[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[B. CONFERENCE MANAGERS OR CONFEREES]
[Â§ 7. Power and Discretion of Conferees]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 481-533]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
B. CONFERENCE MANAGERS OR CONFEREES
 
Sec.    7. Power and Discretion of Conferees

The authority of the managers at a conference is limited by several 
restrictions.(12) Their report is subject to a point of order if they 
agree to a provision that is beyond any of the limits of their 
authority.(13) First, conferees may consider only matters in 
disagreement between the two Houses.(14) This restriction now applies 
in situations where one House has stricken all after the enacting or 
resolving clause of a bill or resolution of the other and inserted in 
its place an entirely new bill (a substitute).(15) 
The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970(16) amended Rule XXVIII 
clause 3, to restrict the discretion of the conferees by prohibiting 
them from introducing in a conference substitute any additional topic, 
question, issue, or proposition, not committed to conference by either 
House, and by proscribing any modification in a conference substitute 
which would be beyond the scope of such specific topic, question, 
issue, or proposition as so committed to the conference committee by 
either or both Houses.(17) This represents a departure from the 
traditional custom of the House whereby conferees had extremely wide 
latitude when considering a bill or resolution and a substitute 
therefor. In the past in such cases conferees were free to discard 
language which occurred in both the original legislation and the 
substi-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     See generally Sec. 19, infra.
13.     See Sec. 19.1, infra.
14.     See Sec.Sec. 7.1-7.7, 19.5, 19.6, infra; and House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 546 (1997).
15.     Rule XXVIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(a) (1997). 
See Sec. 7.2, infra.
16.     84 Stat. 1140, Pub. L. No. 91-510, Sec. 125(b)(3) (Oct. 26, 
1970), which was adopted as part of the rules of the House pursuant to 
H. Res. 5, 117 CONG. REC. 114, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 1971.
17.     See Sec.Sec. 19.5, 19.6, infra.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 482]]

tute,(18) could report out any germane amendment,(19) and could 
even report from conference an entirely new bill germane to the subject 
matter before them.(20) 
Second, since the beginning of the 92d Congress, conferees have been 
required to take cognizance of the rule on germaneness.(1) Prior to 
this time, there was no procedure whereby the House could address 
itself specifically to the issue of nongermane Senate material 
contained either in conference reports or in amendments between the 
Houses.(2) The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970(3) added a 
provision to the rules of the House which required conferees to obtain 
specific prior authority from the House before they could agree to any 
Senate amendment which would be held nongermane if offered in the 
House.(4) The rules were amended again late in the 92d Congress(5) to 
delete this requirement of specific prior authority and to provide a 
method whereby separate votes could be taken during consideration of a 
conference report on nongermane matter contained therein. The rejection 
of any such Senate amendment results in the rejection of the entire 
conference report.(6) 
Third, conferees may not agree to any Senate amendment to a general 
appropriation bill 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     See 86 CONG. REC. 10146, 10174-77, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 12,
1940; and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3266.
19.     See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 3248, 3263, 3265.
20.     See 93 CONG. REC. 6361-82, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., June 4, 1947; 91 
CONG. REC. 2838-40, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 27, 1945; 8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec.Sec. 3248, 3263; and 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 6421, 
6423, 6424.
 1.     Rule XVI clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec.Sec. 794-800 
(1997). See generally Ch. 28, supra.
 2.     See 113 CONG. REC. 34032-34, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 28, 1967, 
especially the remarks of Messrs. Comer, Jones, and Celler regarding 
the Senate practice of adding nongermane amendments to House proposals.
 3.     84 Stat. 1140, Pub. L. No. 91-510, Sec. 126(b) (Oct. 26, 1970), 
which was adopted as part of the rules of the House pursuant to H. Res. 
5, 117 CONG. REC. 114, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 1971.
 4.     See annotation to Rule XX clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 
829 (1997).
 5.     H. Res. 1153, the provisions of which took effect immediately 
prior to the beginning of the 93d Congress.
 6.     Rule XXVIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(b) (1997).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[Page 483]]

which provides for an expenditure not previously 
authorized by law, and which would therefore violate Rule XXI clause 2,
(7) or any Senate amendment providing for an appropriation on any bill 
other than a general appropriation bill, unless prior specific 
authority to do so is granted by the House by a separate vote on each 
such amendment.(8) This general restriction on the authority of the 
managers does not apply when they consider a House amendment to a 
Senate bill.(9) Several additional specific exceptions to this 
restriction regarding consideration of Senate amendments should be 
noted. When a legislative item remains in an appropriation bill as 
passed by the House and a Senate amendment increases the amount of 
money being authorized, the conferees may agree to this without prior 
authority from the House.(10) Also when an appropriation bill is 
considered and passed in the House under a special rule which waives 
points of order against items therein unauthorized by law, the 
conferees may agree to these provisions although they remain 
unauthorized.(11) On one occasion conferees presented a conference 
report on a general appropriation bill which allocated to several 
projects specific funds which had not been authorized, and the Speaker 
overruled a point of order noting that these specifically allocated 
appropriations were contained within a lump-sum appropriation which was 
limited by the language of the bill to projects authorized by law.(12) 
Conferees need not obtain authority from the House to eliminate an 
appropriation contained in a Senate amendment to a legislative bill.
(13) 
On occasion, the conferees may recommend in their report that the House 
agree to an amendment in the third degree.(14) Although the report is 
subject to a point of order on that ground, the infraction may be 
ignored or waived.(15) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1997).
 8.     Rule XX clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997). See 
Sec.Sec. 7.19-7.22, 19.15, 19.16, infra.
 9.     Sec. 7.30, infra.
10.     Sec. 7.27, infra.
11.     Sec.Sec. 7.28, 7.29, infra.
12.     Sec. 19.22, infra.
13.     Sec. 19.21, infra.
14.     See Ch. 32, Sec.Sec. 6.3, 6.4, supra.
15.     See the proceedings concerning Senate amendment No. 47 to H.R. 
5389, 77 CONG. REC. 5975-6015, 6098-130, 6145-54, 6165, 6166, 73d Cong. 
1st Sess., June 14 and 15, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 484]]

Matters in Disagreement Between the Houses
Sec.    7.1 Where a Senate housing bill authorized a sum of money for 
education grants, and the House struck out this provision, the 
conferees remained within the scope of conference by retaining the 
provision but reducing the amount of the authorization.
On June 23, 1959,(16) the House was considering the conference report 
on S. 57, the Housing Act of 1959. Mr. Graham A. Barden, of North 
Carolina, rose with a point of order:

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the provisions of the 
conference report, and I do so realizing that I probably will be 
overruled on account of the fact that the rule seems to refer to 
amendments of the Senate. However, I think it is of sufficient 
importance at this time that a point of order should be discussed 
because in section 812 of the conference report it is stated:

There is hereby authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $300,000 
for a 3-year period commencing on July 1, 1959, to be used by the 
Housing and Home Finance Administrator for the purpose of providing 
scholarships and fellowships in public and private nonprofit 
institutions of higher education for the graduate training of 
professional city planning and housing technicians and specialists. 
Persons shall be selected for such scholarships and fellowships solely 
on the basis of ability.

Certainly that would have been subject to a point of order had this 
matter been brought to the House in a bill pending on the floor of the 
House. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(17) The Chair is ready to rule. The only question before 
the Chair is whether or not this provision was within the scope of the 
conferees. The Senate adopted this provision in toto, and it provided 
$500,000 for 3 years.(18) The conferees agreed upon $300,000 for 3 
years. The Chair cannot see how we can stretch it to the point where 
this matter would be subject to a point of order and states again that 
he believes it was definitely within the scope of the conferees and 
therefore overrules the point of order.
Scope of Discretion Between Dates
Sec.    7.2 Where one House strikes all after the enacting clause of a 
bill of the other, and inserts a new text, the conferees have a wide 
range of discretion in writing new language; but they continue to 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1933; and H. Jour. 431, 432, 73d Cong. 1st Sess. (1933).
16.     105 CONG. REC. 11599, 11600, 11615, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
18.     Parliamentarian's Note: The House had totally eliminated this 
scholarship provision when it passed S. 57.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 485]]

be bound by the differences submitted to them, and where dates are 
concerned, they cannot go beyond the latter or within the shorter.
On Dec. 11, 1967,(19) Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New York, the Chairman of 
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 7977, the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary 
Act of 1967. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, rose with a point of order:

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the conference report on 
the grounds that the House managers exceeded their authority and did 
not confine themselves to the differences committed to them, in 
violation of the rules and precedents of the House of Representatives.
The House bill, in section 107(a) provided a minimum charge of 3.8 
cents for bulk third-class mail effective January 7, 1968. Section 107
(a) of the Senate amendment provided a two-step minimum charge-the 
first of 3.6 cents effective January 7, 1968, and a second 4-cent rate 
effective January 1, 1969.
The differences committed to the conferees with respect to this postage 
rate and the effective dates for this rate were: A rate range between 
3.6 cents and 4 cents; a January 7, 1968, effective date for a one-rate 
charge with no further rate provided; and January 7, 1968, and January 
1, 1969, effective dates for any two-rate charges.
The conference report contains a two-rate charge-the first, 3.6 cents, 
effective January 7, 1968; the second, 4 cents effective July 1, 1969.

The July 1, 1969, effective date for a second rate goes beyond the 
disagreements confided to the conferees. By agreeing to any effective 
date for a second rate beyond January 1, 1969, the House managers have 
clearly exceeded their authority.
Mr. Speaker, the precedents of the House, Cannon's Precedents, volume 
VIII, section 3264, have established that where two Houses fix 
different periods of time the conferees have latitude only between the 
two, but may not go beyond the longer nor within the shorter. . . . 
Rule 28 clause 3 of the Rules of the House [as it existed in the 90th 
Congress] reads:

Whenever a disagreement to an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
has been committed to a conference committee it shall be in order for 
the Managers on the part of the House to propose a substitute which is 
a germane modification of the matter in disagreement, but their report 
shall not include matter not committed to the conference committee by 
either House.

The Senate bill was an amendment-in the nature of a substitute for the 
House bill. The conference report is an additional substitute on the 
same subject. However, the conference report distinctly includes matter 
not committed to the conferees by either House, and I make the point of 
order on that basis. . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     113 CONG. REC. 35811, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 486]]

THE SPEAKER:(20) Does the gentleman from New York desire to be heard on 
the point of order?
MR. DULSKI: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair sustains the point of order.
Sec.    7.3 Parliamentarian's Note: The report of the managers must not 
include matter not committed to the conference committee by either 
House, nor may their report include a modification of any specific 
topic, question, issue, or proposition committed to the conference 
committee by either or both Houses if that modification is beyond the 
scope thereof as so committed to the conference committee.(1) 
Multiple Points of Order Against Conference Report
Sec.    7.4 Instance where the Speaker entertained multiple points of 
order against a conference report and then overruled them all, finding  
that the conferees had stayed within the scope of the matters committed 
to them, even though they had-in some instances-added words and phrases 
not in either the Senate bill or the House amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
A rather protracted parliamentary battle over consideration of the 
Outer Continental Shelf Amendments of 1976 was concluded on Sept. 28, 
1976,(2) when actual debate on the conference report began. The Speaker 
first disposed of seven arguments that the conferees had gone beyond 
the confines set by Rule XXVIII clause 3, in reaching their compromise. 
Both Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, who pressed the various 
points of order, and Mr. John M. Murphy, of New York, who argued in 
defense of the conference agreement, made extensive arguments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 1.     The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 modified the rules of 
the House to place this restriction on the authority of the conferees 
when considering a bill and its substitute in conference. 84 Stat. 
1140, Pub. L. No. 91-510, Sec. 125(b)(3), (Oct. 26, 1970). Rule XXVIII 
clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(a) (1997); and Deschler's 
Procedure (93d Cong.), Ch. 33 Sec. 6.2, supra.
 2.     122 CONG. REC. 33020, 33021, 33023, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 487]]

MR. FISH: Mr. Speaker, prior to 1971, managers considering a bill and 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute were free to exercise wide 
discretion in discarding language appearing in both versions and in 
making germane amendments, even beyond the scope of the various issues 
in disagreement. All this was changed by the Legislative Reorganization 
Act of 1970. Section 125(B) of that act revised clause 3 of rule 28, so 
that each specific topic, question, issue, or proposition must now be 
looked at individually, as if linear amendments had been made by one 
House to the bill of the other. Under this rule the conferees cannot 
report new matter not committed by either House. Also, where the two 
Houses propose different language on a particular issue, the two 
versions set the boundaries for conference consideration of that issue. 
Amendments outside those boundaries may not be reported, even if 
germane. Where one House is silent on an issue proposed by the other, 
the silent House is deemed to be incorporating current law, if any, on 
the subject into its version. If both versions contain matter on a 
given issue, that issue must be reported by the conference, in 
disagreement if necessary. Finally, since the substitute is being 
handled as if it were several linear amendments, it is not in order for 
the managers to modify or fail to report language which is identical in 
both versions.
Mr. Speaker, the most glaring violation of rule 28, clause 3, is found 
at the bottom of page 27 of the printed version of the conference 
report in proposed subsection 22(e). In both the Senate bill and the 
House amendment a positive duty is put on designated officials to 
consider allegations of safety violations. Specifically, the Senate 
lists the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the department 
in which the Coast Guard is operating. The House lists the same two 
officials and adds the Secretary of Labor as well. With respect to this 
particular issue, therefore, the only matter in disagreement is whether 
or not to include the Secretary of Labor on the list. . . . 
Finally, proposed section 20(b)(1)(A) of the Senate bill and section 21
(c)(1) of the House amendment required Federal officials to, and I 
quote identical language from both versions, "promul-gate a complete 
set of safety regulations." The conference report gratuitously added 
the word "new" in the middle of the quoted language. Since both 
versions were identical, this should have been handled in the statement 
of the managers. It is not in order to consider such a modification of 
identical language, pursuant to rule 28, clause 3, and the conference 
report should be ruled out of order. I thank the Chair.
MR. MURPHY of New York: Mr. Speaker, before reviewing as the specific 
points of order, I must review the rules and procedures of the House. 
Rule 28, paragraph three, indicates whenever a disagreement to a bill 
through an amendment in the nature of a substitute has been committed 
to a conference committee, the conference may report a total substitute 
so long as no additional topic, question, issue, or proposition is 
included and so long as any modification suggested by the conference is 
not beyond the scope of the 


[[Page 488]]

topics, questions, issues, or propositions sent to such conference.

