    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 107th Congress]
    [107th Congress]
    [House Document 106-320]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 836-860]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 836]]

                                    Rule XXII

    Senate amendments
                           house and senate relations

    Sec. 1069. Motion for conference.

      1.  A motion to disagree to
    Senate amendments to a House bill or resolution and to request or agree
    to a conference with the Senate, or a motion to insist on House
    amendments to a Senate bill or resolution and to request or agree to a
    conference with the Senate, shall be privileged in the discretion of the
    Speaker if offered by direction of the primary committee and of all
    reporting committees that had initial referral of the bill or
    resolution.

      This provision (proviso in former clause 1 of rule XX), added by the
    89th Congress (H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 1965, p. 21), provides a method
    whereby bills can be sent to conference by majority vote. As contained
    in section 126(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84
    Stat. 1140) and adopted as part of the Rules of the House in the 92d
    Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144), this clause included
    language relating to separate votes on nongermane Senate amendments that
    was, in the 93d Congress, modified and transferred to former clause 5 of
    rule XXVIII (current clause 10 of rule XXII) (H. Res. 998, Apr. 9, 1974,
    pp. 10195-99). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
    Congress, clauses 1 and 3 of this rule occupied a single clause (former
    clause 1 of rule XX) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

    [[Page 837]]

    ter again authorizes its chairman to make the motion (Oct. 3, 1972, p.
    33502; see also Procedure, ch. 32, sec. 5). The motion to send to
    conference is in order only if the Speaker in his discretion recognized
    for that purpose, and the Speaker will not recognize for the motion
    where he has referred a nongermane Senate amendment in question to a
    House committee with jurisdiction and they have not yet had the
    opportunity to consider the amendment (June 28, 1984, p. 19770).

    Sec. 1070. Motion for conference.

      The motion to  send a bill
    to conference under this clause is in order notwithstanding the fact
    that the stage of disagreement has not been reached (Aug. 1, 1972, p.
    26153). On a bill that has been initially referred and reported in the
    House, the motion must be authorized by all committees reporting thereon
    (Sept. 26, 1978, p. 31623). This clause was recodified in the 106th
    Congress to reflect this practice (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999. p. ----).
    However, a committee receiving sequential referral of a bill or not
    reporting thereon need not authorize the motion (Oct. 4, 1994, p.
    27643). On a Senate bill with a House amendment consisting of the text
    of two corresponding House bills that were previously reported to the
    House, the motion must be authorized by the committees reporting those
    corresponding bills (Oct. 1, 1998, p.----). Where such a motion has been
    rejected by the House, it may be repeated if the committee having
    jurisdiction over the subject mat

    Sec. 1071. Privilege of certain Senate amendments.

      2.  A
    motion to dispose of House bills with Senate amendments not requiring
    consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
    Union shall be privileged.

      This provision was adopted in 1890 (IV, 3089) as part of the rule
    governing disposal of business on the Speaker's table (former clause 2
    of rule XXIV). When the House recodified its rules in the 106th
    Congress, former clause 2 of rule XXIV was transferred to clause 2 of
    rule XIV, except this provision (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----). For
    a discussion of referral of Senate amendments at the Speaker's table see
    Sec. 873, supra.

    Sec. 1072. Consideration of Senate amendments in Committee
    of the Whole.

      3.  Except as permitted by clause 1, before the stage of
    disagreement, a Senate amendment to a House bill or resolution shall be
    subject to the point of order that it must first be considered in the
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union if, originating
    in the House, it would be subject to such a point under clause 3 of rule
    XVIII.

