Order Code RL30244
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Committee Markup Process in the
House of Representatives
Updated November 1, 1999
Stanley Bach
Senior Specialist in the Legislative Process
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

ABSTRACT
This report discusses aspects of the process by which House committees mark up and report
legislation. Among the subjects discussed are: selecting the text to be marked up, offering
and debating amendments, and making motions to conclude debates during markups. The
report also discusses relevant rules and practices concerning motions, quorums, votes, points
of order, and parliamentary inquiries. This report will be revised as necessary to reflect
significant changes in applicable House rules, precedents, and practices.

---

The Committee Markup Process in the
House of Representatives
Summary
The process of marking up bills and resolutions in committees of the House of
Representatives generally resembles, but does not perfectly replicate, the process of
amending measures on the House floor.
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 almost always is waived, either by unanimous consent or
by adopting a nondebatable motion. The bill then is read for amendment, one section
at a time, with committee members offering their amendments to each section after
it is read but before the next section is read. By unanimous consent only, the
committee may agree to dispense with the reading of each section, or to consider a
bill for amendment by titles or chapters instead of by sections. Also by unanimous
consent, the committee may consider the entire bill as having been read and open to
amendment at any point.
Each amendment must be read in full unless the committee waives that reading
by unanimous consent. Committees 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. A committee also can order
the previous question or close debate on the entire bill, once it has been read or that
reading has been waived by unanimous consent. However, the committee can only
close debate, not order the previous question, on individual sections (titles, chapters)
of the bill. 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 whatever amendments the committee has approved.
A majority of the committee must be present when this final vote occurs. For all
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 chairmen 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. Chairmen 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
an entirely different text for the bill. Alternatively, a committee may report a new or
“clean” bill on the same subject as the bill (or other text) that it has marked up.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Selecting the Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Markup Process in General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Beginning the Markup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Offering and Debating Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Two Motions to Conclude a Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Motions, Quorums, and Votes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Points of Order and Parliamentary Inquiries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Motions to Conclude Markups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Related CRS Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

---

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 by which the majority party leaders and staff of each committee
identify the relatively small percentage of measures referred to it that may merit more
consideration. The committee or one of its subcommittees then usually conducts one
or more days of public hearings to receive testimony about the issue and the merits
of the legislation proposed to address it. If the committee decides that it may want
to recommend that the House take legislative action, the hearings are followed by
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 for 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. CRS reports that discuss other aspects of the legislative process
in committee include Hearings in the House of Representatives: A Guide for
Preparation and Conduct (Report 96-623, updated periodically), and House Rules
Affecting Committees (Report 97-357, updated periodically).
Applicability of House Rules.
In general, the markup process in House committees reflects many of the rules
and practices that govern the amending process on the House floor. Clause
1(a)(1)(A) of House Rule XI states in part 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
devices 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

---

CRS-2
Rules of the House or with those provisions of law having the force and effect of
Rules of the House....” This statement also is 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 will discuss, the House
parliamentarian has given committees some helpful 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. In fact, a more informal process sometimes contributes to efficient and
collegial decision-making in committee. Furthermore, most committee markups are
somewhat less constrained by rules than House floor sessions because the House
parliamentarian and his assistants do not attend committee markups to advise
chairmen and other committee members on procedural questions. Although many
committees designate a majority party staff member to provide procedural advice,
committee chairmen 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.
In addition, of course, the House has 20 different committees that are
empowered to mark up bills and resolutions that fall within their respective
jurisdictions. 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 chairmen and members sometimes employ.
However, the discussion here could not possibly encompass every variation in markup
procedure that may be observed in committee practices. Readers of this report should
not be surprised if it does not accord in every respect with what they may have
observed at certain markup meetings of the committees with which they are most
familiar. References to committees in what follows should be understood to refer to
subcommittees as well, unless the text specifically distinguishes between them.

