[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[A. INTRODUCTORY]
[Â§ 1. In General]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 331-347]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
        A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    1. In General


[[Page 331]]

This chapter examines House-Senate conferences, the procedures by which 
the two Houses arrive at conference, the appointment and instruction of 
the conference managers (conferees), and the contents and consideration 
of conference reports.(1) The reader is urged to consult chapter 32, 
supra, for a discussion of messages between the Houses and the various 
motions for the disposal of amendments between the Houses.
All matters in disagreement between the two Houses must be resolved 
before a bill can proceed to enrollment and presentation to the 
President. Both Houses must agree to the same text, no matter how 
trivial the discrepancy.(2) 
Differences between the two Houses which are unresolved through the 
regular exchange of amendments between the Houses may be reconciled at 
a conference to which both send managers (conferees).(3) Although 
conferences are usually asked on disagreements concerning legislative 
amendments, they may be sought on any matter on which a difference of 
opinion exists between the Houses.(4) Matters brought to conference 
have included differences over an amendment to a proposed amendment to 
the Con-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     For comparable precedents that occurred prior to 1935, consult 5 
Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 6254-6589, 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 
1571-1578, and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 3209-3332.
 2.     See  Sec.Sec. 1.4, 1.5, infra.
 3.     The words "managers" and "conferees" will be used 
interchangeably here, although a technical distinction may be drawn. 
Thus the word managers refers to the representatives of either the 
House or Senate and applies to them severally in their capacity as 
agents of their respective Houses. The term conferees refers to the 
managers on the part of both Houses acting jointly at a conference.
 4.     House Rules and Manual, Jefferson's Manual Sec. 530 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 332]]
stitution(5) as well as differences regarding the respective 
prerogatives of the two Houses.(6) In one instance a conference was 
held concerning the instructions to House conferees at an existing 
conference.(7) In another instance a conference was held on the issue 
of the proper procedure in an impeachment proceeding.(8) 
A conference may be requested only by the House that possesses the 
official papers;(9) and although in the past the House which disagreed 
to the amendments of the other usually left it to the other House to 
request a conference,(10) an accepted practice in recent years has been 
for the disagreeing House to request the conference.
The House that requests a conference does so by messaging such request, 
together with the official papers, to the other House. The House 
agreeing to conference likewise conveys this response and the papers by 
message to the requesting House. The managers on the part of the 
requesting House then bring the papers to conference. At the close of a 
successful conference the papers change hands and the managers on the 
part of the agreeing House take the papers(11) and this House acts 
first on the conference report.(12) Where there is one amendment in 
disagreement between the Houses, that is the only matter in conference. 
Where there are multiple amendments to be reconciled, the conferees may 
reach agreement on some-and state their compromise in a conference 
report. If they reconcile their differences on some, but not all, they 
may file a report encompassing those on which they 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 530 (1997); and 5 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec. 7037.
 6.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 531 (1997); and 2 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec.Sec. 1485, 1487, 1488, 1491, 1495.
 7.     5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6401.
 8.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 531 (1997); and 3 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec. 2304. 
 9.     See Sec. 1.1, infra. The official papers consist of the engrossed 
copy of the bill attested by either the Clerk of the House or the 
Secretary of the Senate, all engrossed amendments, all special acts 
concurring in amendments with amendments, all messages transmitting the 
foregoing between the Houses (all similarly attested), and finally the 
conference report and joint statement signed by the managers on the 
part of both Houses.
10.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 533 (1997); and 5 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec.Sec. 6278-6285.
11.     See Sec. 24.3, infra.
12.     See Sec.Sec. 24.3, 24.5, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 333]]