      This provision was adopted in 1880 to prevent Senate amendments of the
    class described from escaping consideration in Committee of the Whole
    (IV, 4796). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
    clauses 1 and 3 of this rule occupied a single clause (former clause 1
    of rule XX) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

    [[Page 838]]

    the Speaker held it devolved upon those opposing the point of order to
    cite proof to the contrary (VIII, 2387). When in the House an amendment
    is offered to provide an appropriation for another purpose than that of
    the Senate amendment, the House goes into Committee of the Whole to
    consider it (IV, 4795). When an amendment is referred, the entire bill
    goes to the Committee of the Whole (IV, 4808), but the committee
    considers only the Senate amendment (V, 6192). It usually considers all
    the amendments, although they may not all be within the rule requiring
    such consideration (V, 6195). In Committee of the Whole a Senate
    amendment, even though it be very long, is considered as an entirety and
    not by paragraphs or sections (V, 6194). When reported from the
    Committee of the Whole, Senate amendments are voted on en bloc and only
    those amendments are voted on severally on which a separate vote is
    demanded (VIII, 3191). It has been held that each amendment is subject
    to general debate and amendment under the five-minute rule (V, 6193,
    6196). The requirement of this clause that certain Senate amendments be
    considered in Committee of the Whole applies only before the stage of
    disagreement has been reached on the Senate amendment, and it is too
    late to raise a point of order that Senate amendments should have been
    considered in Committee of the Whole after the House has disagreed
    thereto and the amendments reported from conference in disagreement
    (Oct. 20, 1966, p. 28240; Dec. 4, 1975, p. 38714). The Committee on
    Rules may recommend a special order of business providing that a Senate
    amendment pending at the Speaker's table and otherwise requiring
    consideration in Committee of the Whole under this clause be ``hereby''
    adopted, which special order, if adopted, would obviate the requirement
    of this clause (Deschler's Precedents, vol. 6, ch. 21, sec. 16.11; Feb.
    4, 1993, p. 2500).

    Sec. 1073. Consideration of Senate amendments in
    Committee of the Whole.

      While  a Senate amendment that is merely a
    modification of a House proposition, like the increase or decrease of
    the amount of an appropriation, and does not involve new and distinct
    expenditure, may not be required to be considered in Committee of the
    Whole (IV, 4797-4806; VIII, 2382-2385), where the question was raised
    against a Senate amendment which on its face apparently placed a charge
    upon the Treasury

    [[Page 839]]

    Sec. 1074. Stage of disagreement between Houses.

      When  the
    stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill with amendments of the
    other House, motions to dispose of said amendments are privileged in the
    House (clause 4 of rule XXII; IV, 3149, 3150; VI, 756; VIII, 3185,
    3194). The stage of disagreement between the two Houses is reached after
    the House in possession of the papers has either disagreed to the
    amendment(s) of the other House or has insisted on its own amendment to
    a measure of the other House (Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30868), and not merely
    where the other House has returned a bill with an amendment (Dec. 7,
    1977, p. 38728). Thus, where the House concurred in a Senate amendment
    to a House bill with an amendment, insisted on the amendment and
    requested a conference, and the Senate then concurred in the House
    amendment with a further amendment, the matter was privileged in the
    House for further disposition since the House had communicated its
    insistence and request for a conference to the Senate (Speaker Albert,
    Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30868).

    Sec. 1075. Privilege when stage of disagreement
    reached.

      4.  When the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill or
    resolution with House or Senate amendments, a motion to dispose of any
    amendment shall be privileged.

      This provision was adopted when the House recodified its rules in the
    106th Congress to codify the privilege of a motion to dispose of an
    amendment after the stage of disagreement has been reached (a practice
    described in Sec. 1074, supra) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

    Sec. 1076. Conferees may not agree to certain Senate
    amendments.

      5. (a)  Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a
    Senate amendment described in paragraph (b) unless specific authority to
    agree to the amendment first is given by the House by a separate vote
    with respect thereto. If specific authority is not granted, the Senate
    amendment shall be reported in disagreement by the conference committee
    back to the two Houses for disposition by separate motion.

      (b) The managers on the part of the House may not agree to a Senate
    amendment described in paragraph (a) that--

          (1) would violate clause 2(a)(1) or (c) of rule XXI if originating
    in the House; or

          (2) proposes an appropriation on a bill other than a general
    appropriation bill.

