Confusion appears to be the name of the game on the House Appropriations Committee, with legislators wondering about everything from scheduling markups to a committee report posted for the transportation spending bill.

The subcommittee in charge of transportation, housing and related agencies (T-HUD) passed an appropriations bill last month, but legislators say there has been no word on when a full committee markup will happen. In fact, although the office of Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) says the markup is set to be scheduled, other committee members don't seem so sure.

Ryan Nickel, spokesman for Appropriations Committee ranking member Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), said leadership had "no intention of [the bill] going to the full committee whatsoever." Other committee members, such as Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), said it was possible the bills would just be sent to a conference committee with the Senate.

Rep. John Olver (D-Mass.), ranking member of the transportation subcommittee, said he had heard nothing from leadership about a schedule or plan for the bill. Things are "difficult," he added, because of the ongoing supercommittee and budget talks. The movement of separate legislation in the Senate could also create problems, because while the bills are not too different now, "things can only get more contentious" as they advance, Olver said.

A spokesman for Rogers said scheduling of the markup was on hold until the House completed work on a continuing resolution to keep the government funded. The Department of Transportation expects a markup of the appropriations bill in the House, while a Senate version passed the full Appropriations Committee and is expected to be brought to the floor this month.

Still, the confusion hasn't just been about scheduling. In a statement last week, Dicks expressed frustration that the committee reports for the T-HUD and State and Foreign Operations bills that had passed their respective committees had been posted online. Their release, Dicks argued, should not come before a full committee markup is scheduled and the early posting meant the minority did not have enough time to comment.

"This is a significant departure from standard committee procedure and has relegated the remaining members of our committee, on both sides of the aisle, to the position of bystanders," Dicks said in the statement.

Nickel added that the reports, which were based on the subcommittee bills, were not necessary if they did not come up in the full committee. In the past, Nickel said, the reports were posted after the full committee had marked up the appropriations bill so that all members had a chance to amend it.

According to Rogers' office, the reports were released early under a transparency rule approved by House leadership in January. Because they were based on the subcommittee bills, Democrats did have ample time to see the language and offer amendments, the chairman's office insisted.

T-HUD Subcommittee Chairman Tom Latham (R-Iowa) said Democrats had no right to complain about the report being posted on the website.

"We are posting the bill online, just like we said we were going to," Latham said Monday. "Unlike before when it was all jammed through under [former Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] and you write the bill and bring it to the floor and no one knew what was in it. At least people will know what it is."

Simpson said he wasn't even aware that the timing of the reports was under fire, saying that it "never came up as an issue with me."

The transportation bill was met with controversy because it made heavy cuts to transit and rail programs, as well as zeroing out funding for sustainable communities. Although it is expected to pass the full committee because it aligns with House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) demands for cuts, appropriators said they would amend the bill if legislators working on a surface transportation reauthorization bill could craft a new source of funding to replace or supplement the dwindling gas tax.

That, Olver said, made the prospect of a full committee markup even murkier, because he and fellow Democrats did not want to see Republicans take aim at the transportation programs usually hailed as job creators.

"We had a whole series of amendments that were damaging amendments that got adopted in the subcommittee," Olver said. "If we go to full committee, they'll have a whole additional series of amendments that will be further damaging."

Reporter Jean Chemnick contributed.