[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 110th Congress]
[110th Congress]
[House Document 109-157]
[Rules of the House of Representatives]
[Pages 885-912]
[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.



[[Page 886]]

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. 7).
  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




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). However, a committee receiving sequential 
referral of a bill or not reporting thereon need not authorize the 
motion (Oct. 4, 1994, p. 27643). This clause was recodified in the 106th 
Congress to reflect this practice (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). 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. 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)(3) 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. 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.




[[Page 887]]


  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, all provisions of former clause 2 of rule XXIV except this one 
were transferred to clause 2 of rule XIV (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.


  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).


[[Page 888]]

of the Whole (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).


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

  While  a Senate amendment that is merely a 
modification of a House proposition, such as 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 that 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 an 
amendment is offered in the House to provide an appropriation for 
another purpose than that of the Senate amendment, the House resolves 
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 on which a separate vote is demanded 
are voted on severally (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 after the House has disagreed thereto and 
the amendments have been reported from conference in disagreement to 
raise a point of order that Senate amendments should have been 
considered in Committee





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 current practice, which is described in 
Sec. 1074, supra) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).


[[Page 889]]

ference committee back to the two Houses for disposition by separate 
motion.


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 con


  (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. 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 890]]

procedure does not thereby prevent a point of order from 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 that 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 that was permitted to remain and that 
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


  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.


[[Page 891]]

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).

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




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


[[Page 892]]

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); (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); (7) pending 
the forthwith report of a committee following adoption of a motion to 
recommit while the previous question is operating (e.g., Apr. 24, 2007, 
p. ----); and (8) on Calendar Wednesday (VII, 907), but consideration of 
such reports yields to Calendar Wednesday business (VII, 899). It takes 
precedence over: (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); (3) the 
motion to reconsider (V, 5605); (4) the motion to resolve 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); and (6) unfinished business (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 
4, 1978, p. 33473). It 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 that relates to the integrity 
of the House as an agency for action may not be required to yield 
precedence to a matter

  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).


  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.



[[Page 893]]


  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).



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 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).

  (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.


[[Page 894]]

2003, p. 7); 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).
  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,


  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 failed to report 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 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. ----).



[[Page 895]]




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 interpret the 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).

  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. 25502).




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 the Congressional 
Budget 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 896]]

      (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.

  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 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 
waiving only 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).


  For an example of a resolution reported by the Rules Committee waiving 
only 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--



[[Page 897]]

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
      (A) the third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal 
holidays except when

      (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 898]]

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.



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



  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 Oversight and 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.




[[Page 899]]


  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.



  (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. 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, pp. 6624, 6634), preceded by the minority manager, 
preceded 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, pp. 22409, 22460).


[[Page 900]]

emerging from conference in disagreement, whether reported in 
disagreement or before the House upon rejection of a conference report 
by a vote or 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), upon 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 
upon a motion to dispose of a further stage of amendment that 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 
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 custom has developed, however, of equally dividing between 
majority and minority parties the time on all motions to dispose of 
amendments


  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 (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.




[[Page 901]]


  This provision was added 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).




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.


  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).


[[Page 902]]

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, pp. 22408, 
22409).
  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

  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 that were not contained in either version and that 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 903]]

tained in existing law that 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 that 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 that directed them 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 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 con


[[Page 904]]

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 (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 either a funding limitation (Sept. 13, 
1994, p. 24402) or a change in income tax law (Nov. 8, 2005, p. ---- 
(sustained by tabling of appeal); Dec. 7, 2005, p. ----) not contained 
in the House bill or Senate amendment. Such motion also may not instruct 
managers to include funding for a program above both of the respective 
amounts in the House bill and Senate amendment for that program (Dec. 7, 
2005, p. ---- (sustained by tabling of appeal)). 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 with 
House managers to eliminate


  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;

      (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 905]]

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 906]]

      (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 907]]

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 matters 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).
  The 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. The provision (formerly 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 that 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 that 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 (formerly clause 3) of this rule 
(Speaker Albert, Dec. 15, 1975, p. 40671).


[[Page 908]]

  Where possible, the Speaker rules on points of order against 
conference reports that, 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).




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 that was not contained in 
any form in the Senate version and that 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 (as by concurring therein 
with a House amendment carrying an appropriation) 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



[[Page 909]]


      (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.

  (3) In conducting conferences with the Senate, managers on the part of 
the House should endeavor to ensure--

      (A) that meetings for the resolution of differences between the 
two Houses occur only under circumstances in which every manager on the 
part of the House has notice of the meeting and a reasonable opportunity 
to attend;

      (B) that all provisions on which the two Houses disagree are 
considered as open to discussion at any meeting of a conference 
committee; and

      (C) that papers reflecting a conference agreement are held 
inviolate to change without renewal of the opportunity of all managers 
on the part of the House to reconsider their decisions to sign or not to 
sign the agreement.


[[Page 910]]

at least one complete copy of the final conference agreement for the 
purpose of recording their approval (or not) of the final conference 
agreement by placing their signatures (or not) on the sheets prepared to 
accompany the conference report and joint explanatory statement of the 
managers.
  (4) Managers on the part of the House shall be provided a unitary time 
and place with access to


  (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 911]]

to be by the yeas and nays (sec. 2(u), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). 
Subparagraphs (a)(3) and (4) were added in the 110th Congress (sec. 
303(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. ---- (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)).
  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

  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 (now the yeas and nays) (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).

  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 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. 15657). The adoption of paragraphs (a)(3) 
and (a)(4) in the 110th Congress imposed additional considerations on 
conference committees. 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. ----).


<>  It shall not be in order to consider a conference 
report the text of which differs in any way, other than clerical, from 
the text that reflects the action of the conferees on all of the 
differences between the two Houses, as recorded by their placement of 
their signatures (or not) on the sheets prepared to accompany the 
conference report and joint explanatory statement of the managers.


[[Page 912]]


  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.



  This clause was added in the 110th Congress (sec. 303(b), H. Res. 6, 
Jan. 4, 2007, p. ---- (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)).