The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

The Committee Markup Process in the House

of Representatives

Updated February 28, 2025

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

RL30244

SUMMARY

The Committee Markup Process in the House

of Representatives

RL30244

February 28, 2025

Christopher M. Davis

Analyst on Congress and

The purpose of a committee markup is to determine whether a bill or draft bill should be

the Legislative Process

recommended to the full House and, if so, in what form. At the beginning of a markup,

committee members often make opening statements, usually not exceeding five minutes apiece.

The first reading of the text of the bill to be marked up can be waived, either by unanimous

Elizabeth Rybicki

consent or by adopting a non-debatable motion. Under the rules and precedents of the House, the

Specialist on Congress and

bill is to be read for amendment, one section at a time, with committee members offering their

the Legislative Process

amendments to each section after it is read but before the next section is read. It is common,

however, for the committee instead to agree by unanimous consent that the entire bill be

considered as having been read and open to amendment at any point. It is also common,

particularly on major legislation, for a Member to offer as the first amendment a full-text

substitute for the bill. In this case, by unanimous consent, the committee may consider the substitute as having been read and

consider it to be the original text for purposes of further amendment. Amendments to the full-text substitute amendment are

not offered to one section at a time. When legislation is expected to be subject to many amendments, committees usually

agree to use an informal system of giving priority consideration to amendments submitted in advance, and sometimes refer to

the list of submitted amendments as the “amendment roster.”

Each amendment must be read in full unless the committee waives that reading by unanimous consent. Committee members

debate amendments under the five-minute rule. A committee can end the debate on an amendment by ordering the previous

question on it, or by agreeing to a motion to close debate on it. The committee can only agree to close debate on the bill; it

cannot order the previous question on it. If a full-text substitute has been offered, however, the previous question can be

moved on that amendment, and after that substitute is agreed to, no further debate or amendments are allowed. The various

kinds of amendments, as well as most of the other motions, that are in order on the House floor are in order in committee as

well.

Committees do not actually change the texts of the bills they mark up. Instead, committees vote on amendments that their

members want to recommend that the House adopt when it considers the bill on the floor. The committee concludes a markup

not by voting on the bill as a whole, but by voting on a motion to order the bill reported to the House with any amendments

the committee has approved. A majority of the committee—known as a “reporting quorum”—must be present when this final

vote occurs. For most other stages of markups, committees may set their own quorum requirements, so long as that quorum is

at least one-third of the committee’s membership.

Like the Speaker of the House, committee chairs are responsible for maintaining order and for enforcing proper procedure,

either at their own initiative or by ruling on points of order that other committee members make. Chairs also frequently

respond to questions about procedure in the form of parliamentary inquiries.

A committee may report a bill back to the House without amendment, with several amendments, or with an amendment in the

nature of a substitute that proposes to replace the entire text of the bill.

Congressional Research Service

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Applicability of House Rules .................................................................................................... 1

Variations Among Committees ................................................................................................. 1

Selecting the Text ............................................................................................................................ 2

The Chair’s Authority in Practice.............................................................................................. 3

Recourse of Committee Members ............................................................................................. 4

The Markup Process in General ...................................................................................................... 5

Beginning the Markup ..................................................................................................................... 6

First Reading ............................................................................................................................. 6

Opening Statements .................................................................................................................. 6

Offering and Debating Amendments......................................................................................... 7

Reading Bills for Amendment ................................................................................................... 7

Offering Amendments ............................................................................................................... 9

Debating Amendments ............................................................................................................ 10

Two Motions to Conclude Debate .................................................................................................. 11

Ordering the Previous Question ............................................................................................... 11

Moving to Close the Debate ..................................................................................................... 11

Majority Powers and Minority Rights ..................................................................................... 12

Motions, Quorums, and Votes ....................................................................................................... 13

Motions ................................................................................................................................... 13

Quorums .................................................................................................................................. 14

Voting ...................................................................................................................................... 15

Points of Order and Parliamentary Inquiries ................................................................................. 16

Points of Order and Appeals ................................................................................................... 16

Reserving Points of Order ....................................................................................................... 17

Parliamentary Inquiries ........................................................................................................... 17

Challenging Committee Procedures ........................................................................................ 18

Motions to Conclude Markups ...................................................................................................... 18

Ordering the Bill Reported ...................................................................................................... 18

The Committee’s Reporting Options....................................................................................... 19

Committee Amendments................................................................................................... 19

Original Bills..................................................................................................................... 19

“Clean” Bills ..................................................................................................................... 19

Other Views ............................................................................................................................. 20

Preparing for Conference ........................................................................................................ 20

Contacts

Author Information........................................................................................................................ 21

Congressional Research Service

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

Introduction

The primary legislative function of standing committees in the House of Representatives is to

evaluate the thousands of bills and resolutions that Members introduce during each Congress.

This evaluation process typically begins with an initial screening during which the majority party

leaders and staff of each committee identify the relatively small percentage of measures referred

to it that they believe merit more consideration. The committee or one of its subcommittees may

conduct public hearings to receive testimony about the issue and the merits of the legislation

proposed to address it, although a committee can act on a measure without first holding a hearing.

If the committee decides that it may want to recommend that the House take legislative action, it

may hold markup meetings at which committee members propose and vote on amendments to a

bill (or the draft of a bill). These meetings are called markups because committee members mark

up the legislation before them as they decide what amendments to propose to the House. Finally,

the committee votes to order the bill reported back to the House with the recommendation that it

receive consideration on the floor.

This report focuses on the markup stage of the legislative process in committee. It discusses the

selection of the text to be marked up, the procedures for proposing and debating amendments to

that text, the voting and quorum procedures that govern markups, and the final stages of ordering

the marked-up text reported to the House for its consideration.

Applicability of House Rules

In general, the markup process in House committees reflects many of the rules that govern the

amending process on the House floor. Clause 1(a)(1)(A) of House Rule XI states that “the Rules

of the House are the rules of its committees and subcommittees so far as applicable.” As this

report will discuss, this clause is somewhat ambiguous in application because there is more than

one House rule governing some aspects of the floor amendment process, such as the mechanisms

available to terminate debate or to preclude additional amendments from being offered.

Clause 2(a)(1) of Rule XI also empowers each standing committee to supplement and implement

clause 1(a)(1)(A) by adopting its own written rules, which each committee does at one of its first

meetings at the beginning of each Congress. According to clause 2(a)(1), these committee rules

“may not be inconsistent with the Rules of the House or with those provisions of law having the

force and effect of Rules of the House.” This statement also could be ambiguous in that a

committee rule governing debate on amendments, for example, may be consistent with one House

rule but inconsistent with another. As this report also discusses, the House Parliamentarian has

given committees some guidance about how these provisions should be understood and applied

during the conduct of markups and other committee meetings.

The combined effect of these two clauses, therefore, is to give the House’s standing committees

some clear direction about how to proceed during markups, but also to give them some discretion

in setting their own committee rules, procedures, and customary practices.

Variations Among Committees

Committee markups tend to be less formal than the corresponding amending process on the

House floor. Committees are much smaller bodies, so they do not always need elaborate rules that

are strictly enforced in order for them to conduct their business. A more informal process, some

argue, sometimes contributes to efficient and collegial decisionmaking in committee.

Furthermore, most committee markups are somewhat less constrained by rules than House floor

Congressional Research Service

1

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

sessions because the House Parliamentarian and his assistants do not attend committee markups

to advise chairs and other committee members on procedural questions. Although many

committees designate a majority party staff member to provide procedural advice, committee

chairs tend to rely much more on their own knowledge and judgment in conducting committee

meetings than do the Speaker and other Representatives who preside over House floor sessions.