---

CRS-3
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 two choices.
First, the committee may mark up the text of one of the bills that Members had
introduced and that the House parliamentarian, acting for the Speaker, had referred
to the committee.
Second, the committee may mark up the draft of a bill that has not yet been
formally introduced and referred to the committee. The chairman 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, that reflects the chairman’s
policy preferences. The committee then may mark up this draft bill which, in its
printed form, may be called a “discussion draft” or a “staff draft.” Such a draft often
now is known informally as a “chairman’s mark.” This phrase originated in
committee consideration of budget resolutions, but now is commonly used to denote
any draft that constitutes the legislative starting-point from which a committee
chairman thinks a markup should begin.
In either case, the text that a 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 the “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 is 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. Clearly, then, it is advantageous to be able to select the vehicle
from among the bills that were referred to the committee, or to devise the vehicle by
drafting a new text that very well may draw on selected provisions of the introduced
bills on which the committee held hearings.
The Chairman’s Authority in Practice.
Almost invariably, it is the committee chairman who selects the text to be marked
up. Yet there is nothing in the rules of the House that explicitly gives chairmen this
authority. Instead, this power would seem to derive from the authority of committee
chairmen to schedule committee meetings and set the agenda for them.
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 chairman 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

---

CRS-4
chairmen to cancel regular meetings when the chairman considers it appropriate to do
so.
Clause 2(c)(1) of the same rule authorizes each standing committee chairman 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 chairman to decide what measure or what other committee
business will be on the agenda of each such meeting. A committee may adopt a rule
that requires the chairman to give prior notice to, or even consult with, the ranking
minority member before scheduling a meeting. A committee’s rules also may require
that the chairman give all committee members advance notice of when the committee
will meet and what matters will be on its agenda for that meeting. Still, the authority
to schedule committee meetings, including markups, and to select matters for
consideration at those meetings, rests effectively with the committee chairman.
Recourse of Committee Members.
Committee members have two different mechanisms they can use when they
disagree with their chairman’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
chairman 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 chairman from compelling them to mark up legislation that they prefer not
to consider, at least at that time. However, the question of consideration rarely is
raised, and, if raised, it is very unlikely that the committee will block consideration of
a measure that the chairman wishes the committee to mark up.
There are two primary, and related, reasons. First, in setting the committee’s
markup agenda, the chairman usually is acting in support of the majority party’s policy
and political interests. Except in the most unusual cases, therefore, the chairman’s
agenda decisions can be expected to enjoy the support of all, or almost all, of his or
her 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

---

CRS-5
majority party in the House. Therefore, majority party members in committee are
inclined to (and normally are expected to) support their chairman 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 chairman 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 their chairman call a special meeting for a specific purpose, such as to
mark up a measure that is identified in the written request. If the chairman 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 their chairman and require the committee to mark up a measure that the
chairman has failed to schedule for consideration. However, this rule has rarely, if
ever, been formally invoked since the House first adopted it as part of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970. The reasons are not surprising. In the contemporary
House, we would rarely expect to encounter serious and open conflicts between a
committee chairman and many committee members of his or her own party.
Therefore, we would expect this rule 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. On the
other hand, the threat of invoking the clause 2(c)(2) procedure for calling a special
meeting may have convinced chairmen 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 chairmen effective control over
what matters their committees mark up, when these markups take place, and precisely
what text the committee considers. However, chairmen exercise this control within
limits imposed by their knowledge that a chairman’s decisions can be overridden if he
or she thwarts the will of the committee’s majority party members, and that the
continuance of each chairman in that office depends on retaining the support of the
entire majority party’s conference or caucus. In practice, the minority party members
of a committee usually have little effective recourse when they object to what their
chairman 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

---

CRS-6
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 Sec. 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." 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 procedures that the House may, but rarely does, use to consider measures on the
floor. These procedures are not stated in the House's standing rules, but they are a
matter of well-established precedent. As its name suggests, the procedures applicable
in the House as in Committee of the Whole combine elements of the procedures that
apply in the House and those that are followed in Committee of the Whole.
To summarize what is discussed in more detail below, when a standing
committee begins a markup, the text to be considered first is to be read in full,
although this reading usually can be waived by majority vote. The text then is
considered for amendment, section by section. Each section is read, unless the reading
of one or all sections is waived by unanimous consent. Committee members may
offer amendments to each section after it is read but before the next section is read.
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 a five-minute rule, meaning that each member may speak for five
minutes on each amendment unless the committee votes to bring the debate to an end.

