Financial Services committees, however, wanted the SEC in charge, pushing back against the Agriculture committees throughout the process. And committees whose name might suggest involvement in these debates in fact had no real relevant jurisdiction at all (e.g. Senate Finance, which mostly works on taxation-related issues).

Jurisdiction can also differ across the Senate and House. For example, in the Senate, the Commerce committee has jurisdiction over the National Science Foundation (NSF), but this is not true for its closest equivalent in the House (Energy & Commerce) because the House has a separate Science committee (recall that the House has 20 standing committees whereas the Senate has 16; see Part 2).

Finally, conflicts can also take place within committees. Subcommittees generally do most of the substantive work, but if the full committee chair is interested in an issue, they can choose to elevate it to the full committee level (as happened in Dodd-Frank). And all of this changes over time: subcommittees and their jurisdictions can be reorganized (or eliminated) when a new Congress is sworn in, which happens every two years. This is especially common when party control of a chamber switches.

In short, to figure out all the jurisdictional questions around your issues, you usually have to do some serious research. One rule of thumb is to figure out which federal agencies would be involved in implementing a policy idea, and then tracking down which committees have oversight responsibilities for those agencies. You can typically find oversight information on committee and federal agency websites.² This is not a perfect system, though. For example, both chambers have general oversight (or “government affairs”) committees with very wide jurisdiction, but they’re generally focused on only a handful of issues at any given time. Some committees are much more powerful and prestigious than others and can stray outside of their lane to some extent.³ Lots also depends on the interests and personalities of relevant committee chairs. Really knowing what’s going on typically requires inside knowledge—this is one of the things that lobbyists are paid the big bucks for. Still, a bit of searching can usually get you pretty far.

The power of the purse: Authorization versus appropriation

We will get into some specific committee analyses below. Before doing so, however, it is worth pausing to discuss a distinction that is essential for understanding which committees have power over what: the distinction between “authorization” and “appropriation.” This section will explain how the little-known Appropriations committee (which, if you want to sound like an insider, you should refer to as “approps”) plays an outsized role for many policy priorities.

Without getting too deep into the arcane parts of the congressional budget process, including important distinctions between mandatory and discretionary spending, it generally works roughly as follows. At some point, authorizing committees will grant legal authority to federal agencies to take certain actions (spend money, create a new office or program, issue and enforce regulations, conduct investigations, etc.). But agencies need funds in order to act on their authorities. Congress (generally) allocates these funds on an annual basis. Usually, this process begins when the Budget committees in the House and Senate pass a budget resolution that sets overall spending guidelines.⁴ These guidelines then go to the Appropriations committees, whose 12 subcommittees subsequently craft appropriations bills for 12 sets of agencies and activities. These bills then have to be passed by the two chambers. If agencies’ appropriations are not enacted by October (the start of the government fiscal year), they have to be funded through stopgap measures (e.g. a “continuing resolution”) or stop operating until appropriations are allocated (a “government shutdown”).⁵

As those who follow news about American politics will know, this process doesn’t always go smoothly. For our purposes, however, the important part of this story is the difference between authorization and appropriation. A common analogy for this difference is a glass of water: Authorizers decide how large the glass is, while appropriators decide how much water to pour into it—and they are under no obligation to fill the entire glass. (The analogy is somewhat inaccurate, because appropriators could also decide to fund more than is authorized or fund “unauthorized appropriations,” but the basic imagery is helpful as a heuristic.) It is very common for appropriated funds to be different from what is authorized.

As one example (data and quotes from here), consider the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act, which authorized billions of dollars in spending on scientific research and development (R&D). The R&D money was authorized for a 5-year period, extending to 2027 (the blue dotted line in the graph below). However, appropriations happen on an annual cycle, and thus far the amount of appropriated funds has been significantly lower than what was authorized (solid areas in the graph below). One concrete example is the NSF’s Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP) directorate:

“Authorizers set a TIP funding target of $1.5 billion in FY 2023 and $3.4 billion in FY 2024—the most ambitious CHIPS appropriations targets by far. However, actual funding was $620 million short in FY 2023 and $2.2 billion short in the FY 2024 budget request.”

In short, if the US government is going to spend money on something, authorization is only half of the battle.

