[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[D. CONFERENCE REPORTS]
[Â§ 18. Signatures]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 679-701]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
D. CONFERENCE REPORTS
 
Sec.    18. Signatures

Majority of Managers of Each House
Sec.    18.1 Conference reports must be signed by a majority of the 
managers on the part of each House, or the document may not be received 
as a report of the conference committee.
 Where a majority of the managers on the part of the House attempted to 
present a document purporting to be a conference report without the 
signatures or consent of a majority of the managers on the part of the 
Senate, it was held that such document might not be received as a 
report of the conference committee.
On July 31, 1935,(15) Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, one of the 
House managers appointed to confer with the Senate managers on S. 2796, 
the Public Utilities Act of 1935, presented to the House a report from 
the managers on the part of the House. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, directed the Clerk to read the report.

The Clerk read as follows:
REPORT OF HOUSE MANAGERS ON CONFERENCE UPON DISAGREEING VOTE OF THE 
HOUSE AND THE SENATE ON THE AMENDMENT ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE TO S. 2796
The undersigned managers upon the part of the House, appointed on July 
12, 1935, upon the request of the Senate for a conference upon the 
disagreeing vote of the House and the Senate on the amendment adopted 
by the House to S. 2796, beg to report as follows: . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
14.     See Parliamentarian's Note contained in footnote to Sec. 17.1, 
supra.
15.     79 CONG. REC. 12237-39, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 680]]

The report explained that a conference was prevented by the Senate 
managers' insistence that they bring to the conference expert advisors 
who were not Senators, despite the objections of the House managers. 
The report concluded with the following paragraph and signatures:

That a conference has been prevented by the unyielding refusal of the 
managers on the part of the Senate to hold same under conditions 
consistent with the proper conduct of an executive session and free 
from the presence and participation of an outsider, who was not an 
employee of Congress and who is objectionable to the managers on the 
part of the House, all in derogation of the right and privilege of the 
managers on the part of the House and of the dignity and independence 
of the House.
GEORGE HUDDLESTON,
JOHN G. COOPER,
PEHR G. HOLMES,
Managers on the part of the House.
Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, raised a point of order against the report 
on the grounds that it was not a report of a conference committee since 
it was not signed by a majority of the Senate conferees:

Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the paper read is not a 
report of the conference committee; that a conference report or a 
disagreement must be signed by a majority of the Members of the House 
conference committee and of the Senate conference committee and that 
this statement or paper has no standing in the House.

 Mr. Huddleston conceded this point, and admitted that the purported 
report was filed to forestall action under Rule XXVIII clause 1 1/2(a)
(16) to instruct or discharge the conferees for failing to submit a 
report within 20 days of their appointment:

Mr. Speaker, this report is presented as a "report from the managers on 
the part of the House." The question involved is whether or not the 
managers on the part of the House may make a report without the 
cooperation and coaction of the managers on the part of the Senate-that 
is to say, is a report signed only by the House managers a "report" 
within the meaning of the rule? This is the parliamentary question 
involved.

The Speaker summarized the arguments presented by Mr. Rayburn and Mr. 
Huddleston, and then rendered a decision:

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Huddleston] has presented 
a paper which purports to be a report signed by three of the House 
conferees on S. 2796, from which it appears that the conferees have not 
been able up to this time to reach an agreement. The gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Rayburn] makes the point of order that this paper cannot be 
considered as a 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 681]]

report, inasmuch as the Senate conferees have not affixed their 
signatures. The gentleman from Alabama frankly states that he has filed 
this statement for the purpose of forestalling any action that may be 
taken under rule XXVIII, which rule authorizes any Member as a matter 
of the highest privilege to move to discharge and appoint conferees or 
to instruct conferees after a period of 20 days has elapsed from the 
time of their appointment when they have failed to make a report on the 
matter committed to them. The Chair does not think that the rules of 
the House can be circumvented in that manner. The Chair believes that 
the House should adhere to forms and practice in matters of this kind. 
As the Chair has previously stated, this rule was adopted by the House 
to preserve the authority of the House to exercise control over its 
conferees when a sufficient time has elapsed and no report has been 
made by the conference committee. So far as the Chair is aware, the 
conferees on the part of either body have never heretofore attempted to 
file a formal report of disagreement without the acquiescence of a 
majority of the conferees of the other body. . . . 
A committee of conference is a joint committee composed of managers 
appointed on the part of each House. The managers of each House vote 
the sentiment of the House which they represent. In casting their votes 
they do so as separate committees and nothing may be agreed upon 
without the concurrent action of the two committees composing this 
joint committee, commonly called the "conference committee."
In instant case, the gentleman from Alabama admits that this purported 
report which he has presented has not been agreed to by the managers on 
the part of the Senate. Under such circumstances, the Chair does not 
believe that it is a report within the meaning of our parliamentary 
practice, and the Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Signatures Validate Report
Sec.    18.2 A conference report is received if signed by a majority of 
the managers of each House, and the Speaker will not look behind the 
signatures to determine whether the report has incorporated all the 
agreements informally made in conference.
On Dec. 17, 1973,(17) 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, made 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 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     119 CONG. REC. 42034, 42035, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 682]]

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.

Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, gave the following ruling:

THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . . 
The gentleman from Indiana has made the further point of order that the 
conference report is not properly before the House because a subsection 
of the report, allegedly agreed to in conference is not contained in 
the report submitted to the two Houses.
The Chair, of course, has no knowledge of how this agreement was 
reached. The only information the Chair has on what was agreed to in 
conference is derived from the conference report. The Chair does note 
that the subsection allegedly omitted was not contained in the Senate 
bill and thus the managers had the authority, under clause 3, rule 
XXVIII to eliminate that provision if they so desired.
Volume 5 of Hinds' Precedents section 6497, states that "A conference 
report is received if signed by a majority of the managers of each 
House." The Chair has examined the report and the papers and finds that 
it is signed by 6 of the 10 managers on the part of the House and by 
all 7 managers on the part of the Senate. The Chair can only observe 
that the report is here in a legal manner.
The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Sec.    18.3 The Chair has no knowledge of how a conference report is 
reached, and he cannot impeach the names of the managers on the part of 
the two Houses.
On June 19, 1948,(18) after Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, called 
up the conference report on S. 2655, the Selective Service Act of 1948, 
Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, rose to a point of order.

MR. MARCANTONIO: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
document which has just been presented is not the report of any 
conference. It is not the product of a full and free conference as 
required in Jefferson's Manual. I make my point of order based on the 
proposition that there has never been a valid conference-specifically, 
that there has never been a valid meeting on the part of the managers 
on the part of the House.
I would like at this time, first, to present the facts chronologically.
Yesterday the House voted, under suspension of the rules, to send the 
bill 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     94 CONG. REC. 9253, 9268, 9269, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 683]]

to conference, and the House conferees were appointed. A motion was 
made in the other body for the same purpose. Extended debate was held 
on that motion. This morning the motion to send the Senate bill to 
conference and disagree with the House amendments and authorizing the 
appointment of conferees was adopted. Immediately, before there was any 
time for a meeting, a physical meeting to take place between the 
managers on the part of the House and the managers on the part of the 
Senate, this document before you, Mr. Speaker, was filed and acted upon 
in the Senate. Physically there were some meetings. The meetings that 
took place yesterday, Mr. Speaker, all of the meetings that took place 
yesterday were prior to the adoption of the motion in the other body to 
send this bill to conference. How could they have been valid meetings? 
They could not have been valid meetings because there were no managers 
in existence on the part of the Senate. The Members of the other body 
who met with the House conferees were not managers on the part of the 
other body, therefore those meetings had no validity whatsoever. It is 
true that at those meetings the provisions of the document which we 
have before us were agreed upon. It is likewise true that the people 
who participated in those meetings on behalf of the other body were 
Members who were subsequently appointed as managers for the other body, 
but throughout those meetings they were not there as managers who had 
been appointed; in fact all the while they were participating in those 
meetings they had not as yet been authorized by the other body to be 
there. They had no authority to act.

Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled:

The Chair is ready to rule.
On page 770, volume 5, of Hinds' Precedents, section 6497 states:

A conference report is received if signed by a majority of the managers 
of each House.

The Chair has examined the report and the papers and finds that it is 
signed by five of the managers on the part of the Senate and six of the 
seven managers on the part of the House.
The Chair has no knowledge, of course, how this report was reached, but 
the Chair cannot impeach the names of the managers on the part of the 
two Houses. Furthermore, the Senate having already received the report, 
and according to a message heretofore received by the House has 
officially adopted it, the Chair feels that under the circumstances the 
report is properly before the House for such action as the House may 
see fit to take. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent and the following one (Sec. 
18.4) predated the "open conference requirement" inserted in Rule 
XXVIII clause 6, in 1975 (and amended in 1977 and 1979).  See House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 913d (94th Congress).
Informal Conference Meetings


[[Page 684]]

Sec.    18.4 The Speaker has no knowledge of informal meetings of 
conference committees prior to their appointment, and where a 
conference report before the House contained the signatures of all the 
managers he held that the report was properly before the House.
On Aug. 9, 1954,(19) after Mr. John M. Vorys, of Ohio, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 9678, the Mutual Security Act of 1954, Mr. H. 
R. Gross, of Iowa, rose with a point of order.

MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that certain Members 
of the House of Representatives exceeded their authority in connection 
with the conference report on the bill H.R. 9678; that therefore the 
pending confer-   ence report is improperly before the House. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that even before the papers were 
received from the other body, requesting a conference on the part of 
the House, before authority was given by the House for a conference, 
and well before the formal appointment of conferees on the part of the 
House, certain Members of the House of Representatives had apparently 
designated themselves as conferees and entered into agreement on one or 
more substantial issues in disagreement in connection with the bill 
H.R. 9678; that such agreement or agreements were entered into even 
before the House of Representatives formally and officially convened at 
12 o'clock noon on August 4, 1954, and gave assent to a conference. . . 
. 
Mr. Speaker, I can find no precedent which permits Members of the House 
to enter into a conference without first obtaining authority from the 
House for so doing. The weight of all precedents governs from the 
initial authority for a conference, the appointment of conferees and 
their conduct flow therefrom. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(20) The Chair wishes to state on the gentleman's point of 
order that he has no cognizance of informal meetings that may have been 
held. As a matter of fact, he would not know what Members were doing if 
they met informally in a group to discuss any specific subject. All the 
Chair can do is to take the report that is here. All 10 signatures are 
on the conference report. The conference report is here in a legal 
manner.
Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.
Requirement for Formal Conference Meeting
Sec.    18.5 While the Chair does not normally look behind signatures of 
conferees to determine the propriety of conference procedure, if 
proposed 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     100 CONG. REC. 13787, 13802, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 685]]

conferees have signed a conference report before they have been 
formally appointed in both Houses and do not meet formally in open 
session after such appointment, the conference report is subject to 
automatic recommittal to conference under Rule XXVIII clause 6.
On Dec. 20, 1982,(1) when the conference report on H.R. 5002(2) was 
called up for consideration, a point of order was raised against the 
report.