The rules of the House give its committees some discretion in how each of them conducts its

markup meetings, and committees exercise this discretion in somewhat different ways—both in

the formal rules they adopt to govern their meetings, and even more in the informal (and

unrecorded) practices that different committees typically follow.

This report concentrates on the markup procedures that House committees are expected to

employ, although not all committees follow these procedures in all respects and at all times. The

report also discusses some informal practices and certain tactical alternatives that committee

chairs and members sometimes employ. However, the discussion here does not encompass every

variation in markup procedure that may be observed in committee practices. References to

committees in what follows should be understood to refer to subcommittees as well, unless the

text specifically distinguishes between them.

Selecting the Text

A key initial decision that can shape the course and outcome of a markup is the selection of the

text that the committee considers. Essentially, there are three choices. First, the committee may

mark up the text of one of the bills or resolutions that Members have introduced and that the

House Parliamentarian, acting for the Speaker, has referred to the committee.

Second, the committee chair might announce an intention to offer an amendment in the nature of

a substitute—often colloquially referred to as an “ANS”—for an introduced bill that has been

referred to the committee. Such an amendment is a full-text alternative for the introduced bill. An

ANS might make significant changes to the bill and reflect policy negotiations that occurred prior

to the markup. In other cases, an amendment in the nature of a substitute may make only minor,

technical, changes to the bill, and, as is discussed later in this report, is being used primarily in

order to provide a mechanism for the majority to end the markup, if necessary. Usually, when an

amendment in the nature of a substitute is offered, the committee also, by unanimous consent,

agrees to treat it as original text for purposes of further amendment. As discussed further below,

this allows members of the committee to offer two degrees of amendment to the substitute.

Third, and least common, the committee may mark up the draft of a bill that has not yet been

formally introduced and referred to the committee. The chair can direct the committee’s staff to

prepare the draft of a bill, usually written with the assistance of attorneys in the House’s Office of

Legislative Counsel, which reflects the chair’s policy preferences. The committee then may mark

up this draft bill, which, in its printed form, may be called a committee print, draft bill, or chair’s

mark.1 In recent practice, the Appropriations Committee and the Rules Committee are the two

House committees that regularly mark up a draft that has not been formally introduced. This is

the case because these two committees are among a handful of House committees that have

special authority under House rules to originate a measure at the time of reporting.2 To do so,

1 This last phrase originated in committee consideration of budget resolutions, but it now is commonly used to denote

any draft that constitutes the legislative starting point from which a committee chair thinks a markup should begin

(including an amendment in the nature of a substitute).

2 In addition to Appropriations and Rules, the Committees on the Budget, Ethics, and House Administration have

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

2

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

after the markup of the draft text, the committee staff file the draft of the bill reported by the

committee with the House Clerk, and at that time it is assigned a number. This option is discussed

further below in the “Committee’s Reporting Options” section.

Regardless of which option is taken by the committee, the text that a full committee marks up

already may have been marked up by one or more of the committee’s subcommittees. If there has

been a subcommittee markup, the subcommittee then makes its legislative recommendations to its

parent committee. In turn, the committee most often uses the product of the subcommittee’s

markup as the starting point for its own markup.

The selection of the text—or the base text or vehicle, as Members sometimes call it—that the

committee will mark up is important because it sets the framework within which the markup, and

the policy debates it inspires, will take place. Each provision of the selected text will survive the

markup and be recommended to the House for passage unless a committee member takes the

initiative to propose an amendment to it that the committee adopts. The burden to get

amendments approved will be on those who would change the provisions of the base text; it is up

to them to devise alternatives to that text and convince a majority of their committee colleagues to

vote for those alternatives.

Under House Rule XI, clause 2(g)(4), the text of the legislation to be marked up by a committee

generally must be made publicly available in electronic form at least 24 hours prior to the

meeting. When the committee intends to use an amendment in the nature of a substitute or a

committee print as the base text for markup, this requirement is fulfilled by making that text

available 24 hours in advance.

The Chair’s Authority in Practice

Clause 2(b) of House Rule XI directs each committee to establish regular monthly meeting days

to conduct business, which can include marking up legislation. Committees interpret this rule as

giving the chair the authority to decide what, if anything, the committee should consider at each

of its regular meetings. Many committees also exercise the authority derived from clause 2(b) to

allow their chairs to cancel regular meetings when the chair considers it appropriate to do so.

Clause 2(c)(1) of the same rule authorizes each standing committee chair to call “additional and

special” committee meetings “for the consideration of a bill or resolution pending before the

committee or for the conduct of other committee business, subject to such rules as the committee

may adopt.” Again, this clause is understood to allow the chair to decide what measure or what

other committee business will be on the agenda of each such meeting.

House rules do require the chair to give prior notice before scheduling a meeting. Specifically,

clause 2(g)(3) of House Rule XI states that a meeting “may not commence earlier than the third

calendar day … on which members have had notice thereof.” Saturdays, Sundays, and legal

holidays are excluded from this calculation unless the House is in session on such days.3 The

chair, in concurrence with the ranking member, can waive this requirement for “good cause.” In

addition, a majority of the committee, a quorum being present, can vote to waive the requirement.

special authority to originate legislation in limited subject areas. For more information, see John V. Sullivan et al.,

House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and Procedures of the House (Washington: GPO, 2024), ch. 11,

§34, pp 304-305.

3 This requirement is not interpreted to require three full days (or 72-hour) notice. If notice of a markup is properly

made any time on Monday (Day 1), for example, a committee could hold its markup on the morning of Wednesday

(Day 3).

Congressional Research Service

3

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

The authority to schedule committee meetings, including markups, and to select matters for

consideration at those meetings still rests effectively with the committee chair.

Recourse of Committee Members

Committee members have two different mechanisms they can use when they disagree with the

chair’s decisions about what legislation the committee will meet to mark up, and when. However,

Members very rarely resort to either of these devices.

If a committee member objects to the committee marking up a matter that the chair has placed on

the agenda for a regular (or additional) committee meeting, the member may ask the committee to

vote on whether it wants to consider that matter. To secure this vote, a Member raises what is

known as the question of consideration. Under clause 3 of House Rule XVI (which Rule XI,

clause 1(a)(1)(A), makes applicable to committees),

When a motion or proposition is entertained, the question, “Will the House now consider

it?” may not be put unless demanded by a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner.

Put differently, whenever a bill or resolution, or the draft text of a measure, is called up for

markup at a committee meeting (but before debate on it actually begins), any member may

compel a vote on the question of consideration. If a majority of the committee votes “no” on this

question of consideration, the committee does not proceed to act on the matter in question. In this

way, a majority of a committee can prevent its chair from compelling them to mark up legislation

that they prefer not to consider, at least at that time.

However, the question of consideration is not commonly raised, and, if raised, it is very unlikely

that the committee will block consideration of a measure that the chair wishes the committee to

mark up. There are two primary, and related, reasons. First, in setting the committee’s markup

agenda, the chair usually is acting in support of the majority party’s policy and political interests.

Except in the most unusual cases, therefore, the agenda decisions can be expected to enjoy the

support of all, or almost all, of the chair’s fellow party members on the committee. Second,

whether in committee or on the floor, control of the agenda is at the very heart of the powers and

prerogatives of the majority party in the House. Therefore, majority party members in committee

are inclined to (and normally are expected to) support their chair on procedural votes, such as

votes on questions of consideration, when control of the committee’s agenda is at stake.

