[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 104th Congress]
[104th Congress]
[House Document 103-342]
[Rules of the House of Representatives]
[Pages 619-623]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 

                                Rule XX.


                      OF AMENDMENTS OF THE SENATE.




Sec. 827. Consideration of Senate amendments in Committee 
of the Whole.

  1.  Any amendment of the Senate to any House bill shall be 
subject to the point of order that it shall first be considered in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, if, originating 
in the House, it would be subject to that point: Provided, however, That 
a motion to disagree with the amendments of the Senate to a House bill 
or resolution and request or agree to a conference with the Senate, or a 
motion to insist on the House amendments to a Senate bill or resolution 
and request or agree to a conference with the Senate, shall always be in 
order if the Speaker, in his discretion, recognizes for that purpose and 
if the motion is made by direction of the committee having jurisdiction 
of the subject matter of the bill or resolution.



[[Page 620]]
5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144), this clause included language relating to 
separate votes on nongermane Senate amendments that was, in the 93d 
Congress, modified and transferred to clause 5 of rule XXVIII (H. Res. 
998, Apr. 9, 1974, pp. 10195-99).
  The first part of this rule was adopted in 1880 to prevent Senate 
amendments of the class described from escaping consideration in 
Committee of the Whole (IV, 4796). The first sentence of the proviso, 
added by the 89th Congress (H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 1965, p. 21), provides a 
method whereby bills can be sent to conference by majority vote. As 
contained in section 126(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and adopted as part of the rules of the House in 
the 92d Congress (H. Res. 


[[Page 621]]
diction and they have not yet had the opportunity to consider the 
amendment (June 28, 1984, p. 19770). The Committee on Rules may 
recommend a special order of business providing that a Senate amendment 
pending at the Speaker's table and otherwise requiring consideration in 
Committee of the Whole under this clause be ``hereby'' considered as 
adopted, which special order if adopted would abrogate the requirement 
of this clause (Deschler's Precedents, vol. 6, ch. 21, sec. 16.11; Feb. 
4, 1993, p. ----).



Sec. 828a. Practice in considering Senate amendments in 
Committee of the Whole.

  While  a Senate amendment that is merely a 
modification of a House proposition, like the increase or decrease of 
the amount of an appropriation, and does not involve new and distinct 
expenditure, may not be required to be considered in Committee of the 
Whole (IV, 4797-4806; VIII, 2382-2385), where the question was raised 
against a Senate amendment which on its face apparently placed a charge 
upon the Treasury the Speaker held it devolved upon those opposing the 
point of order to cite proof to the contrary (VIII, 2387). When in the 
House an amendment is offered to provide an appropriation for another 
purpose than that of the Senate amendment, the House goes into Committee 
of the Whole to consider it (IV, 4795). When an amendment is referred, 
the entire bill goes to the Committee of the Whole (IV, 4808), but the 
committee considers only the Senate amendment (V, 6192). It usually 
considers all the amendments, although they may not all be within the 
rule requiring such consideration (V, 6195). In Committee of the Whole a 
Senate amendment, even though it be very long, is considered as an 
entirety and not by paragraphs or sections (V, 6194). When reported from 
the Committee of the Whole, Senate amendments are voted on en bloc and 
only those amendments are voted on severally on which a separate vote is 
demanded (VIII, 3191). It has been held that each amendment is subject 
to general debate and amendment under the five-minute rule (V, 6193, 
6196). The requirement of this clause that certain Senate amendments be 
considered in Committee of the Whole applies only before the stage of 
disagreement has been reached on the Senate amendment, and it is to too 
late to raise a point of order that Senate amendments should have been 
considered in Committee of the Whole after the House has disagreed 
thereto and the amendments reported from conference in disagreement 
(Oct. 20, 1966, p. 28240; Dec. 4, 1975, p. 38714). The motion to send a 
bill to conference under this clause is in order notwithstanding the 
fact that the stage of disagreement has not been reached (Aug. 1, 1972, 
p. 26153). On a bill that has been jointly referred and reported in the 
House, the motion must be authorized by all committees reporting thereon 
(Sept. 26, 1978, p. 31623), but a committee discharged from a sequential 
referral need not authorize a motion made by direction of the committee 
that reported the bill (Oct. 4, 1994, p. ----). Where such a motion has 
been rejected by the House, it may be repeated if the committee having 
jurisdiction over the subject matter again authorizes its chairman to 
make the motion (Oct. 3, 1972, pp. 33502-03). See also Procedure, ch. 
32, sec. 5. The motion to send to conference is in order only if the 
Speaker in his discretion recognized for that purpose, and the Speaker 
will not recognize for the motion where he has referred a non-germane 
Senate amendment in question to a House committee with juris





Sec. 828b. Stage of disagreement between Houses.

