[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 109th Congress]
[109th Congress]
[House Document 108-241]
[Rules of the House of Representatives]
[Pages 869-894]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


 




                                Rule XXII


Senate amendments
                       house and senate relations




1069. Motion for conference.

  1.  A motion to disagree to 
Senate amendments to a House proposition and to request or agree to a 
conference with the Senate, or a motion to insist on House amendments to 
a Senate proposition 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 proposition.


  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 
(formerly clause 1 of rule XX) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). 
Technical changes were effected in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(u), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. ----).


[[Page 870]]

that were previously reported to the House, the motion must be 
authorized by the committees reporting those corresponding bills (Oct. 
1, 1998, p. 22944). Where such a motion has been rejected by the House, 
it may be repeated if the committee having jurisdiction over the subject 
matter again authorizes its chairman to make the motion (Deschler-Brown, 
ch. 33, Sec. 2.13). The motion to send to conference is in order only if 
the Speaker in his discretion recognizes 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). Under clause 2(a)(2) of rule XI, a 
committee may adopt a rule providing that the chairman be directed to 
offer a motion under this clause whenever the chairman considers it 
appropriate (Sec. 791, supra).



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. 47). 
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





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 (formerly 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. 47). 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.



[[Page 871]]

  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 (formerly clause 1 
of rule XX) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).



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 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 have been 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, ch. 21, Sec. 16.11; Feb. 4, 1993, 
p. 2500).



[[Page 872]]

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. 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





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. 47).



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.


[[Page 873]]

  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. 47).

  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 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.


[[Page 874]]

only to language in Senate amendments. Thus the conferees may without 
violating this clause agree to language in a Senate bill which was sent 
to conference (Speaker Albert, Jan. 25, 1972, pp. 1076, 1077; June 30, 
1976, pp. 21632-34) or agree to language in a House bill which was 
permitted to remain and which constitutes an appropriation on a 
legislative bill (Speaker Albert, May 1, 1975, p. 12752).
  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


  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. 47).




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.



[[Page 875]]

6, 1999, p. 47). For the requirement of a tax complexity analysis in 
either the joint statement or the Record, see clause 11 of this rule.
  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.

  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); (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 takes precedence of: (1) 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); (2) 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); (3) the motion 
to reconsider (V, 5605); (4) the motion to go into the Committee of the 
Whole for consideration of general appropriation bills (VIII, 3291); (5) 
consideration of District of Columbia business on Monday (VIII, 3292); 
(6) unfinished business (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 4, 1978, p. 33473). 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).

  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. 20560).

  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).



[[Page 876]]


  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.



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


  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. 47). 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 (formerly 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).


[[Page 877]]

nounces to the House his intention to do so and the form of the motion.


Sec. 1079. Motions privileged after 20 calendar days 
and 10 legislative 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 and 
10 legislative 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 an


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

  (3) During the last six days of a session of Congress, a motion under 
subparagraph (1) shall be privileged after a conference committee has 
been appointed for 36 hours without making a report and the motion meets 
the notice requirement in subparagraph (1).


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

  Paragraph (c) (formerly 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 the requisite time 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. Paragraph (c) was amended 
again in the 108th Congress to permit the motion to be offered after not 
only 20 calendar days but also after 10 legislative days, measured 
concurrently (sec. 2(p), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. ----); and a 
technical amendment to paragraph (c)(3) was effected in the 109th 
Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. ----). 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. 47). 
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. 25). Paragraph (d) was 
added in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(r), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).


[[Page 878]]

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. 
20886), 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. 20894). 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. 
25961; Nov. 20, 2003, p. ----; May 19, 2004, p. ----).

  The motion to instruct conferees under this clause may be repeated 
notwithstanding prior disposition of an identical motion to instruct, 
because any number of proper motions to instruct are in order after 
conferees have not reported within the requisite time (Speaker Albert, 
July 22, 1974, p. 24448; July 10, 1985, p. 18440), and the motion 
remains available when a conference report, filed after the requisite 
time, is recommitted by the




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 statement 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.


  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. 47).


[[Page 879]]

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. 25502).
  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




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--


      (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 
conference report and the accompanying joint explanatory statement have 
been available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner in 
the Congressional Record; and

      (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.


[[Page 880]]

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. 47).
  The original rule (formerly 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


  For an example of a resolution reported by the Rules Committee only 
waiving the availability requirement of this clause and called up the 
same day reported without a two-thirds vote, see August 10, 1984 (p. 
23978). When managers report that they have been unable to agree, the 
report is not acted on by the House (V, 6562; VIII, 3329; Aug. 23, 1957, 
p. 15816).



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


[[Page 881]]

      (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.

  This provision (formerly 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. 47).


  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).


[[Page 882]]

dered on the preferential motion to its adoption without intervening 
motion.



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 or



  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. 47). 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. 47).



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.



[[Page 883]]

who opposes the conference report or motion on demand of that Member, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner.

  (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

  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. 47).

  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 falls to the majority manager calling up the conference 
report (May 2, 2002, p. ----), 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 this provision (Sept. 30, 1976, pp. 34074-34100). Following 
vitiation of a conference report held to violate clause 9 of rule XXII, 
debate on a motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an 
amendment also is evenly divided. (Nov. 14, 2002, p. ----).


[[Page 884]]

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 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


  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).




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



  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. 47).


[[Page 885]]

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.



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


  This provision (formerly 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. 
47).

  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, 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). A conference report containing 
a provision that the joint statement of managers described as having no 
counterpart in either the House bill or Senate amendment was held to 
exceed scope (Nov. 14, 2002, p. ----).


[[Page 886]]

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).
  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

  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 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).


[[Page 887]]

(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 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).
  Before the revision of this clause in 1971, 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


  For a discussion of the remedy where managers exceed their authority, 
see Sec. 547, supra.



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;


[[Page 888]]

      (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.

  (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 debatable for 40 minutes, 
one-half in favor of the motion and one-half in opposition thereto.

  (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.


[[Page 889]]

under subparagraph (2) or (3), as the case may be.
  (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

  (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

      (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.


[[Page 890]]

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).

  (e) If, on a division of the question on a motion described in 
paragraph (a)(1)(B) or (C), the

  This provision (formerly 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 (formerly clause 5 
of rule XXVIII addressing nongermane matter in 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. 47).


[[Page 891]]

amendment not rejected as recommended in the conference report and to 
insist on disagreement to those amendments which have been rejected.


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


  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 (formerly 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 9 of this rule or under the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974) before entertaining points of order under this clause 
(Speaker Albert, Sept. 23, 1976, p. 32099).



[[Page 892]]




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 (formerly 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 before 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.


  The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 
(sec. 4022, P.L. 105-206) added this provision as a new clause 7 of rule 
XXVIII. 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. 47).



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 the yeas and nays.


[[Page 893]]

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.

  (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

  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. 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. Before the House recodified 
its rules in the 106th Congress, the former version of this provision 
was found in former clause 6 of rule XXVIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 
47). In the 108th Congress the record vote by which the motion is to be 
decided was particularized to be by the yeas and nays (sec. 2(u), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. ----).

  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 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).


[[Page 894]]

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). 
Also, conferees on the part of the House are entitled to reasonable 
notice of and opportunity to attend a meeting of the conference 
committee (July 20, 2000, p. ----). However, a 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. 15654; Oct. 30, 2003, p. ----).
  In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair stated that, under 
the rules and precedents of the House, a conference report must be the 
product of an actual meeting of the managers appointed by the two Houses 
(Oct. 30, 2003, p. ----, p. ----). Although 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




  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.