This control over spending has long made Appropriations one of the most powerful committees in Congress. Moreover, polarization has made it harder for Congress to pass authorization bills (with some notable exceptions such as the NDAA, the annual defense budget bill). For example, the FEC, FBI, DHS, and the State Department have been “unauthorized” for more than a decade.⁶ In FY1987, the (inflation-adjusted) amount of unauthorized appropriations was about $73 billion, compared to $310 billion for FY2016. Annual authorization bills are traditionally an important tool for influencing agency priorities and behavior—when they are no longer enacted, agency officials become less concerned with what authorizing committee members think or want. But the appropriators still help decide what gets funded every year, and are able to influence policy by putting resources into favored programs (or keeping resources from disfavored ones). As one guide to Congress put it in 2015: the Appropriations committee is now “essentially the authorizing committee for one-third of the federal government.”⁷

The upshot of all of this is that being an Appropriations staffer could be a way to meaningfully improve policy across a wide range of issues, especially if you are excited about budget-related work. You could work either for the full committee or for one of the subcommittees: just as in regular committees, Appropriations subcommittees do a lot of the legwork (because subcommittee chairs have so much power, they are often referred to as “cardinals”). However, precisely because of the importance of Appropriations, staff positions are highly coveted and difficult to get. Lobbyists and advocates also often have a harder time engaging with Appropriations staff.

Analyzing committee jurisdiction

Which congressional committees are relevant to your specific issue area and policy priorities? Except for Appropriations, we will briefly run through two illustrative emerging technology areas below—AI and biotech. See also the full list of congressional committees for both the House and Senate.

Our goal is not only to help identify committees and Members to consider working for if you’re interested in these areas, but also to show how you can analyze these questions generally—for example, in case you want to extend this analysis to your topic(s) of interest.

To put together the lists below, we roughly followed three steps:

1. Research which congressional (sub)committees have a recent history of work on a particular topic, for example by looking at which (sub)committees held hearings or which (sub)committees were involved in marking up relevant legislation.
2. For (sub)committees that have not recently been involved in significant activity but that might still be relevant (e.g. may do important work in the future), try to work backward from policy ideas that people in your area have proposed. Consider which federal agencies might be involved in implementing those policy ideas, and then research which (sub)committees have historically had jurisdiction over those agencies. 
3. After having done this desk research, compile a list and ask experts in your area whether you’ve missed any significant topics or (sub)committees. It’s hard to learn all the relevant information purely through online searches, so if possible, it’s always good to double check your work with people who have been around Congress for a while.

Committees relevant to AI

AI policy spans an incredibly wide set of topics, ranging from data privacy and trade to antitrust, from education and immigration to national security, and far beyond. Similarly, many policy tools could be relevant to shaping AI and its impact on society—whether that’s R&D investment, technical standards development, regulation, diplomacy, or many of the other things the government does.

Even just a partial list of relevant hearings held during a two-month period in 2023 illustrates the wide range of issues and committees involved in AI policy: 

• The Need for Transparency in Artificial Intelligence (September 2023) in the Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Data Security 
• Balancing Knowledge and Governance: Foundations for Effective Risk Management of Artificial Intelligence (October 2023) in the House Science Committee, joint between the Subcommittee on Research and Technology and the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
• Oversight of A.I.: Legislating on Artificial Intelligence (September 2023) in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law  
• Governing AI Through Acquisition and Procurement (September 2023) in the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, at the full committee level 
• How are Federal Agencies Harnessing Artificial Intelligence? (September 2023) in the House Oversight Committee’s Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation
• Addressing the National Security Implications of Artificial Intelligence: People, Bureaucracy, and Data Infrastructure (September 2023) in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, at the full committee level
• Safeguarding Data and Innovation: Building the Foundation for the Use of Artificial Intelligence (October 2023), House Energy & Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce

Likewise, legislative trackers on AI (see e.g. here and here) have identified many dozens of relevant bills introduced recently that were referred to various committees in both chambers. 

Considering data like this, the following Airtable database highlights some of the (sub)committees that have been most active on AI in recent years. The list is relatively long, containing 9 House and Senate committees each, but even then, other (sub)committees not included here could also do important AI-related work in the future. In short, as you navigate whether and where you might want to work on AI in Congress, it’s important to ask around about which committees have relevant jurisdiction over the issues you care about.

You may want to click “View larger version” in the bottom right corner for a more user-friendly view of the spreadsheet. If it misses any important (sub)committees or activity, we welcome pointers in our feedback form.

Committees relevant to bio

Similar to AI, bio-related policy spans a very long list of topics. For example, the government plays a critical role in shaping key issues as diverse as biomedical R&D, biotech and the bioeconomy, medical countermeasure manufacturing, stockpiling of personal protective equipment, healthcare delivery, disease surveillance, and international agreements like the Biological Weapons Convention.

The Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense has developed a helpful interactive tool to map the biodefense activities of many congressional committees (they also have one for the executive branch). In addition, you can use relevant legislative trackers (e.g. life sciences, infectious diseases, biological weapons, and global health) can help you find relevant legislative proposals introduced to various committees in both chambers of Congress.

And like with the AI-focused list above, the following database focuses on those (sub)committees focusing most on biotech and biosecurity issues. Again, this list may not be comprehensive and is subject to change, so as you navigate whether and where you might want to work on bio in Congress, it’s important to ask around about which committees have relevant jurisdiction over the issues you care about.