There are two motions available to end debate. Members may vote either to
close the debate or to order the previous question on (1) a pending amendment or (2)
the entire bill after the last section of the bill has been read or considered as read.
However, members may move only to close the debate, not to order the previous
question, on the pending section of the bill (and all amendments to it). Both motions
are decided by simple majority vote. The difference lies in the fact that ordering the
previous question ends the debate and precludes additional amendments, while the
motion to close debate does only that—it ends the debate, but it does not prevent
members from offering additional, nondebatable amendments that otherwise are in
order.
It should be emphasized that the rules of the House do not specifically describe
these procedures and require committees to follow them. However, the House’s

---

CRS-7
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 by the chairman calling the
committee to order and announcing the matters that the committee is expected to
consider at that meeting. The chairman also may announce that the requisite quorum
of members is present. The chairman 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 chairman also may note that whatever requirements
for prior notification the committee’s rules impose have been satisfied.
First Reading.
The committee clerk then is to read the entire text of the bill (or whatever text
is being considered).1 However, this reading usually is waived by unanimous consent
when all committee members already have had an opportunity to become familiar with
the text. 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 nondebatable motion to waive this first reading in
committee or subcommittee if printed copies of the measure are available.
Opening Statements.
Either before or after the chairman 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 chairman typically makes the first statement and next recognizes the
ranking minority party member. The chairman 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, chairmen sometimes recognize members in the order in which they arrived
at the committee meeting, just as chairmen sometimes follow this practice in
recognizing members to question witnesses at committee hearings.
Members normally are recognized for no more than five minutes each to make
their opening statements, though chairmen may allot more time to themselves and to
their 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 in Committee of the Whole 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 chairmen
1In 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.

---

CRS-8
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 chairman 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 chairman may accommodate them.
Committees rarely publish the transcripts of their markup meetings, so opening
statements that are simply submitted for the record may receive little or no attention.
The chairman’s authority to permit or restrict opening statements is somewhat
clearer when these statements take place before the chairman actually calls up the bill
for consideration, which constitutes the formal beginning of the markup. Before the
markup formally begins, there is no business that is before the committee at that
meeting, so the chairman can justify exercising more discretion in recognizing
members to speak. After the bill has been presented and its first reading has taken
place or has been waived, opening statements can be construed to be debate on the
bill under the five-minute rule, which the chairman is better situated to constrain if he
does so with the implicit consent of the committee.
Offering and Debating Amendments
After opening statements and after the first reading of the bill has been completed
or dispensed with, the committee begins the markup process per se by entertaining,
debating, and voting on amendments. Throughout this process, committee members
often talk about how the committee is or is not 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.2 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.
Reading Bills for Amendment.
The process of offering and debating amendments in committee closely
resembles the amending process in Committee of the Whole on the House floor. In
committee, members offer their amendments to each section of the bill in sequence
unless the committee agrees otherwise by unanimous consent. The chairman 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
chairman directs the clerk to read the second section, which then is open to
amendment. This process is repeated until the committee has voted on the last
amendment to be offered to the last section of the bill. (Some committees may agree
to use an informal system of giving priority consideration to amendments submitted
in advance.)
2When a committee marks up the text of what will become a clean bill, the committee can
amend that text because it is not yet the text of a bill.

---

CRS-9
Except in the most contentious markups, committee members do not insist that
the clerk actually read each section of the bill. When the chairman 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. One reason
for requiring that each section be read is to delay the proceedings.
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 chairman 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 chairman 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 chairman. When any member
objects, however, no motion is in order 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 nondebatable 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.
Offering Amendments.
If a full committee is marking up a bill that one of its subcommittees already has
marked up, the chairman 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 to each section, the
chairman usually first recognizes a senior member of his or her party. After the
committee disposes of that amendment (and any amendments to it), the chairman
normally recognizes a senior member of the minority party to offer another
amendment to that section. Thereafter, the chairman typically recognizes other
members to offer amendments to the section in order of their seniority, alternating

---

CRS-10
between members of the two parties. However, there is nothing in House rules that
requires chairmen to follow these recognition practices. Committee chairmen
sometimes offer amendments themselves (unlike Members who preside over the
House’s floor sessions).
The amendments that members can offer in committee are subject to essentially
the same requirements that apply to amendments offered on the House floor. Each
amendment must be germane, for example, and it may not propose only to amend
something that already has been amended. Amendments also must meet certain other
requirements, including those of the congressional budget process. 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 chairmen 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, make in order on
the floor also may be offered in committee. These are: (1) a first-degree amendment
that proposes to change the 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 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. (For an explanation of these
kinds of amendments and the “amendment tree,” see CRS Report 98-995, The
Amending Process in the House of Representatives, by Stanley Bach.)
An amendment in the nature of a substitute—that is, an amendment that
proposes to replace the entire text of the bill or resolution—is in order only at the
beginning or the end of the amending process. Sometimes the chairman, or a member
acting at his behest, offers such a complete substitute immediately after the first
section of the bill has been opened for amendment. The reason, which is discussed
in the next section, often is tactical, and has to do with the majority’s ability to
conclude the markup process when it chooses to do so.
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 write amendments in long-hand as the markup progresses.
Committee staff usually have blank amendment forms available, but members need not
use them. Chairmen 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 interests not to do so.
As soon as any amendment is offered, the clerk must read it before debate on the
amendment may begin. Typically, the sponsor of the amendment 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

