[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[B. CONFERENCE MANAGERS OR CONFEREES]
[Â§ 5. In General]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 400-428]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
B. CONFERENCE MANAGERS OR CONFEREES
 
Sec.    5. In General

Managers are appointed by the Speaker(1) and he has discretion as to 
their identity and number,(2) although he usually consults with the 
chairman of the committee which considered the matter being sent to 
conference before exercising this discretion.(3) The Speaker may 
appoint a manager to fill a vacancy at a conference(4) and, since a 
change in House rules in 1993, he has the authority to add or remove 
conferees after his initial appointment.(5) Under the earlier practice, 
the consent of the House was required to appoint or change conferees 
after the original appointment.(6) A Speaker Pro Tempore may appoint 
managers only pursuant to the consent of the House.(7) The election of 
a Speaker Pro Tempore bestows the appointment power as well as certain 
other prerogatives that attach to the Speaker.(8) 
Managers on the part of each House constitute in effect two separate 
committees, each of which acts by majority vote.(9) 
Managers may be excused from service on a conference committee only by 
the consent of the House.(10) 
When either House makes a change in the identity or number of its 
managers it so notifies the other House by message.(11) 

Informal Meetings Prior to Appointment

Sec.    5.1 Where a conference report before the House contained the 
signature of all the managers, the Speaker held that the report was 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Rule X clause 6(f), House Rules and Manual Sec. 701e (1997). The 
reader is urged to refer to future supplements to this volume as they 
are published for changes in the procedures applicable to managers.
 2.     Sec.Sec. 6.3, 6.4, infra.
 3.     Sec.Sec. 6.1, 6.2, infra.
 4.     Sec.Sec. 8.2-8.6, infra.
 5.     See 139 CONG. REC. 49, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1993 (H. 
Res. 5); Rule XI clause 6(f), House Rules and Manual (1997).
 6.     Sec.Sec. 6.12, 8.1, infra.
 7.     Sec.Sec. 6.15, 6.16, 8.11, infra.
 8.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 634a (1997).
 9.     See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6334; and House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 536 (1973).
10.     Sec.Sec. 8.1, 8.5, infra.
11.     Sec.Sec. 8.16, 8.17, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 401]]

properly before the House notwithstanding a point of order that the 
managers had met informally prior to their appointment.

On Aug. 9, 1954,(12) Mr. John M. Vorys, of Ohio, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 9678, a foreign aid measure. Mr. H. R. Gross, 
of Iowa, made a point of order against the conference report, stating 
that certain Members of the House had entered into a conference before 
the Chair had appointed conferees on the part of the House. Mr. Gross 
explained:

. . . Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that even before the 
papers were received from the other body, requesting a conference on 
the part of the House, before authority was given by the House for a 
conference, and well before the formal appointment of conferees on the 
part of the House, certain Members of the House of Representatives had 
apparently designated themselves as conferees and entered into 
agreement on one or more substantial issues in disagreement in 
connection with the bill H.R. 9678; that such agreement or agreements 
were entered into even before the House of Representatives formally and 
officially convened at 12 o'clock noon on August 4, 1954, and gave 
assent to a conference. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I can find no precedent which permits Members of the House 
to enter into a conference without first obtaining authority from the 
House for so doing. The weight of all precedents governs from the 
initial authority for a conference, the appointment of conferees and 
their conduct flow therefrom.

Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, made the following 
ruling:

The Chair wishes to state on the gentleman's point of order that he has 
no cognizance of informal meetings that may have been held. As a matter 
of fact, he would not know what Members were doing if they met 
informally in a group to discuss any specific subject. All the Chair 
can do is to take the report that is here. All 10 signatures are on the 
conference report. The conference report is here in a legal manner.

Closing a Conference, Vote Required

Sec.    5.2 In the 94th Congress, the House adopted a new rule requiring 
managers to vote, by a roll call, to close a conference. In the 95th 
Congress, the rule was modified to require a roll call vote in the full 
House to close a conference.

Conferences on matters in disagreement between the House and Senate 
were, until relatively recently, held behind closed doors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     100 CONG. REC. 13787, 13802, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 402]]

Occasionally, Members of the House were admitted to comment on the 
matters before the managers.(13) 
In the 94th Congress, the House adopted a new rule providing that 
conferences should be held in open session unless the managers of 
either the House or the Senate determined by a roll call vote to close 
the meeting.(14) 
The Senate, later in the same year,(15) adopted a rule similar to that 
adopted by the House, but normally follows the lead of the House 
managers and of the House when meeting in conference. 
Rule XXVIII clause 6, was again amended in the 95th Congress to require 
the vote to close a conference meeting to occur in the full House of 
Representatives by roll call.(16) 
In the 94th Congress, Majority Leader Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, called up the resolution establishing rules for the 
House.

MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 5) and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. RES. 5
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-
third Congress, together with all applicable provisions of the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1970, as amended, and the Congressional Budget 
and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, be, and they are hereby adopted as 
the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-fourth 
Congress, with the following amendments as part thereof, to wit: . . . 
(26) In Rule XXVIII, add the following new clause:
"6. Open Conference Meetings
"Each conference committee meet-ing between the House and Senate shall 
be open to the public except when the managers of either the House or 
Senate, in open session, determine by a rollcall vote of a majority of 
those managers present, that 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     See 5 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 6254 for the traditional method of 
holding a conference meeting.
14.     121 CONG. REC. 20-32, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 14, 1975 (H. 
Res. 5). 
15.     The Senate rule was incorporated into its Rule XXVIII clause 3, 
on Nov. 5, 1975. 121 CONG. REC. 35203-209, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. The 
rule remains part of current Senate Rule XXVIII clause 6 and reads as 
follows:
"6. Each conference committee between the Senate and the House of 
Representatives shall be open to the public except when managers of 
either the Senate or the House of Representatives in open session 
determine by a rollcall vote of a majority of those managers present, 
that all or part of the remainder of the meeting on the day of the vote 
shall be closed to the public."
16.     123 CONG. REC. 53-70, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1977 (H. Res. 
5).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 403]]

all or part of the remainder of the meeting on the day of the vote 
shall be closed to the public: Provided that this provision shall not 
become effective until a similar rule is adopted by the Senate." . . . 

THE SPEAKER:(17) The question is on the resolution.
MR. [BILL] FRENZEL [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 259, nays 
150, not voting 22. . . .

