[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 116th Congress]
[116th Congress]
[House Document 115-177]
[Rules of the House of Representatives]
[Pages 929-956]
[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 930]]

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 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




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) and is debatable under the hour rule (Dec. 1, 2015, p. _). 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 chair to make the motion (Deschler-Brown, 
ch. 33, Sec. 2.13). The motion to send to conference is in order only if 
the Speaker chooses to recognize for that purpose, and the Speaker will 
not recognize for the motion where there has been referred a nongermane 
Senate amendment 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 chair be directed to offer a motion under this clause 
whenever the chair 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 931]]


  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 the 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 932]]

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 the Committee 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 the 
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.

  Although  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 the 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 
the 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). A special order of 
business may provide that House amendments to a Senate amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole be disposed of only en gros 
(Nov. 4, 2015, p. _). 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 the 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





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). See Sec. Sec. 528-528d, supra.





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. Sec. 528c, 528d, supra (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Where the 
House by special order of business limited the availability of this 
motion to the Majority Leader or a designee (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 
3, Sec. 6.14; July 31, 2014, p. 11327), the Chair declined to recognize 
another Member for such a motion (Oct. 2, 2013, p. 14981; Oct. 12, 2013, 
p. 15791). The ordinary motion to table under clause 4 of rule XVI may 
be applied to a Senate amendment and is preferential to a motion to 
recede and concur in the Senate amendment offered under this clause 
(Mar. 3, 2015, p. _).


[[Page 933]]



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

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


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

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


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

  This clause was adopted on June 1, 1920 (pp. 8109, 8120). Before the 
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was 
found in former clause 2 of rule XX. The recodification also extended 
the rule to Senate amendments containing reappropriations of unexpended 
balances now referenced in clause 2(c) of rule XXI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47).

  Although 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 934]]

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, because 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 
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


  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 935]]

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.


  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.

  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, 
pp. 9923-25); (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); (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 entitled to priority merely by the rules relating to the order 
of business (V, 6454).


[[Page 936]]

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, 
because it is a joint report to the two Houses (Oct. 3, 2000, p. 20560).
  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

  Although 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 937]]


  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 45 calendar days 
and 25 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 45 calendar days and 
25 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 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 proponent 
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 938]]

7), and such time periods were increased in the 114th Congress to 45 and 
25 days, respectively (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. _). 
Technical amendments to paragraph (c)(3) were effected in the 109th 
Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44) and 111th Congress 
(sec. 2(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 9). Paragraph (d) was added in 
the 107th Congress (sec. 2(r), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). A 
gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), 
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). 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 (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 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.


  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, 
because 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 motion to instruct offered pursuant to paragraph (c) after 
the managers have filed a conference report in the House (Oct. 19, 1999, 
p. 25961; Nov. 21, 2003, p. 30780; May 19, 2004, p. 10129; June 28, 
2012, p. 10703 ; July 28, 2014, p. 13364). The House has by unanimous 
consent disabled motions under this paragraph for a specified conference 
(Oct. 16, 2013, p. 15946) and has by special order of business tolled 
the ripening of such motions (e.g., Aug. 1, 2012, p. 13066).


[[Page 939]]

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



Sec. 1080. The statement accompanying a conference 
report.

  (e)  Each conference report to the House shall be printed as a 
report of the House. Each such report shall be accompanied by a joint 
explanatory statement prepared jointly by the managers on the


  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, 6505, 6507-6510). 
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 chair 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 940]]

Resident Commissioner for 72 hours in the Congressional Record or 
pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXIX; and
      (A) the conference report and the accompanying joint explanatory 
statement have been available to Members, Delegates, and the

      (B) printed or electronic 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 the next year to clarify the manner of counting the three days 
for the layover period (H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, p. 36023) and 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)). In the 104th 
Congress it 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). In the 
113th Congress it was amended to accommodate electronic availability 
(sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26), similar authority having 
been granted in the 112th Congress by separate order (Dec. 6, 2011, p. 
18998). 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 Committee on Rules waiving only the layover 
requirement was transferred 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). In the 116th Congress, this paragraph was amended to 
require availability for 72 hours (sec. 102(t)(3), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 
2019, p. _).



