[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[D. CONFERENCE REPORTS]
[Â§ 17. Content of Report; Corrections]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 674-679]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
D. CONFERENCE REPORTS
 
Sec.    17. Content of Report; Corrections

Technical Correction After Adoption of Conference Report
Sec.    17.1 By unanimous consent, the House considered and agreed to a 
concurrent resolution authorizing the Clerk to make a technical 
correction in a conference report already agreed to, during the 
enrollment of a House bill.
On Oct. 10, 1972,(1) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. 
John D. Dingell, of Michigan, to offer a concurrent resolution.

The Clerk read the concurrent resolution as follows:
H. CON. RES. 717
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That 
the Clerk of the House of Representatives, in the enrollment of the 
bill (H.R. 10420) to protect marine mammals; to establish a Marine 
Mammal Commission; and for other purposes, is authorized and directed 
to make the following correction:
On page 11 of the conference report, on line 1, insert the word "of" 
after the word "conditions".

The concurrent resolution was agreed to.(2) 
Simultaneously Agreeing to Conference Report and Making Correction 
Therein
Sec.    17.2 Example of a unanimous-consent request to consider a 
conference report considered, agreed to, and modified by the 
simultaneous adoption of a concurrent resolution correcting the 
enrollment.
A unanimous-consent request to both call up and adopt a conference 
report is unusual but has been utilized where a request to consider the 
report might result in a roll call on the question of adoption. Using 
the formulation of the request carried here, an objection would 
prohibit both consideration of the report and the correction of the 
enrollment. The sponsors wanted the two steps tied together in this 
fashion since they both favored the conference report in 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     118 CONG. REC. 34643, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     Parliamentarian's Note: Although in this instance the Record is 
silent on this point, a concurrent resolution providing for technical 
corrections in a conference report which has already been agreed to is 
not privileged for consideration, and must be called up by unanimous 
consent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 675]]

the form modified by the concurrent resolution. The proceedings of Dec. 
22, 1995,(3) were as follows:
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2539, ICC TERMINATION ACT OF 1995
MR. [BUD] SHUSTER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to call up and adopt a conference report to accompany the bill 
(H.R. 2539), to abolish the Interstate Commerce Commission, to amend 
subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code, to reform economic 
regulation of transportation, and for other purposes, and that Senate 
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 37) directing the Clerk of the 
House of Representatives to make technical changes in the enrollment of 
the bill (H.R. 2539) entitled "An Act to abolish the Interstate 
Commerce Commission, to amend subtitle IV of title 49, United States 
Code, to reform economic regulation of transportation, and for other 
purposes" shall be deemed to have been adopted upon adoption of such 
conference report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution.
(For conference report and statement see proceedings of the House of 
December 18 (legislative day of December 15), 1995, at page 37339.)
The text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 37 is as follows:
S. CON. RES. 37
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That 
the Clerk of the House of Representatives, in the enrollment of the 
bill (H.R. 2539) entitled "An Act to abolish the Interstate Commerce 
Commission, to amend subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code, to 
reform economic regulation of transportation, and for other purposes" 
shall make the following corrections:
(1) In section 11326(b) proposed to be inserted in title 49, United 
States Code, by section 102, strike "unless the applicant elects to 
provide the alternative arrangement specified in this subsection. Such 
alternative" and insert "except that such".
(2) In section 13902(b)(5) proposed to be inserted in title 49, United 
States Code, by section 103, strike "Any" and insert "Subject to 
section 14501(a), any".

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(4) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
There was no objection. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The conference report on H.R. 2539 and Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 37 are adopted.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Report Incorrectly Printed in Record
Sec.    17.3 The correct text of a conference report which had been 
erroneously printed in the Record of a previous day was, by unanimous 
consent, inserted in the Record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     141 CONG. REC. 38494, 38495, 38498, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4.     Douglas Bereuter (Nebr.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 676]]

On Aug. 10, 1970,(5) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. John L. McMillan, of South Carolina.

MR. MCMILLAN: Mr. Speaker, on August 6, 1970, I filed a conference 
report (H. Rept. 91-1381) on the bill (H.R. 17711) amending the 
District of Columbia Cooperative Association Act. The  conference 
report was incorrectly printed in the Congressional Record for that 
day.
I therefore ask unanimous consent that the correct text of the 
conference report on H.R. 17711 be printed in the Record at this point.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Technical Error in Managers' Statement
Sec.    17.4 Parliamentarian's Note: Where a technical error appeared in 
the statement of the managers accompanying a conference report, the 
text of the statement in the permanent Record was, by unanimous 
consent, corrected to show the true intent of the conferees as 
reflected by the language in the conference report.
On July 12, 1966,(6) Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, was 
recognized by Speaker Pro Tempore Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, to call up 
House Report No. 1679, the conference report on S. 2950, defense 
procurement appropriations, for fiscal 1967. He then made the following 
request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the permanent Record be 
corrected . . . to reflect the agreed upon language as now appears in 
the conference report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection it is so ordered.
There was no objection.

