[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[C. INSTRUCTIONS TO CONFEREES; MOTIONS TO INSTRUCT]
[Â§ 12. Binding Effect and Scope of Instructions; Violation of Instructions]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 604-633]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
C. INSTRUCTIONS TO CONFEREES; MOTIONS TO INSTRUCT
 
Sec.    12. Binding Effect and Scope of Instructions; Violation of 
Instructions

Application to Senate Conferees
Sec.    12.1 Instructions of the House apply only to the conferees on the 
part of the House and do not apply to the conferees of the Senate.
On July 12, 1946,(17) Mr. Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, made a 
point of order in regard to the conference report on H.R. 6777, the 
1947 government corporations appropriation bill.

MR. CASE of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, it is my recollection that at 
the time this conference report was before the House previously a 
motion was made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Rich] 
instructing the conferees to disagree to the Senate amendment and 
insist upon our position. I have been told inferentially that at the 
conference no attempt was made to have the other body vote upon the 
disagreement. At least I have found no record of a vote by the other 
body. Under the precedents of the House, when one body proposes an 
amendment and it subsequently is taken to the other body and there is 
disagreed to, in comity the body proposing the matter should at least 
take a vote upon the proposition or recede from its position. It seems 
reasonable that the other body would do so, if the conferees were to 
follow the instructions given them. Consequently, I make the point of 
order that the conferees have disregarded their instructions and 
exceeded their authority in bringing the matter back to the House for a 
vote before it has been considered by the other body.
THE SPEAKER:(18) Of course, the instructions of the House could apply 
only to the conferees on the part of the House. They could not apply to 
the conferees on the part of the Senate. The Chair overrules the point 
of order.(19) 
Advisory Nature of Instructions
Sec.    12.2 Motions to instruct conferees are in the nature of advisory 
instructions to the managers on the part of the House; they are not 
binding  in a strict sense, since the House, by independent action, 
cannot compel specific 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     92 CONG. REC. 8809, 8810, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
18.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
19.     See also 79 CONG. REC. 12272, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 1, 1935.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 605]]

performance on the part of Senate conferees.
On May 29, 1968,(20) after Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, asked 
unanimous consent to send H.R. 5037, the Law Enforcement and Criminal 
Justice Assistance Act of 1967, to conference, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Richard H. Poff, of 
Virginia, for the purpose of posing a parliamentary inquiry.

MR. POFF: If the motion to instruct the conferees is adopted, is that 
instruction binding upon the House conferees, or is it in the nature of 
an advisory instruction only?
THE SPEAKER: The construction is that it is in the nature of an 
advisory instruction, because the House cannot instruct the managers on 
the part of the Senate.
Motion To Instruct Conferees Is "Advisory"
Sec.    12.3 The motion to instruct conferees is advisory only, and 
failure of the House managers at the conference to adhere to 
instructions of the House does not render the report subject to a point 
of order; and the Chair does not respond to a parliamentary inquiry 
whether a hypothetical motion would be "within the scope of 
conference."
After conferees had been appointed for more than 20 calendar days of 
the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1982, a motion to 
instruct was offered under Rule XXVIII clause 1(c).(1) A motion to 
table having been defeated, several parliamentary inquiries were 
directed to Speaker Pro Tempore James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas.(2) 

MRS. [PATRICIA] SCHROEDER [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
privileged motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mrs. Schroeder moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House 
amendments to the bill S. 815 be instructed to agree to the provisions 
contained in section 922 of the Senate bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     114 CONG. REC. 15499, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
 2.     127 CONG. REC. 26046, 26049, 97th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 29, 1981.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 606]]

MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MR. DICKINSON
MR. [WILLIAM L.] DICKINSON [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
to table.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Dickinson moves to lay on the table the motion of the gentlewoman 
from Colorado.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The motion is not debatable.
The question is on the motion to table offered by the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Dickinson).
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Dickinson) 
there were-yeas 28, nays 18.
MRS. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not     
present.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evidently a quorum is not present. . . . 
So the motion to table was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Schroeder) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
MRS. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if my understanding of 
the parliamentary procedure is correct.
The gentlewoman from Colorado has succeeded against the motion to 
table, in which case she has a privileged motion now pending. It is my 
understanding she will have 1 hour to debate the motion now pending, 
and is in control of that entire time. Is this correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman stated the issue correctly. . . 
. 
MR. [SAMUEL S.] STRATTON [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, the motion offered 
by Mrs. Schroeder was that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference of the disagreeing votes of the two Houses to the bill S. 
815 be instructed to agree to the provisions contained in section 922 
of the Senate bill.
My inquiry is to what extent does that motion allow the House conferees 
to deviate in any way from the specific provisions of section 922 of 
the Senate bill?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair advises the gentleman that no point 
of order would lie against the conference report if the House conferees 
do not follow the instructions of the House, should the House agree to 
the motion of the gentlewoman from Colorado.
MR. STRATTON: In other words, we could accept a provision on limiting 
cost growth that does not follow the precise wording of section 922 of 
the Senate bill?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is not going to rule on what will be 
in the scope of the conference. The 


[[Page 607]]

Chair is advising only as to the effect of the motion.
MR. STRATTON: Does this mean, Mr. Speaker, that if the gentleman from 
Alabama and I, who have been working on a substitute for the Nunn 
amendment, come up with something that does not have one or two of the 
provisions of the Nunn amendment in it, we are not in violation of the 
motion offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would restate the parliamentary 
situation; that no point of order would lie for the reason that the 
conferees have not followed the instructions should the House adopt the 
motion of the gentlewoman from Colorado.
The motion to instruct is advisory.
Sec.    12.4 Instructions by the House to its conferees are advisory in 
nature and are not binding as a limitation on their authority, and 
there is no rule of the House requiring conferees to seek further 
instructions if they are unable to comply with instructions suggested 
to them.
On June 8, 1972,(3) Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, made a 
point of order against the conference report on S. 659, the Education 
Amendments of 1972.
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, this point of order is quite simple. On two 
occasions the House of Representatives has by overwhelming votes 
instructed and given a mandate to the conferees from the House of 
Representatives on this particular legislation. I submit without any 
further explanation that they have violated the instructions of the 
House of Representatives, and therefore have violated, Mr. Speaker, the 
rules of the House of Representatives.
MR. [DURWARD G.] HALL [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
yield?
MR. WAGGONNER: I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
MR. HALL: Is it not the fact that it is stated in Jefferson's Manual 
when the rules of instructions are exceeded by the managers on the part 
of this body that the remedy lies in returning to the body for 
instruction, and thus another violation, as clearly set forth in the 
report, has been approved?
MR. WAGGONNER: The gentleman is exactly right.
THE SPEAKER:(4) The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Waggonner) makes a point of order 
against the conference report on the bill S. 659 on the ground that the 
managers on the part of the House have not adhered to the instructions 
imposed upon them by the House on March 8, 1972, and again on May 11, 
1972.
The Chair has examined the precedents on this question and they 
consistently indicate, although conferees dis-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     118 CONG. REC. 20282, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 608]]