      This clause was adopted on June 1, 1920 (pp. 8109, 8120). Before the
    House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was
    found in former clause 2 of rule XX. The recodification also extended
    the rule to Senate amendments containing reappropriations of unexpended
    balances now referenced in clause 2(c) of rule XXI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
    1999, p. ----).

    [[Page 840]]

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

    [[Page 841]]

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

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

      6. A Senate amendment carrying a tax or tariff measure in violation of
    clause 5(a) of rule XXI may not be agreed to.

    Conference reports; amendments reported in disagreement
      This provision was adopted when the House recodified its rules in the
    106th Congress to reiterate the prohibition found in clause 5(a) of rule
    XXI against a bill or joint resolution carrying a tax or tariff measure
    not reported by the Committee on Ways and Means (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
    1999, p. ----).

    Sec. 1077. High privilege of conference reports; and form
    of accompanying statement.

      7. (a)  The presentation of a conference report
    shall be in order at any time except during a reading of the Journal or
    the conduct of a record vote, a vote by division, or a quorum call.

      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). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
    Congress, this provision was found in former clause 1(a) of rule XXVIII
    (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----). For the requirement of a tax
    complexity analysis in either the joint statement or the Record, see
    clause 11 of this rule.

    [[Page 842]]

    (2) while a bill is being read (V, 6448); (3) after the yeas and nays
    have been ordered (V, 6457); (4) after a vote by tellers and pending the
    question of ordering the yeas and nays, although it may not be presented
    while the House is dividing (V, 6447); (5) after the previous question
    has been demanded or ordered (V, 6449, 6450); (6) during a call of the
    House if a quorum be present (V, 6456); and (7) on Calendar Wednesday
    (VII, 907), but consideration of such reports yields to Calendar
    Wednesday business (VII, 899). It even takes precedence of: (1) the
    motion to reconsider (V, 5605); (2) the motion to go into the Committee
    of the Whole for consideration of general appropriation bills (VIII,
    3291); (3) consideration of District of Columbia business on Monday
    (VIII, 3292); (4) unfinished business (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 4, 1978, p.
    33473); (5) a motion to adjourn (V, 6451-6453), although as soon as the
    report is presented the motion to adjourn may be put (V, 6451-6453); (6)
    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). 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). 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).
      Under the language of the rule a conference report may be presented:
    (1) while a Member is occupying the floor in debate (V, 6451; VIII
    3294);

      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). The Chair will not recognize for a
    unanimous consent request to correct a conference report, including the
    joint statement of managers, as it is a joint report to the two Houses
    (Oct. 3, 2000, p. ----).

      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. 1078. Time for debate on motions to
    instruct.

      (b)(1)  Subject to subparagraph (2) the time allotted for debate on
    a motion to instruct managers on the part of the House shall be equally
    divided between the majority and minority parties.

    [[Page 843]]

    Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner of the other party identified
    under subparagraph (1) both support the motion, one-third of the time
    for debate thereon shall be allotted to a Member, Delegate, or Resident
    Commissioner who opposes the motion on demand of that Member, Delegate,
    or Resident Commissioner.

      (2) If the proponent of a motion to instruct managers on the part of
    the House and the

      This paragraph was added in the 101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
    1989, p. 72). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
    Congress, it was found in former clause 1(b) of rule XXVIII (H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----). 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 XVII (former clause 2 of
    rule XIV) (Oct. 3, 1989, p. 22863; July 14, 1993, p. 15668; Aug. 1,
    1994, p. 18868). The proponent of a motion to instruct conferees has the
    right to close debate (July 28, 1994, p. 18405; July 26, 1996, p.
    19450).

    Sec. 1079. Motions privileged after 20 calendar days of
    conference.

      (c)(1)  A motion to instruct managers on the part of the House, or
    a motion to discharge all managers on the part of the House and to
    appoint new conferees, shall be privileged after a conference committee
    has been appointed for 20 calendar days without making a report, but
    only on the day after the calendar day on which the Member, Delegate, or
    Resident Commissioner offering the motion announces to the House his
    intention to do so and the form of the motion.

