Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 104th Congress-Rule XXVIII.Conference Reports

[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 719-741]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Rule XXVIII.

CONFERENCE REPORTS.

Sec. 909. High privilege of conference reports; and
form of accompanying statement.

1. (a) The presentation of reports of committees
of conference shall always be in order, except when the Journal is being
read, while the roll is being called, or the House is dividing on any
proposition.

The practice of giving conference reports privilege dates from 1850,
having had its origin in a temporary rule. This practice was continued
by rulings of the Chair until this rule was adopted in 1880 (V, 6443-
6446, 6454).

[[Page 720]]
yields to Calendar Wednesday business (VII, 899). It even takes
precedence of the motion to reconsider (V, 5605), motions to go into the
Committee of the Whole for consideration of general appropriation bills
(VIII, 3291), consideration of District of Columbia business on Monday
(VIII, 3292), unfinished business (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 4, 1978, p.
33473), and motions to adjourn (V, 6451-6453), although as soon as the
report is presented the motion to adjourn may be put (V, 6451-6453).
Also the consideration of a conference report may be interrupted, even
in the midst of the reading of the Statement, by the arrival of the hour
previously fixed for a recess (V, 6524). While it may not be presented
while the House is dividing, it may be presented after a vote by tellers
and pending the question of ordering the yeas and nays (V, 6447). It
also has precedence of a report from the Committee on Rules (V, 6449),
and has been permitted to intervene when a special order provides that
the House shall consider a certain bill ``until the same is disposed
of'' (V, 6454). Of course, a question of privilege which relates to the
integrity of the House as an agency for action may not be required to
yield precedence to a matter entitled to priority merely by the rules
relating to the order of business (V, 6454). The question of
consideration under clause 3 of rule XVI may be demanded against a
conference report before points of order against the report are raised
(VIII, 2439; Speaker Albert, Sept. 28, 1976, p. 33019). The motion to
lay on the table may not be applied to a conference report (V, 6540).
Under the language of the rule a conference report may be presented
while a Member is occupying the floor in debate (V, 6451; VIII 3294),
while a bill is being read (V, 6448), after the yeas and nays have been
ordered (V, 6457), after the previous question has been demanded or
ordered (V, 6449, 6450); during a call of the House if a quorum be
present (V, 6456) and on Calendar Wednesday (VII, 907), but
consideration of such reports

While the rule provides that the managers of the House asking for
conference shall leave the papers with the managers of the other
(Secs. 555-556, supra), if the managers on the part of the House
agreeing to a conference surrender the papers to the House asking the
conference, the report may be received first by the House asking the
conference (VIII, 3330).

For further discussion of conference reports, see provisions of
Jefferson's Manual at Secs. 527-559, supra.

Sec. 909a. Time for debate on motions to
instruct.

(b) The time allotted for debate on any motion to instruct House
conferees shall be equally divided between the majority and minority
parties, except that if the proponent of the motion and the Member from
the other party are both supporters of the motion, one-third of such
debate time shall be allotted to a Member who is opposed to said motion.

[[Page 721]]
hour under clause 2 of rule XIV (Oct. 3, 1989, p. 22863; July 14, 1993,
p. ----; Aug. 1, 1994, p. ----). The proponent of a motion to instruct
conferees has the right to close debate (July 28, 1994, p. ----).

This paragraph was added in the 101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
1989, p. 72). The division of debate time specified in this clause does
not apply to an amendment to a motion after defeat of the previous
question thereon, and the proponent of such an amendment is recognized
for one

Sec. 910. Motions privileged after 20 calendar days
of conference.

(c) After House conferees on any bill or resolution in conference
between the House and Senate shall have been appointed for twenty
calendar days
and shall have failed to make a report, it is hereby declared to be a
motion of the highest privilege to move to discharge said House
conferees and to appoint new conferees, or to instruct said House
conferees (but in either case only at a time or place designated by the
Speaker in the legislative schedule of the day after the calendar day on
which the Member offering the motion announces to the House his
intention to do so and the form of the motion); and, further, during the
last six days of any sessions of Congress, it shall be a privileged
motion to move to discharge, appoint, or instruct, House conferees after
House conferees shall have been appointed thirty-six hours without
having made a report.

[[Page 722]]
House conferees to insist on holding conference sessions under just and
fair conditions, and in executive session if desirable (Aug. 1, 1935, p.
12272), and may instruct House conferees to meet with Senate conferees
(May 2, 1984, p. 10732). The motion to instruct conferees under this
clause is of equal privilege with the motion to suspend the rules on a
suspension day (Mar. 1, 1988, pp. 2749, 2751, 2754).