regard the instructions of the House, the Speaker cannot for that
reason rule the conference report out of order. The Chair would suggest 
that the gentleman examine Hinds' Precedents, volume V, 6395 and 
Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, 3246.
For this reason, the Chair overrules the point of order. . . . 
MR. WAGGONNER: Do not the rules of the House of Representatives provide 
that when the House has given instructions to its conferees on any 
legislative proposal, if they cannot comply with those instructions, 
they are required to come back to the House of Representatives for 
further instruction?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair knows of no rule that makes such provision.
Instructions Neither Binding Nor Restrictive on Conferees
Sec.    12.5 Instructions in a motion to recommit a conference report are 
not binding, nor do they limit the issues which can be revisited in the 
conference: therefore all matters committed to conference are open to 
further negotiation when the conferees of the House and Senate meet 
pursuant to the recommittal motion.
On Apr. 21, 1988,(5) the motion to recommit, offered by Mr. Robert H. 
Michel, of Illinois, pursuant to the rule adopted earlier that day, 
evoked the following parliamentary inquiry by Mr. William D. Ford, of 
Michigan, with respect to the authority of the conferees if the motion 
were to be agreed to.

MR. [DAN] ROSTENKOWSKI [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
question on the conference report.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. MICHEL
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I offer a motion to 
recommit with instructions.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Michel moves to recommit the conference report to accompany the 
bill, H.R. 3, to the Committee of Conference with instructions that the 
managers on the part of the House promptly report the conference report 
back to the House without the provisions of subtitle E of title VI 
(sec. 6401-6410) entitled Advance Notification of Plant Closings and 
Mass Layoffs.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
MR. MICHEL: I am, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to House Resolution 430, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel] will be recognized for 10 minutes 
and the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     134 CONG. REC. 8198, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     John P. Murtha (Pa.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 609]]

gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford], a Member opposed, will be 
recognized for 10 minutes. 
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel].
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. FORD of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. FORD of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a parliamentary 
inquiry. I would like to understand, because in my 24 years in the 
House I have never seen a motion to recommit a conference report with 
instructions to pass.
So I am trying to grasp what the rules provide.
Am I correct, Mr. Speaker, that our parliamentary situation is that if 
a motion with any instructions is passed, that the instruction is a 
nonbinding suggestion, not to this body, not to this House or to the 
chairman of the committee of original jurisdiction, Mr. Rostenkowski, 
but to the conference of the House and Senate and that would then 
automatically commit the entire bill to the conference between the 
House and the Senate which could either disregard or adopt the 
conference instruction or indeed consider any other matter that would 
then be before that conference to change the conference report as it 
comes to us now.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The whole matter would go back to conference.
MR. FORD of Michigan: I thank the Speaker.
Conference Reports in Violation of Instructions
Sec.    12.6 The Speaker may not rule out of order a conference report as 
in contravention of instructions imposed on House conferees, as it is 
for the House to determine by its vote on the report whether its 
managers have disregarded their instructions.
On June 8, 1972,(7) the following occurred in regard to the conference 
report on S. 659, the education amendments of 1972:

MR. [JOE D.] WAGGONNER [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, this point of 
order is quite simple. On two occasions the House of Representatives 
has by overwhelming votes instructed and given a mandate to the 
conferees from the House of Representatives on this particular 
legislation. I submit without any further explanation that they have 
violated the instructions of the House of Representatives, and 
therefore have violated, Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House of 
Representatives. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(8) The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Waggonner) makes a point of order 
against the conference report on the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     118 CONG. REC. 20282, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 8.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 610]]

bill S. 659 on the ground that the managers on the part of the House 
have not adhered to the instructions imposed upon them by the House on 
March 8, 1972, and again on May 11, 1972.
The Chair has examined the precedents on this question and they 
consistently indicate, although conferees disregard the instructions of 
the House, the Speaker cannot for that reason rule the conference 
report out of order. The Chair would suggest that the gentleman examine 
Hinds' Precedents, volume V, 6395 and Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, 
3246.
For this reason, the Chair overrules the point of order.
Difference Between "Free" and "Instructed" Conferees
Sec.    12.7 While "instructed" conferees are not "free," they are not 
bound by a vote of the House to instruct and a point of order against a 
report which does not follow the instructions does not lie. 
The discussion which occurred on June 17, 1977,(9) following debate on 
a motion to instruct conferees is carried here.

MR. [JOHN H.] ROUSSELOT [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
previous question on the motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The Chair is going to make a further 
comment with regard to the parliamentary inquiry that was directed to 
the Chair by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin). If the gentleman 
from California will withhold the motion for the previous question, the 
Chair wishes to clarify one apparent misconception.
Subsequent to the Chair's reply to the gentleman from Iowa, the 
gentleman made reference to the conferees as being free conferees. The 
Chair would point out there is, indeed, a distinction between free 
conferees and instructed conferees. If the motion to instruct should 
prevail, the conferees would not be in the purest sense free conferees. 
They would be instructed conferees. But notwithstanding the fact that 
were such conferees, as conferees have in the past, to report back a 
conference report not completely in conformity with those instructions, 
the conferees' report would not, for that reason, be subject to a point 
of order.
MR. [TOM] HARKIN [of Iowa]: If I understand correctly, the Chair is 
saying that, if the motion carries, that the conferees, while not being 
free, while they are instructed, still if they reach language which is 
different than that contained in the motion offered by the gentleman 
from California and bring this back as part of the conference report to 
the floor of the House, that a point of order cannot be sustained 
against that because the language is different.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is correct. The Chair is simply saying 
that there is a distinction between free con-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     123 CONG. REC. 19697, 19698, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 611]]

ferees and instructed conferees. The Chair is further saying that, 
under the precedents, the conference committee report would not be 
subject to a point of order and to be ruled out of order simply on the 
ground that it had varied from the instructions given. The House, under 
such circumstances, could perhaps recommit or reject a conference 
report.
MR. HARKIN: Under other circumstances, if I might inquire further of 
the Chair; if, in fact, this motion carries and it contains an 
instruction to the conferees to insist on this language, that it does 
not in any way clamp them in irons. I wish to make this distinction.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would not desire to respond in the 
sense of interpreting or monitoring the individual consciences of 
individual conferees, nor their individual concepts of their 
responsibilities to carry out instructions given by the House. That is 
beyond the purview of the Chair.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [J. WILLIAM] STANTON [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry in regard to the ruling or observations the Chair just made. 
I want to make it clear to the gentleman from Iowa, sometimes I get the 
impression we want to back the motion and do not want to back the 
motion to lock the conferees.
MR. ROUSSELOT: That is not a parliamentary inquiry.
MR. STANTON: I am asking it now, if the gentleman will wait just a 
minute.
I want to know, Mr. Speaker, under the ruling the Chair just made, 
whether or not the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) was not right 
that in his experience in the House that more or less, on a motion to 
instruct given the conferees, there is a strong moral obligation to 
stick with it word for word. I mean, it may be a personal opinion, but 
the few times that this has ever come up in the past, you definitely 
tie one hand behind you.
MR. ROUSSELOT: That is not a parliamentary inquiry. There are no hands 
tied behind your back.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will respond. It is not the 
prerogative of the Chair to interpret the moral responsibilities of 
Members of Congress. They would have their individual responsibilities. 
They would be instructed conferees, provided instructions by a vote of 
the House, and would be under some obligation to consider that 
instruction.
The Chair simply responded to the question propounded by the gentleman 
from Iowa to the effect that a conference report, though it might vary 
from those instructions, would not for that reason alone be subject to 
a point of order.
MR. HARKIN: I thank the Chair.
MR. ROUSSELOT: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to instruct.
Instructions Dealing With Specific Paragraphs of Amendment
Sec.    12.8 The House may instruct its conferees to insist upon a 
portion of a House amend-


