[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[D. CONFERENCE REPORTS]
[Â§ 20. Statements Accompanying Report]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 757-765]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
D. CONFERENCE REPORTS
 
Sec.    20. Statements Accompanying Report

Parliamentarian's Note: A report of a conference committee must be 
printed as a report of the House, and must be accompanied by the 
explanatory statement prepared jointly by the conferees on the part of 
the House and the conferees on the part of the Senate. Such statement 
must be sufficiently detailed and explicit to inform the House as to 
the effect which the amendments or proposition contained in such report 
will have upon the measure to which those amendments or propositions 
relate.(14) 
Sufficiency of the joint statement is a matter for the House to 
determine in its vote on the conference report, and not for the Speaker 
to determine on a point of order.

Proposed Action on Amendments in Disagreement
Sec.    20.1 Although the rules do not require the managers of a 
conference to set out in their explanatory statement proposed action on 
amendments in disagreement, they may do so if they desire.
On June 19, 1941,(15) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
John J. Cochran, of Missouri, who made the following remarks in regard 
to H.R. 4590:

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Speaker, in order to advance my thought, I am 
referring specifically to the Department of the Interior appropriation 
bill, which will undoubtedly be considered today.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     Rule XXVIII clause 1(d), House Rules and Manual, Sec. 911 (1997).
15.     87 CONG. REC. 5352, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 758]]

The conference report on that bill indicates that the Senate receded in 
10 instances and the House receded on 89 amendments. There are in 
disagreement 38 amendments. The conference report and statement explain 
the amendments that have been agreed to. After the House has disposed 
of the amendments that have been agreed to en bloc we will then take up 
individually the amendments in disagreement. The conference report 
simply states that those amendments are in disagreement, but upon 
investigation I have determined that in many instances a majority of 
the conferees have already agreed that when those amendments are 
reached a motion will be made to recede and concur with an amendment. 
Naturally amendments in disagreement taking them as a whole are most 
important. I feel that the conferees not only on appropriation bills, 
but on all other bills where amendments are in disagreement and a 
motion is to be made to recede and concur, with an amendment that has 
already been agreed to by the conferees, then that motion should be 
printed in the conference report, so that the Members of the House may 
have an opportunity to intelligently examine the amendment and take 
such action as they deem advisable when it is reached. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: . . . The Chair knows of no ruling of any Speaker or of 
anything in the rules or precedents of the House, that would require a 
conference committee to file more than what they considered to be a 
detailed statement of agreement made in the conference. Explanatory 
statements are made in the statement accompanying a conference report, 
but it is, so far as the Chair knows, entirely within the hands of the 
managers as to what they will include in the statement. The Chair 
cannot see how, under the rules of the House, members of a conference 
committee can be forced to include something in their statement that 
they do not want to include, and that would be the position of the 
Chair upon this matter at this time.
It occurs to the Chair, however, that the managers certainly under the 
rules would have the power to include in the statement accompanying a 
conference report the additional information suggested by the gentleman 
from Missouri in his parliamentary inquiry.
Joint Statement and Legislative History
Sec.    20.2 Example of a joint statement of managers accompanying a 
conference report which incorporated by reference legislative history 
from House and Senate committee reports on the pending bill and 
"related legislation."
H.R. 956, the Product Liability Legal Reform Act, had been reported by 
the Committee on the Judiciary and then referred sequentially to the 
Committee on Commerce. Commerce did not report H.R. 956 but filed a 
report on a similar measure, H.R. 917. Conferees were named from both


[[Page 759]]

committees and the inclusion of portions of the legislative history 
from both versions of the bill in part reflects the jurisdictional 
dispute between the two on the subject of product liability.
A portion of the joint statement showing the manner in which the 
committee reports were incorporated by reference is excerpted from the 
Record of Mar. 14, 1996,(16) and included here. 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 956, COMMON SENSE PRODUCT LIABILITY LEGAL 
REFORM ACT OF 1996
Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois] submitted the following conference 
report and statement on the bill (H.R. 956) to establish legal 
standards and procedures for product liability litigation, and for 
other purposes:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. 104-481)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 956), to establish 
legal standards and procedures for product liability litigation, 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:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS
(a) SHORT TITLE.-This Act may be cited as the "Common Sense Product 
Liability Legal Reform Act of 1996".
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.-The table of contents is as follows: . . . 
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE . . . 
The conferees incorporate by reference in this Statement of Managers 
the legislative history reflected in both House Report 104-64, Part 1 
and Senate Report 104-69. To the extent not otherwise inconsistent with 
the conference agreement, those reports give expression to the intent 
of the conferees. (The conferees also take note of House Report 104-63, 
Part 1, which contains supplementary legislative history on a related 
bill.) . . . 
From the Committee on the Judiciary, for consideration of the House 
bill, and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference:
HENRY HYDE,
JAMES SENSENBRENNER,  Jr.,
GEORGE W. GEKAS,
BOB INGLIS,
ED BRYANT,
From the Committee on Commerce, for consideration of the House bill, 
and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
TOM BLILEY,
MICHAEL OXLEY,
CHRISTOPHER COX,
Managers on the Part of the House.
LARRY PRESSLER,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     142 CONG. REC. 4784, 4790, 4793, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 760]]

