The rules crafted and applied by congressional committees, especially the House Rules Committee, are an essential yet often overlooked force in shaping the lawmaking process. While debates and votes on the House or Senate floor garner more public attention, it is in committee rooms that the boundaries of discussion, amendment, and legislative pacing are often set. By establishing the parameters within which debate will unfold, determining what amendments can be considered, and even setting the order in which agenda items appear, these rules function as an invisible architecture guiding each bill's journey through Congress.
Similar to how traffic police regulatee the flow of vehicles, committee rules determine the flow of legislation in Congress. Through their authority, committees can decide how long members may speak, which amendments are permitted (if any), and which topics reach the floor at all. This system serves a twofold purpose: to manage proceedings efficiently and to maintain an orderly legislative agenda, preventing deliberations from spiraling out of control in a chamber with hundreds of competing priorities. The choice of which rule applies to a bill can significantly influence its legislative outcome.
Open Rule: Permits an unlimited number of relevant amendments and allows full debate without restrictions on the number of proposed changes.
Structured Rule: Permits only specific amendments that have been pre-selected or pre-approved by the committee.
Closed Rule: Excludes the possibility of any amendments, requiring an up-or-down vote on the bill as reported.
Committee rules also alter the balance of power between majority and minority parties. The majority party, which holds greater influence over the Rules Committee in the House, can craft rules that favor its priorities, such as limiting the minority's amendment opportunities, shortening debates, or dictating an order of proceedings that aligns the legislative schedule with its own objectives. This can suppress minority proposals and control the pace at which a controversial bill moves forward.
For example, during the debate on the Affordable Care Act in 2010, Democratic leadership used structured rules to allow for debate and vote on only two predetermined amendments, in an effort to limit Republican amendments to the bill. Similarly, in 2017, when Republicans held the majority, the Rules Committee moved the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to the floor under a structured rule, which allowed debate. Still, it prevented Democrats from offering amendments that might have altered the bill's structure or delayed its passage. These instances illustrate how both major parties have leveraged rule-setting power to advance their legislative goals quickly and to prevent the other side from reshaping any given bill.
The implications of such control present a clear trade-off. On the positive side, these rules can streamline lawmaking, avoid procedural gridlock, and allow the majority to fulfill promises to constituents. Tight control over procedure can keep legislation on schedule and ensure that unintended amendments do not derail the core purpose of a bill. On the negative side, restricting debate and amendments reduces opportunities for bipartisan cooperation and limits the representation of minority viewpoints.
The rule-making process is at the heart of legislative control, shaping not only what legislation comes to the floor but also how it is debated and amended. The rules determine the pace, tone, and scope of policymaking, making it one of the most influential processes in Congress. By deciding who gets a voice and which rules apply, committee rules can transform the ambitions of individual lawmakers into actionable legislation. In doing so, the committee rules exemplify the institutional discipline required to turn competing priorities into the laws that steer the nation forward.
Sharanya Maddukuri
(This article was written by Sharanya Maddukuri, Fall 2025 Programs Intern)
Sharanya Maddukuri is the Programs Intern at TechCongress. She is a senior at George Mason University studying Government and International Politics with a minor in Ethics & AI. As a pre-law student, Sharanya has a background in exploring how AI can be leveraged to improve public services and the legal system. She also serves as the Director of Operations at the Paragon Policy Fellowship, a tech policy fellowship, and leads the Sycamore Institute at Mason, the nation’s first undergraduate-led foreign policy think tank.
Find Sharanya on LinkedIn here.