This clause was adopted December 8, 1931 (VIII, 3225). The notice
requirement was added on January 3, 1989 (H. Res. 5, 101st Cong., p.
72), and amended on January 5, 1993 (H. Res. 5, 103d Cong., p. ----) to
clarify that both the motion to discharge conferees and appoint new
conferees and the motion to instruct conferees after 20 days in
conference are subject to one day's notice, and to authorize the Speaker
to designate a time in that day's legislative schedule for the
consideration of a noticed motion to discharge or instruct conferees.
The motion to instruct conferees under this clause may be repeated
notwithstanding prior disposition of an identical motion to instruct,
since any number of proper motions to instruct are in order after
conferees have not reported within 20 days (Speaker Albert, July 22,
1974, pp. 24448-49; July 10, 1985, p. 18440), and the motion remains
available when a conference report, filed after 20 or more days in
conference, is recommitted by the first House to act thereon, since the
conferees are not discharged and the original conference remains in
being (June 28, 1990, p. ----). A motion under this clause may instruct

Sec. 911. The statement accompanying a conference
report.

(d) Each report made by a committee of conference to the House shall be
printed as a report of the House. As so printed, such report shall be
accompanied by an explanatory statement prepared jointly by the
conferees on the part of the House and the conferees on the part of the
Senate. Such statement shall be sufficiently detailed and explicit to
inform the House as to the effect which the amendments or propositions
contained in such report will have upon the measure to which those
amendments or propositions relate.

The original rule requiring the submission of a statement was adopted
in 1880 (V, 6443) and remained in effect through the 91st Congress. The
following precedents are in interpretation of that rule, which required
only that the statement be signed by a majority of the House managers
(V, 6505, 6506), and did not anticipate a statement jointly prepared by
the managers on the part of the House and those on the part of the
Senate. The Speaker may require the statement to be in proper form (V,
6513), but it is for the House and not the Speaker to determine whether
or not it conforms to the rule in other respects (V, 6511, 6512). A
report may not be received without the accompanying statement (V, 6504,
6514, 6515). A quorum among the managers on the part of the House at a
committee of conference is established by their signatures on the
conference report and joint explanatory statement (Oct. 4, 1994, p. ----
).

The rule was revised in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970
(sec. 125(b); 84 Stat. 1140) and made a part of the standing rules of
the House in its present form in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22,
1971, p. 144).

[[Page 723]]
to ensure that the Director of that Office prepares a statement with
respect to unfunded costs of any additional Federal mandate contained in
the conference agreement. See Sec. 1007, infra.

Sec. 911a. Unfunded mandates.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 48 et seq.) added a new part B to
title IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658-658g)
that, effective on January 1, 1996, or 90 days after appropriations are
made available to the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to the 1995
Act (whichever is earlier), requires a committee of conference

[[Page 724]]
Member who is opposed to said conference report.

Sec. 912a. Consideration of conference
reports.

2. (a) It shall not be in order to consider the report of a committee of
conference until the third calendar day (excluding any Saturday, Sunday,
or legal holiday) after such report and the accompanying statement shall
have been filed in the House, and such consideration then shall be in
order only if such report and accompanying statement shall have been
printed in the daily edition of the Congressional Record for the day on
which such report and statement shall have been filed; but the preceding
provisions of this sentence do not apply during the last six days of the
session. Nor shall it be in order to consider any conference report
unless copies of the report and accompanying statement have been
available to Members for at least two hours before the beginning of such
consideration: Provided, however, That it shall always be in order to
call up for consideration, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 4(b)
of rule XI, a report from the Committee on Rules only making in order
the consideration of a conference report notwithstanding this
restriction. The time allotted for debate in the consideration of any
such report shall be equally divided between the majority party and the
minority party, except that if the floor manager for the majority and
the floor manager for the minority are both supporters of the conference
report, one third of such debate time shall be allotted to a

The original rule requiring that conference reports be printed in the
Record was adopted in 1902 (V, 6516). The three-day layover requirement
in paragraph (a), as well as its provisions relating to the availability
of copies of the conference report and the division of time for debate,
were added by section 125(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1970 and made part of the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22,
1971, p. 144). The first sentence of the clause was again amended the
next year (H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, p. 36023) to clarify the manner
of counting the three days for the layover period.

The second sentence in paragraph (a) was amended, and its third
sentence added, in the 94th Congress (Feb. 26, 1976, p. 4625) to require
copies of conference reports to be available for two hours before
consideration and to allow for the immediate consideration of a
resolution from the Committee on Rules waiving that requirement. For an
example of a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules only
waiving the availability requirement of this clause and called up the
same day reported without a two-thirds vote, see August 10, 1984 (p.
23978).