After hearing all of the argument, the Speaker ruled.

THE SPEAKER:(3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Fish) argues in his first point of 
order under clause 3, rule XXVIII, that the conferees have exceeded the 
scope of the matter committed to conference by removing from the 
Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating 
concurrent responsibility for considering allegations of violations of 
safety regulations. It is the Chair's opinion that the portions of the 
conference report dealing with safety regulations and enforcement must 
be read as a whole. The House and Senate versions had differing 
provisions on the various aspects of that subject and gave regulatory 
and enforcement responsibility to differing officials. The conference 
report compromise gives the authority to the Interior and Labor 
Departments and makes the conforming change in the provision dealing 
with consideration of allegations of violations. For the reasons stated 
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) the Chair overrules the 
point of order.
The gentleman's second point of order on scope deals with the findings 
at the beginning of the conference report, wherein the conferees agreed 
to language finding adverse impacts on the various States. It appears 
to the Chair that the language is between the Senate language, 
addressing the coastal zones of the various States, and the House 
language, addressing the various coastal States and other States. The 
conference language is no broader than the House language and the Chair 
overrules the point of order.
In his third point of order on scope, the gentleman from New York only 
points to language in the statement of managers and argues that a 
statement of intent by the conferees exceeds the scope of conference. 
Such a point of order must lie against language in the conference 
report itself and not in the joint statement and the Chair overrules 
the point of order.
The gentleman's fourth point of order on scope deals with the section 
of the conference report relating to judicial review of the Secretary 
of the Interior's determination whether to override State and regional 
recommendations as to development on the shelf. It appears to the Chair 
that the gentleman singles out one provision which must be read in 
conjunction with the other provisions in both bills on judicial review. 
Both bills provide for judicial review of shelf activities in other 
sections than the one pointed out. The conference language clarifies 
the fact that the limitation on judicial review of the Secretary's 
determination does not inhibit seeking judicial review of the 
underlying activities on the Outer Continental Shelf and does not 
exceed the scope of the matter committed to conference.
The gentleman makes several additional points of order on scope. The 
conference report exempted from the requirement of submission of 
development plans two regions, the Gulf of Mexico and Santa Barbara. 
The House 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 489]]

version had exempted areas where there had been development prior to 
January 1, 1975. The intent of the conferees, as expressed in the joint 
statement, was to name the areas on which there had been such 
development, rather than retain the broader and categorical language of 
the House amendment.
The gentleman also argues that the conferees have modified the 
requirement as to production rate by eliminating the word "efficient." 
As the manager of the conference report has pointed out, the word 
efficient appeared in differing phrases in the House and Senate bill. 
The Senate bill and the House amendment did not have identical tests 
and did not have identical purposes, as the Senate bill required 
submission of a plan and the House amendment required regulations. The 
modification of the language is clearly within the scope.
The last argument of the gentleman from New York is that the conferees 
have added the word "new" in a provision that did not contain that word 
in either the Senate bill or the House amendment. A careful reading of 
the Senate bill demonstrates that the two provisions were not 
identical, as the Senate bill contained the word "repromulgate," not 
contained in the House amendment. Therefore, the issue whether the 
regulations were to be new regulations or could be existing regulations 
was a matter before the conferees.
For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules all the points of order.
Conference Provision Not Au-thorized by Law
Sec.    7.5 Where the House provision in an appropriation bill provided 
$454.5 million for military assistance, including $54.6 million for the 
Republic of China and $50 million for Korea, and the Senate reduced the 
overall figure to $350 million and struck out the funds and the 
earmarking language for China, the conferees did not exceed their 
authority when they agreed to an overall figure of $404.5 million and 
included specific allocations for both countries carried in the House 
bill.
On Dec. 20, 1969,(4) Mr. Otto E. Passman, of Louisiana, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 15149, the foreign assistance appropriations 
bill for fiscal 1970. The House had passed H.R. 15149 under a special 
rule waiving points of order, and by so doing was able to send to the 
Senate a bill which appropriated $454.5 million for military assistance 
with $54.5 million earmarked for the Republic of China, despite the 
fact that 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     115 CONG. REC. 40447, 40448, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 490]]

the foreign assistance authorization bill, H.R. 14580, carried no 
earmarking language and authorized only $350 million for all military 
assistance. Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, raised a point of order 
against the conference report, contending that in restoring the 
earmarked $54.5 million for the Republic of China, the conferees agreed 
to a provision that was not authorized by law. Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded:

The gentleman from Illinois has raised a point of order against the 
conference report on the bill H.R. 15149.
. . . As pointed out in the debate on this point of order, the 
conference report now before the House does carry an amount for 
military assistance that is $54,500,000 above the figure which would be 
authorized by H.R. 14580, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1969.
However, the Chair recalls that when this appropriation bill passed the 
House, it was considered under a rule waiving points of order. The 
House agreed to a total figure for military assistance of $454,500,000. 
The Senate reduced this figure to $350 million. The conferees have 
reached an agreement between these two amounts, as they had the 
authority to do.
The Chair holds that the conferees have not exceeded their authority 
and overrules the point of order.
Conferees' Discretion Between a Named Sum and a Formula
Sec.    7.6 Where a Senate bill au-thorized appropriations for the 
federal payment to the District of Columbia in an amount equal to 40 
percent of revenues estimated un- der existing revenue-raising 
authority to be available for each fiscal year, and a House amendment 
in the nature of a substitute provided an annual authorization of $250 
million for each fiscal year, House conferees did not exceed their 
authority under Rule XXVIII clause 3 by recommending amounts which, 
though higher than those contained in the House amendment, were lower 
than the revenue estimates for those years and were based upon the 
revenue-raising au-thority conferred upon the District under existing 
law.
On Dec. 17, 1973,(5) the House was considering the conference report on 
S. 1435, the District of Columbia home rule bill. Mr. Earl F. 
Landgrebe, of Indiana, raised a point of order:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     119 CONG. REC. 42035, 42036, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 491]]

I raise a point of order against the conference report in reporting 
section 502-Authorization of Appropriations.
The conferees have clearly exceeded any authority in projecting a 
Federal payment of $300 million for fiscal year 1978.
The original Senate version of the bill called for a percentage of 
general fund revenues as the Federal payment. That percentage was 40 
percent by fiscal year 1978.
The House version called for a lump-sum payment not to exceed $250 
million.
The limits of disagreement are either a lump sum of $250 million or a 
percentage-40 percent-of whatever the general fund revenues are, not 
will be, in 1978. The conferees could have chosen either method. 
Instead, they chose to mix apples and oranges and come up with an 
authorization which not only exceeds the amounts stated in either 
version of the bill, but is an amount which greatly exceeds any figure, 
any statistic or any information presented for either committee's 
consideration.

Charles C. Diggs, Jr., of Michigan, Chairman of the Committee on the 
District of Columbia, responded to the point of order:

MR. DIGGS: . . . Mr. Speaker, the amounts in the conference report 
reflect the compromise between the House bill, as authorized and the 
amounts that would have been generated under the Senate provisions as 
estimated by the Executive Office of the Budget, and these amounts are 
not based on any subsequent authority which the Mayor and Council might 
need to raise revenue, but rather are firmly grounded in the basic 
revenue authority which is in the report. . . . 
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I think that the point of order raised by 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Landgrebe) should not be sustained.
THE SPEAKER:(6) The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from Indiana makes the point of order that the conferees 
have exceeded their authority under clause 3, rule XXVIII by including 
in section 502 of the conference report an authorization above the 
amounts contained in either the Senate bill or in the House amendment 
in the nature of a substitute. The Senate bill in section 201, provided 
that the authorization for the Federal payment for fiscal 1975 and each 
year thereafter shall be an amount equal to 40 per centum of such fees, 
charges, receipts, and revenues so estimated for such fiscal year. The 
House amendment, in section 502, provided for an annual authorization 
of $250,000,000 for fiscal 1975 and each year thereafter. During their 
deliberations, the conferees were provided by the District of Columbia 
government an estimate of general fund revenues for fiscal years 1975 
through 1978. . . . Based upon calculations of 40 percent of those 
estimated revenues the conferees have recommended authorization figures 
for fiscal years 1975 through 1978 which though higher than the 
authorizations for fiscal 1976, 1977, and 1978 in the House amendment 
are lower than the 40 percent of estimated revenue figures for those 
years submit-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 492]]

ted by the District of Columbia government to the conferees during 
their deliberations.
In the opinion of the Chair, the House conferees have remained within 
their scope of authority under clause 3, rule XXVIII and the point of 
order is overruled.
Increasing Entitlement Beyond Figure in Either Bill
Sec.    7.7 Where portions of a conference report on veterans' benefits 
contained higher entitlements for vocational rehabilitation assistance 
per month than those contained in either the House bill or  the Senate 
amendment, the Speaker held that the conferees had exceeded the scope 
permitted them by Rule XXVIII clause 3 and sustained a point of order 
against the report. 
On Aug. 22, 1974,(7) when the conference report on the Vietnam-Era 
Veterans' Readjustment Act was called up for consideration, a point of 
order was lodged against the report on the ground that the conferees 
had exceeded the scope of differences committed to them. After argument 
by the Member pressing the point of order, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, 
and the rebuttal by the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
Mr. William Jennings Bryan Dorn, of South Carolina, the Chair sustained 
the point of order. 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 12628, VIETNAM ERA VETERANS READJUSTMENT 
ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1974
MR. DORN: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill 
(H.R. 12628) to amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the 
rates of vocational rehabilitation, educational assistance, and special 
training allowances paid to eligible veterans and other persons; to 
make improvements in the educational assistance programs; 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:(8) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
POINT OF ORDER
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I ask to be recognized at the proper time to 
make a point of order against the conference report.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman can be recognized prior to the reading of 
the statement of the managers on the conference report.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     120 CONG. REC. 30050-52, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 8.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 493]]

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Iowa is recognized.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against the conference 
report on H.R. 12628, the Veterans Education and Rehabilitation 
Amendments of 1974. The conference report violates clause 3 of rule 
XXVIII in that the conferees exceeded the scope of the conference.
Clause 3 of rule XXVIII states, in part, that the report of conferees:

Shall not include matter not committed to the conference committee by 
either House, nor shall their report include a modification of any 
specific topic, question, issue, or proposition committed to the 
conference committee by either or both Houses if that modification is 
beyond the scope of that specific topic, question, issue, or 
proposition as so committed to the conference committee. (emphasis 
added)

H.R. 12628, as approved by this House on February 19, authorized a 13.6 
percent increase in monthly subsistence allowances for veterans 
participating in vocational rehabilitation training and veterans 
educational programs. The Senate, on June 19, adopted an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute that authorized an 18.2-percent increase in 
monthly payments under this legislation. The House subsequently 
disagreed with the Senate amendment and a conference was held.
Sections 2 and 5 of the House-passed bill provided for an increase in 
benefits of 13.6 percent for specific categories of eligible veterans 
and dependents. The corresponding provisions passed by the Senate, 
sections 101 and 213, authorize an increase of 18.2 percent in those 
benefits. The conference report, in sections 101 and 104, clearly 
authorize an increase of 22.7 percent in monthly allowances for those 
same categories of trainees. This modification is beyond the scope of 
the specific disagreement committed to the conference committee and is 
a clear violation of clause 3 of rule XXVIII. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, sections 101 and 104 of the conference report exceed the 
scope of the conference. And I ask that the point of order be 
sustained.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from South Carolina desire to be heard 
on the point of order?
MR. DORN: I do, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to explain the background of the 
particular provisions of the conference-reported bill which appear to 
be the basis for the gentleman's raising of a point of order.
To simplify my explanation, may I take the example of a single veteran 
who is attending full-time college training. Under the existing law he 
receives an educational allowance of $220 per month. This allowance is 
paid to him directly to assist in bearing his tuition, subsistence, and 
other educational expenses. As passed by the House, H.R. 12628 proposed 
to increase this allowance to $250, representing an increase of 13.6 
percent over the current rate. Following extended hearings and 
deliberations on the part of the Senate in which there was considerable 
support for an added or supplemental partial tuition allowance, which 
would also be payable directly to the veteran, the Senate returned our 
bill with an amendment in the nature of a complete substitute. Probably 
the most significant aspect of the Senate substitute 