Parliamentarian's Note: The conference report and statement of the 
managers were filed on June 30, and printed in the daily edition of the 
Congressional Record for that date. Although the permanent edition of 
the Congressional Record for July 12 does not reproduce Mr. Rivers' 
request that the statement be changed, it does contain the corrected 
version of that statement.(7) 
Statement of the Managers, Supplemented by Unanimous Consent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     CONG. REC. (daily ed.), 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     CONG. REC. (daily ed.), 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     112 CONG. REC. 15306, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 677]]

Sec.    17.5 Instance where the House permitted insertion in the 
Congressional Record of a statement by House managers at a conference, 
time not having permitted the inclusion of the explanation in the 
official statement at the time the conference report was filed.
Following the adoption of a conference report on a budget 
reconciliation bill, the House adopted a concurrent resolution 
directing the Clerk to make certain corrections in the enrollment, 
including a date change which permitted two House committees to have a 
longer period in which to submit an explanatory statement for the 
Record, "to be considered to have been filed with the conference 
report."
When the conference report was filed on July 29, 1981, the report 
contained the same provision, except that the date for filing the 
statement was July 31, 1981.(8) The concurrent resolution shown here 
permitted an extension of the time until Aug. 4, 1981.(9) 
DIRECTING CLERK OF THE HOUSE TO MAKE CORRECTIONS IN ENROLLMENT OF H.R. 
3982, OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1981
MR. [JAMES R.] JONES [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent for immediate consideration in the House of the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 167) directing the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives to make corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 3982, to 
provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first 
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 1982.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. CON. RES. 167
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That 
in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 3982), to provide for 
reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1982, the Clerk of the House 
of Representatives shall make the corrections specified in the 
succeeding sections of this concurrent resolution.
SEC. 2. In title VI of the bill: . . . 
SEC. 13. In section 1199A, strike out "July 31, 1981" and insert in 
lieu thereof "August 4, 1981".

The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     127 CONG. REC. 18981, 18985, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. (H.R. 3982, the 
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981).
 9.     H. Con. Res. 167.
10.     David E. Bonior (Mich.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 678]]

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

The unique provision in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, 
as amended by the concurrent resolution, is as follows:(11) 
STATEMENT OF MANAGERS
SEC. 1199A. The managers on the part of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives are authorized to have printed in the Congressional 
Record at any time prior to midnight on August 4, 1981, a statement in 
explanation of the provisions of this title relating to matters within 
the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Such 
statement shall be considered to have been filed at the same time and 
along with the conference report on the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act of 1981 (H.R. 3982); and shall be considered for all purposes to 
constitute the statement on the part of the managers with respect to 
such provisions.
Insertion of Provision Allegedly Omitted
Sec.    17.6 Parliamentarian's Note: The omission in a conference report 
of language allegedly agreed to in conference may be corrected 
following adoption of the report by the consideration by unanimous 
consent of a concurrent resolution authorizing insertion of that 
provision in the enrollment.
On Dec. 17, 1973,(12) after Mr. Charles C. Diggs, Jr., of Michigan, 
called up the conference report on S. 1435, the District of Columbia 
Self-Government and Government Reorganization Act, Mr. Earl F. 
Landgrebe, of Indiana, raised a point of order.

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.

After a brief discussion on the point of order Mr. Joel T. Broyhill, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     See the proceedings of Aug. 4, 1981, at 127 CONG. REC. 19500, 
19520, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     119 CONG. REC. 42034, 42035, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 679]]

of Virginia, made the following inquiry:

MR. BROYHILL of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, in the event the point of order 
is overruled, is there any way for the House at this time to insert the 
language into the bill and into the conference report, the language 
which was fully intended by the conferees to be included in the bill?
Obviously, it was a technical mistake, an error in printing, that it 
was not inserted in the conference report to start with.
THE SPEAKER:(13) In response to the inquiry made by the gentleman from 
Virginia, the Chair will state that the House could by a concurrent 
resolution direct the Secretary of the Senate to include the language 
before the bill is finally enrolled.(14)