MR. [JOHN B.] BREAUX [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order 
of the House of December 17, 1982, I call up the conference report on 
the bill (H.R. 5002) to improve fishery conservation and management, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill. . . .  
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [GLENN M.] ANDERSON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of 
order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(3) The gentleman was on his feet and will 
state his point of order.
MR. ANDERSON: I make a point of order against the conference report on 
H.R. 5002 because the Senate conferees were not formally appointed at 
the time the conferees met. This procedure violates House rule XXVIII, 
clause 6, which requires an open meeting of the conferees. In this case 
there was never a valid conference meeting because the Senate conferees 
were not appointed at the time the conference met.
According to the rules on the conference report, it should be 
considered as rejected.
I would also like to point out that several of the conferees signed the 
signature sheets of the conference report prior to the premature 
meeting of the House and Senate conferees. This is clearly an improper 
procedure, so they actually signed the report prior to a conference. It 
was, if not illegal, a very improper procedure because there was no 
conference because the Senators were not conferees at the time, it was 
not an existent conference, and because they were not appointed until 
the next day.
That is my point of order, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Louisiana care to 
respond?
MR. BREAUX: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.
I would only point out that I did not have any control over the Senate 
procedures. I would only say to the Speaker that the House does not 
have any control over the speakers of the other body.
I would only note for the Speaker's consideration that the conference 
report, when filed in the House, was done 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     128 CONG. REC. 32896, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     The Fishery Conservation and Management Improvement Act.
 3.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 686]]

subsequent to the necessary action in appointing the conferees by the 
Senate.
MR. ANDERSON: But the Senators that we met with were not conferees. It 
was wholly an improper conference.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair notes that pursuant to the Senate 
message of yesterday, the conferees were not named until yesterday, so 
the Chair is prepared to rule, unless either gentleman wishes to make a 
further statement.
MR. BREAUX: This Member is certainly willing to abide by the rules.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair sustains the point of order based on 
the concession that a conference formally appointed by both Houses did 
not meet in open session following appointment.
Pursuant to clause 6(b), rule XXVIII, the conference report is 
considered as rejected, the House considered to have insisted upon 
disagreement to the Senate amendment, and the Chair is authorized to 
appoint conferees without intervening motion.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 5002
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Biaggi, Anderson, Breaux, Studds, Snyder, 
McCloskey, and Pritchard.
There was no objection.
Taking Exception to Particular Amendment
Sec.    18.6 Two House conferees (minority members) signed a conference 
report and accompanying statement with a notation following their names 
that they excepted from one of the Senate amendments upon which the 
other conferees had reached an agreement.
On May 8, 1963,(4) Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, upon being recognized 
by Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 5517, supplemental appropriations, fiscal 
1963. The report and explanatory statement were signed by the managers 
on the part of the House in the following manner:
ALBERT THOMAS,
MICHAEL J. KIRWAN,
CLARENCE CANNON,
FRANK T. BOW
(Except as to No. 47),
EARL WILSON
(Except as to No. 47),
Managers on the Part of the House.
Signatures on a Conference Report-Exceptions
Sec.    18.7 Managers at a conference sometimes attempt to disassociate 
themselves from one aspect of an agreement and in one case, the 
state-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     109 CONG. REC. 8037, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 687]]

ment of the managers was used to express their exceptions from the 
total report.
Rule XXVIII clause 1(d), requiring a joint statement by the managers of 
the House and the Senate became a part of the rules with the 
implementation of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970.(5) 
In the 95th Congress, in an unusual case, the statement accompanying 
the conference report on H.R. 3474, the Energy Research and Development 
appropriations for fiscal year 1976, disclosed that certain of the 
House managers "excepted" from certain parts of the agreement. However, 
a majority of the managers did sign without equivocation. The form of 
the statement is carried here.(6) 

Mr. [Olin E.] Teague [of Texas] submitted the following conference 
report and statement on the bill (H.R. 3474) to authorize 
appropriations to the Energy Research and Development Administration in 
accordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and 
section 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development 
Act of 1974, and for other purposes:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 94-696)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3474) to authorize 
appropriations to the Energy Research and Development Administration in 
accordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and 
section 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development 
Act of 1974, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free 
conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment 
insert the following: . . . 
And the Senate agree to the same.
OLIN TEAGUE,
MELVIN PRICE,
JOHN YOUNG,
THOMAS N. DOWNING,
KEN HECHLER,
DON FUQUA,
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr. . . .
 BARRY M. GOLDWATER, Jr.,
MANUEL LUJAN, Jr.,
Managers on the Part of the House.

