Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 106th Congress-Rule XXII.House and Senate Relations

[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 106th Congress]
[106th Congress]
[House Document 105-358]
[Rules of the House of Representatives]
[Pages 821-845]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Senate amendments
Rule XXII.--HOUSE AND SENATE RELATIONS

[[Page 822]]

shall be privileged in the discretion of the Speaker if offered by
direction of the primary committee and of all reporting committees that
had initial referral of the bill or resolution.

1069. Motion for conference.

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

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

Sec. 1070. Motion for conference.

The motion to send a bill
to conference under this clause is in order notwithstanding the fact
that the stage of disagreement has not been reached (Aug. 1, 1972, p.
26153). On a bill that has been initially referred and reported in the
House, the motion must be authorized by all committees reporting thereon
(Sept. 26, 1978, p. 31623). This clause was recodified in the 106th
Congress to reflect this practice (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999. p. ----).
However, a committee receiving sequential referral of a bill or not
reporting thereon need not authorize the motion (Oct. 4, 1994, p.
27643). On a Senate bill with a House amendment consisting of the text
of two corresponding House bills that were previously reported to the
House, the motion must be authorized by the committees reporting those
corresponding bills (Oct. 1, 1998, p.----). Where such a motion has been
rejected by the House, it may be repeated if the committee having
jurisdiction over the subject matter again authorizes its chairman to
make the motion (Oct. 3, 1972, p. 33502; see also Procedure, ch. 32,
sec. 5). The motion to send to conference is in order only if the
Speaker in his discretion recognized for that purpose, and the Speaker
will not recognize for the motion where he has referred a nongermane
Senate amendment in question to a House committee with jurisdiction and
they have not yet had the opportunity to consider the amendment (June
28, 1984, p. 19770).

Rule XXII, clause 2
Rule XXII, clause 2

[[Page 823]]

Sec. 1071. Privilege of certain Senate amendments.

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

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

Rule XXII, clause 3
Rule XXII, clause 3

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

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

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

[[Page 824]]

of this clause that certain Senate amendments be considered in Committee
of the Whole applies only before the stage of disagreement has been
reached on the Senate amendment, and it is too late to raise a point of
order that Senate amendments should have been considered in Committee of
the Whole after the House has disagreed thereto and the amendments
reported from conference in disagreement (Oct. 20, 1966, p. 28240; Dec.
4, 1975, p. 38714). The Committee on Rules may recommend a special order
of business providing that a Senate amendment pending at the Speaker's
table and otherwise requiring consideration in Committee of the Whole
under this clause be ``hereby'' adopted, which special order, if
adopted, would obviate the requirement of this clause (Deschler's
Precedents, vol. 6, ch. 21, sec. 16.11; Feb. 4, 1993, p. 2500).

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

While a Senate amendment that is merely a
modification of a House proposition, like the increase or decrease of
the amount of an appropriation, and does not involve new and distinct
expenditure, may not be required to be considered in Committee of the
Whole (IV, 4797-4806; VIII, 2382-2385), where the question was raised
against a Senate amendment which on its face apparently placed a charge
upon the Treasury the Speaker held it devolved upon those opposing the
point of order to cite proof to the contrary (VIII, 2387). When in the
House an amendment is offered to provide an appropriation for another
purpose than that of the Senate amendment, the House goes into Committee
of the Whole to consider it (IV, 4795). When an amendment is referred,
the entire bill goes to the Committee of the Whole (IV, 4808), but the
committee considers only the Senate amendment (V, 6192). It usually
considers all the amendments, although they may not all be within the
rule requiring such consideration (V, 6195). In Committee of the Whole a
Senate amendment, even though it be very long, is considered as an
entirety and not by paragraphs or sections (V, 6194). When reported from
the Committee of the Whole, Senate amendments are voted on en bloc and
only those amendments are voted on severally on which a separate vote is
demanded (VIII, 3191). It has been held that each amendment is subject
to general debate and amendment under the five-minute rule (V, 6193,
6196). The requirement

Sec. 1074. Stage of disagreement between Houses.

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

Rule XXII, clause 4
Rule XXII, clause 4

Sec. 1075. Privilege when stage of disagreement
reached.