[[Page 612]]

ment to a Senate bill sent to conference.
On July 24, 1973,(11) after the House agreed to a motion to send S. 
1888, the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973, to 
conference, Mr. Robert D. Price, of Texas, offered a motion to instruct 
the House conferees.

MR. PRICE of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Price of Texas moves that the managers on the part of the House, at 
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill S. 1888, be 
instructed to insist on the provisions of paragraph (26) of section 1 
of the House amendment at page 38, lines 1 through 8 which read as 
follows:
"(B) by adding a new section 703 as follows:
"Sec. 703. Title IV of such Act as amended by adding at the end thereof 
the following:
".'Sec. 411. No agricultural commodities shall be sold under title I or 
title III or donated under title II of this Act of North Vietnam, 
unless by an Act of Congress enacted subsequent to July 1, 1973, 
assistance to North Vietnam is specifically au-thorized.'." . . . 

THE SPEAKER:(12) The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Price) to instruct conferees. . . . 
The vote was taken by electronic device; and there were-yeas 371, nays 
35, not voting 27. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to.
Motion To Instruct Conferees To Retreat From House Position
Sec.    12.9 Form of motion to instruct conferees under Rule XXVIII 
clause 1(c) to retreat from a House position submitted to conference.
H.R. 3355, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1994 had 
been "in conference" since May 19, 1994,(13) the date the Senate 
disagreed to the House amendments to a Senate amendment and agreed to 
the House's request for a conference. Mr. McCollum's motion to instruct 
under the "20-day rule" was thus timely.(14) 
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 3355, VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND 
LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994
MR. [BILL] MCCOLLUM [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, as I announced 
yesterday, I offer a privileged motion to instruct conferees on the 
bill (H.R. 3355) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     119 CONG. REC. 25539-41, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
13.     See 140 CONG. REC. 11102, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
14.     See 140 CONG. REC. 13208, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., June 16, 1994.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 613]]

Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow grants to increase police presence, 
to expand and improve cooperative efforts between law enforcement 
agencies and members of the community to address crime and disorder 
problems, and otherwise to enhance public safety.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(15) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. McCollum moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3355 be instructed 
not to agree to Title IX, relating to racially discriminatory 
sentencing, of the House amendment or to any similar provision.
Form of Motion To Instruct Regarding Specific Numbered Instructions 
Regarding Amendments to General Appropriation Bill
Sec.    12.10 An example of a motion to instruct conferees on a general 
appropriation bill to: (1) insist on disagreement to any Senate 
amendment adding new or increased rates of user fees to the bill; and 
(2) to insist on three specified Senate amendments.
On Aug. 16, 1994,(16) H.R. 4539, the Treasury and Post Office 
appropriations bill for fiscal 1995, had been "blue-slipped" when the 
House first received the Senate amendments and its request for 
conference. The Senate had modified one of its amendments and again 
insisted and asked a conference. Certain of the remaining Senate 
amendments were argued by some to violate the Constitutional 
prerogative of the House to originate revenue measures. As to several 
of the amendments, the  Committee on Ways and Means saw no problem. 
Rather than invoking the constitutional prerogative a second time, the 
House opted to send the measure to conference, voicing its opposition 
to the offending amendments by the motion to instruct conferees.
The motion to instruct and a portion of debate on the motion are 
carried here.

MR. [STENY H.] HOYER [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4539) making 
appropriations for the Treasury Department, the U.S. Postal Service, 
the Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent 
Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other   
purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     Robert E. Wise, Jr. (W. Va.).
16.     140 CONG. REC. 22565, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 614]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(17) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. LIGHTFOOT
MR. [JIM] LIGHTFOOT [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
instruct.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Lightfoot moves that the managers on the part of the House, at the 
conference of the disagreeing votes on the bill, H.R. 4539, be 
instructed to insist on disagreement to provisions contained in any 
Senate amendment regarding the imposition of new or increased user 
fees, collections or taxes which may be established by the Secretary of 
the Treasury and which are authorized by law, to insist on disagreement 
to the amendment to the last proviso set forth in Senate amendment 
numbered 16, to insist on disagreement to the Senate amendment numbered 
26, and to insist on disagreement to the Senate amendment numbered 29. . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].
MR. LIGHTFOOT: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have a motion to instruct conferees on items which have 
been considered by the subcommittee, the full Committee on 
Appropriations, and the House. I think the motion is very 
straightforward. It instructs conferees to reject new user fees 
proposed by the Treasury Department. Our subcommittee chose to reject 
the proposed user fees, totaling some $258 million. They include: a $20 
fee for tax filers entering into an installment agreement with IRS to 
pay taxes owed over time; a $12 fee charged to those persons who 
request photocopies of tax returns from the IRS; an $8 fee imposed to 
transmitters of electronic returns; and an increase in the merchandise 
processing fee and the special occupational tax assessed by the Customs 
Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Frankly, many of us feel more user fees are not the answer-they are, 
quite simply, a roundabout way to increase taxes.
The Senate, however, has included language permitting Treasury to 
retain the proposed user fees if they are increased. While the language 
doesn't authorize any new fees, it gives the IRS clear incentive to 
raise and implement fees on taxpayers.
Instructions Permitting Closed Sessions
Sec.    12.11 A motion to instruct the managers on the part of the House 
under Rule XXVIII clause 1(c) may include instructions to insist upon 
holding conference in executive session if so desired.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     Ronald D. Coleman (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 615]]

On Aug. 1, 1935,(18) Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, offered a 
motion to instruct the House conferees on S. 2796, the Public Utilities 
Act of 1935.

MR. HUDDLESTON: Mr. Speaker, I offer the following motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Motion to instruct conferees by Mr. Huddleston: Moved that managers on 
the part of the House appointed upon request of the Senate for a 
conference upon the disagreeing votes of the House and the Senate on 
the amendment adopted by the House to S. 2796 be, and they are hereby, 
instructed as follows:
That it is the will of the House that its managers insist upon a 
conference being held under just and fair conditions, such as will 
insure careful, calm, and deliberate consideration and will tend to 
promote an agreement by the conference, and that in the performance of 
their duties as such managers it is and shall remain the right and 
privilege of the managers on the part of the House, if in their 
judgment it is desirable in promoting the aforesaid ends, that such 
conference be held without the presence thereat of any person not a 
manager upon the part of either House or Senate.