Committee members have a different recourse if a committee chair fails to schedule a meeting to

mark up legislation that a majority of the committee wants to consider. Under clause 2(c)(2) of

Rule XI, any three committee members can request in writing that the chair call a special meeting

for a specific purpose, such as to mark up a measure that is identified in the written request. If the

chair fails to call the meeting within three days, and if the meeting does not take place within

seven days, a majority of the committee may require that the committee meet for that purpose

(and only that purpose) at a designated date and time.

In this way, a majority of committee members may take control of the agenda away from the

chair and require the committee to mark up a measure that the chair has failed to schedule for

consideration. However, this rule has rarely, if ever, been successfully invoked since the House

first adopted it as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. In the contemporary House,

one would rarely expect to encounter serious and open conflicts between a committee chair and

many committee members of the majority party. Therefore, this rule is more likely to be invoked

by the committee’s minority, joined by at least a few majority party members of the committee

who would have to be willing to undermine their party’s control over the committee’s agenda. It

is at least theoretically possible that the threat of invoking the procedure for calling a special

Congressional Research Service

4

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

meeting may have convinced chairs to schedule matters for markup that they would have

preferred not to bring up, at least at that time.

The combined effect of these rules, and the political and institutional conditions affecting their

use, generally is to give committee chairs effective control over what matters their committees

mark up, when these markups take place, and precisely what text the committee considers.

However, chairs exercise this control within limits imposed by their knowledge that a chair’s

decisions can be overridden if he or she thwarts the will of the committee’s majority party

members. In practice, the minority party members of a committee usually have little effective

recourse when they object to what the chair has or has not scheduled for the committee to mark

up.

The Markup Process in General

A general discussion of the markup process in House committees will provide a context for

subsequent sections of this report that discuss the individual stages of the process.

As mentioned above, the rules of the House of Representatives are ambiguous with respect to the

procedures that standing committees are to follow at markup meetings. Clause 1(a)(1)(A) of Rule

XI generally provides that “the Rules of the House are the rules of its committees and

subcommittees so far as applicable” (italics added). And clause 2(a)(1) of the same rule directs

each standing committee to adopt written rules governing its procedures that “may not be

inconsistent with the Rules of the House.” (Italics added).

Two problems arise in interpreting these rules. First, they do not provide criteria to judge whether

committee rules are not inconsistent with House rules. Second, they do not define which House

rules are applicable to committees and subcommittees. The House’s rules make available different

sets of procedures that the House uses under different circumstances to consider various bills and

resolutions on the floor. It would not be possible for all of these procedures to be applicable to

committees at the same time. By the same token, it would not be possible for committees to adopt

rules that avoid being inconsistent with any of these procedures.

The House Parliamentarian provides important guidance when he notes in the commentary

accompanying Section XXX of Jefferson’s Manual that “[t]he procedures applicable in the House

as in the Committee of the Whole generally apply to proceedings in committees of the House of

Representatives.”4 He also points out several exceptions to this general statement that are

discussed below.

The phrase “the House as in Committee of the Whole” refers to a distinctive set of parliamentary

procedures used to mark up bills in legislative committee. These procedures combine elements of

the parliamentary procedures used in the House and those used in the Committee of the Whole.5

These procedures are not stated in the House’s standing rules, but they are a matter of wellestablished precedent.

4 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives of the United

States 118th Congress, prepared by Jason A. Smith, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Doc. 117-161 (Washington: GPO, 2023),

§427, p. 234.

5 The procedures of the House as in Committee of the Whole may also be used to consider legislation on the chamber

floor, but doing so is not common in recent practice. For example, when the House is considering private bills during

the call of the Private Calendar, such measures are traditionally to be considered using the House as in Committee of

the Whole procedures. For a more detailed discussion of these hybrid parliamentary procedures, see House Practice,

ch. 11, §§15-16, pp. 278-279.

Congressional Research Service

5

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

When a standing committee begins a markup, the text to be considered is first to be read in full,

although this reading is almost always waived by unanimous consent or by majority vote. The

text then is considered for amendment. Each amendment must be in writing and is to be read

before debate on it begins. An amendment may be withdrawn without the need for unanimous

consent unless the committee has acted on it. Committee members may speak on the bill and

amendments under the five-minute rule, meaning that each member may speak for five minutes

on each offered amendment unless the committee votes to bring the debate to an end.

It should be emphasized that the rules of the House do not specifically describe the procedures

summarized here and require committees to follow them. However, the House’s standing

committees typically follow these procedures during markups, unless the committee agrees

otherwise by unanimous consent.

Beginning the Markup

A committee markup meeting usually begins with the chair calling the committee to order and

announcing the matters that the committee is expected to consider at that meeting. The chair also

may announce that the requisite quorum of Members is present. If a committee rule has not

already given the chair the authority to postpone recorded votes that are ordered on amendments

and the motion to report, he or she may seek unanimous consent for that purpose at the onset of

the meeting (see “Voting”). It is common for a chair to, by unanimous consent, be given standing

authority to recess the committee at any time, an authority that might be used, for example,

should recorded votes be ordered on the House floor that committee members must leave to cast.

The chair begins the markup itself by announcing that the committee will proceed to the

consideration of the bill, resolution, or draft that is scheduled for consideration. The chair also

may note for the record that the requirements in House rules for prior notification of the meeting

and the availability of the base text have been satisfied.

First Reading

The committee clerk then is to read the entire text of the bill (or whatever text is being

considered).6 However, this reading usually is waived by unanimous consent. If unanimous

consent cannot be obtained, a committee member may move to waive the first reading of a bill or

resolution. Clause 1(a)(1)(B) of House Rule XI provides for a privileged and non-debatable

motion to waive this first reading in committee or subcommittee if printed copies produced by the

Government Publishing Office of the measure are available.

Opening Statements

Either before or after the chair formally presents the bill to the committee for consideration, he or

she may entertain opening statements on the bill and the issues it raises. The chair typically

makes the first statement and next recognizes the ranking minority party member. The chair then

recognizes other members to speak, alternating between the parties. Members usually are

recognized in the order of their seniority on the committee (to the extent that the party ratio

permits). However, chairs sometimes recognize members in the order in which they arrived at the

committee meeting, just as chairs sometimes follow this “early bird” practice in recognizing

members to question witnesses at committee hearings.

6 In what follows, bill is used to refer to whatever text the committee is marking up, until the discussion turns to the

final stages of the markup and the committee’s reporting options.

Congressional Research Service

6

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

Members normally are recognized for no more than five minutes each to make their opening

statements, though chairs may allot more time to themselves and to the ranking minority

members. In principle, members who have been recognized may yield to colleagues or request

unanimous consent for additional time, but they are much less likely to do so while making

opening statements than when debating amendments.

House rules do not provide for opening statements (although they are somewhat akin to the

period for general debate on the House floor), nor do the rules of many House committees. In the

absence of a committee rule guaranteeing members’ rights to make opening statements,

committee chairs typically reserve the right to limit the number or length of these statements. In

the interest of time, for example, it is not unusual for a chair to recognize only himself or herself

and the ranking minority member, and then to announce that other committee members may

submit their opening statements in writing and have them included in the formal record of the

committee’s proceedings. If some members insist on actually making their opening statements,

the chair may accommodate them.

Offering and Debating Amendments

After opening statements and after the first reading of the bill has been completed or dispensed

with by unanimous consent or by motion, the committee begins the markup process per se by

entertaining, debating, and voting on amendments. Throughout this process, committee members

often suggest that the committee is amending the bill. In fact, the committee is not amending the

bill. Instead, it is voting on what amendments, if any, the committee will recommend that the

House adopt when it considers the bill on the floor.7 Only the House as a whole (meeting as the

House, not in Committee of the Whole) actually has the authority to change the text of bills that

Members have introduced.