agree and report to 
their respective Houses that they remain in disagreement on others. 
When this happens, the House acts first on the "partial" conference 
report and then addresses separately, by motion, those that yet require 
reconciliation amendments. When a conference ends in total disagreement 
the papers do not change hands, but remain with the managers of the 
House that requested the conference, and that House therefore acts 
first on the amendments in disagreement.(13) 
Conferences are but one means to the desired end of bringing the two 
Houses into agreement on a particular matter. When a disagreement 
ceases to exist, a conference becomes unnecessary. Thus, where one 
House had requested a conference to which the second House had agreed, 
and the requesting House receded from its position before the 
conference could occur, such action passed the bill and allowed its 
enrollment and transmission to the President.(14) 
On rare occasions requests for conferences have been denied.(15) 
Sometimes one House will reject a request for a conference, and recede 
from its disagreement or from the amendment causing the disagreement, 
thereby rendering such conference unnecessary.(16) 
Prior to the 89th Congress motions to request or agree to a conference 
were not privileged in the House before the stage of disagreement had 
been reached between the two Houses.(17) However, in 1965, the rules of 
the House were amended to expedite the process whereby legislation 
could be sent to conference.(18) Rule XX clause 1, now gives the 
Speaker discretion to recognize a Member at any time(19) to offer a 
motion to disagree to Senate amendments and request or agree to a 
conference, or to insist on House amendments and request or agree to a 
conference, if such motion is authorized by the commit-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     See Sec. 24.13, infra.
14.     5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6319.
15.     See Sec. 1.10, infra; and 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 6313-6315.
16.     See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 6316-6318.
17.     The "stage of disagreement" is reached when one House informs the 
other of its disagreement concerning a particular matter. See 6 
Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 756, 757.
18.     Rule XX clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec.Sec. 827, 828 
(1997), as amended by H. Res. 8, 111 CONG. REC. 21, 89th Cong. 1st 
Sess., Jan. 4, 1965. See Sec. 2.1, infra.
19.     See Sec.Sec. 3.2, 3.3, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 334]]

tee (or 
committees) having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the bill or 
resolution at issue. Thus, it is no longer necessary for the two Houses 
to reach a formal stage of disagreement before such motion for 
conferences becomes privileged. Before this change in the rules, bills 
and resolutions were usually sent to conference by unanimous consent,
(20) pursuant to resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules,(1) 
or by motions to suspend the rules.(2) 

Possession of Official Papers as Basis for Request

Sec.    1.1 A conference may be requested only by the House in possession 
of the papers.

On Sept. 1, 1960,(3) Senator John J. Williams, of Delaware, alluded to 
reports in the press that attempts would be made in the House to block 
consideration of Senate amendments to H.R. 13062, to amend the Sugar 
Act of 1948. He then posed this parliamentary inquiry:
Under the rules, in the present situation, could the Senate request a 
conference at this moment if it wished?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(4) In the absence of the papers being before the 
Senate, there would be no power in the Senate to request a conference. 
For the Senate to have the power to act, the papers would have to be 
before the Senate.

Replacing Lost Official Papers

Sec.    1.2 Where the official papers are lost or destroyed, the House 
and Senate can authorize their recreation by the Clerk of the House and 
Secretary of the Senate.

The concurrent resolution carried here was considered by unanimous 
consent, adopted by the House (and later by the Senate); it authorized 
the preparation of duplicate original "official papers" where the 
original ones had been misplaced in the Senate.(5) 
MR. [NORMAN Y.] MINETA [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent for the immediate consideration of the concurrent resolution 
(H. Con. Res. 414) directing the preparation of duplicate conference 
papers on H.R. 5930.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     See generally Sec.Sec. 2.36-2.39, infra.
 1.     See generally Sec.Sec. 2.29-2.33, infra.
 2.     See Sec.Sec. 2.34, 2.35, infra.
 3.     106 CONG. REC. 18980, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. See Sec. 3.1, infra.
 4.     Gale W. McGee (Wyo.).
 5.     128 CONG. REC. 26058, 97th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 29, 1982.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 335]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
MR. [ELLIOTT H.] LEVITAS [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, I do so for the purpose of asking the gentleman from 
California if he would explain the effect of the concurrent resolution.
MR. MINETA: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. LEVITAS: I yield to the gentleman from California.
MR. MINETA: Mr. Speaker, this concurrent resolution merely recreates 
papers which apparently have been lost. It does not approve or 
constitute approval of the conference report.
I expect the bring that conference report before the House tomorrow.
MR. LEVITAS: Further reserving the right to object, and I will not 
object, I wanted to make certain that it did not constitute approval of 
the conference report by the adoption of the concurrent resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. CON. RES. 414
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That 
the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives are authorized and directed to prepare and sign 
official duplicates of the conference papers on the bill (H.R. 5930) to 
extend the aviation insurance program for five years.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Amendments Remaining in Disagreement After Adoption of Conference 
Report