      (2) The Speaker may designate a time in the legislative schedule on
    that legislative day for consideration of a motion described in
    subparagraph (1).

    [[Page 844]]

      (3) During the last six days of a session of Congress, the period of
    time specified in subparagraph (1)(A) shall be 36 hours.

      (d) Instructions to conferees in a motion to instruct or in a motion
    to recommit to conference may not include argument.

      Paragraph (c) (former clause 1(c) of rule XXVIII) 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. 49) 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. Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
    Congress, paragraph (c) was found in former clause 1(c) of rule XXVIII
    (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----). Recodification resulted in certain
    unintended changes to paragraph (c), and the paragraph was restored to
    its original intent in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(r), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
    2001, p. ----). Paragraph (d) was added in the 107th Congress (sec.
    2(r), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. ----).

      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, p. 24448; 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 such a motion to adjourn is
    adopted, the motion to instruct is rendered unfinished business on the
    next day without need for further notice under this paragraph (Oct. 1,
    1997, p. ----). Under clause 8(a)(2)(C) of rule XX, proceedings may not
    resume on a postponed question of agreeing to a 20-day motion to
    instruct conferees after the managers have filed a conference report in
    the House (Oct. 19, 1999, p. ----).

    [[Page 845]]

    ment prepared jointly by the managers on the part of the House and the
    managers on the part of the Senate. The joint explanatory statement
    shall be sufficiently detailed and explicit to inform the House of the
    effects of the report on the matters committed to conference.

    Sec. 1080. The statement accompanying a conference
    report.

      (e)  Each conference report to the House shall be printed as a
    report of the House. Each such report shall be accompanied by a joint
    explanatory state

      The original rule requiring the submission of a statement was adopted
    in 1880 (V, 6443) and remained in effect through the 91st Congress. The
    precedents carried in this annotation are in interpretation of that
    earlier 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 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). Before the House recodified
    its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former
    clause 1(d) of rule XXVIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

      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.
    27662). When the House by unanimous consent permitted the chairman of a
    House committee to insert in the Record extraneous material to
    supplement a joint statement of managers, the Chair announced that the
    insertion did not constitute a revised joint statement of managers (Oct.
    10, 1998, p. ----).

    Sec. 1081. Unfunded mandates.

      The  Unfunded Mandates Reform
    Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 48) 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. 1127,
    infra.

    Sec. 1082. Layover requirements.

      8. (a)(1)  Except as
    specified in subparagraph (2), it shall not be in order to consider a
    conference report until--

    [[Page 846]]

    the House is in session on such a day) on which the conference report
    and the accompanying joint explanatory statement have been available to
    Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner in the Congressional
    Record; and
          (A) the third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal
    holidays except when

          (B) copies of the conference report and the accompanying joint
    explanatory statement have been available to Members, Delegates, and the
    Resident Commissioner for at least two hours.

      (2) Subparagraph (1)(A) does not apply during the last six days of a
    session of Congress.

      The original rule (former clause 2(a) of rule XXVIII) requiring that
    conference reports be printed in the Record was adopted in 1902 (V,
    6516). The three-day layover requirement, as well as the 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 paragraph 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. 35077). The paragraph was amended in the 94th Congress (Feb.
    26, 1976, p. 4625) to require copies of conference reports to be
    available for two hours before consideration and to allow for the
    immediate consideration of a resolution from the Committee on Rules
    waiving that requirement (clause 8(e)). Before the House recodified its
    rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause
    2(a) of rule XXVIII. At that time the portion of clause 2(a) permitting
    immediate consideration of a resolution reported by the Rules Committee
    only waiving the layover requirement was tranferred to clause 8(e) and
    the portion of clause 2(a) addressing debate was transferred to clause
    8(d) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

    [[Page 847]]

      For an example of a resolution reported by 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 Aug. 10, 1984 (p.
    23978). When managers report that they have been unable to agree, the
    report is not acted on by the House (V, 6562; VIII, 3329; Aug. 23, 1957,
    p. 15816).

