[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT]
[Â§ 30. Voting; Final Disposition of Report]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1005-1062]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT
 
Sec.    30. Voting; Final Disposition of Report

Conference reports are voted on before any amendments in disagreement 
are considered,(8) although under certain circumstances the vote on the 
report may follow the consideration of these amendments.(9) 
They are voted on as a whole,(10) and, in accordance with Jefferson's 
Manual, they are not subject to amendment.(11) Although it is not in 
order to adopt only certain amendments contained in a report,(12) it 
has been in order, since the onset of the 93d Congress, to debate for 
40 minutes and vote separately on any specified portion of a conference 
report which the Speaker, in response to a point of order, holds to 
contain material which would have been ruled nongermane if offered as 
an amendment in the House.(13) In this case the report must nonetheless 
be adopted as a whole, and the rejection of any portion of the report 
pursuant to this procedure results in the rejection of the entire 
report. However, in this event the pending question before the House is 
a motion to recede and concur with an amendment consisting of the 
portions of the con-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     Sec. 29.3, supra, and Sec. 30.1, infra.
 9.     Sec. 29.4, supra.
10.     Sec.Sec. 30.4, 30.5, infra.
11.     House Rules and Manual, Jefferson's Manual Sec. 542 (1997); and 
Sec.Sec. 30.6, 30.7, infra.
12.     Sec. 30.4, infra.
13.     See Rule XXVIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(b) 
(1997); and Sec.Sec. 30.10, 30.11, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1006]]

ference report not so rejected.(14) Should the portions at issue be 
approved, the report is debated, after which the entire report is voted 
upon.(15) 

A conference report may not contain an agreement to some portions of an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute and a disagreement to other 
portions of that amendment.(16) 
The vote on a conference report is subject to the motion to reconsider,
(17) and the proceedings whereby a conference report was considered, 
may, by unanimous consent, be vacated.(18) 

Time for Consideration

Sec.    30.1 In the consideration of conference reports the report itself 
is considered and voted up or down before action is taken on amendments 
in disagreement.

On Mar. 16, 1942,(19) Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, called up the 
conference report on S. 2208, to expedite prosecution of the war.

MR. SUMNERS of Texas: Mr. Speaker, may I submit a parliamentary 
inquiry?
THE SPEAKER:(20) The gentleman will state it.
MR. SUMNERS of Texas: Amendment No. 32 is highly controversial. I 
understand it is my duty to move that the House further insist upon 
this amendment. May I ask unanimous consent that the consideration of 
that amendment be postponed for the moment?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair suggests to the gentleman from Texas that the 
first thing to do is to adopt the conference report, leaving out, of 
course, those matters that are in disagreement.
MR. SUMNERS of Texas: Then, Mr. Speaker, I make that motion at this 
time. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The parliamentary situation is this: Insofar as the 
amendments in disagreement are concerned, the conference report must 
first be voted up or down. The gentleman from Texas has moved that the 
conference report be adopted.

En Bloc Consideration of Several Reports

Sec.    30.2 The Speaker has indicated that it is not permissi-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     Rule XXVIII clause 4(d), House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(b) 
(1997); and Sec. 30.12, infra.
15.     Rule XXVIII clause 4(d), House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(b) 
(1997).
16.     Sec. 30.3, infra.
17.     Sec.Sec. 30.32-30.34, infra.
18.     Sec. 30.34, infra.
19.     88 CONG. REC. 2502-04, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1007]]

ble to consider several conference reports en bloc.

On June 29, 1970,(1) Mr. Philip J. Philbin, of Massachusetts, called up 
the conference report on H.R. 15021, to release cobalt from the 
national stockpile. At that time there were 16 additional conference 
reports on other stockpile bills awaiting consideration by the House. 
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a parliamentary inquiry:

MR. GROSS:  . . .  Is there any way under the rules of the House 
whereby these reports might be considered en bloc and disposed of 
rather expeditiously by unanimous consent?
THE SPEAKER:(2) The Chair will state to the gentleman from Iowa in 
response to his parliamentary inquiry that under the mechanics of the 
rules of the House it will not be possible at this time to consider 
these conference reports en bloc because each report must be acted upon 
individually.