MR. [THOMAS L.] BLANTON [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of 
order that the resolution is out of order; that any resolution that 
would impugn the motives of the Senate conferees as being unfair is out 
of order. . . . 
MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make the further 
point of order that the House is authorized to instruct conferees only 
on the matters in disagreement between the two bodies, and this is an 
attempt to go beyond that and regulate the conduct of the conferees on 
the part of the Senate. For that reason it is not in order and not 
privileged. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(19) The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Huddleston] has offered a motion to instruct the conferees on the 
part of the House at the conference on the bill S. 2796, which has been 
read at the desk. To that motion the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Blanton] 
and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] raised points of order. 
The question as to whether the conferees shall be instructed in the 
manner proposed is a matter which must appeal to each individual Member 
of the House. The conferees are the agents of the House, and under this 
rule, as the Chair construes it, they are subject to its authority 
after 20 days have elapsed, so far as the matter of instruction or a 
motion to discharge and appoint new conferees are concerned. There is 
nothing in this motion, as the Chair reads it, which refers to the 
Senate conferees. Of course, this House has nothing to do with the 
Senate conferees, and this motion does not seek to interfere with their 
method or with what they do. It simply applies to the agents of the 
House, those who have been appointed managers on the part of the House 
to represent the House in the deliberations in the conference on the 
bill S. 2796. The Chair calls attention of the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     79 CONG. REC. 12272, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
19.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 616]]

House to the fact that the motion is drawn so as to provide that in the 
performance of their duties as managers-

It is and shall remain the right and privilege of the managers on the 
part of the House, if in their judgment it is desirable in promoting 
the aforesaid ends, that such conference be held without the presence 
thereat of any person not a manager on the part of either House or 
Senate.

The Chair is not called upon, and it is not within the province of the 
Chair to pass upon the question of whether a motion of this kind should 
be adopted at this time. The Chair does hold that this House has a 
right to dictate to its own managers their method of procedure in the 
conference, which is to be subsequently held. The Chair, therefore, 
overrules the point of order.(20) 
Limitations on Scope of Instructions
Sec.    12.12 Instructions to managers of a conference may not direct 
them to do that which they might not otherwise do.
On May 9, 1955,(1) after Mr. Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, called up 
the conference report on S. 1, the Postal Field Service Compensation 
Act of 1955, the following occurred:

MR. [EDWARD H.] REES of Kansas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER:(2) Is the gentleman opposed to the conference report?
MR. REES of Kansas: I am, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman qualifies. The Clerk will report the motion 
to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Rees of Kansas moves to recommit the bill S. 1 as amended to the 
committee of conference with instructions to report back an agreement 
which would include the provisions of H.R. 4644 as reported by the 
House Post Office and Civil Service Committee, with the additional 
provision that the 6-percent increase be retroactive to March 1, 1955.

MR. MURRAY of Tennessee: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against 
the motion to recommit. As I understand, the motion instructs the 
conferees to do something less than the House voted. We are bound to 
follow the instructions of the House in the conference. That matter is 
not even in conference. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair thinks that this 
question has been passed upon many times in the past. An exactly 
similar question was raised on September 15, 1922, when a very 
distinguished gentleman by the name of John N. Garner made a similar 
motion to recommit with instructions to the conferees to lower the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     Rule XXVIII clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 913d (1997), 
now addresses the method of closing a conference.
 1.     101 CONG. REC. 5846, 5871, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 617]]

rates contained in either the bill or in the amendment. Mr. Edward 
Taylor, of the State of Colorado, made the point of order. Speaker 
Gillette sustained the point of order, and that decision may be found 
in Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, section 3244. It is exactly on all 
fours with this. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.
Motion To Instruct To Add Provisions Not in Conference
Sec.    12.13 A motion to instruct conferees is subject to a point of 
order if the instructions call for agreement to matter not committed to 
conference; and the Speaker sustained a point of order against a motion 
instructing the conferees to insist on positions not before the 
conferees on the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1979.
On Feb. 28, 1980,(3) where conferees on H.R. 3919, the Crude Oil 
Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1979 had been appointed for more than 20 
legislative days without filing a report, a motion to instruct was 
offered by Mr. Joseph L. Fisher, of Virginia. The motion directed the 
House conferees to insist on a mandatory allocation of the revenues 
from the crude oil profit tax for specified purposes, some of which 
were not committed to conference by the Senate amendment. The point of 
order, a portion of the argument and the Speaker's ruling are carried 
here. 
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES REGARDING NET REVENUES ON SENATE 
AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 3919, CRUDE OIL WINDFALL PROFIT ACT OF 1979
MR. FISHER: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(4) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Fisher moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the State 
amendments to the bill H.R. 3919 be instructed to insist that-

As a matter of policy:
(1) 50 percent of the net revenues from the windfall profits tax shall 
be made available for energy research, development, production, or 
conservation and for transit programs, and
(2) 25 percent of the net revenues from the windfall profits tax shall 
be made available for energy assistance to low-income individuals, and
(3) 25 percent of the net revenues from the windfall profits tax shall 
be available for any purpose.

MR. [SAM M.] GIBBONS [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of 
order against the motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Fisher).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     126 CONG. REC. 4304, 4305, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 618]]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Florida will state his 
point of order.
MR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the motion offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia is an improper motion and is not in order. The motion would 
instruct the conferees to make a specific distribution of windfall tax 
receipts on a percentage basis for designate purposes. Neither the 
House language nor the Senate language specifically addresses the 
distribution of these tax receipts. Thus, the instruction is clearly 
beyond the scope of the conference and not a proper instruction under 
the rules of the House.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Fisher) 
desire to be heard on the point of order?
MR. FISHER: I do, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
MR. FISHER: Mr. Speaker, I will argue that the point of order should 
not be sustained, and these are my reasons: The House bill calls for an 
energy trust fund, which would include all windfall tax proceeds to be 
used as determined by subsequent legislation.
I would argue that my motion is within and less than the House bill 
provision. It simply indicates how, as a matter of policy, a portion of 
the total tax proceeds should be used.
The relevant House rule, I believe, is 28, at section 913a. My motion 
does not present an "additional topic, question, issue, or proposition 
not committed to the conference committee by either House," and, 
therefore, would be germane and within the scope.
It is not, I argue, an additional topic. We are still dealing with the 
proceeds of the tax and how to use it, which is spelled out in general 
terms within the House bill.
Nor is my amendment, quoting from the rule-

A modification of any specific topic * * * committed to the conference 
committee by either House-

Such that the-

modification is beyond the scope of that specific question.

