[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.