When managers report that they have been unable to agree, the report
is not acted on by the House (V, 6562; VIII, 3329; Aug. 23, 1957, p.
15816).

Paragraph (a) was amended in the 99th Congress to provide that if both
the floor manager for the majority and the floor manager for the
minority support a conference report, the hour of debate thereon be
divided three ways among the managers and a Member who is opposed (H.
Res. 7, Jan. 3, 1985, p. 393). Recognition of one Member in opposition
does not depend upon party affiliation and is within the discretion of
the Speaker (Dec. 11, 1985, p. 36069; Dec. 16, 1985, p. 36716; Oct. 15,
1986, p. 31631), who accords priority in recognition to a member of the
conference committee (Speaker Wright, Dec. 21, 1987, pp. 37093, 37516).
Where the time is divided three ways, the right to close debate falls to
the majority manager calling up the conference report, preceded by the
minority manager, preceded in turn by the Member in opposition--i.e.,
the reverse order of the recognition to begin debate (Aug. 4, 1989, p.
19301).

Following rejection of a conference report on a point of order, debate
on a motion to dispose of the Senate amendment remaining in disagreement
is evenly divided between the majority and minority under the rationale
contained in clause 2(b) (Speaker Albert, Sept. 30, 1976, pp. 34074-
34100).

[[Page 725]]
measure reported in disagreement between the two Houses, by a report of
a committee of conference that the committee has been unable to agree,
until the third calendar day (excluding any Saturday, Sunday, or legal
holiday) after such report and accompanying statement shall have been
filed in the House, and such consideration then shall be in order only
if such report and accompanying statement shall have been printed in the
daily edition of the Congressional Record for the day on which such
report and statement shall have been filed; but the preceding provisions
of this sentence do not apply during the last six days of the session.
Nor shall it be in order to consider any such amendment unless copies of
the report and accompanying statement, together with the text of such
amendment, have been available to Members for at least two hours before
the beginning of such consideration: Provided, however, That it shall
always be in order to call up for consideration, notwithstanding the
provisions of clause 4(b) of rule XI, a report from the Committee on
Rules only making in order the consideration of such an amendment
notwithstanding this restriction. The time allotted for debate on any
such amendment shall be equally divided between the majority party and
the minority party, except that if the floor manager for the majority
and the floor manager for the minority are both supporters of the
original motion offered by the floor manager for the majority to dispose
of the amendment, one third of such debate time shall

[[Page 726]]
be allotted to a Member who is opposed to said motion.

Sec. 912b. Consideration of amendments in
disagreement.

(b)(1) It shall not be in order to consider any amendment
(including an amendment in the nature of a substitute) proposed by the
Senate to any

Paragraph (b)(1), relating to the consideration of amendments reported
from conference in disagreement, was added to the rule as paragraph (b)
in 1972 (H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, p. 36023) and became effective at
the end of the 92d Congress.

The second sentence in paragraph (b)(1) of this clause was amended,
and its third sentence added, in the 94th Congress (Feb. 26, 1976, p.
4625) to require copies of amendments reported from conference in
disagreement to be available for two hours before consideration and to
allow for the immediate consideration of a resolution from the Committee
on Rules waiving that requirement.

Paragraph (b) was amended in the 99th Congress to provide that if both
the floor manager for the majority and the floor manager for the
minority support the original motion offered to dispose of an amendment
reported from conference in disagreement, the hour of debate thereon be
divided three ways, among the managers and a Member who is opposed (H.
Res. 7, Jan. 3, 1985, p. 393). Recognition of one Member in opposition
does not depend upon party affiliation and is within the discretion of
the Speaker (Dec. 11, 1985, p. 36069; Dec. 16, 1985, p. 36716; Oct. 15,
1986, p. 31631), who accords priority in recognition to a member of the
conference committee (Speaker Wright, Dec. 21, 1987, pp. 37093, 37516).
The right to close the debate where the time is divided three ways falls
to the manager offering the motion (Nov. 21, 1989, p. 30814).

