    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 105th Congress]
    [105th Congress]
    [House Document 104-272]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 754-775]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 754]]

                                  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 755]]

      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 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).

      While the rule provides that the managers of the House asking for
    conference shall leave the papers with the managers of the other
    (Sec. Sec. 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 Sec. Sec. 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.

      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 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. ----;
    July 26, 1996, p. ----).

    [[Page 756]]

    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.

    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

      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. 16156). A motion under this clause may instruct
    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). The motion to
    adjourn is in order while a motion to instruct under this paragraph is
    pending (Sept. 30, 1997, p. ----), and, if adopted, renders the motion
    to instruct unfinished business on the next day and does not need to be
    renoticed (Oct. 1, 1997, p. ----).

    [[Page 757]]

    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.

    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.

      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).

    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 requires a committee of conference 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.

    [[Page 758]]

    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 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 Saturdays, Sundays,
    or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a day)
    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

      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 was amended again the next year to
    clarify the manner of counting the three days for the layover period (H.
    Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, p. 36023). In the 104th Congress it was
    amended once more to count as a ``calendar day'' any day on which the
    House is in session (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. ----).

    [[Page 759]]

    mittee 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).
      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 Com-

      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).
    The Chair will assume that the minority manager supports a conference
    report if the manager signed the report and is not immediately present
    to claim the contrary (Oct. 12, 1995, p. ----). 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 760]]

    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 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 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 Saturdays,
    Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a
    day) after such report and accompanying statement shall have been filed
    in the House, and such consideration then shall be in order only if such

    [[Page 761]]

    (H. Res. 868, Feb. 26, 1976, p. 4625). In the 104th Congress
    the first sentence was amended to count as a ``calendar day'' any day on
    which the House is in session (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. ----).
      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. In the 94th Congress the second sentence
    was amended and the third sentence was added 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).

      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 offering a proper preferential
    motion to dispose of the Senate amendment (July 2, 1980, p. 18360).

      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. ----).

    [[Page 762]]

      Until the adoption of paragraph (b), a report in total disagreement
    was not printed in the Record before the amendment in disagreement was
    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.

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

    [[Page 763]]

    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).

    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.

    [[Page 764]]

    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. ----).
      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,

      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 out in violation of this
    paragraph (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 14, 1977, pp. 33770-73).

    [[Page 765]]

    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).
      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

    [[Page 766]]

    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 report may not include a new
    topic or issue that, although germane, was not committed to conference
    by either House (Mar. 25, 1992, p. ----; 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. ----) or to include
    provisions not contained in the House bill or Senate amendment (Dec. 21,
    1995, 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

    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

              (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 the
    point of order, is contained in the report. For the purposes of this
    clause, matter which--

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

    [[Page 767]]

              (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.

      (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--

    [[Page 768]]

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

              (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.

      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 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.

    [[Page 769]]

    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).
      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,

      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 770]]

              (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;
    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.

      (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.

      (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 and concur
    shall be considered as rejected, and further motions--

    [[Page 771]]

    on the floor when such motion is offered and is under consideration);
              (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

              (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.

      (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.

    [[Page 772]]

    amended by such motion, copies of which are then available on the floor.
      (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

      (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.

      (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--

    [[Page 773]]

    propriate (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);
              (A) to recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an
    amendment, where ap-

              (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 774]]

      (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, before 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.

      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(a) 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.

      (b)(1) After the reading of the report and before the reading of the
    joint statement, or immediately 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.

    [[Page 775]]

    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.

      (2) If such point of order is sustained, the conference report shall
    be considered as rejected, the House shall be considered to have
    insisted

      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.

      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 appointment, 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).

      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.