[[Page 494]]

was to provide a new rate "package" consisting of an 18-percent 
increase in the basic monthly allowance to $260 for a single veteran, 
coupled with an additional "partial tuition assistance allowance" under 
a formula which would result, in the typical case, a maximum of $720 
per school year. Accordingly the total assistance package proposed by 
the Senate potentially available for a single veteran, including the 
partial tuition assistance allowance, would approximate $290 per month. 
. . . 
I think it is also significant to point out that the net fiscal effect 
of adoption of the conferees' recommendations will result in an annual 
savings to the Government of almost a half billion dollars per year 
over the Senate version.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, considered in the context of the overall 
rate structure package which was considered by the conferees, it is our 
strong conviction that the agreement on the single educational 
allowance rate contained in the conference bill does not violate either 
the letter or the spirit of rule XXVIII of the House of 
Representatives.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard very briefly further?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Iowa is recognized on his point of 
order.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that the gentleman has 
offered his resistance to the point of order based upon section 102 of 
the bill. My point of order goes to sections 101 and 104 of the 
conference report.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct.
Does the gentleman from South Carolina desire to be heard on the 
specific point of order made by the gentleman from Iowa? As the Chair 
understood it, the gentleman's argument related primarily to a point of 
order that might have been made on a different section.
MR. DORN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment further to the 
distinguished gentleman from Iowa.
The decision of the conferees to drop the partial tuition assistance 
and establish a single basic allowance of $270 for chapter 34 trainees 
encompassed 98 percent of all trainees involved. Since both the House 
and Senate bills set the same percentage increase for trainees under 
Chapter 34, which may be 98 percent of all trainees, and disabled 
veterans training under chapter 31 to make up 2 percent of the 
trainees, the conferees decided to remain consistent to the positions 
of both the House and Senate, and therefore extended the 23 percent 
increase to all classes of veterans.
THE SPEAKER: Is the gentleman arguing correctly to the point of order, 
or is the gentleman, in effect, conceding?
The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Iowa makes a point of order against the conference 
report on H.R. 12628, the Veterans Education and Rehabilitation Act 
Amendments of 1974, on the ground that the conferees have exceeded the 
scope of their authority.
Specifically, it is alleged that the conference report provides a 
greater amount of vocational rehabilitation assistance per month and a 
greater apprenticeship or on-the-job training assistance, per month 
than either the House or Senate versions.
The Chair has examined section 101 of the conference report, which 
amends 


[[Page 495]]

a table in title 38, United States Code, section 1504(b) to provide 
$209 a month in vocational assistance for a veteran with no dependents 
enrolled full time at an educational institution. Section 2 of the 
House bill amends the payment figure to provide $193 a month. Section 
101 of the Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute amends the 
same figure to provide only $201 a month.
The conference amendment clearly exceeds the dollar amount of either 
the House or Senate version.
Similarly, section 104 of the conference report amends a table in title 
38, United States Code, section 1787(b) to provide $196 a month 
assistance during the first 6 months for an individual with no 
dependents, for apprenticeship or on-the-job training.
The House bill provides, in section 5, $182 for that purpose, and the 
Senate amendment provides, in section 213, $189 for that purpose.
The conference report exceeds the dollar amount contained in both the 
House bill and the Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute.
As the conferees have exceeded their authority under clause 3, rule 
XXVIII, the Chair therefore sustains the point of order against the 
conference report.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. DORN
MR. DORN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recede from its 
disagreement to the Senate amendment to the text of the bill and agree 
to the same with the following amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Dorn moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
Senate amendment to the text of the bill and agree to the same with the 
following amendment: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by 
the Senate amendment to the text of the bill, insert the following:
That this Act may be cited as the "Vietnam-Era Veterans' Readjustment 
Assistance Act of 1974".
Application of the Scope of Conference Rule; Compromise Between No 
Discretion and Broad Discretion
Sec.    7.8 Where a bill of one House permits an unlimited delegation of 
authority from a federal official to the states, and the version of the 
other House precludes any such delegation, the conferees may recommend 
a curtailed delegation without introducing a "new topic" and violating 
the "scope" rule.
When the conference report on the U.S. Grain Standards Act of 1976 was 
laid before the House as unfinished business on Oct. 1, 1976,(9) a 
point of order was raised as shown herein.

THE SPEAKER:(10) The unfinished business is the further consideration 
of the conference report on the bill (H.R. 12572) to amend the U.S. 
Grain Standards Act to improve the grain inspec-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     122 CONG. REC. 35102, 35103, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
10.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 496]]

tion and weighing system, and for other purposes, which the Clerk will 
report by title.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER: Pursuant to the order of the House on Thursday, September 
30, 1976, the conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement see proceedings of the House of 
September 29, 1976.)
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [W. HENSON] MOORE [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I renew the point of 
order I reserved at the conclusion of business on this conference 
report last evening.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, the point of order I make is that the 
conference report on page 5, section 8, subsection (5)(2) violates 
clause 3 of rule XXVIII of the Rules of the House. Clause 3 of rule 
XXVIII says, and I quote:

Whenever a disagreement to an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
has been committed to a conference committee it shall be in order for 
the Managers on the part of the House to propose a substitute which is 
a germane modification of the matter in disagreement, but the 
introduction of any language in that substitute presenting a specific 
additional topic, question, issue, or proposition not committed to the 
conference committee by either House shall not constitute a germane 
modification of the matter in disagreement. Moreover, their report 
shall not include matter not committed to the conference committee by 
either House, nor shall their report include a modification of any 
specific topic, question, issue, or proposition committed to the 
conference committee by either or both Houses if that modification is 
beyond the scope of that specific topic, question, issue, or 
proposition as so committed to the conference committee.

Mr. Speaker, I point out that in the House-passed bill, H.R. 12572, 
section 7(e) there is the proposal that the Secretary of Agriculture 
can determine a State agency that is qualified to perform official 
inspections, and can so designate it or delegate it under this section 
of the House bill.
Mr. Speaker, I point out that this section, section 7(e) of the House 
bill says that any State agency, past, present, or one that may come 
into being in the future, could be designated or could be delegated the 
authority to do inspections and weighing by the Secretary, if found to 
be qualified. . . . 
So what we have in the Senate bill is that no State agency or private 
agency is able to do any inspections. What we have under the House 
section is that any State agency existing now, in the past, or possibly 
in the future, could be delegated the authority to do inspections.
Then the conference report comes back, Mr. Speaker, and herein lies the 
point of order. The conference report comes back. Page 5, section 8, 
subsection (5)(1) amends (e)(2) of the existing act and says:

If the Administrator determines pursuant to paragraph (3) of this 
subsection that a State agency which was performing official inspection 
at an export port location under this Act on July 1, 1976, is qualified 
to perform official inspection and meets the criteria in subsection 
. . .


[[Page 497]]

And then goes on through.
The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that under clause 3 of 
rule XXVIII the insertion of this date sets up a new question, a new 
topic, a new issue, a new proposition for determining who is going to 
do inspections that was not in either the Senate bill which called for 
all Federal, or in the House bill which called for the availability of 
all States being able to do it.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that in the committee report from the 
House committee on this bill there are 17 States-17 States, Mr. 
Speaker-which have export ports: Alabama, California, Illinois, 
Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, 
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, 
Washington, and Wisconsin.
Under the Senate bill none of these 17 export States could have had a 
State grain inspection agency. Under the House bill any or all of these 
could be, depending upon the discretion of the qualifications by the 
Secretary of Agriculture.
But under the conference report, Mr. Speaker, nine States can by law, 
eight States cannot by law by the insertion of this new issue, this new 
topic of a grandfathering clause of July 1, 1976. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Washington desire to be heard on 
the point of order?
MR. [THOMAS S.] FOLEY [of Washington]: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the question has been raised on the point of order by the 
gentleman from Louisiana whether the provision in the conference report 
that authorizes the Secretary to designate certain agencies for 
inspection, if they were performing inspections on July 1, 1976, is 
beyond the scope of the conference, or not germane to the conference.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill, as the gentleman from Louisiana points 
out, requires exclusive Federal inspections at all export ports. The 
House bill authorized the Secretary at his discretion to delegate to 
State agencies that opportunity to perform inspections. The whole focus 
of the House debate in permitting State agencies to be delegated was to 
preserve the rights of those States who were carrying on inspections at 
the time that the particular bill was passed by the House and carried 
it on properly.
The discretion given to the Secretary was to determine whether they 
were carrying it on properly.
The conference determined that they would fix a time where States that 
were carrying on inspections properly would be eligible for further 
export inspection at the said Secretary's discretion.
The decision, I think, is germane to both the Senate bill and the House 
bill, but particularly to the House bill, that had focused on the 
opportunity for States that were carrying on inspections to do so.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I believe the point of order should be 
overruled. . . . 
MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. FOLEY: I yield for debate only. . . .  
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Louisiana is not speaking to the point 
of order. The gentleman is speaking to the merits and the gentlemen 
cannot 


[[Page 498]]

yield to each other on the point of order, the Chair controls argument 
on the point of order.
The Chair is prepared to rule.
From the joint statement, the Chair finds on pages 32 and 33, a 
discussion of who is to perform official inspection of export 
locations. The House bill and the Senate amendment amend section 7 of 
the act and provide that all grain required or authorized to be 
inspected under the act, at export port locations and export elevators 
in the case of the Senate amendment, and of U.S. grain in Canadian 
ports, be performed by authorized Federal employees.
The House bill, however, gives the [Secretary] the power to delegate 
his authority to a State inspection agency if he determines the State 
agency to be qualified, although the responsibility for such official 
inspection shall remain his; and he may revoke the delegation at any 
time without a hearing.
The Chair feels that the language clearly indicates that a broad 
authority to delegate to the States is given by the House to the 
Secretary, and that there is a limitation of that authority in the 
conference report. Therefore, the conference report represents a 
compromise between the total Federal inspection authority in the Senate 
amendment and the unlimited discretionary delegation of authority to 
the States in the House bill, which does not introduce a new topic 
which goes beyond the scope of the two versions.
The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.
Determining Questions of Scope; Changing Permissive to Mandatory 
Authority
Sec.    7.9 Where a Senate bill amended existing law to require that 
certain funds be utilized for the continuation of a research project, 
and not toward its cancellation, and House language authorized a sum 
for continuation, the conferees were held to have exceeded their 
authority by agreeing to a provision specifying a site for the project 
conditioned on considerations of health and safety, thus exceeding the 
"scope of differences" in conference; a point of order was sustained 
because of the inclusion of new matter not included in either version.
On Oct. 14, 1977,(11) a point of order was raised against a conference 
report on the Energy Research and Development Administration Act of 
1978 (S. 1811). The point of order was targeted at conference language 
contained in section 106(d)(3) of the agreement on the ground that the 
conference language specified a site of a proj-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     123 CONG. REC. 33770-72, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 499]]

ect which was funded in different manners by the Senate bill and House 
amendment. A portion of the disputed section of the conference report, 
the point of order and the arguments that followed are carried below. 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1811, ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOP-MENT 
ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1978
MR. [OLIN E.] TEAGUE [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference 
report on the Senate bill (S. 1811) to authorize appropriations to the 
Energy Research and Development Administration in accordance with 
section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, section 305 
of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and section 16 of the Federal 
Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, as amended, 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:(12) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
There was no objection. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [MORRIS K.] UDALL [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. UDALL: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a point of order against the 
conference report. Is this the appropriate time?
THE SPEAKER: It is.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. UDALL: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the conference 
report. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order. Section 106(d)(3), adopted by the 
conference committee on the bill now before the House, exceeds the 
authority of the conference committee in that it inserts new 
substantive provisions in the legislation which were not included in 
the bill, either as passed by the House or passed by the Senate.
I would like to be heard briefly on the point of order.

The portion of the conference text targeted by Mr. Udall was as 
follows:

"(d) The Congress declares that any funds appropriated pursuant to an 
authorization to design, construct, and operate a specified project or 
conduct a specified program are intended to be used only for the 
design, construction, and operation of that project or the conduct of 
that program, in accordance with such authorization. Accordingly- . . . 
"(3) such Project (notwithstanding any other provision of law or the 
structure, pace, and timing of the liquid metal fast breeder reactor 
program) shall be located at the existing Clinch Riversite, unless that 
site is determined to be unsuitable from the standpoint of radiological 
health and safety, and to the maximum extent  possible shall be 
designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the existing 
project arrangements, objectives, and schedules: Provided, That site 
preparation and 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 500]]

also those construction activities for which a construction permit is 
required shall not commence during the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1978, but the foregoing limitation on commencement of site preparation 
activities shall not be deemed to prohibit or in any way limit the 
grant of a limited work authorization for those activities during any 
fiscal year: Provided further, That the Secretary and all other 
appropriate Federal agencies are directed to undertake all such efforts 
as are necessary to assure that the earliest possible decisions on a 
limited work authorization and a construction permit are obtained: And 
provided further, That nothing in this Act shall be deemed to 
authorize, approve, or constitute a commitment to commercialization of 
LMFBR technology; and . . . 