[[Page 727]]
offering a proper preferential motion to dispose of the Senate
amendment (July 2, 1980, p. 18360).
The custom has developed, however, of equally dividing between
majority and minority parties the time on all motions to dispose of
amendments emerging from conference in disagreement, whether reported in
disagreement or before the House upon rejection of a conference report
by a vote or on a point of order (Speaker Albert, Sept. 27, 1976, pp.
32719-26; Sept. 30, 1976, pp. 34074-34100), upon rejection of an initial
motion to dispose of the amendment (July 2, 1980, pp. 18357-59; Aug. 6,
1993, p. ----), on a motion to concur in a new Senate amendment where
the Senate had receded with an amendment from one of its amendments
reported from conference in disagreement (Mar. 24, 1983, p. 7301), or on
a motion to dispose of a further stage of amendment which is
subsequently before the House (Aug. 1, 1985, p. 22561; Dec. 19, 1985, p.
38360). A Member offering a preferential motion does not thereby control
one-half of the time, as all debate is allotted under the original
motion (May 14, 1975, p. 14385), subject to a possible three-way split
among the majority and minority managers and a Member opposed to the
motion (Sept. 12, 1994, p. ----). The minority Member in charge controls
30 minutes for debate only and can only yield to other Members for
debate (Dec. 4, 1975, p. 38716). Where time for debate on such a motion
is equally divided, the previous question may not be moved by the Member
first recognized so as to prevent the Member from the other party from
controlling half the debate and from

The division of time for debate on a motion to dispose of a Senate
amendment reported from conference in disagreement under clause 2(b)(1)
does not extend to separate debate on an amendment thereto, which is
governed by clause 2 of rule XIV, the general hour rule in the House
(Sept. 17, 1992, p. ----).

Until the adoption of paragraph (b), reports in total disagreement
were not printed in the Record before the amendment in disagreement were
again taken up in the House (VIII, 3299, 3332).

Sec. 912c. Certain motions to insist as
preferential.

(2) During consideration of such an amendment to a general
appropriation bill, if the original motion offered by the floor manager
proposes to change existing law, then pending such original motion and
before debate thereon one motion to insist on disagreement to the
amendment proposed by the Senate shall be preferential to any other
motion to dispose of that amendment if offered by the chairman of a
committee having jurisdiction of the subject matter of the amendment or
by a designee. Such a preferential motion shall be separately debatable
for one hour equally divided between its proponent and the proponent of
the original motion. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on such a preferential motion to its adoption without
intervening motion.

[[Page 728]]
ployees to separation pay, enabling the chairman of that committee to
offer a preferential motion to insist under this clause (Oct. 20, 1993,
p. ----).

Paragraph (b)(2) was added in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5,
1993, p. ----) to make preferential and separately debatable a motion to
insist on disagreement to a Senate amendment to a general appropriation
bill, if: (1) the Senate amendment has been reported from conference in
disagreement; (2) the original motion to dispose of the Senate amendment
proposes to change existing law; and (3) the motion to insist is timely
offered by the chairman of a committee of jurisdiction or a designee.
The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service (now the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight) has jurisdiction under clause 1 of rule
X over the subject of a Senate legislative amendment entitling Forest
Service em

Sec. 912d. Certain conference reports considered as
read.

(c) Any conference report and Senate amendment in disagreement which has
been available as provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this clause
shall be considered as having been read when called up for
consideration.

Paragraph (c) was added in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15,
1979, pp. 7-16).

[[Page 729]]

Sec. 913a. Conferees may report germane
modification of amendment in nature of substitute.

3. Whenever a disagreement to an
amendment in the nature of a substitute has been committed to a
conference committee it shall be in order for the Managers on the part
of the House to propose a substitute which is a germane modification of
the matter in disagreement, but the introduction of any language in that
substitute presenting a specific additional topic, question, issue, or
proposition not committed to the conference committee by either House
shall not constitute a germane modification of the matter in
disagreement. Moreover, their report shall not include matter not
committed to the conference committee by either House, nor shall their
report include a modification of any specific topic, question, issue, or
proposition committed to the conference committee by either or both
Houses if that modification is beyond the scope of that specific topic,
question, issue, or proposition as so committed to the conference
committee.

This provision is derived from section 135(a) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812) and originally was made a part
of the standing rules on January 3, 1953 (p. 24). The clause was revised
on January 22, 1971 (p. 144) following the passage of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) which carried a similar
provision in section 125(b). Where one House strikes out of a bill of
the other all after the enacting clause and inserts a new text, House
managers, under the restrictions of this clause, may not agree to the
deletion of certain language committed to conference if the effect of
such deletion results in broadening the scope of the matter in
disagreement (Dec. 14, 1971, pp. 46779-80). Where one House authorizes
certain funds for a fiscal year and the other House authorizes a lesser
amount for that year as well as additional funds for the subsequent
year, and neither version contains an overall amount, House managers do
not exceed their authority under this rule by including in the report
the amount authorized by one House for the first year and the other
House for the subsequent year, even though the total authorization
resulting from this compromise exceeds that possible under either
version (June 8, 1972, pp. 20281-82). Where a House version authorized
endowment payments for certain colleges and the Senate version conferred
land-grant college status on those institutions and contained a higher
endowment figure, House conferees remained within their authority under
this clause by accepting the Senate provision on land-grant status and
the lower House figure for endowment payments (Speaker Albert, June 8,
1972, pp. 20280-81). Where the House version of a bill contained
provisions for local funding of merit schools, but neither version
contained a provision for State funding, a motion to recommit to
conference with instructions to provide State funding for merit schools
was held to exceed the scope of the differences committed to conference
(Sept. 30, 1992, p. ----).