In the 95th Congress, on Jan. 4, 1977,(18) Rule XXVIII was modified as 
a result of the following proceedings:

MR. [JAMES C.] WRIGHT [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
privileged resolution (H. Res. 5) and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. RES. 5
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-
fourth Congress, including all applicable provisions of law which 
constituted the Rules of the House at the end of the Ninety-fourth 
Congress, be, and they are hereby, adopted as the Rules of the House    
of Representatives of the Ninety- fifth Congress, with the following 
amendments included therein as part thereof, to wit: . . . 
(37) In Rule XXVIII, clause 6 is amended to read as follows:
"6. (a) Each conference committee meeting between the House and Senate 
shall be open to the public except when the House, in open session, has 
determined by a rollcall vote of a majority of those Members voting 
that all or part of the meeting shall be closed to the public.
"(b)(1) After the reading of the report and before the reading of the 
joint statement, a point of order may be made that the committee of 
conference making the report to the House has failed to comply with 
paragraph (a) of this clause.
"(2) If such point of order is sustained, the conference report shall 
be considered as rejected, the House shall be considered to have 
insisted upon its amendment(s) or upon disagreement to the amendment(s) 
of the Senate, as the case may be, and to have requested a further 
conference with the Senate, and the Speaker shall be authorized to 
appoint new conferees without intervening motion."; . . .

THE SPEAKER:(19) The question is on the resolution. 
MR. [JOHN J.] RHODES [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 256, nays 
142, not voting 35. . . . 
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
18.     123 CONG. REC. 53, 55, 70, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
19.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 404]]

Closing a Conference Meeting
Sec. 5.3 A motion to close a conference meeting to the public, but 
permitting Members of Congress to attend, is privileged and has been 
adopted under Rule XXVIII clause 6(a). 
On May 23, 1977,(20) the newly adopted rule governing the procedure for 
closing a conference was applied for the first time in the House.
After the Speaker had appointed the conferees on the Department of 
Defense authorization bill, fiscal 1978, Mr. Charles E. Bennett, of 
Florida, offered a motion to close the conference to the public. A 
series of inquiries followed, the motion was eventually withdrawn and a 
new motion offered to permit Members to attend sessions of the 
conference.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 5970, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
APPROPRIATION AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1978
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5970) to authorize appropriations during 
the fiscal year 1978, for procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval 
vessels, tracked combat vehicles, torpedoes, and other weapons, and 
research, development, test, and evaluation for the Armed Forces, and 
to prescribe the authorized personnel strength for each active duty 
component and of the Selected Reserve of each Reserve component of the 
Armed Forces and of civilian personnel of the Department of Defense, 
and to authorize the military training student loads, and for other 
purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER:(1) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees: 
Messrs. Price, Bennett, Stratton, Ichord, Nedzi, Charles H. Wilson of 
California, Leggett, White, Nichols, Bob Wilson, Dickinson, Whitehurst, 
and Spence.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BENNETT
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bennett moves, pursuant to rule XXVIII 6(a) of the House rules that 
the conference committee meetings between the House and the Senate on 
H.R. 5970 the fiscal year 1978 military authorization bill be closed to 
the public at such times as classified national security information is 
under consideration.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) is recognized for 
1 hour.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     123 CONG. REC. 15880-84, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 405]]

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bob Wilson), the ranking minority member on the 
committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume; at 
the conclusion of which I will be happy to yield to any Member who 
wishes to be heard.
Mr. Speaker, in discussing the military authorization bill in 
conference, there are times when it is impossible to consider many of 
the individual items without closing the session because of the 
security classification which understandably must be attached to many 
of the items under consideration. . . . 
MR. [THOMAS J.] DOWNEY [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, what I would like to 
know is whether or not the conferees and the acting chairman of the 
conference would have any objection to sitting Members of Congress 
sitting in on the session. It seems to me that is the crux of the 
matter. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, if I might address the Chair, is it possible for the 
gentleman from Florida to amend his own motion to incorporate that? . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The answer is that the motion may be modified by unanimous 
consent.
MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. Must that 
unanimous-consent request come from the gentleman from Florida or can 
that come from any Member?
THE SPEAKER: If the gentleman yields for that purpose, it can come from 
any Member. The gentleman from Florida is in control of the time.
MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Florida would yield 
further, the language that "any sitting Member of Congress shall have 
the right to attend any meeting, open or closed, of the conference"-
would that be suitable?
MR. BENNETT: The gentleman wants me to amend the motion to provide that 
during meetings of the conference committee any sitting Member may have 
the right to sit in on any open or closed meeting of the conference.
May I address the Chair and ask the Chair if I so amend my motion, is 
that a proper motion? I had understood that it was not.
THE SPEAKER: By unanimous consent the gentleman may so modify his 
motion.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, then by unanimous consent I ask that the 
motion I have offered be modified to allow any sitting Member of 
Congress to have the right to attend any closed or open meeting of the 
conference.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
MR. [SAMUEL S.] STRATTON [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I object. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will respond to an earlier parliamentary 
inquiry. In view of the fact that the gentleman has a motion pending, 
in order to modify this motion the gentleman must obtain unanimous 
consent. The gentleman does have the right in the House, as the 
gentleman is aware, of withdrawing his motion and offering a completely 
new motion. . . . 
MR. STRATTON: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. STRATTON: Mr. Speaker, if the House approves the Bennett motion, as 
originally moved, does that mean that 


[[Page 406]]

on those occasions when the conference goes into executive session that 
a Member of the House under the existing rules would have the 
opportunity to join that executive session?
THE SPEAKER: Under the precedents, all Members of the House, other than 
the conferees of the House, would be considered to be part of the 
public under the language of the motion and not entitled to go into the 
conferees' closed session.
The changing of clause 6 of rule XXVIII this year does not on its face 
alter the situation with respect to attendance by Members who are not 
named as conferees.
MR. STRATTON: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. STRATTON: If the conferees, having gone into executive session, 
were to agree that certain Members could be admitted to that conference 
for certain purposes, would that be permitted?
THE SPEAKER: The will of the House would bind House conferees. If the 
House has decided by rollcall that the conference will be a session 
closed to all persons, then the will of the House would prevail as 
indicated in rule XXVIII, clause 6. Or a motion could be made to 
clarify the term "public" so as not to include Members. It could well 
be that it would be a stalemate and that the Senate would not agree, 
but as far as House conferees are concerned, they could be instructed, 
on a motion made by the chairman of the committee that the Members of 
the House are not considered to be part of the public, but as Members 
of this body with the right of nonparticipating attendance.
MR. STRATTON: I thank the Speaker.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is proper for me to 
offer a substitute motion?
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman withdraw his previous motion?
MR. BENNETT: I do, Mr. Speaker.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BENNETT
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bennett moves that, pursuant to Rule XXVIII 6(a) of the House 
Rules, the conference committee meetings between the House and the 
Senate on H.R. 5970, the fiscal year 1978 military authorization bill, 
be closed to the public at such times as classified national security 
information is under consideration, provided however, that any sitting 
Member of Congress shall have the right to attend any closed or open 
meeting.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
MR. BOB WILSON [of California]: . . . Mr. Speaker, if I may, I wish to 
pose my parliamentary inquiry now.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. BOB WILSON: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the ruling that the 
Chair has just made on the previous motion offered by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Bennett) is to the effect that passage of this motion 
by the House would bind our conferees or at least would represent the 
views of the House, but then we would, of course, have to take into 
consideration the views of the Senate at such time as we 


[[Page 407]]

have a conference with the Senate? Is my understanding correct?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct. Each House would have one vote 
at the conference. . . . 
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: Under the provisions of rule XXVIII, clause 6(a), the yeas 
and nays are considered as ordered on this motion.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 273, nays 
114, not voting 46. 