Mr. Speaker, again I rest on the point that the topic is the use of the 
funds, and that is dealt with in great and ample scope in the House 
bill.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill contains numerous provisions 
for specific stimulation of energy production, conservation, and so on, 
and for energy payments to lower income persons.
The Senate bill is loaded with various provisions related to the use of 
the funds. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) 
desire to be heard on the point of order?
MR. [BARBER B.] CONABLE [Jr., of New York]: I do, Mr. Speaker. . . . 
I call the Speaker's attention also to the fact that this motion to 
instruct proposed by the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Fisher) includes references to transit programs among the expenditures 
that would be permitted.
There is nothing about transit programs in the Senate version of the 
bill, although there is something to do with railroads. I think that 
also illustrates an example where this motion to in-


[[Page 619]]

struct goes beyond the scope of the conference.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Gibbons).
MR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat neither the House language 
nor the Senate language specifically addressed the distribution of 
these tax receipts.
The Senate bill has some tax credits in it, but those are not tax 
receipts. Those are never receipts to the Federal Government. So the 
gentleman's motion is clearly outside the scope of the conference. . . 
. 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Florida has made a point of order against the motion 
of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Fisher) to instruct the conferees 
on H.R. 3919, the oil windfall profit tax bill, on the grounds that the 
motion seeks to direct the conferees to accomplish that which they are 
prohibited from doing under the rules.
Clause 3 of rule XXVIII prohibits conferees from including in their 
report any new topic, issue, or proposition not committed to the 
conference committee by the House.
The motion directs the conferees to make certain distributions of the 
windfall tax revenues in certain percentages for designated purposes.
In section 3 of the House bill, an energy trust fund was created to 
consist of amounts equivalent to the revenues from the oil windfall 
tax; subsection 3(d) did not designate any of the purposes for which 
the fund would be available simply stating that-

Amounts in the trust fund shall be available, as provided by 
appropriation acts, for making expenditures for such purposes as may 
hereafter be specified by law.

Section 102(a) of the Senate amendment provided that $1 billion of the 
tax receipts be reserved for improvements in the Nation's freight and 
passenger railroad systems, with allocations of not less than certain 
amounts for three designated aspects of such railroad improvements.
Section 103 of the Senate amendment also provided for the deposit in a 
taxpayer trust fund of amounts equivalent to increases in income tax 
revenues as a result of oil decontrol.
Subsection 103(d) provided that amounts in such trust fund be available 
as thereafter provided by law for relief from increased social security 
taxes effective in 1981.
Neither the House nor the Senate provision mandate expenditures from 
the trust funds for any purpose. And neither version mentions use of 
the tax receipts for energy research, development, and conservation or 
for energy assistance to low-income individuals.
The Chair cannot consider any distributions the conferees may have 
considered in their deliberations and is restricted to reviewing the 
text of the House bill and Senate amendment in determining whether this 
motion directs the conferees to include matters beyond the scope of 
their authority.
Clearly, the House and Senate versions left to future legislation the 
appropriate distribution of tax receipts and the specific purpose is 
suggested, but not required in the Senate amendment, which do not 
relate to all the 


[[Page 620]]

programs addressed in the motion of the gentleman from Virginia.
Accordingly, the Chair disagrees with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Fisher), and the Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman 
from Florida.
Motion To Instruct Outside Scope
Sec.    12.14 A motion to instruct conferees may not direct the managers 
to include a provision or concept which would be beyond the issues 
committed to conference, and for this reason a motion to instruct the 
conferees on a general appropriation bill to include a new funding 
limitation which was not contained in the House bill or any Senate 
amendment was ruled out as a violation of Rule XXVIII clause 3.
On Sept. 13, 1994, a motion to instruct was offered which called upon 
conferees to report a funding limitation not carried in the House 
appropriation bill or the Senate amendments.(5) After the Chair ruled 
the motion out of order, a second motion was in order and was offered 
by a minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. That motion 
was agreed to.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4650, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995
MR. [JOHN P.] MURTHA [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4650) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference 
asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. WALKER
MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Walker moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, H.R. 
4650, be instructed to agree to the following language:
No funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to deploy United 
States Armed Forces to Haiti or otherwise support United States Armed 
Forces in Haiti for purposes of removing the de facto regime or for 
subsequent peacekeeping by United States Armed Forces without first
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     See 140 CONG. REC. 24401, 24402, 103d Cong. 2d Sess. (H.R. 4650).
 6.     Michael A. Andrews (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 621]]

obtaining the prior approval of the Congress.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. MURTHA: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to 
instruct conferees. The motion instructs conferees to include matter 
outside the scope of the conferees' authority and is in violation of 
clause 3, rule XXVIII. 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] wish to be heard on the point of order?
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I do wish to be heard on my motion and on the 
point of order.
Mr. Speaker, my dear friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Murtha], raises the point that the instruction that I have proposed 
falls outside the scope of the legislation that we have before us.
Mr. Speaker, the problem with the gentleman's point is the fact that we 
are about to engage, according to media reports and according to 
announcements from the administration, in an action in Haiti. This is 
not an action that was contemplated at the time the bills were being 
drafted either in the House or the Senate. . . . 
This instruction, while it does not meet the strict interpretation of 
scope, is certainly within the scope of the moneys that are going to be 
utilized in the bill that is before us. There is no doubt that if this 
invasion takes place, the moneys that are going to be appropriated 
under this bill will be used in Haiti. . . . 
So I think this is a necessary action to take and conferees would then 
be authorized to place this language into the bills that come back for 
final action in the House. I would hope that the Chair would rule in 
favor of this as an entirely appropriate way for the House to engage in 
the issue of Haiti and assure that the Members of this House have had 
at least a vote on whether or not to engage in a combatant action in 
the nation of Haiti.
MR. MURTHA: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ruling.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The motion offered by the gentleman includes matter not within the 
scope of differences on any of the Senate amendments being sent to 
conference. The motion is, therefore, out of order under clause 3 of 
rule XXVIII.
On page 715 of the Manual it is stated that a point of order may be 
sustained against a motion to instruct House conferees to address a 
matter beyond the scope of differences being committed to conference by 
the 215 Senate amendments. . . . 
The Chair sustains the point of order.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. McDADE
MR. [JOSEPH M.] MCDADE [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. McDade moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill H.R. 
4650, as they resolve Senate amendment numbered 214, relating to fiscal 
year 1994 funding for Rwanda, be instructed to agree to the 