Acting on Report in Whole or in Part

Sec.    30.3 A conference report may not contain a partial agreement to 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute; and where the conferees had 
agreed to all but one of       the provisions of such an amendment they 
reported back to the House in total disagreement.

On July 31, 1973,(3) Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, submitted the 
following conference report on S. 1888, to extend and amend the 
Agricultural Act of 1970:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 1888), to extend and 
amend the Agricultural Act of 1970 for the purpose of assuring 
consumers of plentiful supplies of food and fiber at reasonable prices, 
having met, after full and free conference, have been unable to agree. 
. . . 

The conferees explained in their joint statement the reason for their 
report in total disagreement.

The House amendment struck out all after the enacting clause of S. 1888 
and inserted in lieu thereof the language of H.R. 8860 as passed by the 
House.
There were 111 substantive differences between S. 1888 and the House 
amendment. The conferees were able to reconcile 110 of these 
differences, but were unable to agree on the provision in the House 
amendment which would, under specified conditions, prohibit food stamp 
assistance to strikers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     116 CONG. REC. 21833, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 3.     119 CONG. REC. 27001, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1008]]

Sec.    30.4 A conference report must be acted on as a whole and agreed 
to or disagreed to in its entirety, and a motion to adopt a report only 
on certain amendments included therein is not in order.

On Aug. 22, 1940,(4) the House was considering the conference report on 
Senate Joint Resolution 286, to strengthen the national defense.

MR. [WALTER G.] ANDREWS [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move the adoption 
of the conference report insofar as amendments numbered 1 to 14 are 
concerned.
THE SPEAKER:(5) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Andrews moves the adoption of the conference report on amendments 
Nos. 1 to 14, inclusive.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair holds that under the rules the gentleman cannot 
move to adopt a conference report in that way.
MR. [ANDREW J.] MAY [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I move the adoption of 
the conference report as a whole.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on agreeing to the motion of the gentleman 
from Kentucky.
The conference report was agreed to, and a motion to reconsider the 
vote by which the conference report was agreed to was laid on the 
table.

Sec.    30.5 A conference report must be acted upon as a whole, being 
agreed to or disagreed to as an entirety; and rejection of a portion of 
a conference report under a special procedure permitting such a 
separate vote results in the rejection of the entire report.

On Nov. 10, 1971,(6) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 696, providing for 
the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 8687, military 
procurement authorizations, fiscal 1972. The resolution contained the 
following provision:

. . . It shall also be in order, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XX,(7) 
for a separate vote to be had upon demand on those individual parts of 
the Senate amendment now contained in the conference report and 
numbered as sections 503, 505, and 601. . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     86 CONG. REC. 10759-63, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 5.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
 6.     117 CONG. REC. 40479, 40481, 40482, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 7.     The provision of Rule XX clause 1, alluded to in this resolution 
was contained in the House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1971). The 
comparable provision was moved in the 93d Congress to Rule XXVIII 
clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(b) (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1009]]

Pending the vote on the resolution, Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, 
posed a parliamentary inquiry:

Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is simply if House Resolution 
696, now before the House, is adopted or not, it is provided that it 
shall also be in order, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XX, for a separate 
vote to be had upon demand of any individual on those individual parts 
of the Senate amendment now contained in the conference report and 
numbered as sections 503, 505, and 601. My inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is, in 
the event that such a vote was demanded on those separate sections and 
it was not agreed to by this body, would the entire conference report 
be rejected and returned to the conferees or the other body?
THE SPEAKER:(8) The answer to the gentleman is that the conference 
report would be rejected.
MR. HALL: I thank the Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: If the first section is rejected, that is the end of the 
conference report. A provision of Jefferson's Manual-found in sections 
542 and 549 of the House Rules and Manual-holds that conference reports 
must be acted on as a whole, being agreed to or disagreed to as an 
entity.
The House by its action in rejecting any one of the sections on which a 
separate vote may be demanded would nullify the agreement between the 
managers on the part of the House and the Senate, and the conference 
report would therefore fall.

Amendment of Report

Sec.    30.6 A conference report is not subject to amendment.