[[Page 730]]
out in violation of this paragraph (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 14, 1977, pp.
33770-73).
While the scope of differences committed to conference--where one
House has amended an existing law and the other House has implicitly
taken the position of existing law by remaining silent on the subject--
may properly be measured between those issues presented in the amending
language and comparable provisions of existing law, the inclusion in a
conference report of new matter not specifically contained in the
amending version and not demonstrably contained in existing law may be
ruled out as an additional issue not committed to conference in
violation of this clause (Speaker Albert, Dec. 20, 1974, pp. 41849-50).
Thus where one House has amended an existing law and the other House has
implicitly taken the position of existing law by only authorizing sums
for the purpose of existing law, the scope of differences committed to
conference may be measured between issues presented in the amending
language and relevant provisions of the existing law; but the inclusion
in a conference report of requirements and issues incorporated into
existing law which were not contained in either version and which are
not repetitive of existing law may be ruled

A mere change in phraseology in a conference report (from language in
either the House or Senate version) may be permitted to achieve
legislative consistency where it is not shown that its effect is to
broaden the scope of the language beyond the differences committed to
conference, as where the report waives provisions of law for all
programs in the bill and the House version waives those provisions for
one section of the bill only (the Senate having no comparable provision)
but the scope of programs covered by the report was co-extensive with
those in the designated section of the House version (Speaker Albert,
May 1, 1975, p. 12752). The conferees may include language clarifying
and limiting the duties imposed on an official by one House's version
where that modification does not expand the authority conferred in that
version or contained in existing law (the position of the other House)
(Speaker Albert, July 29, 1975, p. 25515) and may confer broader
authority on an official than that contained in one House's version if
such authority is co-extensive with the authority contained in existing
law which the other House has retained (Speaker pro tempore McFall, Apr.
13, 1976, p. 10803). Where the Senate version authorized citizen suits
to enforce existing law except where Federal officials were pursuing
enforcement proceedings and the House version, with no comparable
provision, retained existing law which did not permit such suits, the
conferees exceeded the scope of the differences by further prohibiting
citizen suits where State officials were pursuing enforcement
proceedings--a new exception allowing State pre-emption of citizen suits
(Speaker pro tempore McFall, Sept. 27, 1976, p. 33019). A point of order
was sustained against a motion to instruct conferees since directing the
conferees to agree to matter violating this clause: the House bill
created an energy trust fund composed of certain revenues to be
distributed by subsequent legislation; the Senate amendment created a
similar trust fund with suggested but not mandated distribution, and the
motion directed House conferees to insist on a mandatory allocation of
revenues in question among specified purposes, some of which were not
addressed in the Senate amendment (Feb. 28, 1980, pp. 4304-05).

[[Page 731]]
report may not include a new topic or issue that, although germane, was
not committed to conference by either House (Apr. 9, 1992, p. ----). For
example, a motion to instruct conferees on a general appropriation bill
may not instruct the conferees to include a funding limitation not
contained in the House bill or Senate amendment (Sept. 13, 1994, p. ----
). Similarly, a motion to recommit a conference report may not instruct
conferees to expand definitions to include classes not covered under the
House bill or Senate amendment (Sept. 29, 1994, p. ----). Some latitude,
however, remains to House managers to eliminate specific words or
phrases contained in either version and add words or phrases not
included in either version so long as they remain within the scope of
the differences committed to conference and do not incorporate
additional topics, issues, or propositions not committed to conference
(Speaker Albert, Sept. 28, 1976, pp. 33020-23).

Prior to the 1971 revision of this clause, where one House struck out
of a bill of the other all after the enacting clause and inserted a new
text, conferees could discard language occurring both in the bill and
substitute (VIII, 3266) and exercise broad discretion in incorporating
germane amendments (VIII, 3263-3265), even to the extent of reporting a
new bill germane to the subject (V, 6421, 6423, 6424; VIII, 3248). But
the present language of the rule prohibits the inclusion in a conference
report or in a motion to instruct House conferees of additional topics
not committed to conference by either House or beyond the scope of the
differences committed to conference, and the precedents predating the
adoption of this clause in 1971 must be read in light of the explicit
restrictions now contained in the clause (Speaker pro tempore McFall,
Sept. 27, 1976, pp. 32719-20); a conference

Sec. 913b. Nongermane matter in conference
agreements.