Closing Conference, Select Committee on Intelligence

Sec.    5.4 The House has on occasion given a committee the authority to 
close its conference meetings without coming to the floor for the vote 
normally required under Rule XXVIII clause 6(a). 

On July 14, 1977,(2) the House  adopted House Resolution 658, 
establishing a Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  Among 
the powers and mandate given that committee was a specific grant of 
authority to close its conference meetings. 
The portion of the resolution specifically amending the rules of the 
House was carried in section 2, paragraph 11, which provides as 
follows:

"11. Clause 6(a) of rule XXVIII does not apply to conference committee 
meetings respecting legislation (or any part thereof) reported from the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.".

This authority survives in Rule XLVIII clause 11 of the current House 
rules.(3) 

Closing a Conference Meeting by Motion

Sec.    5.5 The motion to close a conference meeting under Rule XXVIII 
clause 6(a): (1) is properly made after the request to go to conference 
has been agreed to and the Speaker has appointed the conferees; (2) 
must be agreed to by a yea and nay vote; (3) may be limited in its 
terms to allow sitting Members to attend; and (4) may be modified to 
close the meetings to the public only when national security 
information (classified material) is under consideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     123 CONG. REC. 22949, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 944a (1997). 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 408]]

The rule requiring a yea and nay vote in the full House to close a 
conference meeting was added to Rule XXVIII in the 95th Congress.(4) 
The modified form of the motion to close used in this example from the 
proceedings of July 21, 1977,(5) has been used frequently by the 
Committee on Appropriations when sending a defense appropriation bill 
to conference.

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 7933) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1978, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and request a conference 
with the Senate thereon.
THE SPEAKER:(6) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees: 
Messrs. Mahon, Sikes, Flood, Addabbo, McFall, Flynt, Giaimo, Chappell, 
Burlison of Missouri, Edwards of Alabama, Robinson, Kemp, and 
Cederberg.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
MR. MAHON: Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Mahon moves, pursuant to rule XXVIII 6(a) of the House rules that 
the conference committee meetings between the House and the Senate on 
H.R. 7933, the fiscal year 1978 Department of Defense appropriation 
bill, be closed to the public at such times as classified national 
security information is under consideration, provided however, that any 
sitting Member of Congress shall have the right to attend any closed or 
open meeting.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) 
for 1 hour.
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, the object here is to comply with the rules and 
procedures of the House. The conference will be open if the motion is 
agreed to, except for the consideration of classified material. 
Classified material may arise from time to time in the conference. It 
will be possible to arrange for the classified material to be discussed 
under circumstances which will permit most of the conference to be an 
open conference. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, it would be my purpose, as the head of the House 
conferees, to work out an arrangement in the conference whereby it will 
be agreed that wherever there are classified materials we can try to 
discuss them at one particular time and not have classified material 
intermingled constantly with the discussion otherwise on the bill. I 
think that can be done and should be done. In the past, I know of 
nothing improper that has ever taken place in 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4.      See H. Res. 5, 123 CONG. REC. 53-77, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 
4, 1977. See Rule XXVIII clause 6(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 913d 
(1997). 
 5.     123 CONG. REC. 24365, 24366, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 409]]

the conference with the Senate on a defense bill, and I have had 
considerable experience in that area. But as a matter of convenience, 
we have moved to close the conferences because there is so much 
classified material, and we cannot always tell when the material may 
arise for discussion. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Mahon).
MR. [JOHN J.] FLYNT [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on 
the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order 
that a quorum is not present.
THE SPEAKER: Under the provisions of rule XXVIII, clause 6(a), the yeas 
and nays are considered as ordered on this motion.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 376, nays 
0, not voting 57. 

Closing Conference Meetings

Sec.    5.6 Following the adoption of a motion to instruct conferees, 
and pending the Speaker's appointment of the managers on the part of 
the House, the Chair has entertained a motion to authorize the 
conferees to close the conference meetings, a motion which requires a 
roll call vote.

Rule XXVIII clause 6(a)(7) does not specify a time period within which 
a motion to close a conference must be entertained. These proceedings, 
excerpted from the Record of June 10, 1988,(8) show the exercise of the 
Chair's discretion about when to recognize for a motion to close a 
conference.

The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(9) The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Dickinson].
The motion to instruct was agreed to.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will delay the appointment of 
conferees until the Speaker returns to the Chair.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. ASPIN
MR. [LES] ASPIN [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Aspin moves that pursuant to rule XXVIII 6(a) of the House rules, 
the conference committee meetings between the House and the Senate on 
H.R. 4264, the fiscal year 1989 Department of Defense authorization 
bill, be closed to the public at such times as classified national 
security information is under consideration: 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 913d (1997).
 8.     134 CONG. REC. 14068, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9.     William J. Hughes (N.J.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 410]]

Provided, however, That any sitting Member of Congress shall have the 
right to attend any closed or open meeting.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Aspin] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
MR. ASPIN: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Requirement for Open Conference  Meetings

Sec.    5.7 A point of order against a conference report was overruled 
where Member making challenge failed to establish that the report 
differed from that agreed upon in open conference meeting. 

Where a Member pressed a point of order that a conference report was 
reported in violation of Rule XXVIII clause 6, which requires that 
conference meetings be open, he has the burden of showing that an 
actual meeting of the conferees took place in violation of the "open 
conference" rule. 
On Sept. 28, 1976,(10) when the conference report on S. 521, the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1976, was taken up in the 
House as unfinished business, a point of order was pressed as shown in 
the Record excerpts set out below.

MR. [HAMILTON] FISH [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order against the conference report on grounds that it has been 
reported in violation of Rule XXVIII, clause 6, which requires that 
conference meetings be open to the public except when ordered closed by 
rollcall vote in open session.
Mr. Speaker, on the first day of this Congress, as one of its first 
moves toward reform, the House voted to amend its rules and open up 
conferences to public scrutiny. The Senate soon passed a similar 
measure, and the rule took effect.
At the first open meeting of the conference committee, one of the 
managers on the part of the Senate moved that the Senate recede from 
its disagreement to the House amendment with several amendments which 
he had caused to be printed as part of a conference document. 
Additional linear amendments were proposed by other Senate managers in 
the form of amendments to the motion, and in due course a majority of 
the Senators voted for the motion as amended.
The chairman of the conference committee, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Murphy) then moved that the House agree to the amendments of the 
Senate. This motion was presumably amendable, although the chairman 
refused to allow any amendments to be offered. If he had, they would 
have been restricted to germane modifications of the various Senate 
amendments which would have been the only items in disagreement at that 
time. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     122 CONG. REC. 33019, 33020, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 411]]