Sec.    1.3 Where both Houses have adopted a conference report on a bill 
and amendments thereto, but certain amendments are still in 
disagreement between them, a further conference may be asked on the 
remaining amendments.

On Sept. 24, 1962,(7) Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, asked unanimous 
consent that the House agree to a further conference requested by the 
Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 
the bill (H.R. 12711) making appropriations for sundry independent 
executive bureaus, boards, commissions, corporations, agencies, and 
offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, and for other 
purposes, further insist on disagreement to the Senate amendments and 
agree to the further conference asked by the Senate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------  
 6.     John P. Murtha, Jr. (Pa.).
 7.     108 CONG. REC. 20489, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 336]]

May I explain that the other body adopted all of the conference report 
on the independent offices appropriation bill except three items, and 
we are asking unanimous consent to go back to conference on those three 
items.

The Speaker, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, hearing no objection 
to the unanimous-consent request, appointed five House conferees.

All Matters in Disagreement Must Be Reconciled Before Bill Can Become 
Law

Sec.    1.4 Pending a motion in the Senate to recede from its one 
amendment remaining in disagreement with the House following adoption 
of the conference report in both Houses and disposition of all other 
amendments, the Presiding Officer stated: (1) that if the motion were 
rejected, a motion to further insist upon the amendment and to request 
a further conference  on that one amendment would be in order; but (2) 
that action on the entire bill would remain incomplete and the bill 
could not proceed to enrollment until the remaining amendment in  
disagreement was resolved. 

Before a bill can be presented to the President as an enactment, both 
Houses must agree to the same text and must, through the amendment 
process and conference procedures, reach concurrence on each item 
therein.(8) 
On May 22, 1975,(9) H.R. 5899, supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
year 1975, which had been sent to conference with 58 amendments in 
disagreement, was again on the Senate floor, the House having messaged 
to the Senate its insistence on disagreement to one remaining Senate 
amendment which had not been reconciled. When a motion in the Senate to 
recede from that last Senate amendment was offered, the following 
inquiry was directed to the Chair:

MR. [JOHN L.] MCCLELLAN [of Arkansas]: Mr. President, I move that the 
Senate recede from its amendment No. 107.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(10) First, the Chair will lay before the Senate 
the House amendment in disagreement to Senate amendment No. 107, which 
the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 6233-6240. 
 9.     121 CONG. REC. 16127-29, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     Theodore F. Stevens (Alaska).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 337]]