4. (a) With respect to any report of a committee of conference called
up before the House containing any matter which would be in violation of
the provisions of clause 7 of rule XVI if such matter had been offered
as an amendment in the House, and which--

(1) is contained in any Senate amendment to that measure
(including a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute for the text
of that measure as passed by the House) accepted by the House conferees
or agreed to by the conference committee with modification; or

[[Page 732]]
the point of order, is contained in the report. For the purposes of
this clause, matter which--
(2) is contained in any substitute agreed to by the conference
committee;
it shall be in order, at any time after the reading of the report has
been completed or dispensed with and before the reading of the
statement, or immediately upon consideration of a conference report if
clause 2(c) of this rule applies, to make a point of order that such
nongermane matter, as described above, which shall be specified in

(A) is contained in any substitute agreed to by the conference
committee;

(B) is not proposed by the House to be included in the measure
concerned as passed by the House; and

(C) would be in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI if such
matter had been offered in the House as an amendment to the provisions
of that measure as so proposed in the form passed by the House;
shall be considered in violation of such clause 7.

(b) If such point of order is sustained, it then shall be in order for
the Chair to entertain a motion, which is of high privilege, that the
House reject the nongermane matter covered by the point of order. It
shall be in order to debate such motion for forty minutes, one-half of
such time to be given to debate in favor of, and one-half in opposition
to, the motion.

[[Page 733]]

(c) Notwithstanding the final disposition of any point of order made
under paragraph (a), or of any motion to reject made pursuant to a point
of order under paragraph (b), of this clause, it shall be in order to
make further points of order on the ground stated in such paragraph (a),
and motions to reject pursuant thereto under such paragraph (b), with
respect to other nongermane matter in the report of the committee of
conference not covered by any previous point of order which has been
sustained.

(d) If any such motion to reject has been adopted, after final
disposition of all points of order and motions to reject under the
preceding provisions of this clause, the conference report shall be
considered as rejected and the question then pending before the House
shall be--

(1) whether to recede and concur in the Senate amendment with
an amendment which shall consist of that portion of the conference
report not rejected; or

(2) if the last sentence of paragraph (a) of this clause
applies, whether to insist further on the House amendment.
If all such motions to reject are defeated, then, after the allocation
of time for debate on the conference report as provided in clause 2(a)
of this rule, it shall be in order to move the previous question on the
adoption of the conference report.

The last sentence of clause 4(a) was added and clause 4(d) was amended
on April 9, 1974 (H. Res. 998, 93d Cong., pp. 10195-99), to become
effective on the thirtieth day after the adoption of the resolution, in
order to make this clause applicable to provisions originally contained
in Senate bills sent to conference, and not merely to Senate amendments
to House bills in conference. The original clause 4 was included as part
of the revision of rules XX and XXVIII that took place effective at the
end of the 92d Congress (H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, p. 36023). The
same resolution repealed the existing clause 3 of rule XX, which had
been enacted as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 to
restrict the authority of House conferees to agree without prior
permission of the House to Senate amendments that would violate clause 7
of rule XVI if offered in the House. The clause was further amended in
the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7-16) to provide that
if the conference report is considered read under clause 2(c) of this
rule, a point of order under this clause must be made immediately upon
consideration of the conference report.

[[Page 734]]
of a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute not germane to a
House bill. If any motion to reject is adopted under this clause and the
matter then pending before the House consists of numbered Senate
amendments in disagreement, the pending question is whether to dispose
of each Senate amendment not rejected as recommended in the conference
report and to insist on disagreement to those amendments which have been
rejected.
The procedure provided in this clause was first utilized on September
11, 1973 (pp. 29243-46), when the Chair sustained two points of order
against portions of a conference report which were modifications of
portions

Under paragraph (b) of this clause where a point of order against a
portion of a conference report has been sustained under this clause, the
Speaker will not entertain another point of order against the report or
against another portion thereof until a motion to reject the portion
held nongermane (if made) has been disposed of (Speaker Albert, Dec. 15,
1975, p. 40671). The Member representing the conference committee in
opposition to a motion to reject under this clause, and not the
proponent of the motion, has the right to close debate thereon (Oct. 15,
1986, p. 31502).

Once a motion to reject a nongermane portion has been adopted by the
House and the Speaker has recognized a Member to offer a motion
comprising the pending question under this clause, the report is
rejected and it is too late to make a point of order against the entire
conference report under clause 3 of this rule (Speaker Albert, Dec. 15,
1975, p. 40671).

Where possible, the Speaker rules on points of order against
conference reports which if sustained will vitiate the entire conference
report (as under clause 3 of this rule or under the Congressional Budget
Act) before entertaining points of order under this clause (Speaker
Albert, Sept. 23, 1976, pp. 32099-32100).