When a committee marks up a complete substitute (an “ANS”) offered at the outset of the markup

by the chair, however, the committee is amending that text during markup, and what will

ultimately be recommended to the House to adopt will be a single amendment in the nature of a

substitute reflecting the entire work product of the markup.

Reading Bills for Amendment

The rules and precedents of the House prescribe a process for reading a bill for amendment that,

in modern practice, is not often followed by the full House or its committees. The full House can

devise an alternative amendment process by agreeing to a resolution (a “special rule”) reported by

the Rules Committee. In House committees, proceeding in an alternative fashion to that described

in House rules can require unanimous consent.

Unless the committee agrees otherwise by unanimous consent, House rules require committee

members to offer their amendments to each section of the bill in sequence. The chair directs the

clerk to read the first section of the bill. Members then may propose amendments to that section,

but only to that section. After the committee has disposed of any and all amendments to the first

section, or after it has been amended in its entirety, the chair directs the clerk to read the second

section, which then is open to amendment. At this point in the process, section one of the bill has

been passed in the reading, and going back and offering an amendment to section one while

section two is pending would require unanimous consent. This process of reading the bill for

7 When a committee marks up a draft text of what will become a bill, the committee can amend that text because it is

not yet the text of a bill. When a referred bill is reported with committee amendments, it is reprinted by GPO showing

the text that is being recommended by the committee.

Congressional Research Service

7

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

amendment section by section is repeated until the committee has voted on the last amendment to

be offered to the last section of the bill.

Except in the most contentious markups, if a bill is being read section by section for amendment,

committee members rarely insist that the clerk actually read each section of the bill in the manner

just described. When the chair first calls up the bill for consideration, he or she often asks

unanimous consent that each section of the bill be considered as having been read. There usually

is no objection because committee members already have been provided with copies of the bill in

accordance with whatever markup notice requirements are in the committee’s rules.

As noted, it requires unanimous consent for a committee to do anything but have each section

read for amendment in sequence. Longer and more complex bills often are divided into titles, and

each title is subdivided into sections. The largest bills even may be divided into chapters that are

subdivided into titles and then into sections. In such cases, the chair may ask unanimous consent

that the bill be open for amendment one title or one chapter at a time, so that Members can

propose amendments to any part of the title or chapter, not just to one section of it at a time. This

arrangement normally saves some time, and also allows committee members to address at the

same time all aspects of each title or chapter. If, for example, a committee member has an

alternative for how a title of the bill deals with different dimensions of the same issue, the

member may offer that alternative as a substitute for the entire title, rather than having to amend

each section of the title as it is considered

When the committee begins marking up a shorter bill, or one to which few amendments are

expected, the chair may ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the bill be considered as

read and open to amendment at any point. In that case, Members can offer their amendments to

any part of the bill in any order. This could be confusing when Members plan to offer many

amendments to a long and complex bill. When there are few amendments to consider, however,

opening the bill for amendment in this way can conserve time without causing confusion.

Committees normally agree to such unanimous consent requests, especially because they usually

are made by the committee chair. When any member objects, however, no motion is in order for

the committee to vote on to open the bill for amendment by titles, chapters, or at any point. By the

same token, it is not in order for a member to move to waive the reading of any section, title, or

chapter of a bill, or to move that the entire bill be considered as having been read. As noted

earlier, House rules do make in order a non-debatable motion in committee to dispense with the

first reading of a bill at the very beginning of the markup. However, this rule does not make in

order a motion to expedite or change the process of reading the bill for amendment.

As discussed above in the section “Selecting the Text,” on major legislation the chair often offers

an amendment in the nature of a substitute—that is, an amendment that proposes to replace the

entire text of the bill or resolution—at the start of the markup, which is then subject to further

amendment. The text of this substitute is noticed in advance in accordance with House and

committee rules, allowing committee members to draft their amendments to it, instead of to the

bill in its introduced form. The chair, or sometimes another member recognized by the chair,

offers such a complete substitute after the first section of the bill has been opened for amendment.

The substitute is not read section by section for amendment in the manner described above. It has

become common for the chair to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute so as to provide

the majority the ability to conclude the markup process when it chooses to do so. (See the section

below “Two Motions to Conclude Debate.”)

Congressional Research Service

8

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

Offering Amendments

If a full committee is marking up a bill that one of its subcommittees already has marked up, the

chair is most likely to give priority consideration to any subcommittee-approved amendments to

each section (or to whatever part of the text is open to amendment). To offer additional

amendments, the chair sometimes first recognizes a senior member of his or her party. After the

committee disposes of that amendment (and any amendments to it), the chair would then

normally recognize a senior member of the minority party to offer another amendment.

Thereafter, the chair recognizes other Members to offer amendments in order of their seniority,

alternating between Members of the two parties. However, there is nothing in House rules that

requires chairs to follow these recognition practices. Committee chairs sometimes offer

amendments themselves (unlike Members who preside over the House’s floor sessions).

When legislation is expected to be subject to many amendments, committees often agree to use an

informal system of giving priority consideration to amendments submitted in advance, and the list

of submitted amendments is often referred to as an “amendment roster.” Several committees have

rules concerning advance submission of amendments, but even some committees without written

rules on the subject have developed the practice. Requesting that amendments be submitted in

advance allows Members and their personal staff more time to review the text, and permits

committee staff to more easily distribute them (physically or electronically). In addition, the order

in which amendments will be considered can be negotiated in advance of the meeting, and

Members benefit from knowing the order in which amendments will be offered and debated. This

practice mirrors the current amending process on the House floor, where special rules structure

the exact order of offering amendments. Even when a committee uses an amendment roster, it is

still in order for Members to propose amendments that have not been pre-submitted. A chair, by

using the power of recognition, however, can prioritize committee consideration of those

amendments that Members have chosen to file in advance.

The amendments that Members can offer in committee are subject to essentially the same

requirements that apply to amendments offered on the House floor. As is discussed in detail later

in this report, each amendment must be germane to the underlying text, for example, and it may

not propose only to amend something that already has been amended. The House’s rules do not

explicitly prohibit Members from offering amendments on matters that are not within the

committee’s jurisdiction. However, such amendments are quite likely to violate the germaneness

requirement, and chairs have refused to entertain amendments to portions of bills that were not

referred to their committees. The process by which Members can make points of order against

amendments is discussed below.

The four kinds of amendments that House Rule XVI, clause 6, makes in order on the floor also

may be offered in committee. These are (1) a first-degree amendment that proposes to change the

base text that is being marked up; (2) a second-degree perfecting amendment to that amendment;

(3) a substitute that proposes to replace the entire text of the pending first-degree amendment; and

(4) an amendment to the substitute. The same House rule also specifies the order in which

Members are to vote on these amendments, if two or more of them have been offered.

Each amendment must be in writing, with enough copies for all committee members (and often

for committee staff, reporters, and other interested observers). Members usually draft their

amendments in advance with the assistance of the House’s Office of Legislative Counsel. They

are not required to do so, however, and Members sometimes prepare amendments as the markup

progresses. As discussed above, chairs and committee staff much prefer (and sometimes request)

that Members provide copies of their amendments before the markup begins. However, Members

sometimes decide that it is in their interest not to do so.

Congressional Research Service

9

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

As soon as any amendment is offered, the clerk must read the amendment before debate on it may

begin. Typically, the chair asks unanimous consent that this reading be dispensed with. If there is

an objection, the amendment must be read in full. No motion is in order for the committee to

dispense with the reading of an amendment. Members may insist that an amendment be read if

they are unfamiliar with it or if they simply want to protract the proceedings. In the case of an

amendment in the nature of a substitute, such a reading can be time consuming. However, the

chair may entertain a point of order against an amendment even before the amendment has been

read in full.