  When  the 
stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill with amendments of the 
other House, motions to dispose of said amendments are privileged in the 
House (IV, 3149, 3150; VI, 756; VIII, 3185, 3194). The stage of 
disagreement between the two Houses is reached after the House in 
possession of the papers has either disagreed to the amendment(s) of the 
other House or has insisted on its own amendment to a measure of the 
other House (Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30868), and not merely where the other 
House has returned a bill with an amendment (Dec. 7, 1977, pp. 38728-
29). Thus where the House concurred in a Senate amendment to a House 
bill with an amendment, insisted on the amendment and requested a 
conference, and the Senate then concurred in the House amendment with a 
further amendment, the matter was privileged in the House for further 
disposition since the House had communicated its insistence and request 
for a conference to the Senate (Speaker Albert, Sept. 16, 1976, p. 
30868).





Sec. 829. Conferees may not agree to certain Senate 
amendments.

  2.  No amendment of the Senate to a general appropriation bill 
which would be in violation of the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI, 
if said amendment had originated in the House, nor any amendment of the 
Senate providing for an appropriation upon any bill other than a general 
appropriation bill, shall be agreed to by the managers on the part of 
the House unless specific authority to agree to such amendment shall be 
first given by the House by a separate vote on every such amendment.


  This clause of the rule was adopted on June 1, 1920 (pp. 8109, 8120).


[[Page 622]]
Senate amendment (Speaker Albert, Dec. 19, 1973, p. 42565), it does not 
permit a motion to recommit a conference report on a general 
appropriation bill to include instructions to add legislation to that 
contained in a Senate amendment (Nov. 13, 1973, p. 36847). It is 
customary after a conference on a general appropriation bill with 
numbered Senate amendments for the managers to report certain Senate 
amendments in technical disagreement, and after the partial conference 
report (consisting of agreement on those Senate amendments not in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI) is disposed of, the remaining 
amendments are taken up in order and disposed of directly in the House 
by separate motion. When Senate amendments in disagreement are 
considered in this fashion, they are not subject to a point of order 
under this clause (Dec. 4, 1975, p. 38714); and a motion to (recede and) 
concur in the Senate amendment with a further amendment is also in 
order, even if the proposed amendment is also legislation on an 
appropriation bill. The only test is whether the proposed amendment is 
germane to the Senate amendment reported in disagreement (IV, 3909; 
VIII, 3188, 3189; Speaker McCormack, Dec. 15, 1970, pp. 41504-05; Aug. 
1, 1979, pp. 22007-11; Speaker O'Neill, Dec. 12, 1979, pp. 35520-21; 
June 30, 1987, p. 18308).
  While the rule provides for a motion authorizing the managers on the 
part of the House to agree to amendments of the Senate in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI, such as a motion to recommit a conference report 
on a general appropriation bill with instructions to agree to a 
legislative 


[[Page 623]]

  In the event an appropriation bill with Senate amendments in violation 
of clause 2 of rule XXI is sent to conference by unanimous consent, such 
procedure does not thereby prevent a point of order being sustained 
against the conference report should the managers on the part of the 
House violate the provisions of clause 2 of rule XX (VII, 1574). But 
where a special rule in the House waives points of order against 
portions of an appropriation bill that are unauthorized by law, and the 
bill passes the House with those provisions included therein and goes to 
conference, the conferees may report back their agreement to those 
provisions even though they remain unauthorized, since the waiver in the 
House of points of order under clause 2 of rule XXI carries over to the 
consideration of the same provisions when the conference report is 
before the House (Dec. 20, 1969, pp. 40445-48, consideration of 
conference report; Dec. 9, 1969, p. 37948, adoption of special rule 
waiving points of order against the bill in the House). The rule is a 
restriction upon the managers on the part of the House only, and does 
not provide for a point of order against a Senate amendment when it 
comes up for action by the House (VII, 1572). Managers may be authorized 
to agree to an appropriation by a resolution reported from the Committee 
on Rules (VII, 1577). House managers may include in their report a 
modification of a Senate amendment that eliminates the appropriation in 
that amendment (June 8, 1972, pp. 20280-81); and the prohibition in this 
clause applies only to language in Senate amendments. Thus the conferees 
may without violating this clause agree to language in a Senate bill 
which was sent to conference (Speaker Albert, Jan. 25, 1972, pp. 1076, 
1077; June 30, 1976, pp. 21632-34) or agree to language in a House bill 
which was permitted to remain and which constitutes an appropriation on 
a legislative bill (Speaker Albert, May 1, 1975, p. 12752). 




  A provision in a Senate amendment included in a conference report on 
an authorization bill considered after the relevant appropriation has 
been enacted into law, directing that funds appropriated pursuant to the 
authorization be obligated and expended on a project not specifically 
funded in the appropriation, is itself an appropriation and may not be 
agreed to by House conferees (Nov. 29, 1979, pp. 34113-15); and House 
conferees were held to have violated this clause when they had agreed to 
a provision in a Senate amendment not only authorizing appropriations to 
pay judgments against the U.S. for the award of attorney fees and other 
court costs, but also requiring that where such payments were not paid 
out of appropriated funds, payment be made in the same manner as 
judgments under 28 U.S.C. 2414 and 2517 (payable directly out of the 
Treasury pursuant to a direct appropriation previously provided by law 
in 31 U.S.C. 1304) (Oct. 1, 1980, pp. 28637-40).