The motion was rushed to a vote and agreed to by the House managers, 
and the conference meeting was adjourned.
Mr. Speaker, the conference committee must have met again. It must have 
met without any notice to the minority and far from public view. It 
must have met in closed session without first having voted to do so in 
open session. I must assume that there was a closed session of the 
conference committee, because instead of reporting linear Senate 
amendments, as had been agreed to in open session, the committee 
reported a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute. . . . 
There must have been one more meeting-a closed meeting-in which a 
majority of the Senate conferees and a majority of the House conferees 
agreed to switch from linear amendments to an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute without giving minority House managers a chance to 
offer amendments and without being open to the public. . . . 
Clause 6 has never before been tested to my knowledge. If this point of 
order is overruled, it will mean that a majority of the managers can, 
in open session, agree to things they think the public will like, and 
then change those things around in private to suit themselves. Whether 
this is done by the managers at a face-to-face meeting, or by telephone 
or by mail or by staff without even informing the managers, it is being 
done in secret, in violation of the rules. Defeat of this point of 
order will make clause 6 meaningless and destroy the concept of open 
conferences.
THE SPEAKER:(11) Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) desire 
to be heard on the point of order?
MR. [JOHN M.] MURPHY of New York: I do, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I would refer to the recorded 
minutes of the conference on page 2 of the opening day of the 
conference. Senator Jackson moved that the conference be open to the 
public. The motion was seconded by Senator Jackson and adopted by the 
conference without objection. If my colleague, the gentleman from New 
York, had been present at all sessions of the conference, I doubt if he 
would make this point of order. The motion made by Senator Jackson at 
the conference and on page 8 of the first day's minutes of the 
conference is as follows:
Mr. Chairman, I therefore move the Senate recede from its disagreement 
with the House and accept the House amendment with the amendment set 
forth in the September 13 conference print, except the technical 
amendments that occur on page 123 of the print.

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the gentleman's argument, he is asserting 
that the Chair is to find an implied or "constructive" secret meeting 
of the majority of the conferees because the conference report is not 
consistent with the gentleman's interpretation of the procedures of the 
conference committee. . . . 
In addition, I would point out that the conference report is consistent 
with the actions of the conference. Senator Jackson moved that the 
Senate recede from its disagreement and agree to the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 412]]

amendment of the House with an amendment. During the course of the 
deliberations, the Senate conferees agreed to modify Senator Jackson's 
proposed amendments. The Senate conferees then approved the Jackson 
motion.
The House conferees then agreed to adopt the language agreed to by the 
Senate conferees, to be inserted in lieu of the House amendment.
The conference report properly reflects these actions.
Moreover, rules of the House make it clear that once a conference 
report is filed by the required number of conferees there is a 
conclusive presumption as to the validity of the conference.
The Speaker will not look behind the signatures as to the procedures in 
conference. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from New York has made a point of order directed against 
conference procedure alleging a violation of clause 6, rule XXVIII.
The gentleman's point of order is that the form of the conference 
report does not conform to his understanding as to which motion was 
agreed to by the House conferees. The gentleman contends that there was 
a further constructive meeting of the conferees which was closed and 
unannounced.
The chief manager of the conference report has reported that in a 
meeting of the conferees which was open to the public, pursuant to the 
provisions of clause 6, rule XXVIII, a proper motion was made to agree 
to an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the House amendment 
to the Senate bill, and the signatures of a majority of the conferees 
of both Houses reflecting this agreement appear on the conference 
report.
The Chair does not feel that a violation of conference rules has been 
shown, and the Chair overrules the point of order.

Quorum Requirements in a Conference Meeting

Sec.    5.8 In response to a series of parliamentary inquiries, the 
Speaker commented on essential features of a valid conference under 
House rules: (1) while there is no rule specifying what constitutes a 
quorum for a meeting of House managers at a conference, a quorum is 
required on the signature sheets of the conference report and joint 
statement; (2) a conference report is valid only if there has been a 
public meeting of the conferees under Rule XXVIII clause 6; and (3) no 
rule of the House precludes conferees meeting during a period when the 
House is conducting five-minute votes.

In the following instance, Mr. Lewis' parliamentary inquiry was 
directed to the Speaker while the House was conducting a series of 
votes. In that sense, the inquiry 


[[Page 413]]

was directed at "pending business" and not to some hypothetical 
situation to which the Chair normally would not respond.(12) 

MR. [JERRY] LEWIS of California: Mr. Speaker, is it appropriate to have 
a parliamentary inquiry at this moment?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(13) The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. LEWIS of California: Mr. Speaker, I presume it is appropriate to 
make an inquiry about our procedure as it relates to conference 
reports.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is not able to hear the gentleman.
MR. LEWIS of California: Mr. Speaker, I presume it is appropriate to 
ask information of the Chair as to the procedure as it relates to 
conference meetings, conferences of the House.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman must state a parliamentary 
inquiry, and it should relate to the pending business.
MR. LEWIS of California: My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is do 
Members of the House in majority forum have to be present for a 
conference to take place?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis] that there is no quorum requirement for meeting 
of the conference beyond the requirement for a majority of signatures.
MR. LEWIS of California: They do have to meet; is that correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: There needs to be a public meeting of the 
conference.
MR. LEWIS of California: A public meeting of the conference, and I 
presume that the conferees at least should have an opportunity to be 
there. Is that correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair has responded to the gentleman's 
inquiry.
MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. WALKER: MR. Speaker, is it appropriate to hold conference committee 
meetings during 5-minute votes of the House?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] that there is no rule prohibiting a meeting 
of a conference during 5-minute votes of the House.
MR. LEWIS of California: I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
Is it appropriate to hope to begin a conference where Members are in 
the middle of votes and there are no Republican Members present?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair does not believe the gentleman has 
stated a parliamentary inquiry.

Authority To Sit During Recesses and Adjournments
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     See 140 CONG. REC. 27662, 27663, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 4, 
1994.
13.     David E. Skaggs (Colo.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 414]]

Sec.    5.9 The House may authorize its conferees to sit during recesses 
or during adjournments between sessions of a Congress.

On Dec. 21, 1937,(14) Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made the following 
request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the 
adjournment of the House, the House conferees in charge of the bill 
H.R. 8730, the National Housing Act, may be allowed to sit during the 
adjournment.
THE SPEAKER:(15) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
There was no objection.(16) 

Proxy Voting

Sec.    5.10 Proxy voting by Senate conferees is a matter to be 
determined among the conferees themselves.

On Aug. 24, 1950,(17) Senator Burnet R. Maybank, of South Carolina, 
made the following parliamentary inquiry:

If a conferee is absent from a meeting of the conference, and should 
leave his proxy, could his proxy be voted if the other conferees 
agreed?
I desire to have the judgment of the President of the Senate on that 
question.
THE VICE PRESIDENT:(18) In the opinion of the Chair that is a matter 
for the conferees themselves. If they agree that the absent member of 
the conference may have his vote recorded, the Chair knows no rule 
against it.