Debating Amendments

Each amendment called up and proposed in committee is debated under the five-minute rule. The

chair first recognizes the amendment’s sponsor for five minutes to explain and justify the

amendment. Then the chair recognizes a member who opposes the amendment to speak for five

minutes. Thereafter, each committee member may be recognized to speak for five minutes (unless

the committee votes to stop the debate, as discussed below). Members who seek recognition

sometimes will “move to strike the last word” (called a pro forma amendment), as they

sometimes do on the chamber floor. In committee markups, however, pro forma amendments are

not usually required by the chair to secure time to speak; it usually is sufficient for a member to

attract the chair’s attention and announce that he or she wishes to speak for or against the pending

amendment (or even just to speak on the amendment). In principle, no member is to be

recognized to speak more than once on the same amendment. After the initial 10 minutes of

debate on an amendment, a member may seek recognition to offer an amendment to the pending

amendment.

In recognizing Members to debate amendments, chairs normally follow the conventional

recognition practices: alternating between majority and minority party members, and giving

preference to Members in the order of their seniority on the committee. Sometimes, however,

chairs depart from these practices in favor of giving junior Members equitable opportunities to

participate.

In most committees, there are digital clocks (or green, yellow, and red lights) to indicate whether

the member speaking has time remaining. The member who has been recognized for five minutes

may ask unanimous consent to continue for additional time. While a member is speaking, another

member may ask that member to yield. If the member who controls the time agrees, his or her

time continues to run while the other member is speaking. For example, if Representative X has

been recognized, Representative Y may interrupt him and ask, “Will the gentleman yield?”

(Notice that the same rules of decorum in debate apply in committee as on the floor. All

statements and questions are to be addressed to the chair, not directly to other committee

members.)

Representative X is not required to yield, and may decide not to do so if, for example, he has

much to say, or he does not expect to agree with what Representative Y would say, or he thinks

that Representative Y’s request is disruptive or distracting. If Representative X does agree to yield

to Representative Y, Representative Y then speaks on Representative X’s time. Representative X

may choose not to yield to his colleague for a specific period of time; he only has the choice of

yielding or declining to do so. If Representative X does yield to a colleague, however, he may

reclaim his time whenever he wants. If Representative Y is speaking or if the two Members are

engaged in an exchange when the chair announces that Representative X’s five minutes have

expired, Representative Y may ask unanimous consent that Representative X be granted an

additional few minutes.

Congressional Research Service

10

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

Some committees permit questions to be addressed to committee professional staff or even invite

executive branch officials during debates on amendments, particularly when the subject of the

legislation is especially technical in nature, such as legislation dealing with the tax code, trade, or

budgetary policy.

The sponsor of an amendment may withdraw it without the need for unanimous consent, unless

the committee already has amended or agreed to it. On the other hand, it requires unanimous

consent to modify the text of a pending amendment.

Two Motions to Conclude Debate

During committee markups, chairs and amendment sponsors sometimes signal, by their words or

demeanor, that they believe the committee should be ready to vote on the pending amendment or

other question. If such signals prove ineffective, there are two different non-debatable motions

that Members can offer to conclude debates during markup. These are (1) the motion to order the

previous question, and (2) the motion to close debate. The two motions are not in order under all

circumstances, and they have somewhat different effects if adopted.

Ordering the Previous Question

The motion to order the previous question proposes to stop debate and block amendments. During

debate on an amendment, for example, a member may seek recognition to move the previous

question on that amendment.8 The committee immediately votes on the motion and, if it is agreed

to by majority vote, the committee proceeds to vote on the amendment. No further debate on the

amendment is in order, nor can Members offer any amendments to it. If the committee orders the

previous question on an amendment while an amendment to it already is pending, the committee

first votes on the amendment to the amendment, and then on the underlying first-degree

amendment.

The previous question may be moved on a pending amendment (and amendments to it) or on

debatable motions or actions, such as an appeal of the ruling of the chair. A member may not

move the previous question on the section (or title, chapter) of the bill that is open for

amendment, or on the bill itself. This protects the rights of committee members, especially

minority party members, to offer their amendments to each part of the bill when it becomes

subject to amendment. Thus, the majority cannot necessarily control the length of a markup by

ordering the previous question on the bill as a whole at whatever time it chooses. As is discussed

in more detail later in this report, when a committee is using an amendment in the nature of a

substitute (ANS) as the base text for markup, the previous question may be used in a way that

brings the markup to an end.

Moving to Close the Debate

The motion to close debate is in order under broader circumstances, but its effect is more limited.

A member may move to close the debate (1) on the pending amendment (and any pending

amendments to it), or (2) on the section, title, or chapter (and any pending amendments to it) that

8 Once an amendment has been read, or its reading waived by unanimous consent, it is in order to move the previous

question on the amendment. If the previous question is ordered on an amendment prior to any debate occurring,

however, it could be in order under some circumstances for a Member to claim 40 minutes of debate on that

amendment, evenly divided. As little as one sentence of debate on an amendment prior to ordering the previous

question would eliminate the right to claim 40 minutes of debate.

Congressional Research Service

11

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

is open for amendment, or (3) on the entire text of the bill (and any pending amendments to it),

but only if the reading of the bill has been completed or dispensed with. So one difference

between the two motions is that the committee can vote to close the debate on the pending section

of the bill or on the bill, but it may not order the previous question on it.

The other difference is in the effect of the two motions. The motion to close debate does only

that: It brings debate (on the section or the bill) to an end. Unlike the previous question, the

motion to close debate does not affect the rights of Members to offer additional amendments. The

motion to close debate may take one of three forms: It may propose to close the debate

immediately, or at a certain time, or after a certain period of time for additional debate. When a

committee uses this motion to close debate immediately on a section, for example, no more

debate is in order on the section or on amendments to it. Members can continue to offer additional

amendments to the section, and request roll call votes on them, but they may not take any time to

explain their amendments (except by unanimous consent, of course).

Because of the dual effect of the previous question motion, committee members tend to move it

more often than they move to close debate, even when both motions are in order. Thus, Members

are most likely to move the previous question on a pending amendment. On the other hand,

Members move to close the debate on a pending section of the bill because a motion to order the

previous question on the section is not in order.

Majority Powers and Minority Rights

The limitations on the use of these two debate-ending motions put the majority party in

committee at a disadvantage that the majority party can avoid on the floor. The House frequently

considers major bills on the floor under the terms of special rules recommended by the Rules

Committee that restrict the floor amendments that Members are allowed to offer. By this use of

special rules, the majority can limit the number of amendments that Members can offer on the

floor, and permit some specific amendments to be offered while blocking consideration of others.

In the process, the majority party can use special rules to control how long Members can spend

offering and debating amendments to bills.

During committee markups, on the other hand, there is no equivalent to the Rules Committee or

to special rules. There is no procedural device by which a committee majority can vote to

preclude consideration of certain amendments that comply with House rules.

To put it differently, the minority members of a committee can insist that a bill be marked up one

section at a time and that each section be read. Then they can continue to offer their amendments

to each section, and request roll call votes on the amendments. The committee majority may vote

to close the debate on each section after it is read, but, as noted, doing so does not block the

minority from offering more amendments to the section. The motion only precludes debate on

amendments after debate on the section has been closed.