JOHN O. PASTORE,
HENRY M. JACKSON,
STUART SYMINGTON . . . 
Managers on the Part of the Senate. . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     See 84 Stat. 1140, Sec. 125(b) which became a part of the 
standing rules with the adoption of H. Res. 5 (117 CONG. REC. 144, 92d 
Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 1971).
 6.     121 CONG. REC. 39089, 39097, 39110, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 8, 
1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 688]]

JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the Conference 
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the 
Senate to the bill (H.R. 3474), Energy Research and Development 
Administration Authorization Act, 1976, and for other purposes, submit 
the following joint statement to the House and the Senate in 
explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the managers and 
recommended in the accompanying conference report: . . . 
D. OPPOSITION TO SECTIONS 102 AND 103 BY REPRESENTATIVE KEN HECHLER
Representative Ken Hechler, although he signed the conference report on 
the part of the House, emphasized that he is strongly opposed to two 
sections of the conference recommendation which were not in the bill 
passed by the House on June 20, 1975-Sections 102 and 103. He opposes 
Section 102 which establishes a new program, using the public lands 
free of any bonus, or royalty, for the demonstration of production of 
oil from shale by in situ methods. He also opposes Section 103 which 
establishes a new $6 billion loan guarantee program to provide 
financial assistance to private industry to build synthetic fuels and 
other commercial demonstration plants.
E. RESERVATION TO SECTIONS 102 AND 103 BY GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.
Representative George E. Brown, Jr., although he signed the Conference 
Report on the part of the House, emphasized that he did so with the 
reservation that the House should have the opportunity to work its will 
by separate vote on Sections 102 and 103.
F. RESERVATION TO SECTIONS 102 AND 103 BY BARRY M. GOLDWATER, JR.
Representative Barry M. Goldwater, Jr., although he signed the 
Conference Report on the part of the House, emphasized that he did so 
with reservations about enacting at this time Sections 102 and 103, the 
two major new sections added by the Senate, and the additional 
reservation that the House should be allowed to have a separate vote on 
each section.
MANAGERS FOR THE NONNUCLEAR PORTION OF THE JOINT STATEMENT
OLIN E. TEAGUE,
KEN HECHLER . . . 
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr. . . .
BARRY.M..GOLDWATER, Jr.,
Managers on the Part of the House.
HENRY M. JACKSON,
FRANK CHURCH . . . 
Managers on the Part of the Senate.

Authority of Conferees To "Agree in Part"
Sec.    18.8 A majority of House conferees must, by their signatures, 
agree to the provisions of a conference report for it to be valid; but 
those not necessary to that majority sometimes indicate exceptions to 
certain agreements by notations on the signature sheets.


[[Page 689]]

The accepted practice in the House, and in the Senate, is for the 
managers to either sign a conference report, without qualification, to 
show that the matters in conference have been reconciled, or to refuse 
to sign if total agreement has not been reached.  
In the instance here cited, a majority of the conferees appointed as 
exclusive conferees on certain issues separated by jurisdictional lines 
did sign, unqualifiedly. A total of 14 committees were represented in 
the list of conferees appointed to the conference on H.R. 3, the Trade 
and International Policy Act of 1987.  Five conferees were appointed 
from the Committee on Government Operations on sections 461 through 471 
of the House bill; five were named from the Committee on Science, Space 
and Technology on these same provisions. Of these ten, six signed in 
complete agreement. A minority of four indicated exception from a 
portion of the agreement. 
The manner of indicating the exceptions is illustrated by the portion 
of the signature sheets printed in the Record of Apr. 20, 1988.(7) 

From the Committee on Government Operations, for consideration of 
sections 461 through 471 of the House bill, and sections 1030 through 
1033 and 3801 through 3809 of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference:
JACK BROOKS
(Except for the Competitiveness Policy Council provided for in sections 
461 through 471 of the House bill, sections 3801 through 3809 of the 
Senate amendment, and sections 5201 through 5210 of the Conference 
Report),
JOHN CONYERS, Jr.,
STEVE NEAL,
FRANK HORTON
(Except for the Competitiveness Policy Council provided for in sections 
461 through 471 of the House bill, sections 3801 through 3809 of the 
Senate amendment, and sections 5201 through 5210 of the conference 
report).
From the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for consideration 
of sections 461 through 471 and 904 of the House bill, and sections 
2305, 3801 through 3809, and 3909 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference:
ROBERT A. ROE,
DOUG WALGREN,
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     134 CONG. REC. 7820, 7821, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 690]]

(Except for sections 461 through 471 of the House bill, and sections 
3801 to 3809 of the Senate amendment),
MANUEL LUJAN, Jr.,
SHERWOOD BOCHLERT
(Except for sections 461 to 471 of the House bill and sections 3801 to 
3809 of the Senate amendment) . . . 
Validity of Signature Where Conferee Signs "With Exceptions"  
Sec.    18.9 The practice of conferees signing a conference report "with 
an exception" was the subject of discussion in the House. 
When the conference report was filed on H.R. 2100, the National Defense 
Authorization Act, fiscal 1992, 1993, on Nov. 13, 1991,(8) the 
Congressional Record incorrectly printed the signature sheets of the 
conferees. The error made it appear that a majority of the conferees on 
the part of the House had signed the report with an exception to one 
part of the agreement relating to the F-14 fighter program. A portion 
of the signature sheets is shown here.

From the Committee on Armed Services, for Consideration of the entire 
House bill and Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference:
LES ASPIN,
G. V. MONTGOMERY,
BEV BYRON,
NICHOLAS MAVROULES,
EARL HUTTO . . . 
For all provisions of the conference report except those relating to 
the F-14:
OWEN PICKETT,
H. MARTIN LANCASTER,
JOHN TANNER,
For all provisions of the conference report except those relating to 
the F-14:
MICHAEL R. MCNULTY,
GLEN BROWDER,
GENE TAYLOR,
WILLIAM L. DICKINSON,
FLOYD SPENCE,
LARRY J. HOPKINS,
BOB DAVIS . . .