Requirements for Filing Conference Report

Sec.    5.11 A conference report cannot be filed before the conferees 
have been formally appointed in both Houses and had a meeting.

On Sept. 28, 1976, the conferees representing the House met with the 
not-yet-appointed Senate conferees to reconcile the differences on S. 
3131, amending the Rail Passenger Service Act. A consensus was reached, 
the conferees signed the report which was subsequently filed in the 
House on Sept. 29, 1976.(19) 
When it was then determined that the Senate had never, in fact, 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     82 CONG. REC. 2045, 2046, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
15.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
16.     See also 82 CONG. REC. 1905, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 18, 1937.
17.     96 CONG. REC. 13266, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
18.     Alben W. Barkley (Ky.).
19.     H. Rept. No. 94-1734, 122 CONG. REC. 33761, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., 
Sept. 29, 1976.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 415]]

formally appointed its conferees, the report was again filed in the 
House following the official notification, by message, that the 
conferees had been named.(20) Note the sequence of Senate action and 
the single message to the House in which the Senate announces not only 
its agreement to the House request for a conference and the appointment 
of conferees, but also its agreement to the conference report.(1) 
The proceedings in the Senate were as follows:

MR. [JOHN O.] PASTORE [of Rhode Island]: Mr. President, I ask the Chair 
to lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on 
S. 3131.
The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate a message from the House 
of Representatives insisting upon its amendments to the bill (S. 3131) 
to amend the Rail Passenger Service Act to provide financing for the 
National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and for other purposes, and 
requesting a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the 
two Houses thereon.
MR. PASTORE: I move that the Senate disagree to the amendments of the 
House and agree to the request of the House for a conference on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that the Chair be 
authorized to appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to: and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. 
Magnuson, Mr. Pastore, Mr. Hartke, Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Ford, Mr. 
Weicker, and Mr. Beall conferees on the part of the Senate. . . . 
MR. PASTORE: Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of 
conference on S. 3131, and ask for its immediate consideration.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(2) The report will be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 3131) to amend the Rail 
Passenger Service Act to provide financing for the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation, and for other purposes, having met, after full 
and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
respective Houses this report, signed by all of the conferees.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.

The proceedings in the House(3) when it received a message from the 
Senate regarding S. 3131 are set out below:

The message . . . announced that the Senate disagrees to the amendments 
of 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     H. Rept. No. 94-1743, 122 CONG. REC. 34322, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., 
Sept. 30, 1976.
 1.     122 CONG. REC. 33829, 33831, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. Sept. 30, 1976.
 2.     John C. Culver (Iowa).
 3.     122 CONG. REC. 34100, 34101, 34202, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 
30, 1976.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 416]]

the House to the bill (S. 3131) entitled "An act to amend the Rail 
Passenger Service Act to provide financing for the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation, and for other purposes," agrees to the 
conference asked by the House on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. Magnuson, Mr. Pastore, and Mr. Hartke, 
Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Ford, Mr. Weicker, and Mr. Beall to be the 
conferees on the part of the Senate. . . . 
The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the report of the 
committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 
the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 3131) entitled "An Act to 
amend the Rail Passenger Service Act to provide financing for the 
National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and for other purposes." . . . 
Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia] submitted the following 
conference report and statement on the Senate bill (S. 3131) to amend 
the Rail Passenger Service Act and to provide financing for the 
National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and for other purposes.
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 94-1743)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 3131) to amend the Rail 
Passenger Service Act to provide financing for the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation, and for other purposes, having met, after full 
and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
House to the text of the bill and agree to the same with an amendment 
as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House 
amendment insert the following . . . .

What Constitutes a Conference Meeting

Sec.    5.12 Instance where a privileged motion to close a conference was 
offered, debated, and ultimately rejected by the House after a 
discussion of what actions and gatherings of conferees, under the 
rules, constitute a "meeting" of a conference committee. 

On Apr. 13, 1978,(4) although the Speaker was not called upon to 
interpret when informal discussions and gatherings of conferees cross 
the threshold of the requirement in Rule XXVIII clause 6(a) that 
conference meetings be open except when closed in accordance with that 
clause, the debate on a motion to close a conference is informative.
PRIVILEGED MOTION RELATING TO CLOSING TO THE PUBLIC CONFERENCE 
COMMITTEE MEETINGS ON H.R. 5289, RELATING TO NATURAL GAS REGULATION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     124 CONG. REC. 10128, 10133, 10134, 10136, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 417]]

MR. [TONY] MOFFETT [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged 
motion.
The Clerk read the motion as follows:

Mr. Moffett moves, pursuant to rule XXVIII 6(a) of the House rules that 
the conference committee meetings between the House and the Senate on 
H.R. 5289, relating to natural gas regulation, be closed to the public, 
provided however, that any sitting Member of Congress shall have the 
right to attend any closed or open meeting.

THE SPEAKER:(5) The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Moffett) has 
presented a privileged motion, and has control of the time.
The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. MOFFETT: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. . 
. . 
This is not a motion that in any way intends to inhibit or prohibit any 
informal discussions in which no substantive conclusions are reached. 
But, this has clearly become a closed conference in violation of the 
House rules.
Rule XXVIII 6(a) reads:

Each conference committee meeting between the House and Senate shall be 
open to the public except when the House, in open session, has 
determined by a rollcall vote of a majority of those Members voting 
that all or part of the meeting shall be closed to the public.

Mr. Speaker, the conference on energy has met for many, many hours this 
year, members of the conference from both parties. There has been 
approximately 1 hour of discussion that has been open to the public and 
the press. Some Members have been excluded from the meetings. I am not 
one of those Members. I have taken part in some of those closed 
discussions.
Before Easter I told the distinguished chairman of the conference and 
the distinguished and able chairman of the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce, on which I am proud to serve, that I felt I had to 
continue to raise objections to closed meetings, and that I was going 
to take my objections before my colleagues in the House. I think the 
issue here is, are we in violation of the House rules? I think the 
answer is clearly yes. Are we setting a dangerous precedent? The answer 
is clearly yes. . . . 
MR. [THOMAS L.] ASHLEY [of Ohio]: What the gentleman does not seem to 
understand is that this conference has broken down and the conference 
on the national energy plan has not met in some several weeks, nor is 
it meeting these days. What is going on is that there are informal 
discussions among some of the Senate conferees and some of the House 
conferees. Those that represent the House are not a majority of the 
House conferees.
So what I think we are trying to get at or I am trying to get at is the 
distinction between a conference committee meeting and the informal 
discussions that are going on in an effort to reach the kind of 
preliminary possible areas of agreement that could lead us back into 
the sunshine of an open conference session.
MR. [THOMAS J.] DOWNEY [of New York]: Well, the gentleman strikes a 
curious position. How is this to prevent 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 418]]