You may want to click “View larger version” in the bottom right corner for a more user-friendly view of the spreadsheet. If it misses any important (sub)committees or activity, we welcome pointers in our feedback form. 

A note of caution

As discussed earlier, committee jurisdiction is very complex and can be politicized. Jurisdictional lines are subtle, differ by chamber, and are constantly redrawn based on a mix of precedent and power. Even experienced congressional staffers struggle with these sorts of questions. The analysis in this section was checked by experts familiar with different policy areas, but many were uncertain about specific details, and our coverage is not necessarily comprehensive. If these jurisdictional questions are relevant to an important decision (e.g. where to apply for a job or where to do a fellowship placement), be sure to double check the analysis presented here with people you talk to.

Which members have an interest in your issue? 

There are too many Members for us to analyze them in the same level of detail as committees, and constant turnover means it is hard to keep track of all relevant Members. But we can walk through some heuristics for finding and assessing Members that you can apply yourself for research on your particular issues.

Committee assignments. One thing you’ll want to look at in judging whether a Member might want—and be able—to make a serious difference on your issue is what committees they are on. Members typically try to serve on committees with jurisdiction that they (or their constituents) really care about. Committee membership is also helpful in leading on legislation and other activities, especially if the Member is chair of a committee or subcommittee, though note that this can be a double-edged sword from a staff perspective.⁸ (You can find committee assignments on Members’ personal websites.) But committee membership isn’t everything. Early in their tenure, Members won’t necessarily be on the committees that they want to end up on, so they might switch out of or onto a relevant committee later (committee assignments are revisited when a new Congress is sworn in, i.e. every two years).⁹ Moreover, relevant committee memberships, while helpful, are not an absolute requirement for leading on an issue, especially in the Senate or for powerful individual Members (e.g. those in party leadership).

You could also look at a Member’s statements, proposed bills, letters, and caucus memberships. As with committee assignments, these signals are imperfect. Members frequently publish or make statements written by staff without understanding the content or caring about the topic. To assess whether a statement is a good indicator of interest, one rule of thumb is: the more detailed and/or off-the-cuff, the better. For example, reading verbatim from staff-written notes at a hearing is poor signal, but a thoughtful back-and-forth in a non-scripted setting is more meaningful, as is staying engaged at a hearing after the Member has made an opening statement. To assess this, you may have to watch some hearings on C-SPAN, or watch events that a Member has spoken at (ideally involving some Q&A to assess their depth of engagement).   

For bills, too, you should carefully interpret the data: a bill on a hot topic that doesn’t have much policy detail is often called a “messaging bill,” and introducing or supporting one of those is not necessarily a sign of deep engagement. But being the main sponsor of a detailed bill that clearly took hundreds of hours of staff time is more meaningful. You can look at bills the Member has (co-)sponsored on Congress.gov (filter by sponsor), and at least skim them to assess their level of depth. Letters are sent by congressional offices to companies, federal agencies, and other parties, and can also be a good indicators of interest; they are typically available on Members’ websites along with press releases, op-eds, and so forth. 

Many issue areas also have a “caucus,” informal organizations of Senators and Representatives. There are hundreds of these and many are not particularly active or meaningful (you can browse the full list for some surprises).¹⁰ But membership does provide some signal of interest, and caucus co-chairs often have at least one staffer for whom the caucus issue is a dedicated part of their portfolio. Relevant examples include the Senate AI Caucus, the House AI Caucus, and the Congressional Biodefense Caucus. Not all thematic caucuses have a central membership list or even a website, but Members will often list caucus memberships on their personal website, and their Wikipedia page may be helpful too.

State or district features. Members of Congress represent local constituents, both individual citizens and organizations. For emerging technology policy topics, Members whose constituents include large employers that do related work (e.g. major universities, companies, one of the national labs, etc.) are much more likely to be interested in these topics. It’s important to research the area that a Member you might want to work for represents.

Combine all these signals and you usually get a decent initial picture. However, most of the time, conversations with a few people who have worked in or around Congress on your topic is a much more efficient way to get a good list of interested Members, along with relevant contextual information.

Finally, Member interest, while important, is neither sufficient nor necessary for policy change. It isn’t sufficient because if they are not on the right committees or don’t have enough influence, they may simply not have the ability to act on their interest. It isn’t necessary because, if you work for them as a staffer, you could convince them that it’s important. When a Member trusts a staffer, they will often either listen and become interested in new topics, or delegate initiative and allow a staffer to try out new ideas (especially if the issue is adjacent to their current agenda and/or not too politically salient). Finding a Member with pre-existing interest is certainly a big plus, but a lack of (demonstrated) interest shouldn’t necessarily be a dealbreaker. There are lots of ways you can make a meaningful difference in Congress even if you can’t immediately push forward on a particular issue.

Footnotes