    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 117th Congress]
    [117th Congress]
    [House Document 116-177]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 943-970]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 943]]

                                    Rule XXII

    Senate amendments
                           house and senate relations

    1069. Motion for conference.

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

      This provision (proviso in former clause 1 of rule XX), added by the
    89th Congress (H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 1965, p. 21), provides a method
    whereby bills can be sent to conference by majority vote. As contained
    in section 126(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84
    Stat. 1140) and adopted as part of the Rules of the House in the 92d
    Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144), this clause included
    language relating to separate votes on nongermane Senate amendments that
    was, in the 93d Congress, modified and transferred to former clause 5 of
    rule XXVIII (current clause 10 of rule XXII) (H. Res. 998, Apr. 9, 1974,
    pp. 10195-99). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
    Congress, clauses 1 and 3 of this rule occupied a single clause
    (formerly clause 1 of rule XX) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
    Technical changes were effected in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(u), H.
    Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7).

    [[Page 944]]

    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. 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. 19156). 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.

    Sec. 1071. Privilege of certain Senate amendments.

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

      This provision was adopted in 1890 (IV, 3089) as part of the rule
    governing disposal of business on the Speaker's table (formerly clause 2
    of rule XXIV). When the House recodified its rules in the 106th
    Congress, 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.

    [[Page 945]]

      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).

    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, pp. 17341, 17342). 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 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).

    [[Page 946]]

    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, pp. 3114, 3115).

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

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

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

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

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

    [[Page 947]]

    ances now referenced in clause 2(c) of rule XXI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
    1999, p. 47).
      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
    bal

      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 948]]

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

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

    Conference reports; amendments reported in disagreement
      This provision was adopted when the House recodified its rules in the
    106th Congress to reiterate the prohibition found in clause 5(a) of rule
    XXI against a bill or joint resolution carrying a tax or tariff measure
    not reported by the Committee on Ways and Means (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
    1999, p. 47).

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

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

    [[Page 949]]

    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.
      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,

      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 former 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).

      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, because it is a joint report to the two
    Houses (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.7).

      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).

    [[Page 950]]

      For further discussion of conference reports, see provisions of
    Jefferson's Manual at Sec. Sec. 527-559, supra.

    Sec. 1078. Time for debate on motions to
    instruct.

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

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

      This paragraph was added in the 101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
    1989, p. 72). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
    Congress, it was found in former clause 1(b) of rule XXVIII (H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The division of debate time specified in this
    clause does not apply to an amendment to a motion after defeat of the
    previous question thereon, and the proponent of such an amendment is
    recognized for one hour under clause 2 of rule XVII (formerly clause 2
    of rule XIV) (Oct. 3, 1989, p. 22863; July 14, 1993, p. 15668; Aug. 1,
    1994, p. 18868). The proponent of a motion to instruct conferees has the
    right to close debate (July 28, 1994, p. 18405; July 26, 1996, p.
    19450).

    [[Page 951]]

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

    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 an

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

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

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

    [[Page 952]]

      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. 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. 35). 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), and was amended in the 117th Congress to
    reflect the elimination of the motion to recommit with instructions from
    clause 2(b) of rule XIX (sec. 2(s)(3), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). 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).

      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).

    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.

    [[Page 953]]

    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 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

      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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5,
    Sec. 21.7).

    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--

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

    [[Page 954]]

          (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. _).

      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--

    [[Page 955]]

    Record or pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXIX; and
          (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

          (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. _) and in the 117th Congress the availability requirement was
    modified to include electronic availability (sec. 2(h)(2), H. Res. 8,
    Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).

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

    [[Page 956]]

    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.

    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 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.

    [[Page 957]]

      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. 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 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).

      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).

    [[Page 958]]

    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, pp. 3119, 3120).
      The custom has developed of equally dividing between majority and
    minority parties the time on all motions to dispose of amendments
    emerging

      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).

    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 959]]

      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 960]]

    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

      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 961]]

    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 962]]

    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 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, under the former version of the rule where a motion
    to recommit with instructions was permissible, a motion to recommit a
    conference report could not instruct conferees to expand definitions to
    include classes not covered under the House bill or Senate amendment
    (Sept. 29, 1994, p. 26781) or 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 did not inure to instructions contained in
    a motion to

      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 963]]

    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.
      (b) If a point of order under paragraph (a) is sustained, a motion
    that the House reject the

      (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 964]]

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

      (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 965]]

    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).
      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

    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 966]]

      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 Taxation in
    accordance with section 4022(b) of the Internal Revenue Service
    Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998; or

    [[Page 967]]

          (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. 35). 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

    [[Page 968]]

          (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 969]]

    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-
    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

      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.  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 ac

    [[Page 970]]

    company the conference report and joint explanatory statement of the
    managers.

      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.

     segment .013 -- rule XXIII through rule XXIX  deg.

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