Debate continued on Mr. Udall's point of order:

MR. UDALL: The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is based on the conference 
report violation of rule 28, which requires that the report shall not 
include matter not committed to the conference committee by either 
House. The offending provision of the conference report is section 106. 
It amends section 103 of Public Law 91-273 as amended, and impose new 
requirements on the Clinch River breeder project.
Specifically, section 106 would require that the project be located at 
the existing Clinch River site unless that site is determined to be 
unsuitable from the standpoint of radiological health and safety; that 
the "maximum extent possible" the project shall be designed, 
constructed and operated in accordance with existing arrangements, 
objectives and schedules; and the Secretary and "all other appropriate 
Federal agencies" (assumably the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) are 
directed "to undertake all such efforts as are necessary to assure the 
earliest possible decisions on a limited work authorization and a 
construction permit." . . . 
Mr. Speaker it cannot be argued that anything in the Senate bill or 
House amendment justifies this conference report's treatment of 
licensing issues. That both the House and the Senate conferees may have 
concluded that the project be built at Clinch River has nothing to do 
with the fact that under existing law the project must be licensed by 
the Commission at that site or another location. Under section 182(a) 
of the Atomic Energy Act "the place of the use" of the facility must 
"be in accord with the common defense and security" of the United 
States. By excluding the defense and security consideration, the 
Conference report directly modifies licensing requirements and nothing 
in either the House or Senate version addresses this issue.
The other provisions I mentioned are also modifications of existing 
licensing law and like the siting provisions, these modifications have 
no relation to the authorizations of the House and Senate bills. . . . 
The point of order should be sustained. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Teague) is recognized.
MR. TEAGUE: Mr. Speaker, this report has been adopted by the other 
body. During the debate on the floor, Senator Hart of Colorado asked 
Senator Church, the chairman of the subcommittee in the other body, 
about the same point the gentleman from Arizona 


[[Page 501]]

raises here. I would like to read Senator Church's answer because I 
think it is the best way to be stated.
Senator Hart said to Senator Church:

*** I am concerned with one provision of the conference report which 
deals with the Clinch River breeder reactor project, and that language 
is contained in section 106(d)(3). *** I want to make sure that the 
record is absolutely clear that this section does not modify in any way 
the licensing and regulatory authority of the discretion of the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission under the Atomic Energy Act. *** I would greatly 
appreciate it if the Senator from Idaho would give me his assurances to 
that effect.
Senator CHURCH. *** The provision in the report to which he refers in 
no way limits the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
protect public health and safety or the common defense and security.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's authority to protect the 
environment of the Clinch River site is not limited. ***
There are no alternative sites before the Commission. The language of 
the report in no way interferes with the discretionary authority or the 
power of the Commission to proceed as it normally would to a conclusion 
of this proceeding.

THE SPEAKER: Do any other Members desire to speak on the point of 
order? . . . 
MR. [WALTER] FLOWERS [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be in 
order very briefly to review the facts of the matter.
First of all, the House passed the 1978 authorization bill for the 
project in the amount of $150 million, which contemplated construction 
at the site. The project was first authorized in Public Law 91-273.
The Senate-passed bill contains language which incorporates a heading 
entitled "The Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project."
Furthermore, the Senate incorporates by reference a letter from Dr. 
Robert Fri, Acting Administrator of ERDA, and a letter from the 
Comptroller General, Mr. Elmer Staats, both of which talk about the 
Clinch River breeder reactor project at the site, Clinch River.
We have not in the conference report done anything except specify the 
site. What has not been done is anything that would affect the 
licensing for the facility. . . . 
The conference committee has tried to bring together a fair compromise 
of the House and Senate positions. Both contemplate construction at the 
Clinch River, Tenn., site. That is what we are talking about, the Cinch 
River site.
What we tried to do in the conference report is to clearly focus our 
attention on that point so the issue is drawn.
Mr. Speaker, that is all we are trying to do, and I do not think that 
the point of order should be sustained. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: Do any other Members desire to be heard on the point of 
order?
MR. [JAMES M.] JEFFORDS [of Vermont]: I do, Mr. Speaker. I desire to be 
heard on the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Jeffords) on the point of order.
MR. JEFFORDS: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the critical question 
here is simply this: If neither the House nor the other body, in their 
provisions, amended a provision of the law, in this 


[[Page 502]]

case section 106 of Public Law 91-273, can the mere fact that one of 
the bodies, in their action, references a document-in this case it is, 
I believe, the Comptroller General's report-which mentions the law, 
they broaden the scope as they then did in conference so as to amend 
the law? . . . 
THE SPEAKER: Do any other Members desire to be heard on the point of 
order. 
If not, the Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of order against the 
conference report on S. 1811 on the ground that the conferees have 
included in their report new matter not committed to conference, in 
violation of clause 3 of rule XXVIII.
Section 106 of the conference report amends existing law to require 
that the Clinch River breeder reactor project be located at a certain 
site, unless determined unsuitable from the standpoint of radiological 
health and safety, to prohibit certain construction activities on such 
project in fiscal year 1978, and to assure expedited decisions on work 
authorizations and construction permits. Section 101 of the House 
amendment authorized a sum for the liquid metal fast breeder reactor 
project, and earmarked a certain portion of that sum for certain 
development and testing. Section 103 of the Senate bill S. 1811 amended 
existing law to require that funds appropriated for the Clinch River 
breeder reactor project, pursuant to the authorization in existing law, 
be applied towards the continuation of that project, and not towards 
its cancellation or termination.
Section 103 of the Senate bill S. 1811 amended existing law to state 
the intent of Congress and to require that funds appropriated for the 
Clinch River breeder reactor project, pursuant to the authorization in 
existing law, be applied towards that project, and not towards its 
cancellation or termination; the Senate bill also endorsed an opinion 
of the Comptroller General relating to the continuation of the project. 
Insofar as section 106 of the conference report requires that funds 
shall not be used to terminate the Clinch River project and requires 
that funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization for a specific 
project shall only be used to proceed with that project, the report 
constitutes a proper modification of the issues which were contained in 
section 103 of the Senate bill.
But the mandate of the new subsection 106(d)(3) added to Public Law 91-
273 as amended, by section 106 of the conference report, which requires 
that the project be located as a certain physical location, was not 
included in the Senate bill. Although the Senate bill did endorse on 
behalf of Congress an opinion of the Comptroller General which 
discusses the necessity of constructing the project at a certain site, 
the Senate bill did not absolutely require that result as does the 
conference report. Moreover, the report would allow altering that 
designated site in the case of unsuitability from the radiological 
health and safety standpoint. While it may be desirable as a matter of 
policy to include that exception, neither the House amendment nor the 
Senate bill addresses that policy. The remainder of subsection (d)(3) 
added by the report specifies a certain construction 


[[Page 503]]

schedule as a matter of law, which the gentlemen from Texas and 
Washington have characterized as a compromise between the full level of 
funding adopted by the House and the lesser authorization adopted by 
the Senate.
The Chair appreciates the difficulty of the conferees in fashioning a 
recommendation incorporating the concerns of the House and Senate in 
this complex area. It appears to the Chair, however, that the Senate 
bill and the House amendment, as well as the hearings, reports and 
debates in both Houses addressed a variety of conceptual issues but did 
not commit to conference language which allowed the conferees to enact 
those issues into affirmative and mandatory provisions of law.
The Chair feels that a precedent relevant to the present situation 
occurred on December 20, 1974, as cited in Deschler's Precedents, 
chapter 33, section 6.9.(13) On that instance, Speaker Albert ruled 
that the inclusion of a new provision in a conference report, relating 
to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, was in violation of clause 
3 of rule XXVIII, since that specific topic had not been addressed in 
either the House bill or the Senate amendment thereto. The argument was 
made on that occasion that the Senate amendment if enacted would have 
required, under existing law, the result mandated by the new provision 
in the conference report. The Chair ruled as follows in response to 
that argument: "If what the gentleman says is true, the addition of 
this language in the conference report would have been redundant. To 
have put it in the conference report would have been unnecessary; the 
Chair must conclude that a new issue has been injected which was not 
contained in the Senate amendment."
For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. TEAGUE
MR. TEAGUE: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Teague moves that the House insist on its amendment to the Senate 
bill S. 1811 and request a further conference with the Senate thereon.

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Teague).
The motion was agreed to.
Determining Scope of Conference Where One House Silent on Issue
Sec.    7.10 While the scope of differences committed to conference, 
where one House has amended an existing law and the other House has 
implicitly taken the position of existing law by remaining silent on 
the subject, may properly be measured between those issues presented in 
the amending language and comparable provisions of existing law, the 
inclusion in a conference report of new 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     See Sec. 7.10, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 504]]

matter not specifically contained in the amending version and not 
demonstrably repetitive of existing law may be ruled out as an 
additional issue not committed to conference in violation of Rule 
XXVIII clause 3.
On Dec. 17, 1974, House conferees exceeded their authority by filing a 
report which included a matter not in either the Senate amendment or 
existing law. The Senate amendment to the House bill had amended the 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to establish a thirteenth region 
for Natives not residents of Alaska and to create a Thirteenth Regional 
Corporation to receive and distribute benefits under the Act to new 
enrollees. The original House bill contained no comparable provision, 
so the House position was the existing law. By including in their 
report a provision for cancellation of stock previously issued by 
Native Corporations to Natives who enroll in the thirteenth region, a 
matter not contained either in the Senate amendment or specifically 
provided in existing law,(14) the House conferees exceeded their 
authority under Rule XXVIII clause 3.(15) 

MR. [LLOYD] MEEDS [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 620) to establish within the 
Department of the Interior an additional Assistant Secretary of the 
Interior for Indian Affairs, 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:(16) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Washington?
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [DONALD E.] YOUNG of Alaska: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. YOUNG of Alaska: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that section 
5(e) of the conference report introduces language presenting a specific 
topic or question that was not committed to the conference committee by 
either House and is not a germane modification of the matters in 
disagreement. The insertion of section 5(e) is a violation of clause 3 
of rule XXVIII of the rules of the House.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Washington wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
MR. MEEDS: I do, Mr. Speaker.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 85 Stat. 692, 693.
15.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 913a (1997). See ruling at 120 CONG. 
REC. 41849, 41850, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 20, 1974.
16.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 505]]

Mr. Speaker, both the conference report and the Senate bill give 
authority for the distribution of certain funds and provides that the 
13th region, which would be created or provided by the conference bill, 
would be payable to these people as though the 13th region had been 
created in December of 1973.
Now, while the Senate bill did not mention the question of stock, that 
if the Senate bill had been passed it would have been necessary to do 
precisely what we have done in the conference report.
Therefore, the intended power of the Senate bill is covered in the 
language of the conference report and the conference reported bill. It 
is clearly within the scope, because it would absolutely be necessary 
to do this to carry out the Senate bill as it was enacted and it was in 
conference.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair has examined the Senate amendment and finds that there was 
absolutely no reference in the Senate amendment that the Chair finds to 
a cancellation of stock previously issued by Native corporations to 
Natives who are enrolled in the 13th region. Therefore the conference 
report is in violation of clause 3, rule XXVIII.
The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.
MR. MEEDS: Mr. Speaker, could I be heard?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman may be heard, but will the gentleman 
indicate that there is new language in the conference report not 
contained in the Senate amendment.
MR. MEEDS: Mr. Speaker, I agree there is not language in the Senate 
bill which does this, but if the Senate bill were carried out after it 
were passed, what is set forth in the conference report would have to 
be done. It is a mechanical thing that would necessarily follow.
When the 13th region was not created, certain stock was issued to 
individuals who would have been members of that 13th region in other 
corporations. When the 13th region is created, as it is by the Senate 
bill and by conference, it would then be necessary to redistribute and 
refund that fund, so it is a necessary concomitant of either bill that 
this procedure be carried out, and it is simply set out in the 
conference reported bill.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will read clause 3, rule XXVIII:

Whenever a disagreement to an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
has been committed to a conference committee it shall be in order for 
the Managers on the part of the House to propose a substitute which is 
a germane modification of the matter in disagreement, but the 
introduction of any language in that substitute presenting a specific 
additional topic, question, issue, or proposition not committed to the 
conference committee by either House shall not constitute a germane 
modification of the matter in disagreement.

If what the gentleman says is true, the addition of this language in 
the conference report would have been redundant. To have put it in the 
conference report would have been unnecessary; the Chair must conclude 
that a new issue has been injected which was not contained in the 
Senate amendment.


[[Page 506]]

The Chair, much as he dislikes to do so, must sustain the point of 
order.