One way in which the majority can gain more control over how long a markup lasts is through the

use of an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The committee’s chair (or another majority

party member acting for the chair) sometimes offers an amendment in the nature of a substitute as

soon as the first section of the bill has been read. This complete substitute represents the

majority’s preferred version of the bill. While this substitute is pending, Members may not offer

amendments to the bill itself, except to the first section. This effectively blocks the minority from

Congressional Research Service

12

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

insisting that the bill be read for amendment by sections and from offering amendments to each

section as it is read.9

After the substitute has been read and debate on it has begun, the majority can order the previous

question on the substitute whenever it decides to do so. If the previous question is ordered on the

complete substitute, the committee then votes on agreeing to it without further debate or

amendment. Because the substitute was offered by or for the chair, the committee is likely to

agree to it, and that vote effectively ends the amending process. By agreeing to the substitute, the

committee thereby amends the entire text of the bill. No more amendments to the bill are in order,

therefore, because any further amendments would be subject to points of order for proposing to

amend text that has already has been amended.10

In this way, the majority can use an amendment in the nature of a substitute to give it more

control over the length of a markup. However, there are two potential disadvantages to this

approach. First, any member can insist that the complete substitute be read in full, and this can be

a time-consuming process. The majority cannot waive this reading by motion. Second, the

majority’s ability to use the amendment process to its advantage is limited. The majority’s

amendment in the nature of a substitute is a first-degree amendment to which the minority can

offer second-degree perfecting amendments. Second-degree amendments cannot be amended.

That means that the majority cannot alter minority second-degree amendments before taking a

vote on them.

If the committee agrees to consider an amendment in the nature of a substitute as “original text”

or as “an original question for purpose of amendment,” then committee members can offer

amendments to it in two degrees. However, it requires unanimous consent to treat a complete

substitute in this way. It is worth noting that a committee may not move the previous question

directly on a bill or resolution it is marking up, even after that measure has been read or its

reading waived. Only by using an amendment in the nature of a substitute can the committee

avail itself of the previous question motion in the way just described to end the markup.11

Motions, Quorums, and Votes

Motions

In addition to offering amendments, Members may propose various other motions during

markups. The House Parliamentarian has stated in his commentary on Rule XI, clause 2(a), in the

House Rules and Manual that committees “may employ the ordinary motions which are in order

in the House,” such as motions to adjourn, table, postpone to a day certain, postpone indefinitely,

9 In the unlikely event that the committee eventually rejects the chair’s complete substitute, the clerk would be directed

to read the second section of the bill, and the normal amending process would resume.

10 It is a principle of the amending process that once text has been amended, a subsequent amendment proposing to

change only that amended text is not in order. The House Parliamentarian writes, “Although it may be in order to offer

an amendment to the pending portion of the bill that not only changes a provision already amended but also changes an

unamended pending portion of the bill, it is not in order merely to amend portions of the bill that have been changed by

amendment.” U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives,

118th Congress, H.Doc. 117-161, 117th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2023), Parliamentarian’s notes at §469, p.

256.

11 When a committee is marking up a bill or resolution, the previous question motion may not be moved on the

underlying bill or resolution itself because there is no question considered pending before the committee to which the

motion could be applied.

Congressional Research Service

13

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

and reconsider.12 Chairs also regularly assert the right to declare committee meetings in recess—

for example, for lunch breaks and to permit Members to reach the floor in time to participate in

electronically recorded votes.

The motions to table and reconsider deserve some comment. The motion to table rarely is made

to dispose of amendments during House committee markups because the effect of tabling an

amendment is to table (or kill) the bill to which the amendment was offered. The motion to

reconsider is offered from time to time, especially when Members who are losing a roll call vote

(on an amendment, for example) believe that they are going to lose that vote only because one or

more committee members are absent. In that case, a member who would prefer to vote on the

losing side votes instead on the winning side because doing so qualifies that member to move to

reconsider the vote at some time before the markup ends; one must have voted on the prevailing

side of a question in order to be qualified to make the motion to reconsider. If a majority votes for

the motion to reconsider, the committee then votes anew on the amendment and may reverse the

outcome. Alternately, the committee may vote to dispose of a motion to reconsider by voting to

table it.

In principle, each motion, like each amendment, must be in writing. Members usually do not

enforce this requirement, especially in the case of routine motions, such as motions to adjourn. In

the case of a procedurally important motion, however, such as a motion to reconsider the vote by

which the committee narrowly agreed to an amendment, a member opposed to the motion may

insist that it be presented in written form.

Quorums

There are two primary quorum requirements governing committee markups. Clause 2(h)(1) of

House Rule XI requires that a majority of the committee’s membership must actually be present

when the committee votes to order a measure or matter reported; this is commonly referred to as a

“reporting quorum.” To facilitate the conduct of committee markups and other meetings,

however, House rules do not insist that a majority be present for other purposes.13 For most other

votes and for other proceedings during a markup, most committees may set their own quorum

requirement in their committee rules, so long as that quorum is not less than one-third of the

committee’s members (Rule XI, clause 2(h)(3)). This is sometimes referred to as a “business

quorum.” Most committees adopt a one-third quorum requirement as part of their rules.

It is much easier in committee than on the House floor for Members to insist that a quorum be

present. On the floor, a member rarely can demand the presence of a quorum unless a vote is

taking place. In committee, on the other hand, any member whom the chair has recognized can

make a point of order that a quorum is not present. When a member makes this point of order, the

chair counts to determine whether in fact a quorum is present. The chair’s count is not subject to

challenge or appeal. If a quorum is present, the chair announces that fact and business resumes. If

a quorum is not present, however, the chair must initiate a quorum call and the necessary quorum

of Members must register their presence before business can resume.

12 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives of the United

States, 118th Congress, prepared by Jason A. Smith, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Doc. 117-161 (Washington: GPO, 2021),

§792, p. 580.

13 There are several other actions for which a quorum consists of a majority of the committee’s membership or some

other threshold. These include authorizing and issuing subpoenas and releasing executive session material. For more

information, see House Practice, ch. 11, §21, pp. 286-287.

Congressional Research Service

14

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

Voting

During committee meetings, like during House floor sessions, questions can be decided by voice,

division, or record votes. Committees, like the House, first take a voice vote on each question.

The chair asks those favoring the question to call out “Aye,” and then asks those opposed to call

out “No.” Based on what the chair hears, he or she announces that the ayes or the noes appear to

have it. At that point, any member can demand a division vote. In that case, the chair asks those in

favor to raise their hands until counted, followed by those opposed. Division votes are rare.

Before the chair announces the final result of either a voice vote or a division vote, any member

may request that the question be decided by a call of the roll. The request for a roll call vote must

be supported by at least one-fifth of the Members present, although some committees adopt rules

that make it even easier to obtain roll calls and other committees do not insist on this second. In

fact, a chair may order a roll call vote on a question as a courtesy to any member who requests it,

or even in anticipation that Members will request it.

When a roll call vote is ordered, the chair directs the clerk to call the roll. The clerk first calls the

names of the majority party members, followed by the names of the minority party members. The

chair may direct the clerk to call his or her name either first or last. After the clerk completes

calling the roll, the chair normally directs the clerk to call the names of the Members who failed

to vote when their names were first called. Chairs then commonly ask if all Members have voted

and whether any member wishes to change his or her vote. The clerk then is to tally the vote and,

at the chair’s direction, report the number of Members voting aye and no. Recently, some House

committees have also been able to conduct votes electronically. In the 119th Congress, the House

amended its standing rules to permit committees to adopt rules or motions to allow electronic

voting in accordance with regulations developed by the Committee on Rules and the Committee

on House Administration. Not all House committees have electronic voting systems.

House Rule XI, clause 2(h)(4) grants committees the authority to adopt a rule authorizing the

chair of the committee or subcommittee to postpone roll call votes on amendments or on

approving a measure or matter, and several committees have done so. Members sometimes have

two or more committee or subcommittee meetings at the same time, requiring them to leave one

meeting to attend the other when a vote is taking place. Chairs know that their committee

members want to be recorded as having voted whenever possible, so they may delay a roll call

vote when they are informed that absent Members intend to come to the committee room to vote.