The House insists on its disagreement to Amendment No. 107.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The question is on agreeing to the motion of the 
Senator from Arkansas. . . .
MR. [JACOB K.] JAVITS [of New York]: Mr. President, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator will state it.
MR. JAVITS: If the motion is rejected, will a motion to refuse to 
recede and to request the conferees to return to conference be in 
order?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: A motion to insist and ask for a further 
conference would then be in order.
MR. JAVITS: I thank my colleague.
Have the conferees been discharged by the Senate?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The conferees have been discharged in the House 
and a new conference would have to be appointed. The conference would 
be on one issue.
MR. JAVITS: I thank the Chair. . . .  
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Does the Chair understand the inquiry is whether 
or not the bill will be delayed until the one item that is in 
conference is determined? Is that the inquiry?
MR. MCCLELLAN: State the parliamentary inquiry.
MR. [JAMES B.] ALLEN [of Alabama]: I asked the question, though I think 
it is pretty well known, since at this stage of the proceeding both 
Houses have agreed to more than $14 billion in appropriations, if the 
motion made by the Senator from Arkansas that the Senate recede from 
its amendment does not carry, then these $14 billion in appropriations 
will, at least for the time, fall. Is that correct?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The action on the bill would not be complete. 
The Chair does not recognize the reference to the appropriations 
falling. They would not be complete. The bill would not be prepared to 
be sent to the President.
MR. ALLEN: A new conference would have to be appointed and delay would 
take place?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The whole bill would be delayed until that one 
item was resolved. That is correct. . . . 
So the motion was rejected.
MR. JAVITS: Mr. President, I move that the Senate further insist on its 
amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to. . . . 
MR. ROBERT C. BYRD [of West Virginia]: Mr. President, I shall shortly 
move to stand in recess awaiting the call of the Chair, pending 
whatever action the House may wish to take in view of the action that 
has just been taken by the Senate. The House may further insist upon 
its disagreement and ask for a conference, or it may concur. Therefore, 
until we hear further from the House, I move that the Senate stand in 
recess awaiting the call of the Chair.

The motion was agreed to, and at 4:50 p.m., the Senate took a recess 
subject to the call of the Chair.


[[Page 338]]

Failure To Address Title Amendment in Conference

Sec.    1.5 Every House amendment to a Senate bill must be reconciled 
before the Senate can enroll one of its bills sent to conference; and 
where conferees had neglected to address a House amendment to the title 
of a Senate bill, the House receded from its title amendment after the 
adoption of the conference report. 

The proceedings relating to the consideration of the conference report 
on S. 327 in the 94th Congress are carried below:(11) 

MR. [ROY A.] TAYLOR of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the Senate bill (S. 327) to amend the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, to establish the 
National Historic Preservation Fund, and for other purposes, and ask 
unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be read in lieu of 
the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(12) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 2, 1976.) . . . 
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MR. TAYLOR of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
the House recede from its amendment to the title of the Senate bill.
THE SPEAKER:(13) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from North Carolina?
There was no objection.

Rejection of Conference Report After Concurrence in Amendments

Sec.    1.6 Where one House adopts a conference report and concurs in 
certain amendments of the other House reported back from conference in 
disagreement, and the latter House then rejects the conference report, 
action on the amendments to which both Houses have agreed is 
nevertheless completed, and only those amendments which remain in 
disagreement are properly the subjects of a 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     122 CONG. REC. 29753, 29758, 29759, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 
10, 1976.
12.     Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
13.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 339]]

further conference between the two Houses.

On Dec. 29, 1970,(14) the managers on the part of the House on the 
Defense Department appropriations bill (H.R. 19590) submitted the 
following statement:

The managers on the part of the House at the further conference on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on certain of the amendments of the 
Senate to the bill (H.R. 19590) making appropriations for the 
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, and for 
other purposes, submit the following statement in explanation of the 
effect of the action agreed upon and recommended in the accompanying 
conference report as to each of such amendments, namely:
The House, on December 16, 1970, adopted the first conference report on 
the bill (H. Report 91-1759) and then adopted motions relating to 
amendments reported in technical disagreement. Four amendments of the 
Senate which had been reported in technical disagreement-Nos. 15, 18, 
29, and 48-were concurred in by the House without change. Thus, those 
four amendments are not at issue in the accompanying conference report 
or amendments in disagreement.

Joint Nature of Conference Committee

Sec.    1.7 A committee of conference is a joint committee composed of 
managers on the part of each House.

On July 31, 1935,(15) Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, presented to 
the House a report signed only by the managers on the part of the House 
on S. 2796, the Public Utilities Act of 1935. The report explained that 
the desired conference never occurred because the Senate managers were 
accompanied by an employee of the Public Works Administration. The 
House managers requested an executive session, the Senate managers 
refused, and the conference was prevented. Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
raised a point of order.