---

CRS-11
unfamiliar with it or if they simply want to protract the proceedings. In the case of
an amendment in the nature of a substitute, the reading can be time-consuming.
However, the chairman may entertain a point of order against an amendment even
before the amendment has been read in full.
Debating Amendments.
Each amendment is debated under the five-minute rule, much as members debate
amendments on the floor in Committee of the Whole. The chairman first recognizes
the amendment’s sponsor for five minutes to explain and justify the amendment. Then
the chairman 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” (a pro
forma amendment), as they do on the floor. In committee markups, however, it
usually is sufficient for a member to attract the chairman’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, chairmen 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, chairmen depart from these practices in favor of
giving junior members equitable opportunities to participate.
In most committees, there are green, yellow, and red lights at the staff table
facing the members 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 Rep. White has
been recognized, Rep. Black 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 chairman, not directly to other
committee members.)
Rep. White 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 Rep. Black would say,
or if he thinks that Rep. Black’s request is disruptive or distracting. If Rep. White
does agree to yield to Rep. Black, Rep. Black then speaks on Rep. White’s time.
Rep. White may not yield to his colleague for a specific period of time; he only has
the choice of yielding or declining to do so. If Rep. White does yield to a colleague,
however, he may reclaim his time whenever he wants. If Rep. Black is speaking or
if the two members are engaged in an exchange when the chairman announces that
Rep. White’s five minutes have expired, Rep. Black may ask unanimous consent that
Rep. White be granted an additional few minutes.

---

CRS-12
Committees sometimes permit questions to be addressed to committee staff or
executive branch officials during debates on amendments.
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 a Debate
During committee markups, chairmen 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 nondebatable 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 the debate and block
amendments. During debate on an amendment, for example, a member may seek
recognition to move the previous question on that amendment. 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 first-
degree amendment.
The previous question may be moved on a pending amendment (and amendments
to it), or it may be moved on the entire bill if the last section of the bill has been read
or if the reading of the bill has been waived by unanimous consent so that the bill is
open to amendment at any point. A member may not move the previous question on
the section (title, chapter) of the bill that is open for amendment. 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. If the
committee agrees to a unanimous consent request that the bill be considered as read
and open to amendment at any point, a majority can expedite completion of the
markup by agreeing to order the previous question on the bill and any pending
amendments thereto. If there is no such unanimous consent agreement, however, the
previous question can be used only to force votes on each amendment that is offered,
until the clerk has read the last section of the bill.
Moving to Close the Debate.
The motion to close debate is in order under more circumstances, but its effect
is more limited. A member may move to close the debate (1) on the pending

---

CRS-13
amendment (and any pending amendments to it), or (2) on the section, title, or chapter
(and any pending amendments to it) that 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,
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 a debate 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 rollcall votes on them, but they may not take any time at all to
explain their amendments (except by unanimous consent, of course).
Because of its dual effect, committee members tend to move the previous
question more often than they move to close debate when both motions are in order.
Thus, members are most likely to move the previous question on a pending
amendment or on the bill after it has been read in full or its reading has been dispensed
with. 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 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 in Committee of the Whole.
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. By the same token, there is no motion by which a
committee majority can vote to conclude a markup until the committee has completed
the process of reading the bill for amendment.
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 rollcall votes on the
amendments. The committee majority may vote to close the debate on each section
after it is read, but doing so does not block the minority from offering more

---

CRS-14
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 chairman (or another majority party member acting for the chairman)
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 insisting that the bill be read for amendment by sections and from
offering amendments to each section as it is read.3
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 chairman, 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 something that already has been amended.
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. When a minority party member offers a first-
degree amendment that the majority opposes, the majority can respond by defeating
it or, if that seems unlikely, by amending it in order to make it more palatable.
However, when the minority offers unwelcome second-degree perfecting amendments
to the majority’s complete substitute, the majority can only attempt to defeat each
minority amendment because second-degree amendments cannot be amended. 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.
3In the unlikely event that the committee eventually rejects the chairman’s complete substitute,
the clerk would be directed to read the second section of the bill and the normal amending
process would resume.