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

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

Rule XXII, clause 5
Rule XXII, clause 5

[[Page 825]]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 826]]

1987, p. 18308). In recent years Senate amendments to House-passed
general appropriation bills have been in the nature of a substitute,
which are not divided for separate disposition in conference.
While the rule provides for a motion authorizing the managers on the
part of the House to agree to amendments of the Senate in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI, such as a motion to recommit a conference report
on a general appropriation bill with instructions to agree to a
legislative 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,

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

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).

[[Page 827]]

Rule XXII, clause 6
Rule XXII, clause 6

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

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 certain income tax rate increases (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. ----).

Rule XXII, clause 7
Rule XXII, clause 7
Conference reports; amendments reported in disagreement

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

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

The practice of giving conference reports privilege dates from 1850,
having had its origin in a temporary rule. This practice was continued
by rulings of the Chair until this rule was adopted in 1880 (V, 6443-
6446, 6454). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 1(a) of rule XXVIII
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----). For the requirement of a tax
complexity analysis in either the joint statement or the Record, see
clause 11 of this rule.

[[Page 828]]

``until the same is disposed of'' (V, 6454). Of course, a question of
privilege which relates to the integrity of the House as an agency for
action may not be required to yield precedence to a matter entitled to
priority merely by the rules relating to the order of business (V,
6454). The question of consideration under clause 3 of rule XVI may be
demanded against a conference report before points of order against the
report are raised (VIII, 2439; Speaker Albert, Sept. 28, 1976, p.
33019). The motion to lay on the table may not be applied to a
conference report (V, 6540).
Under the language of the rule a conference report may be presented
while a Member is occupying the floor in debate (V, 6451; VIII 3294),
while a bill is being read (V, 6448), after the yeas and nays have been
ordered (V, 6457), after the previous question has been demanded or
ordered (V, 6449, 6450); during a call of the House if a quorum be
present (V, 6456) and on Calendar Wednesday (VII, 907), but
consideration of such reports yields to Calendar Wednesday business
(VII, 899). It even takes precedence of the motion to reconsider (V,
5605), motions to go into the Committee of the Whole for consideration
of general appropriation bills (VIII, 3291), consideration of District
of Columbia business on Monday (VIII, 3292), unfinished business
(Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 4, 1978, p. 33473), and motions to adjourn (V,
6451-6453), although as soon as the report is presented the motion to
adjourn may be put (V, 6451-6453). Also 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). While it may not be presented while the House is
dividing, it may be presented after a vote by tellers and pending the
question of ordering the yeas and nays (V, 6447). It also has precedence
of a report from the Committee on Rules (V, 6449), and has been
permitted to intervene when a special order provides that the House
shall consider a certain bill

While the rule provides that the managers of the House asking for
conference shall leave the papers with the managers of the other
(Sec. Sec. 555-556, supra), if the managers on the part of the House
agreeing to a conference surrender the papers to the House asking the
conference, the report may be received first by the House asking the
conference (VIII, 3330).

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

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

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

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

[[Page 829]]

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

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

(c)(1) A motion to instruct managers on the part of the House, or
a motion to discharge all managers on the part of the House and to
appoint new conferees, shall be privileged--

(A) after a conference committee has been appointed for 20
calendar days without making a report; and

(B) on the first legislative day after the calendar day on which
the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner offering the motion
announces to the House his intention to do so and the form of the
motion.

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

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

[[Page 830]]

under this clause may instruct House conferees to insist on holding
conference sessions under just and fair conditions, and in executive
session if desirable (Aug. 1, 1935, p. 12272), and may instruct House
conferees to meet with Senate conferees (May 2, 1984, p. 10732). The
motion to instruct conferees under this clause is of equal privilege
with the motion to suspend the rules on a suspension day (Mar. 1, 1988,
pp. 2749, 2751, 2754). The motion to adjourn is in order while a motion
to instruct under this paragraph is pending (Sept. 30, 1997, p. ----),
and, if such a motion to adjourn is adopted, the motion to instruct is
rendered unfinished business on the next day without need for further
notice under this paragraph (Oct. 1, 1997, p. ----).