MR. RAYBURN: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the paper read 
is not a report of the conference committee; that a conference report 
or a disagreement must be signed by a majority of the Members of the 
House conference committee and of the Senate conference committee and 
that this statement or paper has no standing in the House.
THE SPEAKER:(16) The Chair will hear the gentleman from Alabama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     116 CONG. REC. 43804-07, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
15.     79 CONG. REC. 12237-39, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
16.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 340]]

Mr. Huddleston, responding to the point of order, explained that the 
report was intended to forestall a motion to discharge under what is 
now Rule XXVIII clause 1(c).(17) 

Mr. Speaker, this is submitted as a report so that the House conferees 
cannot be charged on tomorrow, which will be the next day after the 
twentieth day on which they were appointed, with default and failure to 
make a report within 20 days. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Huddleston] has presented 
a paper which purports to be a report signed by three of the House 
conferees on S. 2796, from which it appears that the conferees have not 
been able up to this time to reach an agreement. The gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Rayburn] makes the point of order that this paper cannot be 
considered as a report, inasmuch as the Senate conferees have not 
affixed their signatures. The gentleman from Alabama frankly states 
that he has filed this statement for the purpose of forestalling any 
action that may be taken under rule XXVIII, which rule authorizes any 
Member as a matter of the highest privilege to move to discharge and 
appoint conferees or to instruct conferees after a period of 20 days 
has elapsed from the time of their appointment when they have failed to 
make a report on the matter committed to them. The Chair does not think 
that the rules of the House can be circumvented in that manner. . . . 
A committee of conference is a joint committee composed of managers 
appointed on the part of each House. The managers of each House vote 
the sentiment of the House which they represent. In casting their votes 
they do so as separate committees and nothing may be agreed upon 
without the concurrent action of the two committees composing this 
joint committee, commonly called the "conference committee."
In instant case, the gentleman from Alabama admits that this purported 
report which he has presented has not been agreed to by the managers on 
the part of the Senate. Under such circumstances, the Chair does not 
believe that it is a report within the meaning of our parliamentary 
practice, and the Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Actions of Senate Managers at Conference

Sec.    1.8 A resolution alleging that the Senate managers of a 
conference committee had insisted upon having experts and counsel 
present at a committee meeting over the objections of the managers of 
the House, and that such Senate conferees had refused to consider the 
matter of differences committed to them unless they were permitted to 
have present their experts and counsel and instructing 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 341]]

conferees to insist on the exclusion of outside advisors, was held not 
to involve a question of the privilege of the House.

On July 29, 1935,(18) Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, presented to 
the House House Resolution 311 which he contended rectified an alleged 
violation of the privileges of the House, to wit: the insistence of the 
managers on the part of the Senate to bring with them to a conference 
on S. 2796 (the Public Utilities Act of 1935) certain counsel and 
advisors. The resolution provided that the House managers be instructed 
to insist that a conference be held with only the conferees of the two 
Houses in attendance. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made a point 
of order against the resolution on the ground that it did not state a 
question of a privilege of the House. He explained:

MR. RANKIN: . . . We have appointed conferees on the part of the House. 
They have a right to say whom they shall take into the conference. They 
have a right to say what advisers they shall select. If a question 
arose on that proposition, it might furnish a question of privilege or 
a question that would go to the integrity of the proceedings of the 
House.
That is the point, Mr. Speaker, on which this privilege hinges-whether 
or not it involves a question that goes directly to the integrity of 
the proceedings of the House of Representatives. To say that the Senate 
committee, when it brings its experts to advise them and to assist them 
in working out the parliamentary or the legislative problems involved, 
is a matter that goes to the integrity of the proceedings of the House 
of Representatives I submit does not meet the requirement; and 
therefore the resolution is not privileged.

Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, also made a point of order against the 
resolution:

I make the point of order that under rule XXVIII of the House of 
Representatives, after the Speaker appoints conferees, until the 
conferees make a report and file their report and statement here and 
have it printed, or unless 20 days have elapsed, and a proper motion is 
made under rule XXVIII(19) to discharge the conferees, the House loses 
jurisdiction entirely over the conferees until one of those two events 
happen.

Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, also referred to what is now 
Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), in making his ruling.