The provision in the conference report toward which the point of order 
was directed was as follows:(17) 
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 93-1620)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 620) to establish 
within the Department of the Interior an additional Assistant Secretary 
of the Interior for Indian Affairs, 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 House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
Senate with an amendment as follows:
That there shall be in the Department of the Interior, in addition to 
the Assistant Secretaries now provided for by law, one additional 
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs, who shall be 
appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the 
Senate, who shall be responsible for such duties as the Secretary of 
the Interior shall prescribe with respect to the conduct of Indian 
Affairs, and who shall receive compensation at the rate now or 
hereafter prescribed by law for Assistant Secretaries of the 
Interior.  . . . 
SEC. 5. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688) is 
hereby further amended by inserting at the end thereof a new section 28 
as follows: . . . 
"(e) Any stock issued by a corporation under subsection (g) of section 
7 of this Act to any Native who is enrolled in the thirteenth region 
pursuant to this section shall, upon enrollment of that Native, be 
canceled by the issuing corporation without liability to it or the 
Native whose stock is so canceled.
Sec.    7.11 In determining whether a provision in a conference report 
goes beyond the bounds set by the differences committed to conference, 
where one House is silent on the subject, the Speaker must: (1) analyze 
the Senate language; (2) determine the boundaries set by existing law 
(the position of the silent House); (3) weigh the arguments for and 
against the point of order; and (4) finally make a determination as to 
the propriety of the conference provision. 
On occasion, the duty of the Chair to make a decision on whether an 
item is within the scope of conference is made difficult by the 
ambiguity of the language against which the point of order is directed. 
On Feb. 28, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     120 CONG. REC. 40541, 40542, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 17, 1974.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 507]]

1978,(18) when the conference report on the Federal Trade Commission 
Amendments of 1978(19) was before the House, the Chair had to determine 
whether 25 employees of the FTC, in positions established in the Senate 
amendment, were or were not civil service employees or were, to the 
contrary, personnel paid at civil service rates but independent of the 
reach of all the protections afforded in the underlying civil service 
law. 
The conference provision, the arguments by the Member making the point 
of order, the response of the manager of the conference, and the 
Speaker's ruling are carried here.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3816, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AMEND-MENTS OF 
1978
Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference 
report on the bill (H.R. 3816) to amend the Federal Trade Commission 
Act to expedite the enforcement of Federal Trade Commission cease and 
desist orders and compulsory process orders; to increase the 
independence of the Federal Trade Commission in legislative, budgetary, 
and personnel matters; and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [EDWARD J.] DERWINSKI [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point 
of order against the conference report.
THE SPEAKER:(20) The gentleman will state it.
MR. DERWINSKI: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against the 
conference report on H.R. 3816 on the ground that the conferees 
exceeded the bounds of conference in violation of House Rule XXVIII, 
clause 3.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate-approved bill, in section 107, contained 
language authorizing the appointment of 25 super-grade (GS-16, -17, and 
-18) positions for attorneys, economists, special experts, and outside 
counsels. Further, in that same section, the Senate bill provided that 
"Any appointment or removal of an employee of the Commission to or from 
any position in the categories GS-16, -17, and -18 may be made by the 
Commission without regard to any provision of title 5, United States 
Code, other than section 3324 thereof where applicable, governing 
appointments to, and removals from, positions in the competitive 
service ***"
Section 3324 of title 5, United States Code, requires that an 
appointment to a position in GS-16, -17, or -18, may be made only on 
approval of the qualifications of the proposed appointee by the Civil 
Service Commission. There are only four exceptions to that requirement 
in section 3324 of title 5, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     124 CONG. REC. 5009, 5010, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
19.     Conf. Rept. on H.R. 3816, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 508]]

none of which apply to the positions described in section 107 of H.R. 3816.
The House bill, being silent on the appointment of additional 
supergrade positions, contained no exception to section 3324 of 
supergrade positions in the FTC, and therefore continued the 
application of this section.
Mr. Speaker, therefore both the House and Senate bills would apply 
section 3324 of title 5, United States Code, to the 25 newly created 
supergrade positions.
The conference report in section 2(b) authorizes the appointment of 25 
supergrade positions without regard to the provisions of title 5, 
United States Code, thereby exempting these positions from the 
provisions of section 3324 of title 5.
Mr. Speaker, my point is that the Senate bill explicitly and the House 
bill implicitly provided for the application of section 3324 of title 
5, United States Code, to supergrade positions in the FTC. Therefore, 
an exemption from the application of this provision of law was not in 
conference, and by providing an exemption, the conferees exceeded the 
scope of conference.
Mr. Speaker, as precedent, I cite Deschler's Procedure, chapter 33, 
section 15.4:

Where one House strikes out of a bill of the other House all after the 
enacting clause and inserts a new text, House conferees, under clause 3 
of Rule XXVIII, may not include in their report a modification of a 
proposition which is beyond the scope of that proposition as committed 
to conference. 117 Cong. Rec. 46596-602, 46779, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., 
Dec. 13, 14, 1971 [conference report on S. 2891], holding that where a 
Senate bill included a provision authorizing a 5.5% pay comparability 
adjustment for federal employees compensated under "statutory" pay 
systems, and the House amendment contained no comparable provision, 
House conferees exceeded their authority by including in their report 
language which broadened the scope of the Senate provision, by deleting 
the term "statutory", so as to include federal employees covered under 
other pay systems.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, having cited this precedent, I make my point of 
order.
Mr. Speaker, I insist upon my point of order.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) desire to be 
heard upon the point of order?
MR. ECKHARDT: I do, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the gentleman is reading 
from a document referring to H.R. 3816 and an amendment of the Senate 
of the United States, on page 16, where there is indeed reference to 
section 3324. We did not take that section. The section that was taken 
by the House and became a part of the conference is found on page 16, 
and it is under (c) and contains no reference to that title. The 
persons involved are not supergrades. They are not GS-16's but they 
were called upon to be paid at that rate. Therefore there is nothing 
that was done in the conference that was not within the scope of the 
provisions of the Senate originally. Essentially we did what is always 
done in a conference, we arrived at a compromise agreement between the 
positions of the 


[[Page 509]]

Senate and the House within the scope of the two bills.
THE SPEAKER: Does the Chair understand that these 25 employees in the 
conference report and in the Senate amendment are not civil service 
classified employees?
MR. ECKHARDT: That is right.
MR. DERWINSKI: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Illinois is recognized.
MR. DERWINSKI: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the provision of the 
original Senate bill that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) has 
just referred to, I call the attention of the Chair to paragraph (c) 
which authorizes the Commission to assign the duties and to fix the 
compensation for not more than 25 attorneys. But then I call the 
attention of the Speaker to the following paragraph, paragraph (d), in 
which it states that:

Any appointment or removal of an employee of the Commission to or from 
any position . . . may be made by the Commission without regard to any 
provision of title 5, United States Code. . . .

Paragraph (d) as I read it supersedes the language of the Senate in 
paragraph (c), and therefore the conferees went beyond the scope of the 
conference.
MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Speaker, I would add that paragraph (d) does not 
relate to the same employees as paragraph (c) does.
(c) refers to persons who are not supergrades and who are not GS-16's.

(d) says:

Any appointment or removal of an employee of the Commission to or from 
any position in categories GS-16, GS-17, and GS-18, may be made by the 
Commission without regard to any provision of title 5, ***

But these persons are not from any positions in categories GS-16, GS-
17, and GS-18. The persons covered by paragraph (c) are no more than 25 
attorneys, economists, or specialists, who are treated at a rate at the 
level of GS-16 but they are not and never have been GS-16's nor are 
they supergrades.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule.
The question is whether the 25 professionals referred to in the Senate 
amendment are considered FTC employees in the positions of categories 
GS-16, -17, or -18, or whether they are merely paid at those rates 
without being in these positions. In other words, whether the employees 
referred to (c) on page 16 and (d) on page 16 of the Senate amendment 
are the same employees or are different employees.
In the opinion of the Chair the conferees have stayed within the scope 
of the differences committed to conference with respect to the 25 
professionals dealt with in section 2(b) of the conference report.
The Senate amendment and the conference report treat those 25 
professionals in an identical way as employees of the FTC who are paid 
at rates of pay not in excess of rates applicable to GS-18, but who are 
not FTC employees in any classified position in categories GS-16, -17, 
or -18, to whom section 


[[page 510]]

3324 of title V would certainly apply under both House and Senate versions.
In the opinion of the Chair, the point of order is not well taken.
Where Dates Are in Issue
Sec.    7.12 Where the Senate has amended a House-passed bill to change 
the effective date therein, the authority of the conferees on the bill 
is limited to the difference between the dates in each version, and 
where the dates contained in both bills have since passed, the 
conferees must report the Senate amendment back in technical 
disagreement so that the effective date can be considered separately.
On Mar. 11, 1970,(1) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, to submit the 
conference report on H.R. 6543, the Public Health Cigarette-Smoking 
Act, with amendment No. 13, still in disagreement. The report stated in 
part:
Amendment numbered 13
This amendment is reported in technical disagreement. The amendment 
struck out the effective date in the House bill which was July 1, 1969, 
and inserted in lieu thereof an effective date (with respect to all but 
section 5 of the Act) of January 1, 1970. Both dates have, of course, 
passed and technically the matter could not be resolved in the 
conference. The new warning on cigarette packages required by the 
conference agreement necessitates a transition period to permit 
cigarette packages to be imprinted with the warning. Accordingly the 
managers on the part of the House will offer an amendment in the House 
to recede and concur in Senate amendment numbered 13 with an amendment 
as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, 
insert the following:
"Sec. 3. Section 5 of the amendment made by this Act shall take effect 
as of July 1, 1969. Section 4 of the amendment made by this Act shall 
take effect on the first day of the seventh calendar month which begins 
after the date of the enactment of this Act. All other provisions of 
the amendment made by this Act except where otherwise specified shall 
take effect on January 1, 1970."

Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate, which acted first on the conference 
report, was precluded from receding from its amendment with an 
amendment.(2) However, the House could have kept the papers following 
the conference 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     116 CONG. REC. 6793-95, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     House Rules and Manual, Jefferson's Manual Sec. 526 (1997).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 511]]

and acted first on the amendment in disagreement by receding and 
concurring in the Senate amendment with an amendment. The Senate could 
then have concurred in the House amendment. Or the conferees could have 
agreed to either the House or Senate version and then, following the 
adoption of the conference report in both Houses, could have considered 
by unanimous consent a concurrent resolution directing the Clerk of the 
House, in the enrollment of the bill, to insert a new date in lieu of 
that carried in the conference version.
Question Raised Against Validity of Report; Report Properly Signed by 
Majority of Conferees
Sec.    7.13 The Speaker overruled a point of order that a conference 
report failed to include a provision allegedly agreed upon in 
conference where a majority of the conferees of both Houses had signed 
the report and where the House conferees had the authority, under Rule 
XXVIII clause 3, to omit that provision.
On Dec. 17, 1973,(3) after the conference report on S. 1435, the 
District of Columbia Self-Govern-ment and Government Reorganization 
Act, was called up by Mr. Charles C. Diggs, Jr., of Michigan, Mr. Earl 
F. Landgrebe, of Indiana, rose:

MR. LANDGREBE: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point of order concerning 
section 738 of conference report No. 93-703, "Advisory Neighborhood 
Councils" for the reason that it fails to provide as the conferees 
stated and intended during the conference held on this legislation.
In conference, the requirement was Neighborhood Councils must first be 
approved by the electors in the same public referendum required for the 
approval of the charter. Nowhere in section 738 does that requirement 
appear.
If the legislation were approved, the councils would be created by 
operation of law, not by the affirmation of the electors as provided 
for by the conferees. This section is contrary to the intent of the 
conferees and this report must not be considered. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(4) The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
Indiana makes a point of order that the conference report violates the 
rules and precedents of the House. Since the conference report on the 
bill S. 1435 was filed on December 6, 1973, the Chair has carefully 
scrutinized the agree-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     119 CONG. REC. 42034, 42035, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 4.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 512]]

ments that were reached in conference to be sure that the managers have 
not violated the rules of the House with respect to conference reports. 
Obviously where, as here, there is a Senate bill and a House amendment 
in the nature of a substitute therefor and both are extensive and 
comprehensive legislative proposals the task of writing a conference 
compromise is a difficult and painstaking task. . . . 
The gentleman from Indiana has made the further point of order that the 
conference report is not properly before the House because a subsection 
of the report, allegedly agreed to in conference is not contained in 
the report submitted to the two Houses.
The Chair, of course, has no knowledge of how this agreement was 
reached. The only information the Chair has on what was agreed to in 
conference is derived from the conference report. The Chair does note 
that the subsection allegedly omitted was not contained in the Senate 
bill and thus the managers had the authority, under clause 3, rule 
XXVIII to eliminate that provision if they so desired.
Volume 5 of Hinds' Precedents section 6497, states that "A conference 
report is received if signed by a majority of the managers of each 
House." The Chair has examined the report and the papers and finds that 
it is signed by 6 of the 10 managers on the part of the House and by 
all 7 managers on the part of the Senate. The Chair can only observe 
that the report is here in a legal manner.
The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.
Authorization To Consider Inadvertently Omitted Matters
Sec.    7.14 By concurrent resolution, managers of a conference were 
authorized to consider, in addition to certain Senate amendments to a 
House bill pending before them, proposals by the Senate to strike other 
provisions of the House bill.
On July 20, 1956,(5) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Clair Engle, of California, who made the following request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of 
the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 86) authorizing the conferees 
on H.R. 1774, abolishing the Verendrye National Monument, N. Dak., to 
consider certain additional Senate amendments that were inadvertently 
omitted from the official papers. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the Senate concurrent resolution (S. 
Con. Res. 86).
The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That 
the conferees on H.R. 1774, in addition to the Senate amendments 
already pending before them, be 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     102 CONG. REC. 13724, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 513]]

authorized to consider the following amendments:
"(3) Page 1, line 6, strike out all after 'permits' down to and 
including 'site' in line 8.
"(4) Page 1, strike out all after line 8 over to and including line 5 
on page 2.
"(5) Page 2, strike out lines 6 to 20, inclusive."