    Sec. 1083. Consideration of amendments in
    disagreement.

      (b)(1)  Except as specified in subparagraph (2), it shall not be
    in order to consider a motion to dispose of a Senate amendment reported
    in disagreement by a conference committee until--

          (A) the third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal
    holidays except when the House is in session on such a day) on which the
    report in disagreement and any accompanying statement have been
    available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner in the
    Congressional Record; and

          (B) copies of the report in disagreement and any accompanying
    statement, together with the text of the Senate amendment, have been
    available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner for at
    least two hours.

      (2) Subparagraph (1)(A) does not apply during the last six days of a
    session of Congress.

    [[Page 848]]

      This provision (former clause 2(b)(1) of rule XXVIII), relating to the
    consideration of amendments reported from conference in disagreement,
    was added 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
    provision was amended 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 (H. Res.
    868, Feb. 26, 1976, p. 4625). In the 104th Congress the provision was
    amended to count as a ``calendar day'' any day on which the House is in
    session (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077). Before the House
    recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
    former clause 2(b)(1) of rule XXVIII. At that time the portion of clause
    2(b)(1) addressing debate was transferred to clause 8(d) of rule XXII,
    and the portion of clause 2(b)(1) permitting immediate consideration of
    a resolution reported by the Rules Committee only waiving the layover
    requirement was transferred to clause 8(e) of this rule (H. Res. 5, Jan.
    6, 1999, p. ----).

      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. 1084. Certain motions to insist as
    preferential.

      (3)  During consideration of a Senate amendment reported in
    disagreement by a conference committee on a general appropriation bill,
    a motion to insist on disagreement to the Senate amendment shall be
    preferential to any other motion to dispose of that amendment if the
    original motion offered by the floor manager proposes to change existing
    law and the motion to insist is offered before debate on the original
    motion by the chairman of the committee having jurisdiction of the
    subject matter of the amendment or 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 the preferential
    motion to its adoption without intervening motion.

    [[Page 849]]

      This provision was added in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5,
    1993, p. 49) 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.
    Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
    provision was found in former clause 2(b)(2) of rule XXVIII (H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----). The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service
    (now Government Reform) 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. 25589).

    Sec. 1085. Certain conference reports considered as
    read.

      (c)  A conference report or a Senate amendment reported in
    disagreement by a conference committee that has been available as
    provided in paragraph (a) or (b) shall be considered as read when called
    up.

      Paragraph (c) was added in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15,
    1979, pp. 7-16). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
    Congress, this provision was found in former clause 2(c) of rule XXVIII
    (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

    Sec. 1086. Debate.

      (d)(1)  Subject to subparagraph (2), the
    time allotted for debate on a conference report or on a motion to
    dispose of a Senate amendment reported in disagreement by a conference
    committee shall be equally divided between the majority and minority
    parties.

      (2) If the floor manager for the majority and the floor manager for
    the minority both support the conference report or motion, one-third of
    the time for debate thereon shall be allotted to a Member, Delegate, or
    Resident Commissioner who opposes the conference report or motion on
    demand of that Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner.

      This provision was adopted in the 99th Congress as former clauses 2(a)
    and 2(b)(1) of rule XXVIII (H. Res. 7, Jan. 3, 1985, p. 393). When the
    House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, those provisions
    addressing debate in clause 2(a) and 2(b)(1) were consolidated into this
    provision (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

    [[Page 850]]

    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).
      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. 27795). Where the time is divided three ways, the right to
    close debate

      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 this provision (Speaker Albert, Sept. 30, 1976, pp. 34074-
    34100).

      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. 19582), 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). 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
    right to close the debate on a motion to dispose of an amendment where
    the time is divided three ways falls to the manager offering the motion
    (Nov. 21, 1989, p. 30814).