On June 30, 1939,(9) the House was considering the conference report on 
House Joint Resolution 326, the relief bill of 1940, when the following 
colloquy occurred:

MR. [VITO] MARCANTONIO [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(10) The gentleman will state it.
MR. MARCANTONIO: If the previous question is voted down, Mr. Speaker, 
would the conference report then be open to amendment?
THE SPEAKER: It would not be open to amendment.

Effect of Rejection of Previous Question

Sec.    30.7 Voting down the previous question on a conference report 
merely extends time for debate and does not afford an opportunity to 
amend the report.

On Mar. 1, 1939,(11) the House was considering the conference report on 
H.R. 3743, the inde-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 9.     84 CONG. REC. 8459, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
11.     84 CONG. REC. 2085, 2086, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1010]]

pendent offices appropriations bill, fiscal 1940. The following 
discussion occurred:

MR. [CLIFTON A.] WOODRUM of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, it has been stated 
upon the floor by myself, and I think it was the general understanding 
of the rest of us, that in the event the previous question on the 
conference report was voted down the Senate amendments would then be 
open for separate consideration. Pursuant to the statement just made a 
few moments ago by the gentleman from New York, I discussed the matter 
with the Parliamentarian, and, as I understand the matter now, it 
appears that the only way the House could get a vote on this amendment 
would be to vote down the conference report; that then each Senate 
amendment would be before the House for separate consideration. My 
parliamentary inquiry is whether or not that is correct.
THE SPEAKER:(12) The Chair is of the opinion that the gentleman has 
very clearly stated the parliamentary situation. The mere voting down 
of the previous question would not afford an opportunity to the House 
to open up a conference report for amendments. In other words, the 
Chair under the precedents, is clearly of the opinion that the only way 
in which a separate vote could be obtained upon any Senate amendment 
would be to vote down the conference report; that voting down the 
previous question would not afford an opportunity for such 
consideration.
MR. WOODRUM of Virginia: So nothing will be gained by voting down the 
previous question.
THE SPEAKER: It would merely extend the time for debate on the 
conference report.

Postponement of Vote After Ordering Previous Question

Sec.    30.8 Further consideration of a conference report on which the 
previous question had been ordered was, by unanimous consent, postponed 
and made the unfinished business on the following day.

On Dec. 15, 1970,(13) after the House completed its consideration of 
the conference report on H.R. 17867, foreign assistance appropriations, 
fiscal 1971, the following occurred:

The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER:(14) The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
MR. [DURWARD G.] HALL [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote 
on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order 
that a quorum is not present. . . . 
I want a vote on the acceptance of the conference report, to which I 
object 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
13.     116 CONG. REC. 41544, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
14.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1011]]

violently, and I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not 
present and, I repeat, I make a point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will count.
Will the gentleman withhold his point of order?
MR. HALL: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not withhold the point of order. I 
insist on my point of order. The point of order has been properly made.
THE SPEAKER: Will the gentleman indulge the Chair? There are quite a 
few Members at the White House, and it would be the purpose of the 
gentleman from Texas if the gentleman from Missouri will withhold his 
point of order, to ask that further proceedings on the conference 
report and the amendments in disagreement be postponed until tomorrow, 
because there are many Members at the White House with their wives.
MR. HALL:  . . .  Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances, and with that 
understanding and for no other purpose, I will yield until the 
gentleman from Texas makes his request.
MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that further proceedings on the conference report be postponed until 
tomorrow and that this be the first order of business on tomorrow. . . 
. 
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: Accordingly, the matter is postponed until tomorrow, when 
it will be the first order of business.

Postponement of Vote on Adoption of Conference Report

Sec.    30.9 Before the Speaker's postponement authority was added to 
Rule I, a vote on the adoption of a conference report after the 
previous question was ordered thereon could be postponed only by 
unanimous consent. 

The proceedings of Oct. 15, 1974,(15) are carried as illustrative of 
the practice before the adoption of Rule I clause 5(b)(1) in the 96th 
Congress.(16) 

MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
previous question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
MR. [THOMAS P.] O'NEILL [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that further proceedings on the conference report be 
postponed until 5 p.m. today.
THE SPEAKER:(17) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts?
MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER: Objection is heard.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     120 CONG. REC. 35640, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
16.     See H. Res. 5, 125 CONG. REC. 7, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 15, 
1979.
17.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1012]]

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [GARRY] BROWN of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BROWN of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to move that 
the vote on this measure be postponed until 5 p.m.?
THE SPEAKER: It requires a unanimous-consent request.