Sec. 913c. Nongermane matter in amendments in
disagreement.

5. (a)(1) With respect to any amendment (including an amendment in the
nature of a substitute) which--

(A) is proposed by the Senate to any measure and thereafter--

(i) is reported in disagreement between the two Houses by
a committee of conference; or

(ii) is before the House, the stage of disagreement having
been reached; and

[[Page 735]]

it shall be in order, immediately after a motion is offered that the
House recede from its disagreement to such amendment proposed by the
Senate and concur therein and before debate is commenced on such motion,
to make a point of order that such nongermane matter, as described
above, which shall be specified in the point of order, is contained in
such amendment proposed by the Senate.
(B) contains any matter which would be in violation of the
provisions of clause 7 of rule XVI if such matter had been offered as an
amendment in the House;

(2) If such point of order is sustained, it then shall be in order for
the Chair to entertain a motion, which is of high privilege, that the
House reject the nongermane matter covered by the point of order. It
shall be in order to debate such motion for forty minutes, one-half of
such time to be given to debate in favor of, and one-half in opposition
to, the motion.

(3) Notwithstanding the final disposition of any point of order made
under subparagraph (1), or of any motion to reject made pursuant to a
point of order under subparagraph (2), of this paragraph, it shall be in
order to make further points of order on the ground stated in such
subparagraph (1), and motions to reject pursuant thereto under such
subparagraph (2), with respect to other nongermane matter in the
amendment proposed by the Senate not covered by any previous point of
order which has been sustained.

[[Page 736]]
and concur shall be considered as rejected, and further motions--
(4) If any such motion to reject has been adopted, after final
disposition of all points of order and motions to reject under the
preceding provisions of this clause, the motion to recede

(A) to recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an
amendment, where appropriate (but the offering of which is not in order
unless copies of the language of the Senate amendment, as proposed to be
amended by such motion, are then available on the floor when such motion
is offered and is under consideration);

(B) to insist upon disagreement to the Senate amendment and
request a further conference with the Senate; and

(C) to insist upon disagreement to the Senate amendment;
shall remain of high privilege for consideration by the House. If all
such motions to reject are defeated, then, after the allocation of time
for debate on the motion to recede and concur as provided in clause 2(b)
of this rule, it shall be in order to move the previous question on such
motion.

[[Page 737]]

(b)(1) With respect to any such amendment proposed by the Senate as
described in paragraph (a) of this clause, it shall not be in order to
offer any motion that the House recede from its disagreement to such
Senate amendment and concur therein with an amendment, unless copies of
the language of the Senate amendment, as proposed to be amended by such
motion, are then available on the floor when such motion is offered and
is under consideration.

(2) Immediately after any such motion is offered and is in order and
before debate is commenced on such motion, it shall be in order to make
a point of order that nongermane matter, as described in subparagraph
(1) of paragraph (a) of this clause, which shall be specified in the
point of order, is contained in the language of the Senate amendment, as
proposed to be amended by such motion, copies of which are then
available on the floor.

(3) If such point of order is sustained, it then shall be in order for
the Chair to entertain a motion, which is of high privilege, that the
House reject the nongermane matter covered by the point of order. It
shall be in order to debate such motion for forty minutes, one-half of
such time to be given to debate in favor of, and one-half in opposition
to, the motion.

[[Page 738]]

(4) Notwithstanding the final disposition of any point of order under
subparagraph (2), or of any motion to reject made pursuant to a point of
order under subparagraph (3), of this paragraph, it shall be in order to
make further points of order on the ground stated in subparagraph (1) of
paragraph (a) of this clause, and motions to reject pursuant thereto
under subparagraph (3) of this paragraph, with respect to other
nongermane matter in the language of the Senate amendment, as proposed
to be amended by the motion described in subparagraph (1) of this
paragraph, not covered by any previous point of order which has been
sustained.

(5) If any such motion to reject has been adopted, after final
disposition of all points of order and motions to reject under the
preceding provisions of this paragraph, the motion to recede and concur
in the Senate amendment with an amendment shall be considered as
rejected, and further motions--

(B) to insist upon disagreement to the Senate amendment and
request a further conference with the Senate; and

(C) to insist upon disagreement to the Senate amendment;
shall remain of high privilege for consideration by the House. If all
such motions to reject are defeated, then, after the allocation of time
for debate on the motion to recede and concur in the Senate amendment
with an amendment as provided in clause 2(b) of this rule, it shall be
in order to move the previous question on such motion.

[[Page 739]]
fore debate is commenced on concurring in such Senate amendment, or on
concurring therein with an amendment, it shall be in order to make and
dispose of points of order and motions to reject with respect to such
Senate amendment in accordance with applicable provisions of this clause
and to effect final determination of these matters in accordance with
such provisions.