The placement of the colon, for example, in the exception stated above 
the signature of Michael R. McNulty, of New York, made it appear that 
all the names which followed McNulty were also endorsing the exception. 
Such was not the case. There were only three signatures that did not 
reflect complete agreement to the totality of the report. 
When the special order waiving points of order against the conference 
report was called up on Nov. 18, 1991, there was discussion 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     137 CONG. REC. 31803, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 691]]

about the propriety of conferees signing with exceptions. While the 
practice has been permitted in both the House and Senate,  there is no 
clear precedent about whether such a conditional signature can be 
counted when computing the number of signatures necessary to achieve a 
majority. A portion of the discussion on Nov. 18, 1991,(9) during the 
debate on H. Res. 281, which waived points of order against the 
conference report on H.R. 2100, is carried here.

MR. [WILLIAM L.] DICKINSON [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, let me say I 
would like to rise to make an important clarification with regard to 
the signature pages accompanying H.R. 2100, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal years 1992 and 1993.
Mr. Speaker, it is not unprecedented, but it is certainly unusual, to 
have conditional signatures on the conference report. Normally you need 
a majority of signatures on a conference report for it to be accepted 
by the conferees.
We have a listing here of the signatures to the conference report, and 
it lists a number of names, some of which are followed by expressions 
of opposition to specific provisions.
First, this kind of approach is very confusing; second, it is very 
unusual. And third, it is setting a very bad precedent.
If I might have the attention of my chairman just to clarify a point, 
am I correct in my interpretation that the exceptions listed refer to 
all the signatures immediately above it? Is that the chairman's 
understanding?
MR. [LES] ASPIN [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. DICKINSON: I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
MR. ASPIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is what it means. I think 
that the display here is not correct. I think it is only one of the 
Members that is listed here.
Is the gentleman looking at page 308 of the report?
MR. DICKINSON: Reclaiming my time, no, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to make an important clarification with regards to 
the signature pages accompanying H.R. 2100, the fiscal year 1992 
Defense authorization conference report. As you can see, three of my 
Democrat colleagues on the Armed Services Committee have qualified 
their support for the conference report by indicating, on the actual 
signature pages, specific conference provisions that they do not 
support.
The first point I wish to make is technical. When one looks at these 
pages, they could be misinterpreted as meaning that large groups of 
committee members were qualifying their support for the conference 
report. Adding to the confusion is the fact that when the conference 
report was printed in the Congressional Record last Thursday, November 
14, the signature pages appeared differently than they do in the 
printed copy of the report (H. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     137 CONG. REC. 32574, 32575, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 692]]

Rept. 102-311), and appeared in a form that clearly indicated that 
large groups of conferees had explicitly qualified their support. 
Therefore, I just want to set the record straight on one point; the 
qualifying remarks on the F-14 and B-1B programs refer only to the 
Members whose name appears immediately above the comment and not to 
entire blocks of Members.
The second point I wish to make is process oriented. The idea of 
explicitly qualifying one's support for a conference report, in the 
report itself, is unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable to all 
of us-no signature is worth the precedent this action is setting. Every 
conferee who signed this conference report, on both sides of the aisle, 
objects to specific provisions in it-myself included. In addition, four 
of my committee Republican conferees refused to sign the conference 
report because of their objection to specific provisions. If we are 
going to start addressing Member's individual political concerns by 
allowing explicit qualifications, many of us, especially in the 
minority party, will start taking a different tact next year.
At least on the Republican side of the aisle, we have been trying 
unsuccessfully for years to have those Members who refuse to sign the 
conference report listed as such in the actual report. If the committee 
does not put a stop to this questionable practice of Members explicitly 
qualifying support, there is certainly no reason why Members should be 
prevented from explicitly stating their opposition directly in the 
conference report.
In conclusion, I hope my chairman will work with me to address this 
problem in the future. Otherwise, it will not be long before the 
signature pages of our conference reports are many pages long with each 
and every Member indicating what they support and what they oppose in 
excruciating detail. In essence, we will have found a back door form of 
submitting additional and dissenting views on a conference report. This 
defeats the purpose of conference reports and should be stopped.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
MR. [GERALD B. H.] SOLOMON [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The gentleman will state it.
MR. SOLOMON: Mr. Speaker, is it possible to resolve this in a 
parliamentary inquiry? I do not have any time.
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 know the meaning of the 
signatures on the conference report as set out in the conference report 
on H.R. 2100, where there are conditional signatures at the end of the 
conference report excepting some Members to a portion of it and 
excepting others as to different portions.
Either we have a majority of signatures on the conference report or we 
do not. I was asking the chairman, since I think he is probably the 
author, what it means.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair understands that three of the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Ronald D. Coleman (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 693]]

signators did so with a statement of exception. The form in which the 
signatures were printed in the Record made it appear that more than 3 
Members did so.
MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Speaker, if I might proceed further in my 
parliamentary inquiry, it makes no sense. It does not say what the 
Speaker has indicated was the intent. That is not what it says here.
And there are other additional exceptions to different names following. 
I just want a clarification as to what this is and what the procedure 
is. I do not know the correct forum in which to address this.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would advise the gentleman that his 
point under these circumstances is not in the nature of a parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. DICKINSON: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if this is a parliamentary 
inquiry, would it be possible under a unanimous consent at the present 
time to get 5 minutes to address this particular problem so that it 
will not be taken off the allotted time?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would only advise the gentleman that 
the time is controlled by the gentleman from Tennessee and the 
gentleman from New York.
MR. SOLOMON: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible for the gentleman to 
yield to me for a colloquy with the manager of the rule on that side of 
the aisle?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Who yields time?
MR. [BART] GORDON [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Dickinson].
MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Speaker, if I might take this time to ask my 
chairman, what does this mean?
MR. ASPIN: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. DICKINSON: I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
MR. ASPIN: Mr. Speaker, this is my understanding. First of all, the 
rule does allow Members to sign a conference report with some proviso 
saying they signed with exceptions.
The second point is that there are three Members who signed with 
exceptions, not as one might tell by this.
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Hochbrueckner] signed for all 
provisions of the conference report except failure to include the F-14 
program. The gentleman from Virginia, Owen Pickett "for all provisions 
of the conference report except those relating to the F-14," and the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. McNulty] "for all provisions of the 
conference report except those relating to the F-14." The rest of the 
Members signed the conference report without any reservation.