every conference from meeting informally and then at some final date 
adopting at a pro forma session of the conference what the agreements 
have been? To do what the gentleman is doing today and has been doing 
for several weeks leads us down a very dangerous road where the 
precedents are that there shall be no more open formal conferences.
MR. ASHLEY: If I can respond to that, I think the process that is being 
followed is consistent with the rules of the House . . . . 
Mr. Speaker, let me say that I fully appreciate what the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Carr) has just said. There is a basic and fundamental 
difference as to the interpretation of the rule, namely what 
constitutes a meeting of the conference. It is my absolute conviction 
that the meetings that have been transpiring are not meetings of the 
conference but are informal expressions between Members on both sides 
in an effort to advance-I will concede-in an effort to advance the 
business of the conference, but as I read the rule, as we meet in the 
sessions we have had, we are not meeting in a conference meeting. The 
conference broke down-if the gentleman is interested-the conference 
broke down because one member of the conference, who did not want an 
energy bill, insisted that he have the opportunity to ask 75 questions 
and he proceeded to ask those questions. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Moffett).
Under the rules of the House, this vote must be determined by the yeas 
and nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 6, nays 
371, not voting 57.

Parliamentarian's Note: There are few precedents directly on the point 
of "what is a conference meeting." Jefferson's Manual,  House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 539, 105th Congress, suggests that a conference essentially 
occurs when a majority of managers from each House, assemble to 
negotiate in a parliamentary manner the differences before them. See 
also 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 578, where an allegation that members 
of a committee were conducting closed deliberations and excluding a 
committee member were discussed in the context of the rules governing 
House committee deliberations.

Recommittal of Conference Report To Avoid Point of Order

Sec.    5.13 Where managers on the part of the House had signed a 
conference agreement before their formal appointment by the Speaker, 
the re-


[[Page 419]]

port was, by unanimous consent, recommitted (to the same conference) so 
that a formal, open meeting of the conferees could take place and a new 
report filed.

The adoption of Rule XXVIII clause 6,(6) which requires meetings of a 
conference committee to be open unless formally closed by a vote of the 
House, has narrowed the reach of older precedents which stood for the 
proposition that where a report was signed by a majority of managers, 
the Chair would not look behind the signatures for irregularities in 
the conduct of a conference meeting.(7) In a situation like the one 
discussed here, taken from the proceedings of Mar. 25, 1980,(8) where 
conferees had inadvertently signed the report before their formal 
appointment, a point of order would lie against the report under the 
cited rule.
RECOMMITTAL TO CONFERENCE OF S. 662, INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS 
AUTHORIZATION
MR. [HENRY S.] REUSS [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to recommit the Senate bill, S. 662, to conference.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(9) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, could the gentleman tell me the title of the bill?
MR. REUSS: Yes; this is the bill containing authorization for the 
Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the 
African Development Fund.
MR. BAUMAN: Could the gentleman from Wisconsin explain to me why the 
chairman is asking to recommit this bill?
MR. REUSS: Yes, though not without some embarrassment. Technically, it 
turned out that the conferees had conferred and done their business a 
few minutes before the House conferees were, in fact, appointed. That 
was one of those slips betwixt the cup and the lip which occur because 
of the length of our corridors. So, the report as it comes back to us 
is technically imperfect, and it is to correct that imperfection that I 
ask this unanimous-consent request.
MR. BAUMAN: Further reserving the right to object, I assume what the 
gentleman is saying is that the consideration of the report in 
conference did not comply with rule XXVIII, which requires an open 
conference meeting unless the House votes otherwise?
MR. REUSS: I believe that is the relevant section. In any event, 
whether it is 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 913d (1997).
 7.     See Conferences Between the Houses, House Practice, Sec. 11, p. 
319 (1996).
 8.     126 CONG. REC. 6429, 6430, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9.     John P. Murtha (Pa.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 420]]

rule XXVIII or not, and I do not have it in front of me, it obviously 
was unintentionally improper, and we seek to correct that by doing it 
right.

Waiving Points of Order Where Conferees Never Met

Sec.    5.14 Where a conference report was filed showing signatures by a 
majority of the conferees, but where they had never met, a special 
order was reported from the Committee on Rules and adopted by the House 
waiving points of order against the report and against its 
consideration.

Rule XXVIII clause 6(a),(10) adopted in the 94th Congress, requires 
conference meetings to be open to the public. That requirement was not 
met by the conferees on H.R. 4021, the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 
1986, and House Resolution 569 was reported to protect a point of order 
under that rule. The resolution was adopted without incident.(11) 

MR. [JOHN JOSEPH] MOAKLEY [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 569 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 569
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4021) to 
extend and improve the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, all points of order 
against the conference report and against its consideration are hereby 
waived, and the conference report shall be considered as having been 
read when called up for consideration.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(12) The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] is recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
MR. [JAMES H.] QUILLEN [of Tennessee]: . . . The Rehabilitation Act 
Amendments of 1986 are most important. This measure should be enacted 
into law despite the discrepancy in the procedure involved before it 
came to the Rules Committee. I understand that there was no conference 
meeting of Members held on this measure.
Mr. Speaker, this is most unusual. I do not recall another instance 
where the conferees of the House and the Senate have not gotten 
together and reached an agreement and reported the measure out for our 
consideration. However, the urgency of the adoption of the 
Rehabilitation Act amendments is so urgent that I feel the Rules 
Committee took the right step in reporting it out.

Where Conferees Did Not Meet
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 913d (1997).
11.     See 132 CONG. REC. 28077, 28078, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 2, 
1986.
12.     Richard J. Durbin (Ill.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 421]]

Sec.    5.15 Where conferees had been unable to meet in a formal session 
but reconciled their differences by telephone and then signed the 
report, the House adopted a special order "deeming" the report to have 
been recommitted, waiving all points of order against the consideration 
of any subsequent conference report filed after a valid meeting.

The resolution(13) reported from the Committee on Rules and the 
explanation thereof by Mr. Martin Frost, of Texas, show how adoption of 
the special order could actually expedite the adoption of a  conference 
report on the bill. Failure of the conferees to meet would have made 
the initial report subject to a point of order;(14) by recommitting the 
report and then waiving the three-day layover requirement in Rule 
XXVIII clause 2(a),(15) and the requirement of printing the report in 
the Congressional Record, the report could actually be considered (and 
was so considered) in the House later that same day after a valid 
conference meeting was held and a new report filed.
MR. FROST: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 293 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 293
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the conference 
report on the bill (H.R. 2712) to facilitate the adjustment or change 
of status of Chinese nationals in the United States by waiving the two-
year foreign residence requirement for "J" nonimmigrants shall be 
considered as having been recommitted to conference. All points of 
order against consideration of any subsequent conference report on the 
bill for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 2 of rule 
XXVIII are hereby waived.