THE SPEAKER: . . . That clause was adopted on December 8, 1931, in the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     79 CONG. REC. 12007, 12008, 12012, 12013, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
19.     Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 342]]

first session of the Seventy-second Congress. Of course, the House had 
an object in adopting that rule. It was to preserve to the House the 
right to exercise authority, as the Chair construes it, in a matter 
pending between the House and Senate, insofar as its own conferees were 
concerned. . . . 
Now, it must be assumed that the House had an object in providing that 
20 days must elapse before the motion may be made, and the Chair 
assumes that that object was to give the conferees that length of time 
in which to come to an agreement, if possible. . . . 
Now, there were two courses which the conferees could have pursued: One 
was to report a disagreement, which has not been done. The other was to 
wait for 20 days, under this rule, and then to proceed under its 
provisions as a matter of the highest privilege. If the conferees had 
reported a disagreement, it would be in order for the House to take 
such action as it pleased, either with reference to instructions or to 
sending them back for further consideration.
. . . The Chair thinks that that is a matter of procedure that should 
be determined by the conferees. In the event that the conferees are 
unable to agree, it seems to the Chair that the remedy is provided in 
rule XXVIII. The Chair does not believe that under the facts stated a 
question of privilege is involved. The Chair, therefore, sustains the 
point of order.

Sec.    1.9 It is in order in debate while discussing a question of 
privilege of the House involving the procedure of a conference 
committee to state what occurred in the conference committee session 
but such license does not permit a Member to refer to a Senator by 
name.

On July 29, 1935,(20) the House was considering a point of order raised 
by Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, against a resolution offered by 
Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, which purported to raise a question 
of a privilege of the House. Mr. Huddleston had contended that the 
insistence of the Senate managers on the attendance at the conference 
on S. 2796, the Public Utilities Act of 1935, of Mr. Ben Cohen, who had 
counseled the Senate on the drafting of the bill, prevented the 
conferees from meeting in a free and fair conference. During the 
ensuing debate, Mr. John G. Cooper, of Ohio, one of the House 
managers stated:

. . . After all that hard work are we going to sit in the conference 
committee with Mr. Cohen there, with all his suggested changes and 
amendments that he would like to have incorporated in the bill? 
Senator Wheeler is the man--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     79 CONG. REC. 12011, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 343]]

MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio has no right to speak 
about a Senator by name on the floor of the House.
MR. COOPER of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I will say that the 
Senator, who is chairman of the conference committee, stated to us that 
if Mr. Cohen could not sit in at the conference there would be no 
conference. . . . 
MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the gentleman 
has no right to criticize Members of the Senate on the floor of the 
House, whether he calls them by name or not. This tirade against the 
Senate is in violation of the rules of the House.
THE SPEAKER:(1) The rule provides that Members shall not criticize a 
Member of the other body in a discussion on the floor. As the Chair 
understands the gentleman, he is not referring to a Senator by name, 
but stating what occurred in the conference committee.

Conference Refused

Sec.    1.10 The Senate may insist (as opposed to adhere) upon its 
amendment and disagree to a conference asked by the House.

On Mar. 20, 1951,(2) the House, with Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
presiding, received a message from the Senate:

A message from the Senate by Mr. Woodruff, its enrolling clerk, 
announced that the Senate insists upon its amendment to the bill (H.R. 
2615) entitled "An act to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 
1938, as amended," disagreed to by the House, and disagrees to the 
conference asked by the House on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses thereon.

Senate Rejection of Conference Report Before Official Papers Were 
Received

Sec. 1.11 Instance where the Senate, by unanimous consent, deemed a 
conference report "rejected" even though the official papers thereon 
had not been received from the House. 