This provision (former clause 1(c) of rule XXVIII) was adopted
December 8, 1931 (VIII, 3225). The notice requirement was added on
January 3, 1989 (H. Res. 5, 101st Cong., p. 72), and amended on January
5, 1993 (H. Res. 5, 103d Cong., p. ----) to clarify that both the motion
to discharge conferees and appoint new conferees and the motion to
instruct conferees after 20 days in conference are subject to one day's
notice, and to authorize the Speaker to designate a time in that day's
legislative schedule for the consideration of a noticed motion to
discharge or instruct conferees. Before the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 1(c) of
rule XXVIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----). The motion to instruct
conferees under this clause may be repeated notwithstanding prior
disposition of an identical motion to instruct, since any number of
proper motions to instruct are in order after conferees have not
reported within 20 days (Speaker Albert, July 22, 1974, p. 24448; July
10, 1985, p. 18440), and the motion remains available when a conference
report, filed after 20 or more days in conference, is recommitted by the
first House to act thereon, since the conferees are not discharged and
the original conference remains in being (June 28, 1990, p. 16156). A
motion

Sec. 1080. The statement accompanying a conference
report.

(d) Each conference report to the House shall be printed as a
report of the House. Each such report shall be accompanied by a joint
explanatory statement prepared jointly by the managers on the part of
the House and the managers on the part of the Senate. The joint
explanatory statement shall be sufficiently detailed and explicit to
inform the House of the effects of the report on the matters committed
to conference.

The original rule requiring the submission of a statement was adopted
in 1880 (V, 6443) and remained in effect through the 91st Congress. The
precedents carried in this annotation are in interpretation of that
earlier rule, which required only that the statement be signed by a
majority of the House managers (V, 6505, 6506) and did not anticipate a
statement jointly prepared by the managers on the part of the House and
those on the part of the Senate. The rule was revised in the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970 (sec. 125(b); 84 Stat. 1140) and made a part
of the standing Rules of the House in its present form in the 92d
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Before the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former
clause 1(d) of rule XXVIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

[[Page 831]]

of managers, the Chair announced that the insertion did not constitute a
revised joint statement of managers (Oct. 10, 1998, p. ----).
The Speaker may require the statement to be in proper form (V, 6513),
but it is for the House and not the Speaker to determine whether or not
it conforms to the rule in other respects (V, 6511, 6512). A report may
not be received without the accompanying statement (V, 6504, 6514,
6515). A quorum among the managers on the part of the House at a
committee of conference is established by their signatures on the
conference report and joint explanatory statement (Oct. 4, 1994, p.
27662). When the House by unanimous consent permitted the chairman of a
House committee to insert in the Record extraneous material to
supplement a joint statement

Sec. 1081. Unfunded mandates.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 48) added a new part B to title IV of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658-658g) that requires a
committee of conference to ensure that the Director of that Office
prepares a statement with respect to unfunded costs of any additional
Federal mandate contained in the conference agreement. See Sec. 1127,
infra.

Rule XXII, clause 8
Rule XXII, clause 8

Sec. 1082. Layover requirements.

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

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

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

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

[[Page 832]]

amended in the 94th Congress (Feb. 26, 1976, p. 4625) to require copies
of conference reports to be available for two hours before consideration
and to allow for the immediate consideration of a resolution from the
Committee on Rules waiving that requirement (clause 8(e)). Before the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was
found in former clause 2(a) of rule XXVIII. At that time the portion of
clause 2(a) permitting immediate consideration of a resolution reported
by the Rules Committee only waiving the layover requirement was
tranferred to clause 8(e) and the portion of clause 2(a) addressing
debate was transferred to clause 8(d) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----
).
The original rule (former clause 2(a) of rule XXVIII) requiring that
conference reports be printed in the Record was adopted in 1902 (V,
6516). The three-day layover requirement, as well as the provisions
relating to the availability of copies of the conference report and the
division of time for debate, were added by section 125(b) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 and made part of the rules in the
92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). The paragraph was
amended again the next year to clarify the manner of counting the three
days for the layover period (H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, p. 36023). In
the 104th Congress it was amended once more to count as a ``calendar
day'' any day on which the House is in session (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30,
1995, p. ----). The paragraph was

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

Sec. 1083. Consideration of amendments in
disagreement.

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

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

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

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

[[Page 833]]

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. ----). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 2(b)(1) of rule
XXVIII. At that time the portion of clause 2(b)(1) addressing debate was
transferred to clause 8(d) of rule XXII, and the portion of clause
2(b)(1) permitting immediate consideration of a resolution reported by
the Rules Committee only waiving the layover requirement was transferred
to clause 8(e) of this rule (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).
This provision (former clause 2(b)(1) of rule XXVIII), relating to the
consideration of amendments reported from conference in disagreement,
was added in 1972 (H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, p. 36023) and became
effective at the end of the 92d Congress. In the 94th Congress the
provision was

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

Sec. 1084. Certain motions to insist as
preferential.