Mr. Aspin then pointed out that even with the three "exceptions," a 
majority of the House managers did sign the report.

Therefore, we got more signatures than we needed. But as the gentleman 
knows, the Members from New York, in particular the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Hochbrueckner] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. McNulty], 
were interested in the F-14 program.
The gentleman from Virginia, who is also interested in Navy aviation, 
although not specifically in Grumman, 


[[Page 694]]

was also interested in the F-14 program.
So they signed it with this reservation which is their right under the 
law.
MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. If this is the 
procedure we are to follow in the future, I can see us having a 
conference report with signatures excepting every member because he 
does not agree to specific provisions. If a Member does not agree to 
everything in here, he just does what was done here, which is very 
unusual, pick out these things that he does not like and say, "I except 
that," are we going to do this next year?
MR. ASPIN: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, these 
three gentlemen are exercising their rights under the rule. . . . 
It is not my choice that they sign with that provision. The rule allows 
them to do that and, as I say, I do not know what the legal standing of 
those signatures are. So we made sure we had more signatures even 
without, even if we did not count these three gentlemen, we had enough 
signatures to file the rule.
MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Speaker, I can see that we are creating a thicket 
for the future there that Brer Rabbit sure would like to be thrown in.
I thank the gentleman for such explanation as there was, and I thank 
the gentleman from Tennessee for his indulgence on time.

Parliamentarian's Note: For a conference report to be valid, a majority 
of all conferees must sign on all issues committed to conference and 
included in the report. In the instance noted here, the Record copy of 
the signature sheets was printed so that it appeared the report was 
invalid. The record copy, showing a colon after each of the three 
excepting phrases, made it appear that all the conferees listed 
thereafter were excepting to the F-14 disposition as carried in the 
report, rather than just the first Member following the stated 
exception. The original signature sheets, which were at the desk and 
examined by the Chair, were unambiguous.
It has long been well established that members of a conference 
committee may not file separate views.(11) There are documented 
instances where conferees have signed a report with conditional 
approval or dissent.(12) In these cases, however, none of the excepted 
signatures were necessary for a majority, and so the question of 
whether such a signature could be counted has never been settled by a 
decisive precedent. 

Managers From Two Committees
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3302.
12.     See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 6489-6496, 6538.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 695]]

Sec.    18.10 Managers on the part of the House, appointed from two 
different standing committees to confer with representatives of the 
Senate on a bill containing both authorization and tax features, signed 
both the conference report and the statement as two distinct groups, 
following the respective portions of the report and statement to which 
they had agreed.
On May 12, 1970,(13) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, for the purpose of 
submitting the conference report and statement on H.R. 14465, the 
Airport and Airway Development and Revenue Act of 1970. These 
signatures of the managers from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce appeared at the end of title I of the conference report:

HARLEY O. STAGGERS,
SAMUEL N. FRIEDEL,
JOHN D. DINGELL,
J. J. PICKLE,
W. L. SPRINGER,
SAM DEVINE,
ALBERT WATSON,
Managers on the Part of the House.
Title II of the report was signed by the following members from the 
Committee on Ways and Means:

W. D. MILLS,
HALE BOGGS,
JOHN C. WATTS,
JOHN W. BYRNES,
JACKSON E. BETTS,
Managers on the Part of the House.
The sections of the statement on titles I and II of the bill were 
similarly signed by the members of the two committees.
Sec.    18.11 Managers on the part of the House, appointed from two 
different standing committees to confer with Senate conferees on 
separate titles of a Senate bill and House amendment, signed both the 
conference report and the joint statement as two distinct groups.
On Dec. 14, 1971,(14) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. 
Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, for the purpose of submitting the conference 
report and statement on S. 382, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
1971. The report and the statement were signed by 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     116 CONG. REC. 15202-17, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
14.     117 CONG. REC. 46791-801, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 696]]

the managers on the part of the House as follows:

WAYNE L. HAYS,
WATKINS M. ABBITT,
KEN GRAY,
JAMES HARVEY,
WM. L. DICKINSON,
Managers on the Part of the House as to Titles III, IV, and V of the 
House Amendment.
HARLEY O. STAGGERS,
TORBERT H. MACDONALD,
LIONEL VAN DEERLIN,
SAMUEL L. DEVINE,
ANCHER NELSEN,
Managers on the Part of the House as to Titles I and II of the House 
Amendment.(15) 
Signature Sheets Must Reflect on Which Portions Conferees Participated
Sec.    18.12 Where the Speaker ap-points conferees on a 
multijurisdictional bill and names some conferees with general 
authority but limiting the sections and titles on which other managers 
may confer, the signature sheets accompanying the conference report and 
statement must reflect precisely the portions of the bill on which they 
have conferred and agreed.
The form of the conference report on H.R. 7765, the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1980, along with a portion of the signature 
sheets is carried here.(16) The signatures in this instance were 
arranged so that the general conferees from the Committee on the Budget 
signed only once, signifying their agreement on the total bill; 
however, the limited conferees had to sign for each area on which they 
were appointed.