On Nov. 19, 1989,(3) by unanimous consent, the Senate agreed that if a 
conference report then under debate in the House were accepted by the 
House, it would be considered as rejected when received in the Senate. 
The unusual request is carried here as one more example of how the 
course of business sometimes can be expedited by abnormal procedures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
 2.     97 CONG. REC. 2683, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
 3.     135 CONG. REC. 30156, 30157, 30159, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 344]]

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST-H.R. 3607
MEDICARE CATASTROPHIC COVERAGE REPEAL
MR. [GEORGE J.] MITCHELL [of Maine]: Mr. President, in a moment I am 
going to ask for unanimous consent that the conference report on H.R. 
3607, the catastrophic health care legislation, be rejected by the 
Senate when that report is received by the Senate, which we expect to 
be shortly this evening.
Prior to presenting the request, I would like to describe for the 
information of Senators the status of that matter and the purpose of 
this request.
The two bodies have enacted legislation on this matter which are not 
identical. By an overwhelming vote, the House passed legislation to 
repeal the program. By unanimous vote, the Senate passed legislation to 
substantially modify the legislation.
The conferees have been unable to agree on a compromise between those 
two positions, despite days of effort.
The conference report in effect accepts the House position on repeal. 
It will be approved by the House, and it is the purpose of this 
unanimous-consent request to have that rejected by the Senate for the 
purpose of enabling this matter to be returned to conference, in the 
hopes that a final good-faith effort on both sides can be made to 
achieve a compromise which will be acceptable to both bodies.
There are many Senators who favor repeal, among them the distinguished 
Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham]; both distinguished Senators from 
Nevada [Mr. Reid and Mr. Bryan], and others. . . . 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there objection?
MR. [BOB] GRAHAM [of Florida]: Mr. President, will the Senator yield 
for a question?
MR. MITCHELL: Certainly.
MR. GRAHAM: Am I correct that there has been a conference committee 
report issued on this matter, which the House is preparing to consider?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes.
MR. GRAHAM: And that conference committee has the approval of the 
conferees from both the House and the Senate?
MR. MITCHELL: A majority of the conferees, yes.
MR. GRAHAM: If the House passes the conference report and it then comes 
to the Senate, if the Senate were to also agree to the conference 
report, would that not be disposition of the matter?
MR. MITCHELL: That would be. . . . 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request propounded by the majority leader? If not, that will be the 
order of the Senate.

Where House "Blue-slips" Senate Request for Conference

Sec.    1.12 Where the Senate had amended a House-passed general 
appropriation bill, insisted on its amendments and requested a 
conference, and the House thereafter returned the measure to the Senate 
("blue-slipped" the 


[[Page 345]]

bill) because one of the Senate amendments violated the constitutional 
authority of the House to originate revenue measures, the Senate 
proceeded to modify the offending amendment, again insisted, requested 
a "new" conference with the House, and again appointed the same 
managers.