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

[[Page 834]]

agreement; (2) the original motion to dispose of the Senate amendment
proposes to change existing law; and (3) the motion to insist is timely
offered by the chairman of a committee of jurisdiction or a designee.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 2(b)(2) of rule XXVIII (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----). The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service
(now Government Reform) has jurisdiction under clause 1 of rule X over
the subject of a Senate legislative amendment entitling Forest Service
employees to separation pay, enabling the chairman of that committee to
offer a preferential motion to insist under this clause (Oct. 20, 1993,
p. 25589).

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
dis

Sec. 1085. Certain conference reports considered as
read.

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

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

Sec. 1086. Debate.

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

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

[[Page 835]]

bate in clause 2(a) and 2(b)(1) were consolidated into this provision
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).
This provision was adopted in the 99th Congress to 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
de

Recognition of one Member in opposition does not depend upon party
affiliation and is within the discretion of the Speaker (Dec. 11, 1985,
p. 36069; Dec. 16, 1985, p. 36716; Oct. 15, 1986, p. 31631), who accords
priority in recognition to a member of the conference committee (Speaker
Wright, Dec. 21, 1987, pp. 37093, 37516). The Chair will assume that the
minority manager supports a conference report if the manager signed the
report and is not immediately present to claim the contrary (Oct. 12,
1995, p. ----). Where the time is divided three ways, the right to close
debate falls to the majority manager calling up the conference report,
preceded by the minority manager, preceded in turn by the Member in
opposition--i.e., the reverse order of the recognition to begin debate
(Aug. 4, 1989, p. 19301).

Following rejection of a conference report on a point of order, debate
on a motion to dispose of the Senate amendment remaining in disagreement
is evenly divided between the majority and minority under the rationale
contained in this provision (Speaker Albert, Sept. 30, 1976, pp. 34074-
34100).

The custom has developed, however, of equally dividing between
majority and minority parties the time on all motions to dispose of
amendments emerging from conference in disagreement, whether reported in
disagreement or before the House upon rejection of a conference report
by a vote or on a point of order (Speaker Albert, Sept. 27, 1976, pp.
32719-26; Sept. 30, 1976, pp. 34074-34100), upon rejection of an initial
motion to dispose of the amendment (July 2, 1980, pp. 18357-59; Aug. 6,
1993, p. 19582), on a motion to concur in a new Senate amendment where
the Senate had receded with an amendment from one of its amendments
reported from conference in disagreement (Mar. 24, 1983, p. 7301), or on
a motion to dispose of a further stage of amendment which is
subsequently before the House (Aug. 1, 1985, p. 22561; Dec. 19, 1985, p.
38360). A Member offering a preferential motion does not thereby control
one-half of the time, as all debate is allotted under the original
motion (May 14, 1975, p. 14385), subject to a possible three-way split
among the majority and minority managers and a Member opposed to the
motion (Sept. 12, 1994, p. ----). 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 836]]

not extend to separate debate on an amendment thereto, which is governed
by the general hour rule in the House (clause 2 of rule XVII) (Sept. 17,
1992, p. 25437).

The division of time for debate on a motion to dispose of a Senate
amendment reported from conference in disagreement under this provision
does

Sec. 1087. Waiver.

(e) Under clause 6(a)(2) of rule XIII, a
resolution proposing only to waive a requirement of this clause
concerning the availability of reports to Members, Delegates, and the
Resident Commissioner may be considered by the House on the same day it
is reported by the Committee on Rules.

This provision was adopted in the 94th Congress to 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. ----).

Rule XXII, clause 9
Rule XXII, clause 9

[[Page 837]]

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 (former clause 3 of rule XXVIII) is derived from
section 135(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat.
812) and originally was made a part of the standing rules on January 3,
1953 (p. 24). The clause was revised on January 22, 1971 (p. 144)
following the passage of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84
Stat. 1140) which carried a similar provision in section 125(b). Before
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was
found in former clause 3 of rule XXVIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. --
--). Where one House strikes out of a bill of the other all after the
enacting clause and inserts a new text, House managers, under the
restrictions of this clause, may not agree to the deletion of certain
language committed to conference if the effect 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).