---

CRS-15
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, and reconsider.
Chairmen 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 be
recorded on quorum calls and 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 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 rollcall 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. Doing so qualifies that member to move to reconsider
the vote at some time before the markup ends. If a majority votes for the motion to
reconsider, the committee then votes anew on the amendment and may reverse the
outcome. Alternatively, 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 different 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
reported. To facilitate the conduct of committee markups and other meetings,
however, House rules do not insist that a majority be present for other purposes. For
all 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)). 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 chairman has recognized can make a point of order that a quorum is not
present. When a member makes this point of order, the chairman counts to determine

---

CRS-16
whether in fact a quorum is present. The chairman’s count is not subject to challenge
or appeal. If a quorum is present, the chairman announces that fact and business
resumes. If a quorum is not present, however, the chairman must initiate a quorum
call and the necessary quorum of members must register their presence before
business can resume.
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 chairman asks those favoring the question to call
out “Aye,” and then asks those opposed to call out “No.” Based on what the
chairman hears, he or she announces that the ayes or the noes appear to have it. At
that point, any member who disagrees with the chair’s announcement can demand a
division vote. In that case, the chairman asks those in favor to raise their hands until
counted, followed by those opposed.
Before the chairman 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 rollcall 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
rollcalls. In fact, a chairman may order a rollcall vote on a question as a courtesy to
any member who requests it, or even in anticipation that members will request it.
When a rollcall vote is ordered, the chairman 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 chairman may direct the clerk to call his or her
name either first or last. After the clerk completes calling the roll, the chairman
normally directs the clerk to call the names of the members who failed to vote when
their names were first called. The clerk then is to tally the vote and, at the chairman’s
direction, report the number of members voting aye and no.
Sometimes, however, the chairman delays asking the clerk to report the tally in
order to allow absent members to reach the committee room and cast their votes.
Members sometimes have two or more committee or subcommittee meetings at the
same time, requiring them to leave one meeting in order to come to the other when
a vote is taking place. Chairmen know that their committee members want to be
recorded as having voted whenever possible, so they may delay announcing the result
of a vote when they are informed that an absent member is on his or her way to the
committee room to vote. When the outcome of an important vote hangs in the
balance, a chairman may leave a vote open for even longer periods of time, if that is
likely to allow the chairman’s position to prevail.
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 rollcall vote. The reason lies 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 chairman, if he or she held enough proxies, to win a rollcall vote even

---

CRS-17
when the chairman’s position was opposed by a majority of the members who actually
were present.
Proxy voting was prohibited in 1995. The result has been to put more of a
premium on maximizing attendance, especially when the majority party holds only a
few more committee seats than the minority. In those circumstances, the absence of
only 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. It is very important,
therefore, for as many members as possible to attend markups, and for the committee
staff of each party to know how to contact their absent members as soon as a rollcall
vote begins (if not before). Committee staffs may devise systems to keep track of
where their party’s members are, and may rely on members’ legislative assistants to
ensure that those members are present when they are needed to make a quorum or to
cast their votes.
Points of Order and Parliamentary Inquiries
In presiding over a markup, the chairman participates freely in the debate, unlike
the Speaker and other members who preside over floor sessions of the House. Like
the Speaker, however, the chairman is responsible for maintaining order, insisting on
proper decorum, and enforcing applicable procedures. Committee chairmen 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 to their detriment.
Points of Order and Appeals.
To make a point of order, a committee member addresses the chairman at the
appropriate time, and announces that he or she wishes to make a point of order. The
chairman 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 chairman may recognize other members to argue for or against the
point of order. However, the chairman entertains all debate on a point of order at his
or her discretion; members have no right to debate points of order.
Whenever the chairman has heard sufficient debate, he or she rules on the point
of order, either sustaining or overruling it. The chairman 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.4
4Committees sometimes have requested CRS staff to attend committee meetings to offer
(continued...)

---

CRS-18
Any committee member who disagrees with the chairman’s ruling may challenge
it by addressing the chair and appealing his or her 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 five-minute rule, although any member
who has been recognized may make either of two non-debatable motions that, if
adopted, end debate on the appeal. A member may move the previous question on
the appeal. Instead, the member may move to table the appeal; if the committee
votes to table an appeal, the ruling of the chair stands.
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 a problem during committee markups that are conducted rather
informally, as they usually are. Often, when a member offers an amendment, the
chairman 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 problem, members sometimes 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.
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 chairman is not required to entertain parliamentary inquiries, but chairmen
usually do so unless convinced that an inquiry is repetitive or is being made for
dilatory purposes. The chairman’s reply to a parliamentary inquiry is not subject to
appeal because it constitutes only an explanation, not a ruling.
4(...continued)
answers to procedural questions as they arise.