[[Page 622]]

following provisos contained in Senate amendment 214:
"Provided further, That no funds are available for United States 
participation in operations in or around Rwanda after October 7, 1994"; 
and 
"Provided further, That any change in the mission from one of strict 
refugee relief to security, peace-enforcing, nation-building or any 
other substantive role, shall not be implemented without the further 
approval of the Congress".
Sec.    12.15 Conferees may not include in a conference report a new 
topic or issue not committed to conference; and a motion which directs 
conferees to adopt a new provision expanding definitions beyond those 
in either the House or the Senate version is ruled out as in violation 
of this principle.
On Sept. 29, 1994,(7) the House had under consideration the conference 
report on the bill S. 349, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1994. A 
motion to recommit with instructions was offered by Mr. George W. 
Gekas, of Pennsylvania. After the reading of the rather lengthy motion 
was dispensed with by unanimous consent, a point of order was made by 
Mr. John Bryant, of Texas, who was managing the conference report on 
the floor.
The motion, the point of order, and the Chair's ruling are included 
here.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(8) Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. GEKAS
MR. GEKAS: Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit. 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
MR. GEKAS: In its present form, I am, Madam Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Gekas moves to recommit the conference report on the bill (S. 349)
 to the committee of conference with instructions for the managers on 
the part of the House to carry out the following:
(1) In the proposed section 103-
(A) strike out paragraph (8),
(B) strike out the second sentence of paragraph (9)(A), and
(C) strike out subparagraph (B) of paragraph (9),
(2) Strike out paragraph (5) of section 104(b).
(3) Strike out paragraph (6) of section 105(b).
(4) In the proposed section 103(10)(B)(xviii), strike out the material 
following subclause (II).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     140 CONG. REC. 26780, 26781, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
 8.     Nancy Pelosi (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 623]]

(5) In the proposed section 103, insert before the period at the end of 
paragraph (12) the following: "or a person who spends more than 
$100,000 in a 6 month period to influence decisionmaking in the 
executive and legislative branch.".
(6) In the proposed section 106(c), strike paragraph (2).
(7) In the proposed Rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate 
strike out subparagraphs (a) and (c) of paragraph 2 and in clause 4 of 
Rule XLIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives strike out 
paragraphs (b) and (d) of clause 4. . . .

SEC. 112. LEGISLATIVE SERVICE OR-GANIZATIONS.
(a) COVERAGE.-Any entity affiliated with a legislative service 
organization shall be considered a lobbyist subject to-
(1) the registration, reporting, and disclosure requirements of 
sections 104 and 105,
(2) the prohibition of section 106, and
(3) the amendments to the Standing Rules of the Senate and the Rules of 
the House of Representatives made by title II.
(b) OTHER REQUIREMENTS.-Each entity affiliated with a legislative 
service organization shall report to the Office of Lobbying 
Registration and Public Disclosure-
(1) the names and salaries of its staff,
(2) arrangements made with others to share staff and costs,
(3) relationships with other organizations in connection with lobbying 
activities, and
(4) any contributions, gifts, or reimbursements received. . . . 
(e) DEFINITIONS.-For purposes of this section:
(1) The term "contribution" means a gift, subscription, loan, advance, 
or deposit of money or anything of value and includes a contract, 
promise, or agreement, whether or not legally enforceable, to make a 
contribution.
(2) The term "legislative service organization" refers to a particular 
category of working groups or caucuses organized to provide legislative 
services and assistance to Members of the House of Representatives and 
certified by the Committee on House Administration.
(3) The term "entity affiliated" means an organization which is 
described in at least 2 of the following:
(A) An organization which spends at least 10 percent of its funds in 
any year on-
(i) travel expenses for Members of Congress or congressional staff,
(ii) meals, receptions, or other food and beverage expenses on 
activities attended by Members of Congress or congressional staff, and
(iii) gifts (other than educational materials) to Members of Congress 
or congressional staff.
(B) An organization which has a name which is like or similar to the 
name of an entity of the House of Representatives, including a 
legislative service organization or congressional member organization, 
or uses the word "congressional" in its official name or title. . . . 
At the end of the bill, add:
Any penalty applicable to lobbyists or lobbying firms in this bill 
shall also apply to Members of Congress.

MR. GEKAS (during the reading): Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
MR. BRYANT: Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like 
to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] if the motion to 
recommit is the one that was most recently given to our side.


[[Page 624]]

MR. GEKAS: Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. BRYANT: I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
MR. GEKAS: Yes, Madam Speaker, we believe so.
MR. BRYANT: Madam Speaker, I would ask if we could get a clear 
identification of which motion it is.
MR. GEKAS: Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we 
are down to two versions, the one that is now being read, or was being 
read, the one concerning grassroots lobbying, GS-14's and 16's, 
campaign spending, campaign contributions, and a few others.
MR. BRYANT: Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. BRYANT: Madam Speaker, I make a point of order that the motion to 
recommit offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] is not 
in order, in that it instructs the conferees to carry out instructions 
which exceed the scope of the matters committed to conference. 
Specifically, the motion to recommit contains language which expands 
the definition of lobbyists and expands the definition of covered 
executive branch officials.
Both of these expanded definitions exceed the scope of the matters 
committed to conference. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I insist on the 
point of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Gekas] desire to be heard on the point of order?
MR. GEKAS: . . . I have a parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker. If the 
gentleman would respond to me, I am asking if in his point of order he 
itemizes the campaign contributions as one of the items.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will control the debate. Does the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] concede the point of order?
MR. GEKAS: No, Madam Speaker, I want to speak on it, but I want to make 
sure that that is what I heard; that in the point of order that he 
made, as a parliamentary question, I would ask does the point of order 
that was just entered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] include 
a point of order against the campaign financing feature of my motion?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] has made 
a point of order on several grounds. The Chair will entertain argument 
on the point of order from each Member on his own time.
MR. GEKAS: Madam Speaker, as a point of parliamentary inquiry, I simply 
wanted to have repeated whether or not the point of order that was made 
included the point on campaign financing. I could not hear the 
gentleman from Texas.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Will the gentleman from Texas repeat his point 
of order.
MR. BRYANT: Madam Speaker, I made a point of order that the motion to 
recommit offered by the gentleman is not in order in that it instructs 
the conferees to carry out instructions which 


[[Page 625]]

exceed the scope of the matters that were committed to the conference.
Specifically the motion to recommit contains language which expands the 
definition of lobbyists and expands the definition of covered executive 
branch officials, both of these expanded definitions exceed the scope 
of the matters committed to conference.
MR. GEKAS: Madam Speaker, I believe that the motion to recommit is in 
order. The important feature of the motion to recommit has to do with 
campaign contributions in which we feel that, as we argued in the well 
of the House, the big gift that we should be banning is campaign 
contributions by lobbyists, not just sandwiches. The question is, if 
the point of order is to prevail and the Chair is to rule that my 
campaign contribution feature is out of order, does that not return it 
to the status of the current law in which, then, the whole issue 
becomes one that cannot be a point of order if it is returned to 
current law? I pose that as a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the Chair rules this motion out of order, 
the gentleman may offer another motion to recommit. . . . 
The gentleman from Texas has stated the point of order two times for 
the gentleman.
The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from Texas makes a point 
of order against the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
As discussed in section 26.12, chapter 33 of Procedure in the U.S. 
House of Representatives, a motion to recommit a conference report may 
not instruct House conferees to include matter beyond the scope of 
differences committed to conference by either House.
The motion offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania includes several 
instructions that violate this principle. For example, the motion 
instructs conferees to expand the definition of "lobbyist" as defined 
in both the Senate bill and House amendment to include not only persons 
who spend a certain period of time engaging in lobbying activities 
while serving a client but also those who spend more than a certain 
dollar amount within a fixed period to influence decisionmaking.
Another example is found in the instruction that expands the definition 
of "covered executive branch official" as defined in both the Senate 
bill and House amendment to include a position in the executive branch 
that is classified at or above GS-14 of the General Schedule.
The inclusion of even one of the above-described instructions provides 
the Chair with an adequate basis to find the entire motion out of order 
on the grounds the instructions exceed the scope of differences 
committed to conference. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained. 
. . . 
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. GEKAS
MR. GEKAS: Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Gekas moves to recommit the conference report on the bill (S. 349)
to the committee of conference with instructions for the managers on 


[[Page 626]]

the part of the House to carry out the following:
(1) In the proposed section 103-
(C) strike out subparagraph (B) of paragraph (9).
(2) Strike out paragraph (5) of section 104(b).
(3) Strike out paragraph (6) of section 105(b).