(c) If, on a division of a motion that the House recede and concur,
with or without amendment, from its disagreement to any such Senate
amendment as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this clause, the House
agrees to recede, then, be

This clause was added on April 9, 1974 (H. Res. 998, 93d Cong., pp.
10195-99) which deleted from clause 1 of rule XX and transferred to this
clause the procedures concerning disposition of Senate non-germane
amendments. Clause 5(b) was first utilized on July 31, 1974, p. 26083,
when the Chair sustained a point of order against a portion of a motion
to recede and concur in a Senate amendment (reported from conference in
disagreement) with a further amendment, on the ground that that portion
of the Senate amendment contained in the motion was not germane to the
House-passed measure, and a motion rejecting that portion of the motion
to recede and concur with an amendment was offered and defeated. Clause
5(b) is not applicable to a provision contained in a motion to recede
and concur with an amendment which was not contained in any form in the
Senate version and which is not therefore a modification of the Senate
provision, the only requirement in such circumstances being that the
motion as a whole be germane to the Senate amendment as a whole under
clause 7 of rule XVI (Speaker pro tempore Kazen, Oct. 4, 1978, p. 33502;
June 30, 1987, p. 18294). A point of order under clause 5 of rule XXI
(appropriations on a legislative bill) against a motion to dispose of a
Senate amendment in disagreement which, if sustained, would vitiate the
entire motion, must be disposed of prior to a point of order under this
clause which, if sustained, would merely permit a separate vote on
rejection of that portion of the motion (Oct. 1, 1980, pp. 28638-42).

Sec. 913d. Open conference meetings.

6. (a) Each conference
committee meeting between the House and Senate shall be open to the
public except when the House, in open session, has determined by a
rollcall vote of a majority of those Members voting that all or part of
the meeting shall be closed to the public.

[[Page 740]]
diately upon consideration of a conference report if clause 2(c) of
this rule applies, a point of order may be made that the committee of
conference making the report to the House has failed to comply with
paragraph (a) of this clause.
(b)(1) After the reading of the report and before the reading of the
joint statement, or imme

(2) If such point of order is sustained, the conference report shall
be considered as rejected, the House shall be considered to have
insisted upon its amendment(s) or upon disagreement to the amendment(s)
of the Senate, as the case may be, and to have requested a further
conference with the Senate, and the Speaker shall be authorized to
appoint new conferees without intervening motion.

This clause as originally added to rule XXVIII on January 14, 1975 (H.
Res. 5, 94th Cong., p. 20) provided that conference committee meetings
be open except where a majority of the managers of the House or Senate
voted to close the meeting, and provided that the clause not become
effective until the Senate adopted a similar rule. The Senate adopted an
identical rule on November 5, 1975, p. 35203. The clause was
substantially changed on January 4, 1977 (H. Res. 5, 95th Cong., pp. 53-
70) to require that conference meetings be open except where the House
by rollcall vote determines that a meeting may be closed, to allow a
point of order against a conference report where the conferees have
violated this clause, and to provide for subsequent disposition of the
matter reported from conference should such a point of order be
sustained, and was further amended in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
5, 1979, pp. 7-16) to provide that if the conference report is
considered read under clause 2(c) of this rule, a point of order under
this clause must be made immediately upon consideration of the
conference report.

[[Page 741]]
ment, the conference report is subject to a point of order under this
clause resulting in an automatic request for a further conference (Dec.
20, 1982, p. 32896). Although a motion to close a conference committee
meeting ``to the public'' would, under the precedents (see V, 6254,
fn.), exclude Members who were not conferees, a motion may be offered as
privileged under this clause to authorize a conference committee to
close its meetings to the public, except to Members of Congress (Speaker
O'Neill, May 23, 1977, pp. 15880-84).
At any time after a bill has been sent to conference and conferees
have been appointed by the Speaker, a motion pursuant to this clause
authorizing a conference committee to close its meetings to the public
is privileged for consideration in the House, is debatable for one hour
within the control of the Member offering the motion, and must be voted
on by a rollcall vote (Speaker O'Neill, May 23, 1977, pp. 15880-84; Apr.
13, 1978, p. 10128). While the Chair does not normally look behind
signatures of conferees to determine the propriety of conference
procedure, if proposed conferees have signed a conference report before
they have been formally appointed in both Houses and do not meet
formally in open session after such appoint

Clause 11 of rule XLVIII, adopted on July 14, 1977 (H. Res. 658, pp.
22932-49), provides that this paragraph does not apply to conference
committee meetings respecting legislation (or any part thereof) reported
from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.