Mr. Giaimo submitted the following conference report and statement on 
the bill (H.R. 7765) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 
3 of the first concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 
1981:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 96-1479)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 7765) to provide for 
reconciliation pursuant to section 3 of the First Concurrent Resolution 
on the Budget for the fiscal year 1981, having met, after full and free 
conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
respective Houses as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     Messrs. Hays, Abbitt, Gray, Harvey, and Dickinson were members of 
the Committee on House Administration; Messrs. Staggers, Macdonald, Van 
Deerlin, Devine, and Nelsen were members of the Committee on Interstate 
and Foreign Commerce.
16.     See 126 CONG. REC. 31342, 31370, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 1, 
1980.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 697]]

That the Houses recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of 
the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment insert the 
following:
TITLE I-SHORT TITLE AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSE SHORT TITLE
SEC. 101. This Act may be cited as the "Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 
1980".
PURPOSE
SEC. 102. It is the purpose of this Act to implement the 
recommendations which were made by specified committees of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate pursuant to directions contained in 
section 3 of the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for the 
fiscal year 1981 (H. Con. Res. 307, 96th Congress), and pursuant to the 
reconciliation requirements which were imposed by such concurrent 
resolution as provided in section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974.
TITLE II-SCHOOL LUNCH AND CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS . . . 
And the Senate agreed to the same.

For consideration of the entire bill (including title I through title 
IX of the House bill, section 1 through title IX of the Senate 
amendment, and the title of the bill):
ROBERT N. GIAIMO,
THOMAS L. ASHLEY,
WILLIAM M. BRODHEAD,
LEON E. PANETTA,
Managers on the Part of the House.
For consideration of the entire bill (including title I through title 
IX of the House bill, section 1 through title IX of the Senate 
amendment, and the title of the bill):
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN,
J. JAMES EXON,
HENRY BELLMON,
PETE V. DOMENICI,
Managers on the Part of the Senate . . . 
For title II, subtitle A of the House bill and title I of the Senate 
amendment:
From the Committee on Education and Labor:
CARL D. PERKINS,
IKE ANDREWS,
GEORGE MILLER,
Managers on the Part of the House.
For title II, subtitle A of the House bill and title I of the Senate 
amendment:
From the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry:
H. E. TALMADGE,
GEORGE MCGOVERN,
WALTER D. HUDDLESTON,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
For title II, subtitle C of the House bill and title VII of the Senate 
amendment:
From the Committee on Education and Labor:
CARL D. PERKINS,
WILLIAM D. FORD,
JOHN BRADEMAS,
MARIO BIAGGI,
JOHN M. ASHBROOK,
JOHN BUCHANAN,
Managers on the Part of the House.

Adding Signature After Filing and Printing


[[Page 698]]

Sec.    18.13 The House agreed to a unanimous-consent request that a 
Senator be permitted to sign a conference report notwithstanding the 
filing and printing of such report.
On Aug. 25, 1950,(17) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [KARL] STEFAN [of Nebraska]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that notwithstanding the filing and printing of the conference report, 
Senator Wherry may be permitted to sign the report on the general 
provisions and the general reduction sections including chapters 10(a) 
and 11 of the bill H.R. 7786, making appropriations for the support of 
the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other 
purposes.
THE SPEAKER:(18) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Nebraska?
There was no objection.
Example of Complicated Signature Sheets Filed With Conference Report
Sec.    18.14 The signature pages on a complex conference report must 
show that managers of the two Houses have reached agreement on each 
area of disagreement; and thus remains true where a lengthy Senate 
amendment in the nature of a substitute must be reconciled with an 
equally long House text.
The conference report on the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 
was filed in the House on July 29, 1981.(19) A portion of the signature 
sheets, as carried in the Congressional Record, are presented here to 
show the variety of jurisdictional designations which were utilized in 
showing that all areas in disagreement were reconciled.

Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma submitted the following conference 
report and statement on the bill (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 committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3982) to provide for 
reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first concurrent 
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 1982, having met, after 
full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     96 CONG. REC. 13487, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
18.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
19.     127 CONG. REC. 18263, 18372, 18446, 18448, 18450, 18453-55, 97th 
Cong. 1st Sess. (H.R. 3982).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 699]]

the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment 
insert the following:
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act of 1981".
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title I. Agriculture, forestry, and related programs.
Title II. Armed services and defense-related programs.
Title III. Banking, housing, and related programs.
Title IV. District of Columbia. . . . 
Title XXIV. Unemployment compensation.
Title XXV. Trade adjustment assistance.
Title XXVI. Low-income home energy assistance.
Title XXVII. Health professions.
PURPOSE
SEC. 2. It is the purpose of this Act to implement the recommendations 
which were made by specified committees of the House of Representatives 
and the Senate pursuant to directions contained in part A of title III 
of the first concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 
1982 (H. Con. Res. 115, 97th Congress), and pursuant to the 
reconciliation requirements which were imposed by such concurrent 
resolution as provided in section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974.
TITLE I-AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Subtitle A-Food Stamp Program Reductions and Other Reductions in 
Authorization for Appropriations . . .
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 July 31, 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.