[[Page 838]]

in either version and which are not repetitive of existing law may be
ruled out in violation of this paragraph (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 14,
1977, pp. 33770-73).
While the scope of differences committed to conference--where one
House has amended an existing law and the other House has implicitly
taken the position of existing law by remaining silent on the subject--
may properly be measured between those issues presented in the amending
language and comparable provisions of existing law, the inclusion in a
conference report of new matter not specifically contained in the
amending version and not demonstrably contained in existing law may be
ruled out as an additional issue not committed to conference in
violation of this clause (Speaker Albert, Dec. 20, 1974, p. 41849). Thus
where one House has amended an existing law and the other House has
implicitly taken the position of existing law by only authorizing sums
for the purpose of existing law, the scope of differences committed to
conference may be measured between issues presented in the amending
language and relevant provisions of the existing law; but the inclusion
in a conference report of requirements and issues incorporated into
existing law which were not contained

A mere change in phraseology in a conference report (from language in
either the House or Senate version) may be permitted to achieve
legislative consistency where it is not shown that its effect is to
broaden the scope of the language beyond the differences committed to
conference, as where the report waives provisions of law for all
programs in the bill and the House version waives those provisions for
one section of the bill only (the Senate having no comparable provision)
but the scope of programs covered by the report was coextensive with
those in the designated section of the House version (Speaker Albert,
May 1, 1975, p. 12752). The conferees may include language clarifying
and limiting the duties imposed on an official by one House's version
where that modification does not expand the authority conferred in that
version or contained in existing law (the position of the other House)
(Speaker Albert, July 29, 1975, p. 25515) and may confer broader
authority on an official than that contained in one House's version if
such authority is coextensive with the authority contained in existing
law which the other House has retained (Apr. 13, 1976, p. 10803). Where
the Senate version authorized citizen suits to enforce existing law
except where Federal officials were pursuing enforcement proceedings and
the House version, with no comparable provision, retained existing law
which did not permit such suits, the conferees exceeded the scope of the
differences by further prohibiting citizen suits where State officials
were pursuing enforcement proceedings--a new exception allowing State
preemption of citizen suits (Sept. 27, 1976, p. 33019). A point of order
was sustained against a motion to instruct conferees since directing the
conferees to agree to matter violating this clause: the House bill
created an energy trust fund composed of certain revenues to be
distributed by subsequent legislation; the Senate amendment created a
similar trust fund with suggested but not mandated distribution, and the
motion directed House conferees to insist on a mandatory allocation of
revenues in question among specified purposes, some of which were not
addressed in the Senate amendment (Feb. 28, 1980, p. 4304).

[[Page 839]]

or issue that, although germane, was not committed to conference by
either House (Mar. 25, 1992, p. 6843; Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9022). For
example, a motion to instruct conferees on a general appropriation bill
may not instruct the conferees to include a funding limitation not
contained in the House bill or Senate amendment (Sept. 13, 1994, p.
24402). Similarly, a motion to recommit a conference report may not
instruct conferees to expand definitions to include classes not covered
under the House bill or Senate amendment (Sept. 29, 1994, p. 26781) or
to include provisions not contained in the House bill or Senate
amendment (Dec. 21, 1995, p. ----). Some latitude, however, remains to
House managers to eliminate specific words or phrases contained in
either version and add words or phrases not included in either version
so long as they remain within the scope of the differences committed to
conference and do not incorporate additional topics, issues, or
propositions not committed to conference (Speaker Albert, Sept. 28,
1976, pp. 33020-23).

Prior to the 1971 revision of this clause, where one House struck out
of a bill of the other all after the enacting clause and inserted a new
text, conferees could discard language occurring both in the bill and
substitute (VIII, 3266) and exercise broad discretion in incorporating
germane amendments (VIII, 3263-3265), even to the extent of reporting a
new bill germane to the subject (V, 6421, 6423, 6424; VIII, 3248). But
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); a
conference report may not include a new topic

Rule XXII, clause 10
Rule XXII, clause 10

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 840]]

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 that
would violate clause 7 of rule XVI if it were offered in the House as an
amendment to the

(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 841]]

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 shall
recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting
of so

(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.

[[Page 842]]

(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).