Alternatively, rather than postponing the vote, the chair might delay asking the clerk to report the

tally to allow absent Members to reach the committee room and cast their votes. It should be

stressed that while chairs may be empowered to postpone recorded votes that are ordered on

amendments and the question of approving a measure or matter, other recorded votes that may

arise during a markup—for example, on motions to adjourn, lay on the table, or postpone—may

not be postponed; the committee must take those votes as they occur.

Although committees typically require only a one-third quorum for all but the final vote in

markup, committee staff do their best to make sure that all the members of their party are present

to be recorded on each roll call vote. The reason lies in part in the House’s ban on proxy voting in

committee. Before 1995, Members could leave their proxies with one of their committee

colleagues to cast for them. This often enabled a committee chair, if he or she held enough

proxies, to win a roll call vote even when the chair’s position was opposed by a majority of the

Members who actually were present.

Proxy voting was prohibited in House committee in 1995. The result has been to put more of a

premium on maximizing attendance, especially on committees where the majority party holds

only a few more committee seats than the minority. In those circumstances, the absence of only

Congressional Research Service

15

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

one or two majority party members can enable the minority party to prevail on a party-line vote if

all the minority party members are present.

House rules require that the results of roll call votes taken in committee be available to the public

in electronic form. Specifically, under House Rule XI, clause 2(e)(1)(B)(i), committees must

make the results of roll call votes taken in open sessions available within 48 hours of the vote.

Under the rule, the information to be made publicly available includes a description of the

amendment or other proposition voted on, as well as the names of the Members voting for and

against it and the names of those committee members who were present but did not vote. Also,

the text of any amendment agreed to must be made publicly available in electronic form within 24

hours of its approval, and the text of any other amendment disposed of or withdrawn must be

publicly available in electronic form within 48 hours (House Rule XI, clause 2(e)(6)). In practice,

committees make these texts available in the official House Document Repository and/or on their

websites.14

Points of Order and Parliamentary Inquiries

In presiding over a markup, the chair participates freely in the debate, unlike the Speaker and

other Members who preside over floor sessions of the House. Like the Speaker, however, the

chair is responsible for maintaining order, insisting on proper decorum, and enforcing applicable

procedures. Committee chairs are somewhat more likely than the Speaker to take the initiative in

declining to recognize Members who are about to say or do something in violation of proper

procedure. In general, though, it is the responsibility of committee members to protect their rights

by making points of order whenever they believe that appropriate procedures are being violated.

Points of Order and Appeals

To make a point of order, a committee member addresses the chair at the appropriate time, and

announces that he or she wishes to make a point of order. The chair recognizes the member to

make and explain the point of order, indicating precisely what procedural requirement or

prohibition is being violated. The member whose action is being challenged by the point of order

then is recognized to reply, after which the chair may recognize other Members to argue for or

against the point of order. However, the chair entertains all debate on a point of order at his or her

discretion; Members have no right to debate points of order.

After hearing sufficient debate, the chair rules on the point of order, either sustaining or

overruling it. The chair bases the ruling on his or her understanding of proper procedure, perhaps

with the advice of senior committee staff and with the benefit of whatever debate on the point of

order has just taken place. The House Parliamentarian and his assistants do not attend committee

meetings to provide authoritative procedural guidance. However, committee staff may seek

guidance from the Office of the Parliamentarian in advance of a committee meeting, or even by

telephone during the course of the meeting.15

Any committee member who disagrees with the chair’s ruling may challenge it by addressing the

chair and appealing the ruling. The committee acts on the appeal by voting on whether the ruling

of the chair is to stand as the decision of the committee. An appeal is debatable under the fiveminute rule, although any member who has been recognized may make either of two non14 See https://docs.house.gov/.

15 Committees may request CRS staff to attend committee meetings to offer assistance on procedural questions as they

arise and provide nonpartisan parliamentary support to Members and staff.

Congressional Research Service

16

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

debatable motions that, if adopted, end debate on the appeal. A member may move the previous

question on the appeal, or the member may move to table the appeal. If the committee votes to

table an appeal, the ruling of the chair stands. It is relatively rare for a committee to vote directly

on an appeal of the ruling of its chair; most appeals are immediately tabled by the majority.

Reserving Points of Order

During committee markups, the most common points of order are against amendments—on the

grounds, for example, that an amendment is not germane. To make a point of order against an

amendment, however, a committee member must be alert to make it at the proper moment. A

point of order may be made against an amendment (or any other debatable motion) after it has

been read or the committee has waived the reading of the amendment but before debate on it has

begun. Once the proponent of the amendment begins to explain it, a point of order no longer can

be made against the amendment; the point of order would come too late.

This can present challenges during committee markups that are conducted rather informally.

Often, when a member offers an amendment, the chair responds by directing the clerk to

distribute copies of it to all the Members. While this is being done, the member offering the

amendment sometimes begins to explain it. By the time the other committee members receive and

review copies of the amendment, it is too late to make a point of order against it because debate

on the amendment already has begun. To avoid this circumstance, Members routinely “reserve”

points of order against amendments as soon as they are offered, and without having yet seen

them. In this way, an amendment’s sponsor may explain and defend it for five minutes, while

other Members examine it, determine whether it is subject to a point of order, and, if so, decide

whether they want to make that point of order. After the sponsor has relinquished the floor, the

member who reserved the point of order may make it, or withdraw the reservation and allow the

debate to continue. Said another way, from the perspective of the majority party, there is no

procedural disadvantage to reserving a point of order against each minority amendment that is

proposed in the markup. As noted, doing so preserves the option of making the point of order

later, but does not mandate that such a point of order be asserted; the reservation can simply be

withdrawn. For this reason, some committees informally designate the committee vice chair or

other majority party member to automatically reserve points of order as each minority

amendment is called up and proposed.

Parliamentary Inquiries

When a committee member is uncertain about the procedures being followed during a markup, he

or she may address the chair and, when recognized, make a parliamentary inquiry. This inquiry

must be a question about procedure, not about the substance, meaning, or effect of the bill or

amendment the committee is debating. A committee chair is not required to entertain

parliamentary inquiries, but chairs usually do so unless convinced that an inquiry is repetitive or

is being made solely for dilatory purposes. The chair’s reply to a parliamentary inquiry is not

subject to appeal because it constitutes only an explanation, not a formal ruling.

From time to time, committee members may address the chair to raise a “point of information” or

a “point of clarification.” Neither exists under the procedures of the House of Representatives or

its committees. Nonetheless, chairs sometimes reply as a courtesy to their fellow committee

members.

Congressional Research Service

17

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

Challenging Committee Procedures

The procedural rulings of the chair usually are final, unless reversed on appeal by majority vote

of the committee. In most circumstances, a committee member who disagrees with a ruling made

in committee may not challenge it on the floor of the House. It is generally left to each committee

to enforce or disregard its markup procedures. In Procedure in the House (Chapter 17, Section

11.1), the House Parliamentarian has stated that “a point of order does not ordinarily lie in the

House against consideration of a bill by reason of defective committee procedures occurring prior

to the time the bill was ordered reported to the House. Such point of order, if made in the House,

may be overruled on the ground that the rules of a particular committee are for that committee to

interpret unless they are in direct conflict with the rules of the House or unless the House rules

specifically permit the raising of such objections.” In general, if the committee votes to order a

bill reported to the House, that vote (if properly conducted) cures procedural defects that may

have occurred at earlier stages of the committee’s consideration of the bill.16

Motions to Conclude Markups

It bears repeating that no House committee has the authority to actually change the text of a

measure that has been introduced and referred to it, nor do committees vote directly on the merits

of bills and resolutions. The committee votes instead on the amendments that it will recommend

to the House. The House then considers and votes on reported committee amendments when it

acts on the bill itself.