The signature sheets were prepared as follows:

Solely for consideration of title I of the House bill (except that 
portion of section 1015 entitled "International Programs, Public Law 
480", and the 9th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th paragraphs of such section 
1015), and title I (except parts D and G and section 142) of the Senate 
amendment.
From the Committee on Agriculture:
E DE LA GARZA,
THOMAS S. FOLEY,
ED JONES,
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr. (except for sections 1015, 1021, 1027, and 1029 of 
the House bill and section 112 of the Senate amendment) . . .
TOM HARKIN (only for sections 1001-14 and 1021 of the House bill and 


[[Page 700]]

sections 151-169 of the Senate amendment) . . .
RON MARLENEE (only for section 1015 of the House bill and sections 511-
13 and 516-19 of the Senate amendment),
Managers on the Part of the House.
From the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry:
JESSE HELMS,
S. I. HAYAKAWA,
DICK LUGAR,
THAD COCHRAN,
WALTER D. HUDDLESTON,
PATRICK LEAHY,
Managers on the Part of the Senate. . . . 
Solely for consideration of title V, section 5001, subtitles A and B 
(except sections 5112, 5130, 5131, and 5133), subtitle C, chapter 1, 
subchapters B and C (except section 5397), subtitle C, chapter 1, 
subchapter E, and subtitle C, chapter 2, subchapter B of the House 
bill, and title XI, section 1101-8(16) through (19), part B (except 
section 1117(e)), and parts C, D, F, and G (except sections 1137 and 
1163 and subparts 2 and 3 of part D) of the Senate amendment.
INDEX
Area A: (1) sections 5101, 5104, 5105, 5109, 5113, 5114, 5117, 5120, 
5121, 5122, 5124, 5125, 5126, 5132, 5140, 5143, and 5211(2)-5211(12) of 
the House bill. . . . 
Area D: (1) sections 5102, 5108, 5111, 5127, 5129, 5134, 5136, 5137, 
5138, 5211(15), and 5211(16) of the House bill. . . .
From the Committee on Education and Labor:
CARL D. PERKINS,
AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS (solely for area C),
WILLIAM D. FORD (solely for areas A and D) . . . 
LAWRENCE J. DENARDIS (solely for area D),
Managers on the Part of the House . . . 
Solely for consideration of title VI, subtitle D, chapter 15, subtitle 
E, chapter 1 (except subchapter I, and (in section 6531(a)) paragraph 
(1) and the first sentence following paragraph (5) of the proposed new 
section 17), and subtitle E, chapter 2, subchapter C of the House bill, 
and title IV, parts A, B, and E and sections 421, 422, and 423 of the 
Senate amendment.
From the Committee on Energy and Commerce:
JOHN D. DINGELL,
RICHARD OTTINGER . . .
CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, 
Managers on the Part of the House.
From the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:
BOB PACKWOOD,
BARRY GOLDWATER,
HARRISON SCHMITT,
HOWARD W. CANNON,
DANIEL INOUYE,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
Solely for consideration of title IX, subtitle C; and title XI, 
subtitle B, chapter 4 of the House bill.
From the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries:
WALTER B. JONES . . . 
From the Committee on Public Works and Transportation:
JAMES J. HOWARD  . . . 
Managers on the Part of the House.
From the Committee on Environment and Public Works:
JAMES ABDNOR,


[[Page 701]]

ROBERT T. STAFFORD,
JOHN H. CHAFEE . . . 
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
For consideration of the entire House bill and Senate amendment 
(including sections 1 and 2 of the House bill and section 1 of the 
Senate amendment).
From the Committee on the Budget:
JAMES R. JONES,
NORMAN Y. MINETA,
STEPHEN J. SOLARZ,
LEON E. PANETTA,
RICHARD A. GEPHARDT,
LES ASPIN,
DELBERT L. LATTA,
RALPH REGULA,
BUD SHUSTER,
BOBBI FIEDLER,
Managers on the Part of the House.
From the Committee on the Budget:
PETE V. DOMENICI,
RUDY BOSCHWITZ,
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
LAWTON CHILES,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the conference 
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the 
Senate to the bill (H.R. 3982) entitled, "An Act to Provide for 
Reconciliation Pursuant to Section 301 of the First Concurrent 
Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1982," submit the following 
joint statement to the House and the Senate in explanation of the 
effect of the action agreed upon by the managers and recommended in the 
accompanying conference report:
The Senate amendment to the text of the bill struck out all of the 
House bill after the enacting clause and inserted a substitute text.
The House recedes from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate 
with an amendment which is a substitute for the House bill and the 
Senate amendment.
The joint statement of managers which follows was prepared by the 
Committees on Jurisdiction, but is arranged by title of the conference 
agreement. A brief overview by the Committees on the Budget appears at 
the beginning.

STATEMENT OF BUDGET COMMITTEE MANAGERS
By approving the First Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 1982, which 
included reconciliation instructions, Congress continued and expanded 
its efforts to maintain control over Federal expenditures. Those 
reconciliation instructions directed fourteen Senate and fifteen House 
committees to report legislation achieving unprecedented reductions 
which impact on Federal spending during fiscal years 1981, 1982, 1983 
and 1984.
The provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 are the 
culmination of the work of the committees in complying with the 
reconciliation directives. Real savings have been achieved which 
compare favorably with the reconciliation bills as passed by the House 
and Senate.
The managers for the Committees on the Budget wish to acknowledge the 
extraordinary efforts of the conference participants, particularly the 
chairmen and ranking Members of the House and Senate committees, in 
achieving these savings.
What follows in this statement of managers is a title by title 
explanation of the conference agreement. This explanation has been 
prepared 


[[page 702]]

by the committees which determined the provisions of the conference 
agreement which are in their separate jurisdictions.