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
There was no objection.
The Senate concurrent resolution was agreed to.
Enlarging Matter in Scope of Conference
Sec.    7.15 By adoption of a con-current resolution in both Houses, 
providing that a new section be inserted in the  engrossment of the 
Senate amendment to a House bill, conferees may be authorized to 
consider a matter not originally committed to them in the House bill or 
the Senate amendment thereto.
When H.R. 10612, the Tax Reform Act of 1976, was in conference, it 
became necessary to consider a topic not before the conferees since the 
matter was in neither the House text or the Senate amendment. The 
Senate concurrent resolution in this instance was called up in the 
House by unanimous consent.(6) 

MR. [OMAR T.] BURLESON of Texas: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman), who as we all know is now occupied 
in conference on the tax bill, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the Senate Concurrent Resolution (S. Con. Res. 137) to 
correct the engrossment of the Senate amendments to H.R. 10612, and 
consider the Senate concurrent resolution in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution.
THE SPEAKER:(7) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution as follows:
S. CON. RES. 137
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That 
the following language be inserted in the engrossment of the Senate 
amendments to H.R. 10612 and be considered as being in conference:
"SEC. 1510. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN LIFE INSURANCE CONTRACTS GUARANTEED 
RENEWABLE.
"(a) IN GENERAL.-Paragraph (d)(5) of section 809 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1954 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
following sentence: 'For purposes of this paragraph, the period for 
which any contract is issued or renewed in-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     122 CONG. REC. 28969, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 2, 1976.
 7.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 514]]

cludes the period for which such contract is guaranteed renewable.'.
"(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1957.".

The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Application of Germaneness Rule
Sec.    7.16 A House amendment to a Senate amendment, reported from 
conference in disagreement, must be germane to the Senate amendment.
On Dec. 16, 1944,(8) the House was considering Senate amendment No. 17 
to H.R. 5587, the first defense appropriation bill for 1945, which had 
been reported back from conference in disagreement. A motion by Mr. 
Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, to recede and concur in this amendment 
was divided on demand by Mr. Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, who then 
offered a preferential motion to concur with an amendment. Mr. Cannon 
raised a point of order against this motion, explaining:

The pending proposition is tied up with and incident to titles II and 
III of the act of October 14, 1940, which is an act providing solely 
for activities in connection with the prosecution of the war. The 
proposition the gentleman suggests has no relation to the war; it deals 
solely with an act of God and is entirely new matter not contemplated 
by the act of October 14, 1940, and appears in neither the House nor 
Senate bills. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(9) The Chair under the statement of the gentleman from 
Missouri and in a way supported by the gentleman from Illinois cannot 
see anything in the amendment or the proposal of the gentleman from 
South Dakota [Mr. Case] except an act of God; therefore the Chair 
thinks that the amendment is not germane and sustains the point of 
order.
MR. CASE: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. CASE: Mr. Speaker, is it not true that in ruling upon questions of 
this sort where they involve securing an agreement between the two 
bodies of the Congress considerable latitude is allowed for the purpose 
of reaching an agreement in the interest of comity and that the 
ordinary rules of germaneness do not apply strictly?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair would differ with the gentleman on that. The 
Chair does not think that conferees on the part of the House and the 
Senate could set aside the rule of germaneness.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     90 CONG. REC. 9611, 9612, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 515]]

Test of Germaneness Where Senate Amendment Strikes House Text
Sec.    7.17 Where a Senate amendment proposes to strike out language in 
a House bill, the test of germaneness of a motion to recede and concur 
with an amendment is the relationship between the language in the 
motion and that proposed to be stricken in the House text. 
On Dec. 12, 1974,(10) following the adoption of the conference report 
on the bill H.R. 16901, the agricultural, environmental, and consumer 
appropriations for fiscal 1975, amendments reported in disagreement 
were under consideration. 
The manager of the bill, Mr. Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi, offered 
a motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment 
which was a substitute for the Senate text in amendment numbered 8. 
The Senate amendment was a restriction on use of funds in the bill to 
administer any tax on parking facilities. The compromise language was 
also a restriction on funds in the bill but addressed a larger category 
of projects. 
The amendments, the point of order, and the Chair's ruling are carried 
here.

THE SPEAKER:(11) The Clerk will report the next amendment in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 8: Page 52, line 20, strike: "SEC. 510. No part of 
any funds appropriated under this Act may be used by the Environmental 
Protection Agency to administer any program to tax, limit, or otherwise 
regulate parking facilities."
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. WHITTEN
MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 8 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows:
"SEC. 510. No part of any funds appropriated under this Act may be used 
by the Environmental Protection Agency to implement or enforce any 
provision of a state implementation plan promulgated or approved 
pursuant to Section 110 of the Clean Air Act that requires the review 
of indirect sources, as defined in 40 CFR 52.22(b)(1), pending 
completion of judicial review, pursuant to Section 307(b) of the Clean 
Air Act, or the indirect source regulations set forth in 40 CFR 52.22, 
or any other such regulation relating to indirect sources." . . .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     120 CONG. REC. 39272, 39273, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 516]]

MR. [PAUL G.] ROGERS [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
against the amendment as read.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order on the ground of 
nongermaneness.
The House provision provided only for parking, and the Senate struck 
completely the House provision.
This language is not germane in that it goes far beyond parking. The 
amendment would cover airports, it would cover highways, it would cover 
shopping centers, and it would cover sports arenas, regardless of 
whether any parking facilities are attached or associated.
There is no question but what this is not germane. It is far beyond 
what the House had stated, and I think it is not appropriate to be in 
an appropriation bill at all. Therefore I ask that it be stricken in 
accordance with the arguments used against the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Mississippi desire to be heard on 
the point of order?
MR. WHITTEN: I do, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation to which the gentleman from Florida has 
referred has had the effect of stopping employment in the cities of 
this country. It has done this because they have to have a permit from 
the Environmental Protection Agency for parking. It has prevented new 
buildings in universities, hospitals, shopping centers-and this at a 
time of great unemployment in the United States. . . . 
In the Senate it was felt that since there are lawsuits pending 
throughout the United States, I think in at least four instances, that 
this legislation covering parking was the key, that that part which had 
parking in it should be included in the conference and the conferees 
felt that in the interest of the Nation that those related matters 
which are a part and parcel of the provisions to which we were trying 
to direct our attention, should be accepted, and it was accepted by the 
conferees. . . . 
MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, may I 
just say that these regulations insofar as the contracts for airports, 
highways, shopping centers and sporting arenas are not even effective 
until next year, the parking which the House acted on was covered, so 
that they are not germane.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule.
There is only one issue involved here and that is whether the amendment 
included in the motion of the gentleman from Mississippi is germane. It 
obviously is far more comprehensive than the House provision, and is 
not germane thereto. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

MOTION OFFERED BY MR. WHITTEN
MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Whitten moves that the House insist on its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate.

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten).


[[Page 517]]

Selective Waivers of Points of Order Against Conference Report
Sec.    7.18 The Committee on Rules has sometimes recommended selective 
waivers of points of order under Rule XXVIII clause 3, permitting 
points of order to lie against only specified sections of the report 
which might go beyond the scope of differences submitted to conference. 
On Feb. 27, 1974,(12) the Committee on Rules called up a special order 
for consideration of the conference report on S. 2589, the Energy 
Emergency Act. The rule waived points of order against the report, but 
permitted points of order to be raised against two sections therein 
which arguably contained matter beyond the scope of the managers' 
authority under Rule XXVIII clause 3. 
The previous question on the rule was defeated, an amendment was 
offered and adopted which provided for a blanket waiver but permitted a 
separate vote on the controversial sections.
The rule as reported, and the amendment offered after defeat of the 
previous question, are carried here. 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2589, ENERGY 
EMERGENCY ACT
MR. [CLAUDE] PEPPER [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 901 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. RES. 901
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it 
shall be in order to consider the conference report on the bill (S. 
2589) to declare by congressional action a nationwide energy emergency; 
to authorize the President to immediately undertake specific actions to 
conserve scarce fuels and increase supply; to invite the development of 
local, State, National, and international contingency plans; to assure 
the continuation of vital public services; and for other purposes, and 
all points of order against said conference report except against 
sections 105 and 110 thereof for failure to comply with the provisions 
of clause 3, rule XXVIII are hereby waived. Debate on said conference 
report shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. At the conclusion of the 
debate, it shall be in order, on the demand of any Member, for a 
separate vote to be had on a motion to strike out section 104 of the 
conference report. At the conclusion of any separate vote demanded 
under this procedure, and if section 104 has not been stricken out by 
such separate vote, the previous question shall be 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     120 CONG. REC. 4397, 4407, 4408, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 518]]

considered as ordered on agreeing to the conference report.

THE SPEAKER:(13) The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Pepper) is recognized 
for 1 hour.
MR. PEPPER: . . . House Resolution 901 provides that all points of 
order against the conference report are waived except against sections 
105 and 110 for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 3, rule 
XXVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives-pertaining to 
amendments accepted by the conferees which are beyond the scope of the 
House and Senate bills. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute for the purpose of discussion only to the 
distinguished gentleman from West Virginia, the chairman of the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (Mr. Staggers). . . . 
MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I take the 
floor to urge the defeat of the previous question on this rule. As I am 
sure my colleagues are aware, the rule would permit a single Member of 
this House to assert a point of order against two sections of the bill-
section 105 dealing with energy conservation plans and section 110, the 
so-called price rollback provision. In so doing the Rules Committee has 
provided an opportunity for a single opponent of this legislation to 
defeat it. Such a result most certainly would not be in the public 
interest. . . . 
I know that the conference agreement remains controversial. I would 
expect legislation this important and complex to be so. But I urge that 
we permit the conference agreement to stand the test of a vote by the 
435 Members of this House.
If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule in the nature of a substitute which waives points of order on the 
entirety of the conference agreement, but permits separate votes on its 
most controversial sections. Accordingly, Members would have an 
opportunity to specifically express their assent or dissent to sections 
104, 105, and 110 of the bill. If the House defeats the conference 
agreement then so be it. But at least let us give the House the chance 
to vote on it. Accordingly, I respectfully ask you to defeat the 
previous question on this rule. . . . 
MR. PEPPER: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on ordering the previous question.
MR. PEPPER: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 144, noes 
259, answered "present" 3, not voting 25. . . . 
So the previous question was not ordered.
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote: . . . 
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE OFFERED BY MR. STAGGERS
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 519]]

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: Strike 
out all after the resolving clause of House Resolution 901 and insert 
in lieu thereof the following:
"That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report on the bill (S. 2589) to 
declare by congressional action a nationwide energy emergency; to 
authorize the President to immediately undertake specific actions to 
conserve scarce fuels and increase supply; to invite the development of 
local, State, National, and international contingency plans; to assure 
the continuation of vital public services; and for other purposes, and 
all points of order against said conference report for failure to 
comply with the provisions of clause 3, Rule XXVIII, are hereby waived. 
Debate on said conference report shall continue not to exceed one hour, 
to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. At 
the conclusion of the debate, it shall be in order, on the demand of 
any Member for a separate vote to be had on motions to strike out the 
following provisions of the conference report: Sections 110, 105, and 
104, and such separate votes, if demanded, shall be taken in the 
foregoing order. At the conclusion of all of the separate votes 
demanded under this procedure, and if none of the sections have been 
stricken by such separate votes, the previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on agreeing to the conference report."

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 1 hour. 
. . . 
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his 
comments. I am certain he is very sincere.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment and on the 
resolution.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on ordering the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
Appropriation on Legislative Bill
Sec.    7.19 Conferees of the House may not in conference agree to a 
Senate amendment providing for an appropriation upon any other than a 
general appropriation bill without first having secured specific 
authority from the House to do so.
On May 22, 1936,(14) Mr. James M. Mead, of New York, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 9496, a bill to protect the federal 
government against losses sustained in mail delivery of checks 
containing veterans' benefits. Mr. James P. Buchanan, of Texas, raised 
a point of order against the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     80 CONG. REC. 7790-92, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 520]]

conference report. The Speaker, Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, 
responded:

The gentleman from New York [Mr. Mead], chairman of the Committee on 
the Post Office and Post Roads, presents a conference report signed by 
the conferees on the part of the Senate and the House. The gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Buchanan] makes the point of order that the conference 
report is out of order because the conferees on the part of the House 
in conference agreed to an amendment of the Senate providing an 
appropriation contrary to the rules of the House.
Senate amendment no. 1 contains the following language:

The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to advance, from time to 
time, to the Postmaster General, from the appropriation contained in 
the Supplemental Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1936, approved February 
11, 1936, for "administrative expenses, adjusted-compensation payment 
act, 1936, Treasury Department, 1936 and 1937", such sums as are 
certified by the Postmaster General to be required for the expenses of 
the Post Office Department in connection with the handling of the bonds 
issued hereunder. Such bonds--

This amendment also contains the following language:

The Secretary of the Treasury shall reimburse the Postmaster General, 
from the aforesaid appropriation contained in said supplemental 
appropriation act, for such postage and registry fees as may be 
required in connection with such transmittal.