      The division of time for debate on a motion to dispose of a Senate
    amendment reported from conference in disagreement under this provision
    does not extend to separate debate on an amendment thereto, which is
    governed by the general hour rule in the House (clause 2 of rule XVII)
    (Sept. 17, 1992, p. 25437).

    [[Page 851]]

    considered by the House on the same day it is reported by the Committee
    on Rules.

    Sec. 1087. Waiver.

      (e)  Under clause 6(a)(2) of rule XIII, a
    resolution proposing only to waive a requirement of this clause
    concerning the availability of reports to Members, Delegates, and the
    Resident Commissioner may be

      This provision was adopted in the 94th Congress to former clauses 2(a)
    and 2(b)(1) of rule XXVIII (Feb. 26, 1976, p. 4625). When the House
    recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, those provisions in former
    clauses 2(a) and 2(b)(1) permitting immediate consideration of a
    resolution from the Committee on Rules only waiving the layover
    requirement were consolidated into this provision (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
    1999, p. ----).

    Sec. 1088. Conferees may report germane modification of
    amendment in nature of substitute within scope of
    differences.

      9.  Whenever a disagreement to an amendment has been
    committed to a conference committee, the managers on the part of the
    House may propose a substitute that is a germane modification of the
    matter in disagreement. The introduction of any language presenting
    specific additional matter not committed to the conference committee by
    either House does not constitute a germane modification of the matter in
    disagreement. Moreover, a conference report may not include matter not
    committed to the conference committee by either House and may not
    include a modification of specific matter committed to the conference
    committee by either or both Houses if that modification is beyond the
    scope of that specific matter as committed to the conference committee.

    [[Page 852]]

    of such deletion results in broadening the scope of the matter in
    disagreement (Dec. 14, 1971, p. 46779). Where one House authorizes
    certain funds for a fiscal year and the other House authorizes a lesser
    amount for that year as well as additional funds for the subsequent
    year, and neither version contains an overall amount, House managers do
    not exceed their authority under this rule by including in the report
    the amount authorized by one House for the first year and the other
    House for the subsequent year, even though the total authorization
    resulting from this compromise exceeds that possible under either
    version (June 8, 1972, p. 20281). 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, p. 20280). 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. 29126).
      This provision (former clause 3 of rule XXVIII) 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). Before
    the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was
    found in former clause 3 of rule XXVIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. --
    --). 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

      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, p. 41849). 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 853]]

    of the House version (Speaker Albert, May 1, 1975, p. 12752). The
    conferees may include language clarifying and limiting the duties
    imposed on an official by one House's version where that modification
    does not expand the authority conferred in that version or contained in
    existing law (the position of the other House) (Speaker Albert, July 29,
    1975, p. 25515) and may confer broader authority on an official than
    that contained in one House's version if such authority is coextensive
    with the authority contained in existing law which the other House has
    retained (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 preemption of
    citizen suits (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, p. 4304).
      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 coextensive with
    those in the designated section

    [[Page 854]]

    to instructions contained in a motion to recommit such measure to
    conference (Sept. 29, 1994, p. 26781). Some latitude does remain to
    House managers to eliminate specific words or phrases contained in
    either version and add words or phrases not included in either version
    so long as they remain within the scope of the differences committed to
    conference and do not incorporate additional topics, issues, or
    propositions not committed to conference (Speaker Albert, Sept. 28,
    1976, pp. 33020-23).

      Prior to the 1971 revision of this clause, where one House struck out
    of a bill of the other all after the enacting clause and inserted a new
    text, conferees could discard language occurring both in the bill and
    substitute (VIII, 3266) and exercise broad discretion in incorporating
    germane amendments (VIII, 3263-3265), even to the extent of reporting a
    new bill germane to the subject (V, 6421, 6423, 6424; VIII, 3248).
    However, 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 (Sept. 27, 1976,
    p. 32719). As such, 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. 6843; Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9022). 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. 24402).
    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. 26781) or to include
    provisions not contained in the House bill or Senate amendment (Dec. 21,
    1995, p. 38138). A waiver of all points of order against a conference
    report to accompany a measure and against its consideration does not
    inure

    Sec. 1089. Nongermane matter in conference
    agreements and amendments in disagreement.