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
Sec.    12.16 A motion to instruct managers to include in a conference 
report a provision not committed to conference by either House exceeds 
the scope of conference, in violation of Rule XXVIII clause 3.(9) 
In determining whether a matter is "committed to conference," the Chair 
must look to the text of the bill and amendments in disagreement and 
not to terms or disclaimers used in the debate on that text. The 
Chair's ruling on Mar. 25, 1992,(10) followed this principle. 
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON S. 3, SENATE ELECTION ETHICS ACT OF 1991
MR. [SAM] GEJDENSON [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 3) to 
amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for a 
voluntary system of spending limits for Senate election campaigns, and 
for other purposes, with House amendments thereto, insist on the House 
amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER:(11) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY   MR. THOMAS OF CALIFORNIA
MR. [WILLIAM M.] THOMAS of California: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
instruct.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Thomas of California moves that the managers on the part of the 
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on 
the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 3) be instructed:
To include provisions in the conference report that would limit the 
total cost of the bill to the total savings to be derived from the 
recommended offsets in the Senate bill and House amendment and specify 
the account given such costs and offsets under the terms of Section 
301, Requirement of Budget Neutrality.
And to include in the conference report provisions containing the 
requirement that no taxpayer dollars may be used to finance 
congressional campaigns, such financing to include (1) any payments to 
reimburse the postal service for postage discounts provided to 
congressional campaigns 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 913a (1997).
10.     138 CONG. REC. 6843, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 627]]

(2) any payments to congressional campaigns (3) any other expenditure 
or obligation to offset revenue losses created by tax credits or other 
subsidies for the purpose of financing congressional campaigns.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. GEJDENSON: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the directions 
of the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] are beyond the scope.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] desire to 
be heard on the point of order?
MR. THOMAS of California: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
It is my understanding that when the amendment to H.R. 3750 was 
presented to the House, the gentleman from North Carolina, the author 
of the amendment, indicated in an explanation of the measure that "the 
requirement that no taxpayer dollars may be used to finance 
congressional campaigns" was a portion of a substitute amendment.
In addition, on the floor during debate in the Congressional Record, 
page 34667 (11/25/91) the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Oakar] said, "No 
taxpayers' dollars are involved." . . . 
What this motion to instruct says is that no taxpayer dollars should be 
used to finance congressional campaigns. There are three examples of 
areas that financing should not be allowed, based upon the provisions 
that were in the bill. . . . 
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, based upon all the allegations that were 
presented during the presentation of this bill, it seems to me that the 
scope of the conference certainly would find acceptable an explanation 
which simply delineates more specifically where no taxpayer dollars are 
to be allowed.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule, if there are no further 
arguments.
Neither the House nor the Senate version contains the provision which 
the second part of the instruction directs the House conferees to 
include in their report.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] is quoting statements on the 
floor made by Members supporting the bill, but neither the House nor 
the Senate version contains such provisions.
For this reason, the motion exceeds the scope of the matters formally 
committed to conference and the Chair sustains the point of order.
Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] have an additional 
motion?
Sec.    12.17 It is not in order to instruct House conferees to exceed 
their authority; and where a motion directed the conferees to include 
in a subsequent conference report certain features of a separate bill, 
none of which were in the Senate bill or in the House amendments in 
disagreement, the motion was ruled out on a point of order. 
The second conference report on S. 3, the Campaign Spending Limit and 
Election Reform Act 


[[Page 628]]

was considered in the House on Apr. 9, 1992,(12) pursuant to a special 
order (H. Res. 426) waiving points of order against the report and 
against its consideration. The House had, on the previous day, 
recommitted the original conference report; but the conferees met again 
and filed a new report on the same legislative day, Apr. 8, 1992. 
The proceedings shown below relate to the second conference report (H. 
Rept. 102-487).

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(13) The question is on the conference report.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. WALSH
MR. [JAMES T.] WALSH [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report in its present form?
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I am.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Walsh moves to recommit the conference report on the bill S. 3 to 
the Committee of Conference with instructions to the managers on the 
part of the House to include in the conference report the provisions of 
H.R. 3770 including:
1. The requirement that a majority of a candidate's contributions come 
from individuals residing in the candidate's district.
2. A limit of $1,000 on PAC contributions to candidates.
3. A total ban on soft money contributions to political parties.
And to further include the requirement that no taxpayer dollars may be 
used to finance congressional campaigns.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [SAM] GEJDENSON [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of 
order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. GEJDENSON: Mr. Speaker, I would make a point of order that the 
instructions exceed the scope of the conference report. It is clear 
that the requirement of in-district funding is beyond the scope of the 
conference report, and I would move that therefore the motion to 
recommit should be ruled out of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] 
wish to be heard in opposition to the point of order?
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this motion adds to the fairness 
of the conference report, and I would urge that it be added.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] 
concede the point of order?
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I do not.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     138 CONG. REC. 9021-23, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
13.     Dennis E. Eckart (Ohio).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 629]]

MR. [PAUL B.] HENRY [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on 
the point of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The point of order is contested. The gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Henry] is recognized on the point of order.
MR. HENRY: Mr. Speaker, I want to be sure we understand what the point 
of order is and what the question is and what the contest is.
Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Gejdenson] objects to the motion to instruct because the motion 
contains a provision that would require that in order to get Federal 
taxpayer match, one would have to raise campaign funds in one's 
district.
Mr. Speaker, if I understand it, that is what the objection is.
MR. GEJDENSON: Mr. Speaker, the objection is because it is beyond the 
scope of the conference. At this stage of the game to try to rewrite 
the whole conference is really in fact an attempt to kill campaign 
finance reform, at least at this session, in my perspective. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] wish 
to be heard on the point of order? . . . 
MR. [JIM] LEACH [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, there are two issues that this 
Member would like to make. One is that in his belief this is thoroughly 
and utterly germane.
The second point is how extraordinary it is that the party of alleged 
reform may or may not want to block real reform.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Connecticut makes a point of order against the 
motion offered by the gentleman from New York on the ground that the 
instructions therein exceed the scope of the conference.
The motion offered by the gentleman from New York proposes to instruct 
the managers on the part of the House to include in the conference 
report three features of a separate bill, H.R. 3770. Each of these 
three initiatives falls outside the matters committed to the conference 
as disagreements between the Senate bill and the House amendment 
thereto.
Therefore, under clause 3 of rule XXVIII, a conference report may not 
include a matter although germane that was not committed to the 
conference of either House.
In the opinion of the Chair, the instructions proposed in the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New York exceed the scope of the 
differences committed to the conference, and the point of order is 
sustained.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. WALSH
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
MR. WALSH: In its present form, I am, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Walsh moves to recommit the conference report on the bill S. 3 to 
the committee of conference with instructions to the managers on the