THE SPEAKER:(16) The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] is recognized for 
1 hour.
MR. FROST: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon, 
pending which 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     See H. Res. 293 at 135 CONG. REC. 29897, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., 
Nov. 17, 1989.
14.     See 5 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 6458. Rule XXVIII clause 6, House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 913d (1997), adopted by the House in 1975, also 
requires an open conference meeting and would subject a report to a 
point of order where this requirement was ignored.
15.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
16.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------  

[[Page 422]]

I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 293 provides for the recommittal to 
conference of the conference report on H.R. 2712, the Chinese 
Adjustment of Status Facilitation Act of 1989. The resolution also 
waives clause 2 of rule XXVIII against consideration of any subsequent 
conference report on the bill. Clause 2 of rule XXVIII prohibits 
consideration of any conference report until the third calendar day 
after such report and the accompanying statement has been filed in the 
House and the report and statement have been available to Members for 
at least 2 hours prior to such consideration.
Mr. Speaker, the recommittal of the bill to conference is necessary due 
to the inability of the conference committee to formally meet in the 
absence of its chairman, Mr. Brooks. However, informal meetings have 
taken place and the conferees have reached agreement. Due to the 
urgency for action on this measure, Mr. Kastenmeier was named as a 
conferee on Tuesday.
In an attempt to file this conference report during the last days of 
this session, the members of the conference concluded that it would not 
be practical to meet formally. However, under the rules of the House a 
point of order could be raised against the conference report, resulting 
in its rejection. Rather than establish a new conference, the conferees 
have informed the Rules Committee of their intention to meet today and 
formally report the conference report on this bill.
As stated earlier, the rule would allow consideration of the subsequent 
conference report by waiving the 3-day layover and availability 
requirement.

The conference report on H.R. 2712 was adopted on Nov. 19, 1989.(17) 

"Rules" for Conducting Complex Conference

Sec.    5.16 A member of the conference committee on an omnibus budget 
reconciliation act inserted in the Congressional Record a tentative 
list of procedures and "understandings" to be followed by House 
conferees in their deliberations during "subconferences" with the 
Senate.

The complexity of appointing conferees which can touch all the 
jurisdictional bases in a text within the jurisdiction of 17 House 
committees is obvious from the statement of Mr. Leon E. Panetta, of 
California, the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, and by 
the rules established by  the "general conferees" to govern the 
conference deliberations. The Congressional Record extract carried here 
is self-explanatory:(18) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     See 135 CONG. REC. 30101, 30102, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     127 CONG. REC. 16002, 97th Cong. 1st Sess., July 16, 1981.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 423]]

MR. PANETTA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide an update on the 
reconciliation conference. The conferees were appointed yesterday. Some 
17 House Committee jurisdictions are involved. One hundred and eighty-
four Members of the House were appointed, some 72 Members for the other 
body, a total of 256 Members will be participating in this conference 
which is the largest in the history of the Congress. 
Leadership understandings have been developed as well as rules on 
reconciliation and those have been sent out to all conferees. A copy of 
those agreements are included at the conclusion of my remarks. . . . 
At this point I am encouraged that the various committees are moving 
expeditiously toward resolution on reconciliation.

RULES FOR RECONCILIATION CONFERENCE
1. Budget Committee conferees are general conferees. They may attend 
and vote in any of the sub-conferences.
2. Proxies are permissible.
3. Sub-conference members may vote on only those issues within the sub-
conference for which they were appointed.
4. Sub-conferences will be convened by the responsible House committee 
chairmen.
5. The conference agreement should be limited to matters in either the 
Senate or House bills or related thereto.
6. Each sub-conference will prepare its portion of the joint statement 
of the managers and the legislative language to be included in the 
conference report.
7. All provisions agreed upon by the conferees will be priced by the 
Congressional Budget Office. Sub-conferences are therefore urged to 
work closely with CBO from the outset. Scoring will follow the same 
conventions that were used by CBO in the scoring of the House and 
Senate reconciliation bills.
8. Signature sheets and language for the conference substitute and the 
joint statement of managers will be collected by the House and Senate 
Budget Committees' staffs and assembled by those staffs in conjunction 
with the House and Senate Legislative Counsel. 
9. The conference will not be concluded until a majority of the general 
conferees from the House and the Senate sign the conference report in 
their capacity as general conferees.
10. All sub-conferences are requested to notify the appropriate House 
or Senate Budget Committee in advance as to the time and place of 
sub-conference meetings. If possible, notice should be 24 hours prior 
to sub-conference meetings. House and Senate Budget Committees will 
post sub-conference schedules in a prominent place. Information 
regarding subconference meetings should be directed to the House Budget 
Committee staff at 225-7234 or 225-7241 and to the Senate Budget 
Committee staff at 224-1458 or 224-0846.
LEADERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS
1. The Senate will amend the House bill with an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
2. A majority of the conferees appointed for each subconference will be 
members who supported the reconciliation bill on final passage.
3. Sub-conferees will not reopen provisions which are the same in both 
bills and are urged to agree on substantially identical provisions.
4. The leadership of both Houses will make every effort to get 
conference agreements on all issues, as quickly as possible.


[[Page 424]]

5. Assuming that the conference reaches full agreement on a conference 
substitute, the House leadership will support a rule which makes the 
conference report in order and waives all necessary points of order.

Portions of a Conference Transcript Were Published in the Record

Sec.    5.17 A member of the Senate inserted into the Record a portion of 
the transcript of a conference session, held in the previous Congress.

On June 20, 1983,(19) Senator Gary Hart, of Colorado, inserted in the 
Congressional Record the transcript of a conference committee session 
held in the previous Congress. He stated that the proceedings would 
"shed additional light" on the congressional "intent" in formulating 
the provisions of a law enacted in the prior year. The Senator's 
request and his explanation, as well as a portion of the transcript, 
are included here.
URANIUM MILL TAILINGS STANDARDS
MR. HART: Mr. President, there has been quite some discussion recently 
about the final standards issued by the Environmental Protection Agency 
for inactive uranium mill tailings sites and the proposed standards for 
active sites.
Some of this discussion centers on modifications to the Uranium Mill 
Tailings Regulation and Control Act of 1978 that were contained in the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act for fiscal years 1982 
and 1983. In particular, there are questions about the extent to which 
the Congress intended for the EPA, in setting its standards, to 
consider the cost of compliance.
To shed additional light on this question, I ask that the transcript of 
the August 19, 1982, conference on the NRC authorization bill be 
inserted in the Record at this point, along with an April 28, 1982, 
letter from the EPA, referred to in the transcript.
The material follows:
JOINT HOUSE-SENATE CONFERENCE, NRC AUTHORIZATION CONFERENCE, AUGUST 19, 
1982
The joint conference met at 3:10 p.m. room EF-100, the Capitol, Hon. 
Morris K. Udall (chairman of the joint conference) presiding.
Present: Senators Simpson, Domenici and Hart
Representatives Udall, Ottinger, Lujan, Bingham, Seiberling, Marriott 
and Markey.
Representative Udall. The conference will resume its session.
I had hoped that we could have one last session today and wind this 
thing up, but I'm not sure that is in the cards. But it seems to me we 
ought not lose our momentum, to keep going and make some modest 
progress today. And then I hope we can set a date in September for a 
final meeting, what will be a final meeting and then wrap it up.
I think we ought to go first today to the Uranium Imports issue.
At our previous session Senator Simpson circulated to all members a 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     129 CONG. REC. 16356, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 425]]

proposal for handling this, and then I circulated a proposal for which 
differed in some considerable degree.
Those proposals are before the members of the conference, we can 
discuss them today if there is any inclination to do so.