---

CRS-19
From time to time, committee members may address the chairman 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, chairmen
sometimes reply as a courtesy to their fellow committee members.
Challenging Committee Procedures.
The procedural rulings of the chairman 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 (ch. 17, sec. 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.
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 these 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 chairman, 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 several or even many amendments to
it during the course of the markup.
Ordering the Bill Reported.
The committee does not conclude its markup by voting on the bill itself. After
voting on the last amendment to be offered, the chairman 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 committee chairman takes the bill and the accompanying
committee report to the floor when the House is in session, files the report, and

---

CRS-20
returns the bill to the House. The committee report then is printed, the bill is
reprinted to show the committee’s action and its recommended amendments, and the
bill is 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 that may not resemble 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, 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 chairman to incorporate those
amendments into a single amendment in the nature of a substitute. The reason for
doing so is that 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.)
Clean Bills. Alternatively, the committee may vote to report what is known as
a clean bill instead of reporting H.R. 1 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 chairman, 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
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 effect of reporting a clean bill is much the same as reporting the marked-up
bill with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. In either case, all the
committee’s proposed changes in the marked up text are incorporated into a single
new text. Then why would a committee report a clean bill?
There are at least two reasons. First, if the committee has marked-up a staff
draft (discussion draft, chairman’s mark) instead of H.R. 1, that marked-up text must
be introduced and reported as a bill before the House can consider it. Second, there

---

CRS-21
are instances in which the committee (or its chairman) decides to assume complete
responsibility (and credit) for the bill it orders reported. Imagine, for example, that
the committee has marked up H.R. 1 in ways that the original sponsor of the bill finds
unacceptable. In that case, the sponsor may wish to disavow further responsibility for
H.R. 1, and so welcomes the committee’s decision to report a clean bill instead of
reporting H.R. 1 with a committee substitute. In other cases, the chairman may prefer
a clean bill in order to have his or her name most closely associated with it.
Technically, the committee must have the clean bill in its possession before it can
vote to order it 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. In practice, committees
sometimes short-circuit this process if no one objects. Immediately after the
committee completes its markup, it may authorize the chairman to report the clean
bill. So long as the clean bill is introduced on that same calendar day, the official
records of the House’s proceedings do not indicate whether the clean bill actually was
introduced and referred to committee before or after the committee’s markup ended.
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 that:
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, or additional views for inclusion in the report to the
House thereon, that member 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
views, in writing and signed by that member, with the clerk of the committee.
Preparing for Conference.
There is one final action that House committees sometimes take concerning bills
that they have just marked up and ordered reported. A committee can adopt a motion
that authorizes its chairman to take the actions necessary to send the bill to conference
when that time comes—in other words, after both houses have passed different
versions of the bill or another bill on the same subject. For this purpose, the chairman
may recognize a majority party member to move that, pursuant to clause 1 of Rule
XXII, the committee authorizes its chairman to make such motions in the House as
may be necessary to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 1 or a similar Senate
bill.
If and when the time comes to take H.R. 1 to conference, the House usually
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

---

CRS-22
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 bill or resolution 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 bill or resolution (italics added).
Under the terms of this rule, the committee chairman can make this motion on
the House floor only if the committee has adopted a motion authorizing him to do so.
And the vote in committee on this motion requires that a majority of the committee
actually be present, just as does the vote to order the bill reported back to the House.
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 and assemble a majority of the committee’s
members when the time actually arrives, perhaps months later, to arrange for the
conference with the Senate.
The committee must agree to such a motion with respect to each bill or
resolution on which it may eventually want to go to conference. Committees cannot
give their chairmen the authorization required by clause 1 of Rule XXII in a blanket
form that applies to some or all of the bills that the committee may order reported
during the course of the Congress.
Related CRS Products
Other CRS reports that discuss aspects of the legislative process in House
committees include: House Rules Affecting Committees (Report 97-524), Hearings
in the House of Representatives (Report 96-623), and House Rules and Precedents
Affecting Committee Markup Procedures (Report 97-1045). In addition, a series of
related fact sheets are available online as part of the “CRS Guide to the Legislative
and Budget Process” (lcweb.loc.gov/crs/legproc/newformat/HomeNF.html). The
fact sheets also are available in printed form. All these CRS products will be revised
when necessary to reflect significant changes in relevant House rules, precedents, and
practices.

---