[[Page 941]]


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


      (A) the report in disagreement and any accompanying statement have 
been available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner for 
72 hours in the Congressional Record; and

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


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

  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 Committee on Rules only waiving the layover 
requirement was transferred to clause 8(e) of this rule (H. Res. 5, Jan. 
6, 1999, p. 47). In the 116th Congress, this provision was amended to 
require availability for 72 hours (sec. 102(t)(4), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 
2019, p. _).



[[Page 942]]


  Until the adoption of paragraph (b), a report in total disagreement 
was not printed in the Record before the amendment in disagreement was 
again taken up in the House (VIII, 3299, 3332).




Sec. 1084. Certain motions to insist as 
preferential.

  (3)  During consideration of a Senate amendment reported in 
disagreement by a conference committee on a general appropriation bill, 
a motion to insist on disagreement to the Senate amendment shall be 
preferential to any other motion to dispose of that amendment if the 
original motion offered by the floor manager proposes to change existing 
law and the motion to insist is offered before debate on the original 
motion by the chair of the committee having jurisdiction of the subject 
matter of the amendment or a designee. Such a preferential motion shall 
be separately debatable for one hour equally divided between its 
proponent and the proponent of the original motion. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the preferential motion to 
its adoption without intervening motion.




[[Page 943]]


  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 offered 
in a timely manner by the chair of a committee of jurisdiction or a 
designee. A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress 
(sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). 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 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 chair 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.



  (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).


[[Page 944]]

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; Jan. 29, 2014, p. 
2175).
  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. 32116), who accords 
priority in recognition to a member of the conference committee (Speaker 
Wright, Dec. 21, 1987, pp. 37093, 37516). Subparagraph (2) remains 
available where a special order of business orders the previous question 
to adoption of a conference report without intervening motion except one 
hour of debate (e.g., Dec. 14, 2011, p. 20047). The Chair will assume 
that 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 (clause 2 of rule XVII) (Sept. 17, 
1992, p. 25437).

  The custom has developed 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 a point of order (Speaker Albert, Sept. 27, 1976, pp. 
32719-26; Sept. 30, 1976, pp. 34074-34100; Nov. 14, 2002, pp. 22409, 
22460), 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). In the modern practice, 
this paragraph has been interpreted to apply also to a motion to dispose 
of an amendment between the Houses after the stage of disagreement has 
been reached (Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 8.6; Mar. 3, 2015, p. _).


  A Member offering a preferential motion does not thereby control half 
of the time, because 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).


[[Page 945]]

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



Sec. 1087. Waiver.

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



  This provision was 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 946]]

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, 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

  Although 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 947]]

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 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


[[Page 948]]

both of the respective amounts in the House bill and Senate amendment 
for that program (Dec. 7, 2005, pp. 27706, 27707 (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 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, pp. 25322, 
25323 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Dec. 7, 2005, p. 27706) not 
contained in the House bill or Senate amendment. Such motion also may 
not instruct managers to include funding for a program above


  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.


[[Page 949]]

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.
  (2) A point of order against nongermane matter is one asserting that a 
proposition described in subparagraph (1) contains specified matter

  (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.

  (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--


[[Page 950]]

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

      (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 951]]

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 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

  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 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).



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).


[[Page 952]]

prising 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).
  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 com

  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--



[[Page 953]]

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


      (b) the chair 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. A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress 
(sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). An archaic reference to the 
name of the joint committee was updated in the 114th Congress (sec. 
2(h), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. _). 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;


[[Page 954]]

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

      (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.

  (4) Managers on the part of the House shall be provided a unitary time 
and place with access to 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.


  (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 955]]

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. 7). Paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) were added in the 
110th Congress (sec. 303(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (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-

  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. 1), 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. 26413, p. 26443). 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. 26452).


 end segment .012  deg.
[[Page 956]]


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




Sec. 1094. Text of conference reports.

  13.   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.




  This clause was added in the 110th Congress (sec. 303(b), H. Res. 6, 
Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)).