      10. (a)(1)  A Member, Delegate, or
    Resident Commissioner may raise a point of order against nongermane
    matter, as specified in subparagraph (2), before the commencement of
    debate on--

          (A) a conference report;

          (B) a motion that the House recede from its disagreement to a
    Senate amendment reported in disagreement by a conference committee and
    concur therein, with or without amendment; or

          (C) a motion that the House recede from its disagreement to a
    Senate amendment on which the stage of disagreement has been reached and
    concur therein, with or without amendment.

      (2) A point of order against nongermane matter is one asserting that a
    proposition described in subparagraph (1) contains specified matter that
    would violate clause 7 of rule XVI if it were offered in the House as an
    amendment to the underlying measure in the form it was passed by the
    House.

    [[Page 855]]

    batable for 40 minutes, one-half in favor of the motion and one-half in
    opposition thereto.
      (b) If a point of order under paragraph (a) is sustained, a motion
    that the House reject the nongermane matter identified by the point of
    order shall be privileged. Such a motion is de

      (c) After disposition of a point of order under paragraph (a) or a
    motion to reject under paragraph (b), any further points of order under
    paragraph (a) not covered by a previous point of order, and any
    consequent motions to reject under paragraph (b), shall be likewise
    disposed of.

      (d)(1) If a motion to reject under paragraph (b) is adopted, then
    after disposition of all points of order under paragraph (a) and any
    consequent motions to reject under paragraph (b), the conference report
    or motion, as the case may be, shall be considered as rejected and the
    matter remaining in disagreement shall be disposed of under subparagraph
    (2) or (3), as the case may be.

      (2) After the House has adopted one or more motions to reject
    nongermane matter contained in a conference report under the preceding
    provisions of this clause--

          (A) if the conference report accompanied a House measure amended
    by the Senate, the pending question shall be whether the House shall
    recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting
    of so much of the conference report as was not rejected; and

    [[Page 856]]

          (B) if the conference report accompanied a Senate measure amended
    by the House, the pending question shall be whether the House shall
    insist further on the House amendment.

      (3) After the House has adopted one or more motions to reject
    nongermane matter contained in a motion that the House recede and concur
    in a Senate amendment, with or without amendment, the following motions
    shall be privileged and shall have precedence in the order stated:

          (A) A motion that the House recede and concur in the Senate
    amendment with an amendment in writing then available on the floor.

          (B) A motion that the House insist on its disagreement to the
    Senate amendment and request a further conference with the Senate.

          (C) A motion that the House insist on its disagreement to the
    Senate amendment.

      (e) If, on a division of the question on a motion described in
    paragraph (a)(1)(B) or (C), the House agrees to recede, then a Member,
    Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may raise a point of order against
    nongermane matter, as specified in paragraph (a)(2), before the
    commencement of debate on concurring in the Senate amendment, with or
    without amendment. A point of order under this paragraph shall be
    disposed of according to the preceding provisions of this clause in the
    same manner as a point of order under paragraph (a).

    [[Page 857]]

    amendments in disagreement) 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 former clause 5 of rule XXVIII the procedures concerning
    disposition of Senate nongermane amendments. The provision was amended
    on April 9, 1974 (H. Res. 998, 93d Cong., pp. 10195-99) 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 provision 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 this rule, a point of order
    under this clause must be made immediately upon consideration of the
    conference report. When the House recodified its rules, it consolidated
    former clauses 4 and 5 of rule XXVIII under this clause (H. Res. 5, Jan.
    6, 1999, p. ----).
      This provision (former clause 4 of rule XXVIII addressing nongermane
    matter in conference reports) was included as part of the revision of
    former 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 former 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. This provision (former clause 5 of
    rule XXVIII addressing nongermane matter in

    Sec. 1090. Nongermane matter in conference
    agreements.