Vote on Motion To Close Conference, Reducing Time

Sec.    5.18 A motion to close a conference meeting must be taken by the 
yeas and nays; and, by unanimous consent, the House has "clustered" 
this vote with others and reduced the time to five minutes.

The Speaker's postponement authority for votes, in Rule I clause 5(b), 
does not include the vote on closing a conference meeting, which must 
be taken by the yeas and nays under Rule XXVIII clause 6. But where 
circumstances and schedule permit, a unanimous-consent request such as 
that carried here, as excerpted from the Congressional Record of Aug. 
1, 1983,(20) can be used to expedite proceedings.
REDUCING TO 5 MINUTES TIME FOR VOTE ON MOTION TO CLOSE PORTIONS OF 
CONFERENCE ON S. 675
MR. [BILL] ALEXANDER [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the yea and nay vote required by clause 6, rule XXVIII, on 
the motion to be offered by the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee to close portions of the conference on the bill, S. 675, be a 
5-minute vote. That motion will immediately follow the yea and nay vote 
on the motion to postpone House Resolution 256 indefinitely.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.

Motion To Dispose of Senate Amendments, En Bloc, Before Stage of 
Disagreement

Sec.    5.19 Example of the use of a special order to permit the House to 
consider one privileged motion to dispose of Senate amendments to a 
House bill, waiving all points of order against the motion and 
specifying that the motion is not subject to a demand for division of 
the question unless demanded by the Majority Leader or his designee.

Before the stage of disagreement is reached on amendments of one House 
to a bill of the other, a special order is often used to dispose of 
such amendments. The formulation of such a rule may be taken 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     129 CONG. REC. 22029, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 426]]

before the amendments are actually before the House, as in the example 
carried here.(1) The Committee on Rules reported the special order on 
Nov. 9, 1995; the Senate did not message its amendments to the House 
until Nov. 10, 1995, following the filing of the anticipatory rule.
The Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations(2) offered the motion 
permitted by the special order later on that same day.(3) The Senate 
amendment numbered 3 proposed to strike a portion of the House bill and 
insert a new provision. This motion to strike out and insert not being 
subject   to a division, Mr. Livingston's amendment proposed to delete 
the Senate's insertion and then to strike the portions of the House 
text-thus removing from the bill all provisions dealing with the use of 
federal subsidies or grants to lobby government officials or agencies.
The rule, the motion, and a portion of the debate on both are carried 
here.

MR. [DAVID] DREIER [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 261 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 261
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to take from the Speaker's 
table the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115) making further continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes, with 
any Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House a motion 
offered by the majority leader or his designee to dispose of all Senate 
amendments. Any Senate amendments and motions shall be considered as 
read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their 
designees. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
motion to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for 
division of the question except any such demand made by the majority 
leader or his designee.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(4) The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
is recognized for 1  hour. 
MR. DREIER: . . . Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration in 
the House, without intervening point of order, of a motion if offered 
by the majority leader or his designee to dispose of Senate amendments 
to House Joint Resolution 115, a continuing resolution 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     See 141 CONG. REC. 32112, 32113, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 10, 
1995.
 2.     Robert Livingston (La.).
 3.     141 CONG. REC. 32135-37, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4.     John D. Hayworth, Jr. (Ariz.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 427]]

making appropriations for fiscal year 1996 through December 1, 1995.
This rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the 
majority leader and the minority leader or their designees, and further 
provides that the previous question is ordered to adoption of the 
motion without intervening motion or demand for a division of the 
question unless the demand is made by the majority leader or his 
designee. . . . 
MR. LIVINGSTON: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 261, I call 
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115), making further continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes, with 
Senate amendments thereto, and I offer a motion.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(5) Pursuant to House Resolution 261, the 
Senate amendments are considered as read.
The text of the Senate amendments is as follows:

Senate amendments:
Page 2, line 20, after "1948," insert: section 313 of the Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 
103-236),
Page 10, line 19, after "resolution." Insert: Included in the 
apportionment for the Federal Payment to the District of Columbia shall 
be an additional $15,000,000 above the amount otherwise made available 
by this joint resolution, for purposes of certain capital construction 
loan repayments pursuant to Public Law 85-451, as amended.
Page 15, strike out line 1 and all that follows over to and including 
line 7 on page 36, and insert:
TITLE III
PROHIBITION ON SUBSIDIZING POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS WITH TAX-PAYER FUNDS
SEC.[dwk1] 301. (a) LIMITATIONS.-(1) Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, any organization receiving Federal grants in an 
amount that, in the aggregate, is greater than $125,000 in the most 
recent Federal fiscal year, shall be subject to the limitations on 
lobbying activity expenditures under section 4911(c) (2)(B) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, except that, if exempt purpose 
expenditures are over $17,000,000 then the organization shall also be 
subject to a limitation on lobbying    of 1 percent of the excess of 
the exempt purpose expenditures over $17,000,-000 unless otherwise 
subject to section 4911(c)(2)(A) based on an election made under 
section 501(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will designate the motion.

The text of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Livingston moves:
(1) That the House concur in the amendment of the Senate numbered 1,
(2) That the House concur in the amendment of the Senate numbered 2,
(3) That the House concur in the amendment of the Senate numbered 3 
with an amendment as follows:
Delete the matter proposed by said amendment, and beginning on page 15, 
line 1 of the House engrossed joint resolution, H.J. Res. 115, strike 
all down to and including line 7, on page 36, and redesignate Title IV 
as Title III, and renumber sections accordingly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     David Dreier (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 428]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to House Resolution 261, the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized 
for 30 minutes. . . . 
MR. LIVINGSTON: . . . Mr. Speaker, I am offering a motion to dispose of 
these amendments. The first two are not controversial and make 
improvements to the CR and my motion is to concur with these 
amendments, for they are fine. The modification to the Simpson-Istook-
McIntosh language unfortunately is technically insufficient and 
therefore, is not acceptable. There is agreement that we can not get an 
acceptable version on this matter agreed to on this CR. Therefore, my 
motion is to delete the Senate proposed modification and to delete the 
underlying Simpson-Istook-McIntosh language, so that it hopefully will 
be addressed at another time.