SLADE GORTON,
TRENT LOTT,
TED STEVENS,
OLYMPIA SNOWE,
JOHN ASHCROFT,
J.J. EXON,
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
Minority Views
Sec.    20.3 A statement of the managers on the part of the House 
accompanies conference reports but minority views do not accompany such 
reports.
On June 1, 1949,(17) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [JOHN W.] MCCORMACK [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the House conferees on the reorganization bill 
may have until midnight tonight to file a report. . . . 
MR. [JOSEPH W.] MARTIN [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Is there any minority 
report?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we have not agreed, but I ask that the conferees 
may have until midnight tonight in case there is a report.
MR. [CLARE E.] HOFFMAN of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, would that include the right of the minority to file a report?
MR. MCCORMACK: Yes. I will also ask that that be included.
THE SPEAKER:(18) Well, there are no minority views on a conference 
report.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. HOFFMAN of Michigan: May not the conferees express their views? 
They can do it on the floor, then, can they not, if they can get 
recognition.
THE SPEAKER: A statement of the managers on the part of the House 
accompanies the conference report.
Sec.    20.4 Minority views are not in order on a conference report; but 
the majority of the managers may, in the statement accompanying the 
report, indicate exceptions taken by certain conferees.
On Dec. 6, 1967,(19) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, for the purpose of calling 
up the conference report on H.R. 6111, a bill providing for the 
establishment of a Federal Judicial Center. By unanimous consent, the 
statement of the managers on the part of the House was read in lieu of 
the report. The last paragraph of the statement read as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     95 CONG. REC. 7096, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
19.     113 CONG. REC. 35135-37, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 761]]

Representative MacGregor and Representative McClory, although they 
signed the conference report, emphasize their exceptions to two 
portions of the amendment. They would except as to that part of section 
620 that locates the Federal Judicial Center in the judicial branch of 
the Government rather than in the Administrative Office of the United 
States Courts, and except as to that part of section 625 that 
authorizes the Director to appoint and fix the compensation of 
professional personnel rather than to require the Board to appoint and 
fix the compensation of such personnel.
Content of the Statement of Managers
Sec.    20.5 The Statement of Managers which must accompany a conference 
report is an informative document, is not voted on, and may contain 
such matter as the conferees of the House and Senate may jointly 
determine-and a tribute to a deceased staff member who had a major 
impact on the legislation has been included. 
On Aug. 25, 1980,(20) the statement accompanying the conference report 
on H.R. 5192, the education amendments of 1980, carried a tribute to 
the associate general counsel of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan submitted the following conference 
report and statement on the bill (H.R. 5192), an act to amend and 
extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 96-1251)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 5192) to amend and 
extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, 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:
That this Act may be cited as the "Education Amendments of 1980". . . . 
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. 5192) to amend and extend the Higher Education 
Act of 1965, 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:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     126 CONG. REC. 22946, 22987, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 762]]

IN MEMORIAM
The conferees note with great sadness the absence from our 
deliberations of Mr. William F. Gaul, Associate General Counsel of the 
House Committee on Education and Labor.
Mr. Gaul has provided a central thread of informed judgment and wise 
counsel throughout all previous conference committee deliberations on 
the Higher Education Act from its original enactment in 1965 through 
the amendments of 1968, 1972, and 1976.
Mr. Gaul worked tirelessly on the House version of this reauthorizing 
legislation through its enactment last November. But shortly 
thereafter, he was stricken by a fatal illness which confined him to 
hospital quarters during our conference committee deliberations.
We have greatly missed his good and wise counsel in our deliberations. 
We wish he could have been with us. But most of all, we wish to record, 
as a part of this conference report, our great and continuing 
indebtedness to Mr. Gaul for the extraordinary contributions he had 
made throughout the last fifteen years to the creation, development, 
and refinement of the Higher Education Act.
On behalf of the millions of postsecondary students and the thousands 
of postsecondary institutions who have and will continue to benefit 
from the Higher Education Act, we wish to state that Mr. William F. 
Gaul's leadership role in constructing this legislation will be greatly 
noted and long remembered.
Legal Effect of Language in Statement of Managers
Sec.    20.6 On occasion the House has referenced conditions specified in 
the statement of managers accompanying a conference report in an 
amendment to an amendment in disagreement, thus elevating the 
referenced portion of the statement to the status of law.
Under Rule XXVIII clause 1(d),(1) the statement of managers which is 
required to accompany a conference report is to be jointly prepared by 
the managers of the two Houses, and shall be sufficient to inform the 
House as to the effect the amendments or propositions contained in such 
report will have on the measure to which those amendments or 
propositions relate. Such statement is explanatory and for guidance in 
interpreting the explicit provisions in the conference report, but does 
not have the status of law. By incorporating certain conditions spelled 
out in such a statement into an amendment, those conditions can be, in 
a sense, elevated to the status of law. The type of motion which has 
been used to accomplish this result is illustrated by the motion 
offered to an amendment in disagreement to H.R. 4624, the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 911 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 763]]

Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act 
of 1995, conference report in 1994, which is carried here.(2) 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. STOKES
MR. [LOUIS] STOKES [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Stokes moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 28, and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert the following: 
": Provided further, That notwithstanding the language preceding the 
first proviso of this paragraph, $289,500,000 shall be used for special 
purpose grants in accordance with the terms and conditions specified 
for such grants in the committee of conference report and statement of 
the managers (H. Rept. 103-715) accompanying H.R. 4624, except for the 
grant of $500,000 for the Earth Conservatory for the acquisition of 
land near Wilkes-Barre, PA".

MR. [JOHN] LEWIS of California (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in 
the Record.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(3) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Reading Statements and Reports
Sec.    20.7 The statement of the managers accompanying a conference 
report is not read after the reading of the report itself.
On July 23, 1946,(4) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [BRENT] SPENCE [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference 
report on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 371) extending the effective 
period of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, and the 
Stabilization Act of 1942, as amended, and ask unanimous consent that 
the statement of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu 
of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
THE SPEAKER:(5) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky? . . . 
MR. [JESSE P.] WOLCOTT [of Michigan]: Do I correctly understand, Mr. 
Speaker, that if objection is made to the reading of the statement in 
lieu of the report, that in that case the joint resolution will be read 
and then the statement will be read?
THE SPEAKER: If the request made by the gentleman from Kentucky is 
objected to, then the conference report will be read.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     140 CONG. REC. 24324, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 12, 1994.
 3.     Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).
 4.     92 CONG. REC. 9754, 9765, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 764]]

MR. WOLCOTT: If objection is made to that request, will the resolution 
be read and then the statement be read?
THE SPEAKER: The conference report will be read. The only thing before 
the House now is the conference report.
MR. WOLCOTT: In view of the fact that there is no additional time, and 
it is apparent that no additional time will be granted, I think the 
Members should have an opportunity to read the joint resolution or hear 
it read. For that reason, I object.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will read the conference report.
The Clerk read the conference report. . . . 
MR. WOLCOTT: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of 
the managers on the part of the House be read.
MR. SPENCE: I object, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Objection is heard.
Sec.    20.8 The statement of the managers accompanying a conference 
report is not read after the reading of the report itself. And although 
the statement may by unanimous consent be read in lieu of the report, 
if objection is made to the reading of the statement in lieu of the 
conference report, the Clerk reads the report.
On the legislative day of Sept. 25, 1961,(6) the Speaker Pro Tempore, 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Albert Thomas, of 
Texas, who called up the conference report on the supplemental 
appropriations bill for fiscal 1962.

MR. THOMAS: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill 
(H.R. 9169) and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
managers on the part of the House be read in lieu of the report. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Clerk read the conference report.
Withdrawal of Conference Report Pending Completion of Reading the 
Report
Sec.    20.9 When a conference report is called up for consideration in 
the House, the statement of the managers may be read in lieu of the 
report by unanimous consent; and if there is objection, the Clerk 
proceeds to read the report; but the manager may withdraw the report at 
any 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     107 CONG. REC. 21518-28, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1961 
(Calendar Day).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 765]]

time before action is taken thereon. 
Until the new rules were adopted for the 96th Congress,(7) every 
conference report had to be read to initiate its consideration. This 
reading requirement could be dispensed with by unanimous consent or by 
other parliamentary means, and often for the sake of clarity, the 
request was made to read the statement of the managers in lieu of the 
report.
In the illustration included here, the objection to dispensing with the 
reading of the report was motivated by a desire to put off 
consideration until another day. The following proceedings occurred on 
July 18, 1977:(8) 

MR. [CARL D.] PERKINS [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 6138) to provide employment and 
training opportunities for youth, and ask unanimous consent that the 
statement of the managers be read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(9) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read the conference report.
The Clerk proceeded to read the conference report.
MR. PERKINS (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I again ask unanimous 
consent that the statement of the managers be read in lieu of the 
report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, it is after 
5:30.
Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read the conference report.
MR. PERKINS (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the 
conference report at this time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     See H. Res. 5, 125 CONG. REC. 7-16, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 
15, 1979. This change is now embodied in Rule XXVIII clause 2(c), House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 912d (1997). See also Sec. 25.7, infra.
 8.     123 CONG. REC. 23459, 23460, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 766]]