Rule XX, clause 2, of the rules of the House of Representatives(15) 
reads as follows:

No amendment of the Senate to a general appropriation bill which would 
be in violation of the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI, if said 
amendment had originated in the House, nor any amendment of the Senate 
providing for an appropriation upon any bill other than a general 
appropriation bill, shall be agreed to by the managers on the part of 
the House unless specific authority to agree to such amendment shall be 
first given by the House by a separate vote on every such amendment.

It is clear to the Chair that the managers on the part of the House in 
agreeing in conference to Senate amendment no. 1 violated the 
provisions of rule XX, inasmuch as the amendment provides an 
appropriation.
The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
Sec.    7.20 Where a Senate amendment carrying an appropriation was 
attached to a legislative bill originating in the House and such bill 
and amendment are referred to a conference committee, the managers on 
the part of the House may not agree in conference to such amendment but 
must bring it back to the House for a separate vote.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 521]]

On July 29, 1935,(16) Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, made the following 
parliamentary inquiry:

When an amendment carries an appropriation, such amendment being 
attached by the Senate to a legislative bill originating in the House, 
is it necessary that it be brought back for a separate vote on that 
particular amendment?
THE SPEAKER:(17) The Chair thinks so, under the rules.
The rule,(18) with which the gentleman is familiar, reads:

No amendment of the Senate to a general appropriation bill which would 
be in violation of the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI, if said 
amendment had originated in the House, nor any amendment of the Senate 
providing for an appropriation upon any bill other than a general 
appropriation bill, shall be agreed to by the managers on the part of 
the House unless specific authority to agree to such amendment shall be 
first given by the House by a separate vote on every such amendment.

The Chair thinks it is very clear, therefore, that the amendment would 
have to be brought back to the House for a separate vote.
Sec.    7.21 Where conferees agreed to a Senate amendment with an 
amendment providing that "benefits shall be paid from the civil service 
retirement and disability fund," such agreement constituted a violation 
of Rule XX clause 2, and was ruled out on a point of order.
On Oct. 4, 1962,(19) Mr. Tom Murray, of Tennessee, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 7927, the Postal Rate and Pay Act of 1962. 
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a point of order:

Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the conference report on 
the ground that it violates clause 2 of rule XX of the House rules.(20) 
. . . 
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7927 as passed with the amendment of the Senate 
provides in section 1104, page 110, the following:

Sec. 1104. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the benefits 
made payable under the Civil Service Retirement Act by reason of the 
enactment of this part shall be paid from the civil service retirement 
and disability fund.

The words "shall be paid from the civil service retirement and 
disability fund" constitute an appropriation within the meaning of 
clause 2 of rule XX. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, since the pending conference report includes the language 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     79 CONG. REC. 12004, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
18.     Rule XX clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
19.     108 CONG. REC. 22332, 22333, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 522]]

making an appropriation it is, I submit, out of order under clause 2 of 
rule XX. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(1) The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] makes a 
point of order that the language contained on page 110, section 104, 
line 12, "shall be paid from the civil service retirement and 
disability fund" is in violation of clause 2, rule XX.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Appropriations in Legislative Bills, Restriction on Managers Authority
Sec.    7.22 A conference report on a House bill authorizing funds for 
environmental research was ruled out on a point of order where the 
managers had agreed to a Senate amendment which diverted previously 
appropriated funds for a new purpose, thus violating Rule XX clause 2. 
When the conference report on H.R. 2676, the Environmental Protection 
Agency research authorization for fiscal year 1980, was called up by 
the manager on Nov. 29, 1979,(2) a point of order was made against it 
on the ground that the managers on the part of the House had agreed to 
a Senate amendment constituting an appropriation in violation of the 
cited rule. An appropriation, previously agreed to, had provided 
funding for research and development to  be allocated at the discretion 
of  the Administrator. The conference language attempted to mandate 
that allocation to certain projects. 
The point of order, and the offending language which is cited   
therein, are carried as well as the subsequent motion offered by the 
manager, Mr. Don Fuqua, of Florida, which "encouraged" but did not 
"mandate" the use of the previously appropriated funds.

MR. FUQUA: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill 
(H.R. 2676) to authorize appropriations for environmental research, 
development, and demonstrations for the fiscal year 1980, and for other 
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(3) Pursuant to the rule the conference report 
is considered as having been read. . . . 
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua) will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 2.     125 CONG. REC. 34113-15, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3.     Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 523]]

POINT OF ORDER
MR. [EDWARD P.] BOLAND [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
of order against the conference report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Massachusetts will state 
the point of order.
MR. BOLAND: Mr. Speaker, clause 5 of rule XXI prohibits committees 
without proper jurisdiction from reporting measures carrying 
appropriations. Interpretation of the rule has held that language 
reappropriating, making available, or diverting an appropriation 
already made for one purpose to another is not in order. This has been 
sustained numerous times, but it is very clearly stated in a ruling on 
August 11, 1921, and is a precedent that is nearly identical to the 
issue that is before us now.
In the paragraph authorizing appropriations for the health and 
ecological effects activity of the water quality research and 
development program House conferees on H.R. 2676 agreed to retain in 
the bill the following provision added by the Senate:

Provided, That of the funds appropriated pursuant to this paragraph 
$900,000 shall be obligated and expended on the Cold Climate Research 
program through the Environmental Protection Agency's Corvallis 
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.

The 1980 Environmental Protection Agency budget request did not include 
any funding for cold climate research. The 1980 appropriation of EPA's 
research and development programs also did not include any funding for 
cold climate research.
The proviso amounts to a diversion of funds previously appropriated and 
violates clause 5, rule XXI.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that the point of order be sustained.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua) 
wish to speak on the point of order?
MR. FUQUA: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The point of order is conceded and sustained.

So the conference report was ruled out on the point of order.
AMENDMENTS IN DISAGREEMENT
The Clerk will designate the first amendment in disagreement.
Senate amendment No. 1 reads as follows:

Senate amendment No. 1: Page 1, strike out all after line 6 over to and 
including line 10 on page 7 and insert:
SEC. 2. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Environmental Protection Agency for environmental research, 
development, and demonstration activities for the fiscal year 1980 for 
the following activities:
(1) $95,999,500 for water quality activities authorized under the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of which-
(A) $23,124,000 is for Health and Ecological Effects programs: 
Provided, That of the funds appropriated pursuant to this paragraph, 
$900,000 shall be obligated and expended on the Cold Climate Research 
program through the Environmental Protection Agency's Corvallis 
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon. . . .


[[page 524]]

MR. FUQUA: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Fuqua moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 1 and agree to the same with an 
amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by 
the Senate amendment, insert the following:
SEC. 2. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Environmental Protection Agency for environmental research, 
development, and demonstration activities for the fiscal year 1980 for 
the following activities:
(1) $66,659,000 for water quality activities authorized under the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of which-
(A) $25,224,000 is for the Health and Ecological Effects program:
Provided, That the Agency is encouraged to obligate and to expend 
$900,000 of these funds on the Cold Climate Research program through 
the Agency's Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, 
Oregon. . . .

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua).
The motion was agreed to.

The remaining amendments in disagreement were subsequently considered 
en bloc and disposed of by a single motion to recede and concur.
Restrictions on Conferees Agreeing to Legislative Provisions in 
Appropriation Conference
Sec.    7.23 A House rule prohibits the inclusion in a confer- ence 
report on a general appropriation bill of Senate amendments containing 
legislation; but where such amendments are reported from conference in 
disagreement and called up for disposition by separate motion, they are 
not subject to points of order under Rule XX.
On Dec. 4, 1975, the House had under consideration the conference 
report on a general appropriation bill.(4) When the Speaker laid before 
the House an amendment in disagreement, a Member made a point of order 
against the amendment on the ground that it contained legislation in 
violation of Rule XXI clauses 2(b) and (c).(5) Rule XX was also cited. 
The Speaker(6) overruled the point of order, as shown.(7) 

THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     H.R. 8069, Labor-HEW appropriations for fiscal 1976.
 5.     House Rules and Manual Sec.Sec. 834b, 834c (1997).
 6.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 7.     121 CONG. REC. 38714, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 4, 1975.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 525]]

Senate amendment No. 72: Page 47, line 4, insert:
"SEC. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
require, directly or indirectly, the transportation of any student to a 
school other than the school which is nearest the student's home, and 
which offers the courses of study pursued by such student, in order to 
comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point 
of order on the amendment. This is legislation on an appropriation 
bill, and I would like to be heard on the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Massachusetts may be heard on his point 
of order.
MR. CONTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a point of order against 
Senate amendment No. 72 to the Labor-HEW Appropriations Act of 1976.
At this point, I should like to direct the Chair to rule 21, section 2 
of the House regarding the prohibition of legislation in an 
appropriations bill. The pertinent language states:

Nor shall any provisions in any such bill or amendment thereto changing 
existing law be in order. . . .

While the Senate amendment No. 72 might appear to only act as a 
limitation on spending, it will actually change basic law as I will now 
set out.
Section 215(a), title II of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 
1974 provides the following language, which limits the specific 
distance a student may be transported in a schoolbusing program:

No court, department or agency of the United States shall, pursuant to 
section 214, order the implementation of a plan that would require the 
transportation of any student to a school other than the school closest 
to his place of residence which provides the appropriate grade level 
and type of education for such student. (Emphasis added.)

Notice that the distance a student can be transported is limited to the 
"school closest or next closest to his place of residence." I should 
now address myself to the language of the Senate amendment here in 
question:

None of the funds contained in this act shall be used to require, 
directly or indirectly, the transportation of any student to a school 
other than the school which is nearest the student's home, and which 
offers the courses of study pursued by such student, in order to comply 
with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Emphasis added.)

As is readily apparent, where the Equal Educational Opportunities Act 
of 1974 (Public Law 93-380) limits busing to either the student's 
immediate or adjacent school district, the Senate amendment further 
limits the transportation to the student's immediate district. I am 
sure the Chair can see this apparent attempt to change the effect of 
section 215(a) of Public Law 93-380.
I should like to note that while this is a Senate amendment and may be 
consistent with the rules of that House-it is not controlling. It is 
clear that since this is an appropriations bill and naturally 
originates in the House, it is the House rules which are controlling 
and I cite rule 20 on this point:


[[Page 526]]

Any amendment of the Senate to any House bill shall be subject to the 
point of order that it shall first be considered in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union, if, originating in the 
House, it would be subject to that point.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I contend that this amendment carries 
the standard of a simple limitation in an appropriations bill, but in 
reality is a prima facie case of legislation in an appropriations bill, 
which on its face changes existing law.
Therefore, I urge that this point of order be sustained.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair overrules the point of order raised by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) because when that stage is reached that an 
amendment is in disagreement between the two Houses, the rule-clause 1 
of rule XX-cited by the gentleman from Massachusetts no longer applies 
and the amendment may be disposed of in the House. The Senate amendment 
is reported back in disagreement and not as part of the conference 
report, therefore clause 2 of rule XX is not applicable and the Senate 
amendment may be considered by the House.
House Authorization To Include Legislation in Appropriation Measure
Sec.    7.24 The House may by unanimous consent send an appropriation 
bill to con-ference and authorize the House conferees to agree to 
Senate legislative amendments notwithstanding the restrictions 
contained in Rule XX clause 2.
On June 3, 1936,(8) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, recognized 
Mr. James P. Buchanan, of Texas, to make the following request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 
the bill H.R. 12624, the first deficiency appropriation bill, together 
with the Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, 
and agree to the conference requested by the Senate; also that the 
managers on the part of the House, notwithstanding the provisions of 
clause 2, rule XX, be authorized to agree to any Senate amendment with 
or without amendment, except the Senate amendment having to do with the 
Florida ship canal and the Senate amendment providing $300,000,000 for 
public-works projects.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas? . . . 
There was no objection.
Appropriation Unauthorized by Law
Sec.    7.25 A point of order against a conference report, made on the 
theory that the managers 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     80 CONG. REC. 8822, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Pagee 527]]

on the part of the House had agreed to a Senate amendment to an 
appropriation bill which provided for an appropriation which was not 
authorized by law (and thus in violation of Rule XXI clause 2), was 
overruled.
On the legislative day of Sept. 25, 1961,(9) after the Clerk read the 
conference report on H.R. 9169, supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
1962, the following occurred:

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
against the conference report, and I refer especially to the paragraph 
on page 30, under the title of "Pres-ervation of Ancient Nubian 
Monuments-Special Foreign Currency Program":

For purchase of Egyptian pounds which accrue under title I of the 
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended 
(7 U.S.C. 1704), for the purposes authorized by section 104(k) of that 
Act, $4,000,000 to remain available until expended.