Markups may begin with an amendment in the nature of a substitute being offered by or on behalf

of the chair, sometimes for the tactical reasons discussed above. Members then offer their

amendments to that complete substitute, rather than to the text of the underlying bill. In such a

case, the final vote the committee takes on amendments is on agreeing to the amendment in the

nature of a substitute, as it may have been amended. When the committee reports the bill back to

the House, the bill will be accompanied by only that one amendment in the nature of a substitute,

even though the committee may have adopted multiple amendments to it during the course of the

markup. The amendment in the nature of a substitute acts like a “basket” carrying the text of the

multiple amendments agreed to in the markup out to the House in a single package, simplifying

floor consideration of the reported measure.

Ordering the Bill Reported

The committee does not conclude its markup by voting on the bill itself; as noted, committees do

not have the authority to approve or disapprove legislation referred to them. After voting on the

last amendment to be offered, the chair instead recognizes a majority party member to move that

the committee order the bill reported to the House with whatever amendments the committee has

adopted during the markup, and with the recommendation that the House agree to those

amendments and then pass the bill as amended. The bill is actually reported (as opposed to the

committee ordering it reported) when the bill and the accompanying written committee report are

submitted to the Clerk when the House is in session. The committee report then is printed, the bill

is reprinted to show the committee’s action and its recommended amendments, and the bill is

16 This is not to say that a committee chair may willfully ignore proper committee procedure or run roughshod over the

rights of committee members under the rules. It is possible that violations of the integrity of the legislative proceedings

of a committee could give rise to a valid question of the privileges of the House and be presented to the chamber for

remedy via a privileged resolution under Rule IX. See House Practice, ch. 42, §3, pp. 749-750.

Congressional Research Service

18

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

listed on the Union Calendar if it authorizes or appropriates funds or affects revenues, or

otherwise on the House Calendar.

The Committee’s Reporting Options

A House committee has several options in deciding how it will report to the House after it has

completed a markup.

Committee Amendments

If the committee has marked up a bill that was introduced and referred to it—H.R. 1, for

example—the committee may vote to order H.R. 1 reported with one or more amendments.

If, as its last vote on amendments, the committee agreed to an amendment in the nature of a

substitute (perhaps as amended), the committee may vote to order H.R. 1 reported with that one

amendment, even though the amendment constitutes an entirely new text of the bill different than

the text of H.R. 1 as it was introduced and referred to the committee.

If the committee has marked up H.R. 1 and agreed to several different amendments to it, with

each amendment affecting a different provision of the bill, the committee may vote to order H.R.

1 reported with those separate amendments. Instead, though, the committee may authorize the

chair to incorporate those amendments into a single amendment in the nature of a substitute. The

reason for doing so is that, as noted, it is more convenient for the House, when considering a bill

on the floor, to act on a single committee substitute than to act on a series of discrete committee

amendments. The committee may agree to a unanimous consent request that the committee report

an amendment in the nature of a substitute instead of the several amendments. Alternatively, a

member may offer the amendment in the nature of a substitute as the last amendment to be

considered during the markup. (In the latter case, however, any committee member has the right

to insist that the substitute actually be drafted and available in writing at the time it is offered.)

Original Bills

Alternatively, certain committees may vote to report an original bill. As is noted above, in these

cases, the committee marks up a draft text (whether it be referred to as a discussion draft, chair’s

mark, or committee print) instead of a bill that was introduced and referred to it, and that markedup text is reported as a bill to the House. Only certain matters specified in House Rule XIII,

clause 5, can be reported at any time as original bills. The Rules Committee frequently reports

special rules as original measures, and the House Appropriations Committee also has the

authority to report general appropriation bills and certain joint resolutions continuing

appropriations as original bills. The House Administration Committee, the Budget Committee,

and the Ethics Committee also have the authority to report original bills on particular subjects.

Most committees, however, do not have the authority to report original bills, and therefore report

introduced legislation that was referred to them.

“Clean” Bills

An even less common practice is when committees vote to report what is known as a clean bill

instead of reporting a bill that was introduced and referred to it—H.R. 1, for example—with one

or more amendments. A clean bill is a new bill that has a new number instead of H.R. 1 and that

typically lists as its sponsor the committee chair, not the Member who had introduced H.R. 1.

This new bill is known as a clean bill because it incorporates all the amendments that the

Congressional Research Service

19

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

committee adopted during its markup of H.R. 1. For this reason, the committee reports the new

bill without amendment; in this sense, it is clean.

The committee must have the clean bill in its possession before it can vote to order the bill

reported. This means that, at the conclusion of the markup, the marked-up text must be prepared

as a bill, it must be introduced while the House is in session, and the newly introduced, clean bill

must be numbered and referred back to the committee before the committee may act on it. As

noted, the practice of reporting a “clean bill” was more common in earlier eras and is rarely seen

in current House practice.

Other Views

Immediately after the committee votes to order the bill reported, the ranking minority member or

another minority party member usually claims the right for all committee members to submit their

own supplemental, minority, or dissenting views for printing as part of the committee’s report on

the bill. Clause 2(l) of Rule XI provides:

If at the time of approval of a measure or matter by a committee (other than the Committee

on Rules) a member of the committee gives notice of intention to file supplemental,

minority, additional, or dissenting views for inclusion in the report to the House thereon,

all members shall be entitled to not less than two additional calendar days after the day of

such notice (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except when the House is

in session on such a day) to file such written and signed views (including in electronic

form) with the clerk of the committee.

Preparing for Conference

If and when the time comes to take a bill to conference, the House often agrees to a unanimous

consent request that the House create a conference committee with the Senate to negotiate a

compromise between their differing positions on the bill. If unanimous consent cannot be

secured, one option is to obtain a special rule from the Rules Committee for that purpose. A

second alternative lies in Rule XXII, clause 1:

A motion to disagree to Senate amendments to a House proposition and to request or agree

to a conference with the Senate, or a motion to insist on House amendments to a Senate

bill or resolution and to request or agree to a conference with the Senate, shall be privileged

in the discretion of the Speaker if offered by direction of the primary committee and of all

reporting committees that had initial referral of the proposition (italics added).

Under the terms of this rule, the committee chair can make this motion on the House floor only if

the committee has authorized the chair to do so. Some committees have adopted rules, explicitly

permitted under House Rule XI, clause 2(a)(3), allowing a chair to make such a motion whenever

appropriate. In other words, some committees have given their chair the authorization required by

clause 1 of Rule XXII in a blanket form that applies to all of the bills that the committee may

order reported during the course of the Congress.

If a committee rule does not grant this authority to the chair, then the committee must agree to

authorize the chair to make the motion necessary to go to conference with respect to each bill or

resolution on which it may eventually want to go to conference. By adopting the motion to go to

conference at the same meeting at which the committee has marked up the bill and voted to order

it reported, the committee avoids the need to schedule another meeting when the time actually

arrives, perhaps months later, to arrange for the conference with the Senate.

Congressional Research Service

20

The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives

Author Information

Christopher M. Davis

Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

Elizabeth Rybicki

Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process

Acknowledgments

This report was written by Stanley Bach, Senior Specialist on the Legislative Process, and

updated by the current analysts listed on the cover.

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan

shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and

under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other

than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in

connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not

subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in

its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or

material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to

copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service

RL30244 · VERSION 15 · UPDATED

21