      The  procedure provided in this clause for addressing
    nongermane matter in conference reports 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.

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

      Once a motion to reject a nongermane portion has been adopted by the
    House and the Speaker has recognized a Member to offer a motion
    comprising the pending question under this clause, the report is
    rejected and it is too late to make a point of order against the entire
    conference report under clause 9 (former clause 3) of this rule (Speaker
    Albert, Dec. 15, 1975, p. 40671).

    [[Page 858]]

      Where possible, the Speaker rules on points of order against
    conference reports which if sustained will vitiate the entire conference
    report (as under clause 9 of this rule or under the Congressional Budget
    Act) before entertaining points of order under this clause (Speaker
    Albert, Sept. 23, 1976, p. 32099).

    Sec. 1091. Nongermane matter in amendments in
    disagreement.

      The  provisions of this clause addressing nongermane matter
    in amendments in disagreement 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. This clause 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 (Oct. 4, 1978, p. 33502; June 30, 1987,
    p. 18294). A point of order under clause 4 (former 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 against
    a nongermane amendment in disagreement 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. 1092. Tax complexity analysis.

      11.  It shall not be in
    order to consider a conference report to accompany a bill or joint
    resolution that proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
    unless--

          (a) the joint explanatory statement of the managers includes a tax
    complexity analysis prepared by the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue
    Taxation in accordance with section 4022(b) of the Internal Revenue
    Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998; or

          (b) the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means causes such a
    tax complexity analysis to be printed in the Congressional Record before
    consideration of the conference report.

    [[Page 859]]

    When the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
    provision was transferred to clause 11 of rule XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
    1999, p. ----).

      The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Form Act of 1998 (sec.
    4022, P.L. 105-206) added this provision as a new clause 7 of rule
    XXVIII.

    Sec. 1093. Open conference meetings.

      12. (a)(1)  Subject to
    subparagraph (2), a meeting of each conference committee shall be open
    to the public.

      (2) In open session of the House, a motion that managers on the part
    of the House be permitted to close to the public a meeting or meetings
    of their conference committee shall be privileged, shall be decided
    without debate, and shall be decided by a record vote.

      (b) A point of order that a conference committee failed to comply with
    paragraph (a) may be raised immediately after the conference report is
    read or considered as read. If such a point of order is sustained, the
    conference report shall be considered as rejected, the House shall be
    considered to have insisted on its amendments or on disagreement to the
    Senate amendments, as the case may be, and to have requested a further
    conference with the Senate, and the Speaker may appoint new conferees
    without intervening motion.

    [[Page 860]]

    of order under this clause must be made immediately upon consideration
    of the conference report. Before the House recodified its rules in the
    106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 6 of rule
    XXVIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).
      This clause as originally added to former 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 record 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. It
    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
    this rule, a point

      At any time after a bill has been sent to conference, 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 record vote (Speaker O'Neill, May 23,
    1977, pp. 15880-84; Apr. 13, 1978, p. 10128). 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).

      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). Conferees on the part of the House
    are entitled to reasonable notice of and opportunity to attend a meeting
    of the conference committee; however, such point of order will not lie
    against a conference report called up under an order of the House that
    has waived all points of order against consideration of the conference
    report (July 20, 2000, p. ----).

      Clause 11(k) of rule X provides that this provision does not apply to
    conference committee meetings respecting legislation (or any part
    thereof) reported by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

    Sec. 1094. Former rule on public debt limit.

      The  rule
    ``Statutory Limit on Public Debt'' (formerly rule XLIX, later changed to
    rule XXIII) was repealed in the 107th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001,
    p. ----). For the text of the former rule, and a recitation of its
    history, see Sec. 1094 of the House Rules and Manual for the 106th
    Congress (H. Doc. 105-358).