Mr. Speaker, to my mind that appropriation is not covered by the 
statute on which it is based. . . . 
To my mind, this authorization was not covered by the language of 
section 104(k). In my opinion, it does not include the sort of 
operation that is mentioned here. It does not have proper authority for 
an appropriation of this character. It does not authorize purchase of currency. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The Chair is prepared to rule. . . . 
The Chair has carefully studied the provisions of section 104(k), the 
organic law, which includes among other things:

To promote and support programs of medical and scientific research, 
cultural and educational development, health, nutrition, and 
sanitation: Provided, That foreign currencies shall be available for 
the purpose of this subsection (in addition to funds otherwise made 
available for such purposes) only in such amounts as may be specified 
from time to time in appropriation acts. . . .

Continuing what the Chair has said, it is the opinion of the Chair that 
section 104(k) justifies the language contained in the conference 
report, and the Chair overrules the point of order.
Expansion of Exception to Restrictions on Executive Power
Sec.    7.26 When a Senate amendment to a House bill contained a 
prohibition against impoundment of appropriations authorized in the 
bill, as well as an exception to this prohibition, the language agreed 
upon by the conferees which broadened this exception was held to be 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     107 CONG. REC. 21521, 21522, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 528]]

a further restriction and not to exceed the authority of the conferees.
On July 7, 1943,(11) the House was preparing to consider the conference 
report on H.R. 2798, the roads bill, when Mr. John Taber, of New York, 
raised a point of order:

Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the conference report is 
not within the range of the conference in that section 9 of the bill as 
proposed in the conference report is not an item that was in the bill 
as it passed the House or the Senate.

After hearing Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, on the point of order, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, gave the following ruling:

The Chair is prepared to rule.
Section 9 of the Senate amendment reads as follows:

No part of any appropriation authorized in this act shall be impounded 
or withheld from obligation or expenditure by any agency or official 
other than the Commissioner of Public Roads.

Section 9 is purely a limitation and it is a limitation on everyone 
except the Commissioner of Public Roads.
The language agreed upon in conference is more restrictive than the 
language of the original section 9 in the opinion of the Chair because 
it strikes out the words "other than the Commissioner of Public Roads" 
and inserts "unless the War Production Board shall certify that the use 
of critical material for additional highway construction would impede 
the conduct of the war."
It seems to the Chair, section 9 dealing with limitations, that this is 
simply a further restriction and limitation and the Chair would be 
compelled to overrule the point of order raised by the gentleman from 
New York.
The point of order is overruled.
Amendment to Legislative Item Left in Appropriation Bill
Sec.    7.27 Where an item in an appropriation bill legislative in nature 
passes the House without a point of order being made against it and the 
Senate merely increases the amount of money provided therefor, a 
conference report may not be ruled out of order on the ground that the 
conferees exceeded their authority by not bringing the matter back to 
the House for a separate vote.
On May 11, 1945,(12) Mr. Louis C. Rabaut, of Michigan, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 2603, making appropriations for fiscal 1946 
for the Departments of 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     89 CONG. REC. 7385, 7386, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     91 CONG. REC. 4466, 4468, 4469, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 529]]

State, Justice, Commerce, the Judiciary, and federal loan agencies. Mr. 
Robert F. Jones, of Ohio, made a point of order against the report on 
the ground that it made appropriations for activities not previously 
authorized by law-conducting an industrial census. Speaker Sam Rayburn, 
of Texas, responded:

The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair has listened to the statement of the gentleman from Ohio in 
support of the point of order he raises against the conference report. 
The paragraph starting on page 54, beginning at line 7 and ending on 
line 7, page 55, was in the bill when it passed the House. Even though 
the paragraph might have been subject to a point of order then, it was 
not made, and the paragraph remained in the bill. The Chair is of the 
opinion this is only a question of amount of money. The House put in 
appropriation of $4,757,000 under the heading of compiling census 
reports, and so forth. If in the House an amendment had been made 
changing the sum of $4,757,000 to $5,318,000, or any other amount, it 
would certainly have been in order.
MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further on the point of order?
THE SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, when the original bill was in the House, there 
was a point of order made against the following language, which I think 
was an authorization for this item which had been left in the bill. The 
language is as follows:

And for sample surveys throughout the United States for the purpose of 
estimating the size and characteristics of the Nation's labor force and 
population, including personal services, at the seat of government.

That clause was left out of the bill. This, as I understand, Mr. 
Speaker, is for a sample survey of industrial statistics.
THE SPEAKER: But the Chair goes back to the original proposition that 
the paragraph remained in the bill. . . . 
. . . The paragraph was not stricken out in the House on a point of 
order. The only question involved being a question of amount, the Chair 
overrules the point of order. 
Waiver of Points of Order Against Appropriation Bill; Waiver Carries 
Over to Conference Report
Sec.    7.28 Where a special rule in the House waives points of order 
against portions of an appropriation bill which are unauthorized by 
law, and the bill passes the House with those provisions included 
therein and goes to conference, the conferees may report back their 
agreement to those provisions even though they remain unauthorized, 
since waiver of points of order under Rule XXI clause 


[[Page 530]]

2,(13) carries over to the consideration of the same provisions when 
the conference report is before the House.
On Dec. 20, 1969,(14) Mr. Otto E. Passman, of Louisiana, submitted and 
called up the conference report on H.R. 15149, foreign assistance 
appropriations for fiscal 1970. Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, 
raised a point of order against the report on the ground that it 
contained appropriations that had not yet been authorized by law. Mr. 
Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, defended the conference report, explaining 
an earlier assertion by Mr. Passman that the provisions alleged to be 
objectionable by Mr. Yates were in the appropriations bill as it passed 
the House.

MR. GERALD R. FORD: . . . Mr. Speak-er, we do as a matter of practice 
appropriate money from time to time that is not specifically authorized 
as a matter of law. Furthermore, in this particular case when the 
foreign aid appropriation bill came to the floor of the House, a 
specific rule was granted waiving points of order.
It would be my argument that the benefit of that rule would still be 
applicable in the consideration of the conference report.
MR. [CLEMENT J.] ZABLOCKI [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(15) The Chair will hear the gentleman further.
MR. ZABLOCKI: Mr. Speaker, does the rule waiving points of order under 
which the House appropriation bill was considered by the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union continue through conference 
report consideration? Would not the rule apply only for consideration 
of the appropriation bill waiving points of order during the time it 
was considered by the Committee of the Whole? Certainly the rule should 
not carry over to the conference report? If it does the Members of the 
House abrogate their legislative prerogatives. . . . 
My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is: Does the rule under which 
the appropriation bill came to the House carry over and continue into 
the conference report?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that will have a bearing on the point 
of order that is raised at the present time. . . . 
. . . [T]he Chair recalls that when this appropriation bill passed the 
House, it was considered under a rule waiving points of order. The 
House agreed to a total figure for military assistance of $454,500,000. 
The Senate reduced this figure to $350 million. The conferees have 
reached an agreement between these two amounts, as they had the 
authority to do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1997).
14.     115 CONG. REC. 40445-48, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
15.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 531]]

The Chair holds that the conferees have not exceeded their authority 
and overrules the point of order.
Sec.    7.29 Where an appropriation bill is considered in the House under 
a rule waiving points of order against a provision therein which is 
unauthorized by law, and the Senate then amends the unauthorized 
provision, reducing the sum of money involved and striking out a 
portion of the language, conferees may (without violating the 
provisions of Rule XX clause 2)(16) agree to a sum between the two and 
restore the House language.
On Dec. 20, 1969,(17) Mr. Otto E. Passman, of Louisiana, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 15149, foreign assistance appropriations for 
fiscal 1970. Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, raised a point of order 
against this conference report on the ground that it contained 
provisions unauthorized by law. He stated that the conference 
compromise on H.R. 14590, the foreign assistance authorization bill, 
provided for a total amount of $350 million for military assistance 
without specifying amounts for any particular country. The House 
version of the appropriations bill contained the following provisions 
that were deleted in conference on the authorization bill: a total 
amount for military assistance of $454.5 million with $50 million 
earmarked for Korea and $54.5 million for the Republic of China. Mr. 
Yates then alluded to the conference report on H.R. 15149:

MR. YATES: . . . It is stated on page 7 of the conference report with 
respect to amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25, and 26, under the heading 
"Military Assistance":

Insert appropriate section numbers; appropriate $404,500,000 instead of 
$454,500,000 as proposed by the House and $350,000,000 as proposed by 
the Senate;-

Then there is this language, Mr. Speaker:

and restore language deleted by the Senate earmarking $54,500,000 for 
the Republic of China.

Mr. Clement J. Zablocki, of Wisconsin, was then recognized by Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the point of order and to express my 
strong opposition to the conference report on foreign aid 
appropriations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
17.     115 CONG. REC. 40445-48, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 532]]

This report contains a line item for foreign military assistance of 
$404.5 million. That amount is $54.5 million more than the amount which 
the House authorized yesterday by approving the conference report on 
the foreign aid authorization bill.
For that reason, I believe that this conference report is completely 
and flagrantly out of order. Let me cite to this body rule XXI, part 2, 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives. It states:

No appropriation shall be reported in any general appropriations bill, 
or be in order as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure not 
previously authorized by law.

Mr. Passman then explained the particular relationship between the 
foreign-aid authorization and appropriations bills.

MR. PASSMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further on the point of order?
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the lateness of the so-called 
authorization bill, which does not exist in fact, as yet, and the very 
fact that the majority leader of the other body said there would be no 
authorization bill, and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee 
said there would be no authorization bill, made it necessary for us to 
move this bill through the Appropriations Committee, the Rules 
Committee, and the Rules Committee gave us a rule waiving points of 
order. We have moved the bill, as I understand it, according to the 
rules of the House, and this appropriation bill became an authorization 
bill also, in the absence of any authorization act. Even at this late 
hour we still do not have an authorization bill because the conference 
report on the authorization bill was only adopted yesterday by both 
Houses and has not yet reached the President for his signature.

Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, added:

. . . [I]n this particular case when the foreign aid appropriation bill 
came to the floor of the House, a specific rule was granted waiving 
points of order.
It would be my argument that the benefit of that rule would still be 
applicable in the consideration of the conference report.
MR. ZABLOCKI: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear the gentleman further.
MR. ZABLOCKI: Mr. Speaker, does the rule waiving points of order under 
which the House appropriation bill was considered by the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union continue through conference 
report consideration? . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that will have a bearing on the point 
of order that is raised at the present time. . . . 
The Chair is aware of the fact pointed out by the gentleman from 
Illinois-that the authorization bill for fiscal 1970, while passed by 
both Houses, has not yet become law. As pointed out in the debate on 
this point of order, the conference report now before the House does 
carry an amount for military assistance that is $54,500,000 above the 
figure which 


[[Page 533]]

would be authorized by H.R. 14580, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1969.
However, the Chair recalls that when this appropriation bill passed the 
House, it was considered under a rule waiving points of order. The 
House agreed to a total figure for military assistance of $454,500,000. 
The Senate reduced this figure to $350 million. The conferees have 
reached an agreement between these two amounts, as they had the 
authority to do.
The Chair holds that the conferees have not exceeded their authority 
and overrules the point of order.
Appropriations in Amendments to Senate Bills
Sec.    7.30 Although the managers on the part of the House may not 
without the prior consent of the House agree to a Senate amendment 
providing for an appropriation not authorized by law or an 
appropriation upon any bill other than a general appropriation bill, 
this restriction does not apply where a Senate bill with House 
amendments is committed to conference.
On Jan. 25, 1972,(18) Mr. Thomas E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, called up 
the conference report on S. 2189, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1971, 
and obtained the consent of the House that the statement of the 
managers be read in lieu of the report. At this point, Mr. H. R. Gross, 
of Iowa, raised a point of order against the conference report on the 
grounds that it contained matter that was beyond the range of 
disagreement submitted to the conferees, and which was not germane to 
the Senate bill or House amendment. Mr. Morgan responded to the point 
of order:

. . . Last November the House sent to conference two foreign aid bills, 
one economic and one military, which passed the Senate. At that time 
the House struck out all after the enacting clauses of both bills and 
inserted in lieu thereof the complete text of H.R. 9910, which had 
passed the House last August.
All the provisions of both the House and Senate bills that were in 
disagreement were considered in conference. The House having adopted a 
rule to send these two Senate bills to conference therefore the 
amendments to which the gentleman from Iowa has objected automatically 
became House amendments and the provisions from the Senate bill are no 
longer subject to a point of order.
THE SPEAKER:(19) The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from Iowa has raised a point of order against the 
conference report on the ground that the House 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     118 CONG. REC. 1076, 1077, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
19.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 534]]

conferees have exceeded their authority by including in the conference 
report provisions not germane or not in either the Senate bill or the 
House amendment and agreed to an appropriation in violation of clause 
2, rule XX.(20) That rule provides in relevant part:

No amendment of the Senate . . . providing for an appropriation upon 
any bill other than a general appropriation bill, shall be agreed to by 
the managers on the part of the House.

The Chair would point out that it was a Senate bill which was sent to 
conference, with a House amendment thereto. The rule is restricted in 
its application to Senate amendments, and thus is not applicable in the 
present situation.
The Chair also points out that the resolution under which this 
conference report is being considered specifically waives points of 
order under clause 3, rule XXVIII.(1) 
The action of the conferees in adding the language in section 658 of 
the conference report is protected by this waiver of points of order.

For these reasons, the Chair overrules the point of order.