On Aug. 12, 1994,(4) the Senate amended a paragraph of the agricultural 
appropriation bill for fiscal year 1995 by adding a "user fee" 
amendment which permitted the Federal Food and Drug Administration to 
charge fees for services in excess of the cost of the services 
provided. In the House, the Committee on Ways and Means-and ultimately 
the House-viewed the Senate amendment as one "raising revenue." Members 
of the Committee on Appropriations, fearing a protracted delay if the 
bill was "blue-slipped," lobbied to let the matter go to conference 
where the managers pledged they would be successful in dropping the 
amendment; and if the House managers were not successful in this 
opposition, they would support an effort in the House to return the 
conference report to the Senate to protect the House's constitutional 
authority.  
The resolution adopted by the House returning the bill to the Senate, a 
portion of the House debate, and the proceedings in the Senate to 
modify the amendment are carried. 
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE-RETURNING TO THE SENATE THE SENATE AMENDMENTS 
TO H.R. 4554
MR. [SAM] GIBBONS [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of 
the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged resolution (H. 
Res. 518) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 518
Resolved, That Senate amendment No. 83 to the bill H.R. 4554 making 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, in the opinion of 
this House, contravenes the first clause of the seventh section of the 
first article of the Constitution of the United States and is an 
infringement of the privileges of this house and that such bill with 
the Senate amendments thereto be respectfully returned to the Senate 
with a message communicating this resolution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     140 CONG. REC. 21655, 21656, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 346]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(5) The resolution constitutes a question of 
privileges of the House.
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
MR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 518 is a simple resolution returning to 
the Senate the bill, H.R. 4554, because it contravenes the 
constitutional requirements that revenue measures originate only in the 
House of Representatives.
Specifically, the Senate amendments to H.R. 4554 provide that amounts 
are to be credited to the appropriations for the Food and Drug 
Administration "from fees established and collected to cover the costs 
of regulation of products under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug 
Administration." These fees are not limited to cover only the costs of 
providing specified regulatory activities. Further, the FDA would not 
be required to change the fees, in appropriate amounts, only to those 
persons who benefit from such regulatory activities. Instead, the 
Senate amendments would allow the FDA to charge a broad cross-section 
of the public in order to fund the costs of its activities in general. 
Thus, these fees are not true regulatory fees, but constitute revenues 
which would fund the Government generally. . . . 
I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
MR. [DAVID R.] OBEY [of Wisconsin]: Let me simply say that what is at 
issue here is whether or not the House will take an action which is 
called blue-slipping the appropriation bill for agriculture for the 
coming fiscal year. The reason the Committee on Ways and Means wants to 
do that is because the Senate inappropriately adopted an amendment 
which is clearly an effort simply to legislate more spending in the 
agriculture appropriation bill above the amount that would be allowed 
for the budget caps, and the way they do that is to inappropriately use 
a revenue device. I grant that. As chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, I fully appreciate the need for the Senate to cease and 
desist on items like this. But there are a number of ways that it can 
be done it seems to me. The committee can, if it chooses, pursue its 
right today. . . . 
An alternative manner in which to proceed would still preserve the 
rights of the Committee on Ways and Means to blue-slip this bill when 
it comes back from conference if the offending provision has not been 
removed. I have made it quite clear, both orally and in a letter to the 
chairman of the committee, that our committee will not come back from 
conference with that offending provision. We reject it outright and 
would insist that it not be included.

After further debate, the privileged motion offered by Mr. Gibbons was 
agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     Jim McDermott (Wash.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 347]]

The pertinent proceedings in the Senate were as follows:(6) 
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT-MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
MR. [WENDELL H.] FORD [of Kentucky]: I ask that the Chair lay before 
the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on H.R. 4554.
The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message from 
the House of Representatives:

Resolved, That Senate amendment No. 83 to the bill H.R. 4554 making 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, in the opinion of 
this House, contravenes the first clause of the seventh section of the 
first article of the Constitution of the United States and is an 
infringement of the privileges of this House and that such bill with 
the Senate amendments thereto be respectfully returned to the Senate 
with a message communicating this resolution.

MR. FORD: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Chair lay before 
the Senate a message on H.R. 4554, a bill making appropriations for 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies for fiscal year 1995, which was returned to the Senate 
by the House; that Senate amendment 83 be modified with the amendment I 
now send to the desk; that the Senate insist on its amendments, request 
a new conference with the House, and that those Senators currently 
serving as conferees on this bill be reappointed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, the amendment will be 
modified.
The amendment is as follows:

In lieu of Senate amendment No. 83, insert the following: "On page 70 
of the bill insert the following after line 6: Notwithstanding any 
other provision of law, no employee of the United States Department of 
Agriculture shall be preemptorily removed without a hearing from his or 
her position because of remarks made during personal time regarding 
Departmental policies or proposed policies."

MR. FORD: I yield the floor, Madam President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 15 
minutes.

Parliamentarian's Note: On July 15, 1994, where a similar conflict over 
a "revenue" amendment on an appropriation bill had resulted in a "blue-
slip" action by the House,(7) the Senate(8) authorized the 
reengrossment of its amendments, striking the one to which the House 
objected. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     140 CONG. REC. 22127, 22128, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 12, 1994.
 7.     See 140 CONG. REC. 16593, 16594, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., July 14, 
1994 (H.R. 4539).
 8.     140 CONG. REC. 16832, 16840, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 348]]