This provision (former clause 4 of rule XXVIII addressing nongermane
matter in conference reports) was included as part of the revision of
former rules XX and XXVIII that took place effective at the end of the
92d Congress (H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, p. 36023). The same
resolution repealed the former clause 3 of rule XX, which had been
enacted as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 to
restrict the authority of House conferees to agree without prior
permission of the House to Senate amendments that would violate clause 7
of rule XVI if offered in the House. This provision (former clause 5 of
rule XXVIII addressing nongermane matter in amendments in disagreement)
was added on April 9, 1974 (H. Res. 998, 93d Cong., pp. 10195-99) which
deleted from clause 1 of rule XX and transferred to former clause 5 of
rule XXVIII the procedures concerning disposition of Senate nongermane
amendments. The provision was amended on April 9, 1974 (H. Res. 998, 93d
Cong., pp. 10195-99) in order to make this clause applicable to
provisions originally contained in Senate bills sent to conference, and
not merely to Senate amendments to House bills in conference. The
provision was further amended in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15,
1979, pp. 7-16) to provide that if the conference report is considered
read under this rule, a point of order under this clause must be made
immediately upon consideration of the conference report. When the House
recodified its rules, it consolidated former clauses 4 and 5 of rule
XXVIII under this clause (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

Sec. 1090. Nongermane matter in conference
agreements.

The procedure provided in this clause for addressing
nongermane matter in conference reports was first utilized on September
11, 1973 (pp. 29243-46), when the Chair sustained two points of order
against portions of a conference report which were modifications of
portions of a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute not germane
to a House bill. If any motion to reject is adopted under this clause
and the matter then pending before the House consists of numbered Senate
amendments in disagreement, the pending question is whether to dispose
of each Senate amendment not rejected as recommended in the conference
report and to insist on disagreement to those amendments which have been
rejected.

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

[[Page 843]]

under clause 9 (former 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
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

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

Sec. 1091. Nongermane matter in amendments in
disagreement.

The provisions of this clause addressing nongermane matter
in amendments in disagreement was first utilized on July 31, 1974, p.
26083, when the Chair sustained a point of order against a portion of a
motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment (reported from
conference in disagreement) with a further amendment, on the ground that
that portion of the Senate amendment contained in the motion was not
germane to the House-passed measure, and a motion rejecting that portion
of the motion to recede and concur with an amendment was offered and
defeated. This clause is not applicable to a provision contained in a
motion to recede and concur with an amendment which was not contained in
any form in the Senate version and which is not therefore a modification
of the Senate provision, the only requirement in such circumstances
being that the motion as a whole be germane to the Senate amendment as a
whole under clause 7 of rule XVI (Oct. 4, 1978, p. 33502; June 30, 1987,
p. 18294). A point of order under clause 4 (former clause 5(a)) of rule
XXI (appropriations on a legislative bill) against a motion to dispose
of a Senate amendment in disagreement which, if sustained, would vitiate
the entire motion, must be disposed of prior to a point of order against
a nongermane amendment in disagreement under this clause which, if
sustained, would merely permit a separate vote on rejection of that
portion of the motion (Oct. 1, 1980, pp. 28638-42).

Rule XXII, clause 11
Rule XXII, clause 11

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 844]]

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

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

The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Form Act of 1998 (sec.
4022, P.L. 105-206) added this provision as a new clause 7 of rule
XXVIII. When the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was transferred to clause 11 of rule XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. ----).

Rule XXII, clause 11
Rule XXII, clause 11

Sec. 1093. Open conference meetings.

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

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

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

[[Page 845]]

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, and was
further amended in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1979, pp. 7-16)
to provide that if the conference report is considered read under this
rule, a point of order under this clause must be made immediately upon
consideration of the conference report. Before the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 6
of rule XXVIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).
This clause as originally added to 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

At any time after a bill has been sent to conference and conferees
have been appointed by the Speaker, a motion pursuant to this clause
authorizing a conference committee to close its meetings to the public
is privileged for consideration in the House, is debatable for one hour
within the control of the Member offering the motion, and must be voted
on by a record vote (Speaker O'Neill, May 23, 1977, pp. 15880-84; Apr.
13, 1978, p. 10128). While the Chair does not normally look behind
signatures of conferees to determine the propriety of conference
procedure, if proposed conferees have signed a conference report before
they have been formally appointed in both Houses and do not meet
formally in open session after such appointment, the conference report
is subject to a point of order under this clause resulting in an
automatic request for a further conference (Dec. 20, 1982, p. 32896).
Although a motion to close a conference committee meeting ``to the
public'' would, under the precedents (see V, 6254, fn.), exclude Members
who were not conferees, a motion may be offered as privileged under this
clause to authorize a conference committee to close its meetings to the
public, except to Members of Congress (Speaker O'Neill, May 23, 1977,
pp. 15880-84).

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.