[[Page 630]]

part of the House to strip all sections from the bill that allow for 
public financing of subsidies of congressional campaigns, to wit 
sections providing for matching payments to candidates, voter 
communication vouchers, and reduced postal rate subsidies for 
candidates.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 179, nays 
243, not voting 12, as follows: . . . 
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
Senate Decision on Motion To Instruct
Sec.    12.18 Although conferees have wide discretion when   a Senate 
amendment has  stricken out certain language of a House bill, it was 
held in the Senate that once a measure had been adopted by that body 
instructions to its conferees in the nature of new legislation were not 
in order.
On Feb. 1, 1939,(14) the Senate was considering the amendments reported 
back in disagreement from the conference on House Joint Resolution 83, 
providing additional appropriations for work relief for fiscal 1939. 
After Senator Joseph C. O'Mahoney, of Wyoming, offered an amendment 
containing new legislation to a motion to instruct Senate conferees to 
insist on Senate amendment No. 9, Senator Alva B. Adams, of Colorado 
(the proponent of the original motion) raised a point of order.

MR. ADAMS: . . . I wish to raise the point of order that the motion of 
the Senator from Wyoming is not in order; that it is not possible at 
this point to instruct the conferees to insist upon matter which is not 
before the conference committee. . . . 
THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE:(15) The question raised involves Senate 
amendment No. 9 in the joint resolution. The amendment of the Senate 
struck out the House language. The question in conference, or which 
will be in conference, is as to whether the language of the House 
provision shall be adopted by the conferees, or whether it is to be 
stricken out of the resolution or whether the conferees shall adopt 
compromise language, and report the compromise language to their 
respective bodies for approval or disapproval.
House Joint Resolution 83 was finally acted upon by the Senate some 
time last week. That final action was reported to the House, the House 
agreed to a conference, and conferees 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     84 CONG. REC. 1004-09, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
15.     Key Pittman (Nev.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 631]]

were appointed. The question, first, is as to the authority of the 
Senate in the matter, and secondly, the authority of the conferees.
The Chair feels that all opportunity for legislation in connection with 
the House joint resolution ended with the passage of the measure in the 
Senate. The Senate has often held that it has the right to instruct its 
conferees-to instruct them, however, as to whether they shall insist 
upon a Senate amendment, or whether they shall yield on the amendment. 
The Chair does not believe that an instruction, after a measure has 
been finally passed by the Senate, can be put in the nature of new 
legislation which was not adopted by the Senate at the time the measure 
was under consideration. . . . 
The present occupant of the chair feels that it would be improper 
practice to attempt by instructions to the Senate's conferees to 
legislate beyond the scope of legislation by either branch of the 
Congress. Therefore the point of order made by the Senator from 
Colorado [Mr. Adams] is sustained.
Motion To Instruct Conferees To Take an Action Which Would Not Have 
Been in Order in House
Sec.    12.19 While Rule XX clause 2 permits a motion to instruct House 
conferees to agree to a Senate amendment which would have been in 
violation of Rule XXI clauses 2 or 5 if offered in the House, 
instructions to amend such Senate amendment should not be made in a 
manner not in order under House rules (e.g., to include unauthorized 
items (clause 2), to add further appropriations to a legislative bill 
(clause 5), or to include matter outside the scope of conferee's 
authority (Rule XXVIII clause 3)).
On Nov. 13, 1973,(16) the following proceedings occurred in regard to 
the conference report on H.R. 8877, appropriations for the Departments 
of Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare, and related agencies, for 
fiscal 1974:

MR. [ALBERT H.] QUIE [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER:(17) Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
MR. QUIE: I am, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Quie moves to recommit the Conference Report on H.R. 8877 to the 
Committee of Conference with the following instructions to the Managers 
on the Part of the House:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
Senate numbered 32 and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     119 CONG. REC. 36835, 36847, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 632]]

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, 
insert the following: "That the aggregate amounts made available to 
each State under title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act for grants to local educational agencies within that State shall 
not be more than 120 per centum of such amounts as were made available 
for that purpose for fiscal year 1973, and the amount made available to 
each local educational agency under said title I-A shall not be less 
than 90 per centum of the amount made available for that purpose for 
fiscal year 1973". . . .

MR. [DANIEL J.] FLOOD [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point 
of order against the motion to recommit on the ground that it instructs 
the conferees to include matter in the conference report which is not 
otherwise in order. This provision described in the instructions we 
just heard is clearly legislation on an appropriation act. Therefore, 
it is not eligible for inclusion in a conference report under 
provisions of clause 2, rule 20(18) and clause 2, rule 21.(19) . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) makes a point of order that 
the motion to recommit with instructions is in violation of the rules 
of the House and is not in order.
The motion to recommit directs the House conferees to recommend that 
the House recede from its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 32 and 
concur therein with an amendment. Senate amendment No. 32 was reported 
from conference in disagreement because, under clause 2 of rule XX, the 
House conferees had no authority to agree to that amendment, since it 
contained legislation on an appropriation bill and would have been 
subject to a point of order.(20) The Chair notes that on June 26, 1973, 
Chairman Holifield sustained a point of order against an amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Quie), on the grounds that 
the amendment added additional legislation to legislative language 
which had been permitted to remain in the bill by a resolution waiving 
points of order.
Under the precedents of the House, a motion to instruct conferees, or 
to recommit a bill to conference with instructions, may not include 
instructions directing House conferees to do that which would be 
inadmissible if offered as an amendment in the House-Cannon's 
Precedents, volume VIII, section 3235.
The Chair would like to point out two of the syllabi in section 3235:

Instructions to managers of a conference may not direct them to do that 
which they might not do otherwise.
A motion to instruct conferees may not include directions which would 
be inadmissible if offered as a motion in the House.

In the instant situation the Chair is of the opinion that the 
instructions included in the motion to recommit would, if offered in 
the House as an amendment to the language of the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
19.     Id. at Sec. 834.
20.     119 CONG. REC. 21388, 21389, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 633]

Senate amendment, add legislation thereto. As was the case in Chairman 
Holifield's ruling of June 26, 1973, the language would constitute a 
change in the allotment formula contained in the language of the Senate 
amendment. The Chair therefore holds that the motion to recommit is not 
a permissible motion within the meaning of clause 2, rule XX, and 
sustains the point of order.