Procedure for Addressing Senate Amendments Which Are Not Germane

Sec.    30.10 New rules (Rule XXVIII clauses 4 and 5) were adopted in the 
92d and 93d Congresses to provide a procedure in the House to address 
the inclusion in conference reports or amendments in disagreement of 
Senate amendments or provisions in Senate bills which would not have 
been considered germane to the bill in the House. 

Near the end of the 92d Congress, the House adopted a change in Rule 
XXVIII clause 4, to allow the House to have a separate vote on a 
nongermane Senate amendment which was included in a conference report.
(18) The mechanism allowed a point of order directed at the nongermane 
provision, which if sustained, permitted a vote to reject the 
provision. 

On Apr. 9, 1974, the House considered a resolution reported from the 
Committee on Rules, amending several rules of the House.(19) Clause 4 
of Rule XXVIII was at that time broadened to provide not only a 
mechanism for getting a vote on Senate amendments which were not 
germane, but also parts of Senate bills sent to conference with 
provisions, which if offered in the House to its version of the bill, 
would not have been germane. At the same time, clause 5 was added, for 
the first time providing a way of voting on discrete portions of 
motions to dispose of Senate amendments or bills in disagreement which 
contained provisions which would not have been appropriate in the House 
under Rule XVI clause 7.(20) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     Clause 4, Rule XXVIII, was included  as part of a general 
revision of several House rules that became effective at the end of the 
92d Congress. See H. Res. 1153, 118 CONG. REC. 36023, 92d Cong. 2d 
Sess., Oct. 13, 1972.
19.     See H. Res 998, amending the rules of the House, 120 CONG. REC. 
10195-99, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     Rule XXVIII clause 5 as adopted in 1974, has remained unchanged 
in its essentials. See House Rules and 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1013]]

THE CHAIRMAN:(1) Under the rule, the resolution shall be considered as 
having been read for amendment. No amendments shall be in order to said 
resolution except amendments offered by the direction of the Committee 
on Rules and germane amendments to section 3 of said resolution, and 
said amendments shall not be subject to amendment.
The resolution reads as follows:
H. RES. 998
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives are amended in 
the following respects: . . . 
APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE 4 OF RULE XXVIII RELATING TO 
NONGERMANE MATTER IN CON-FERENCE AGREEMENTS TO CERTAIN MATTER IN 
CONFERENCE AGREE-MENTS NOT PROPOSED TO BE PLACED IN THE MEASURE 
CONCERNED AS PASSED THE HOUSE 
SEC. 6. (a) Paragraph (a) of clause 4 of Rule XXVIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end of such 
paragraph the following: "For the purposes of this clause, matter 
which-
"(A) is contained in any substitute agreed to by the conference 
committee;
"(B) is not proposed by the House to be included in the measure 
concerned as passed by the House; and
"(C) would be in violation of clause 7 of Rule XVI if such matter had 
been offered in the House as an amendment to the provisions of that 
measure as so proposed in the form passed by the House;
shall be considered in violation of such clause 7."
(b) Clause 4(d) of Rule XXVIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended to read as follows:
"(d) If any such motion to reject has been adopted, after final 
disposition of all points of order and motions to reject under the 
preceding provisions of this clause, the conference report shall be 
considered as rejected and the question then pending before the House 
shall be-
"(1) whether to recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an 
amendment which shall consist of that portion of the conference report 
not rejected; or
"(2) if the last sentence of paragraph (a) of this clause applies, 
whether to insist further on the House amendment.
If all such motions to reject are defeated, then, after the allocation 
of time for debate on the conference report as provided in clause 2(a) 
of this Rule, it shall be in order to move the previous question on the 
adoption of the conference report."
CONSIDERATION IN THE HOUSE OF CERTAIN SENATE AMENDMENTS REPORTED IN 
DISAGREEMENT BY CONFERENCE COMMITTEES OR IN DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE 
TWO HOUSES
SEC. 7. Rule XXVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new clause:
"5. (a)(1) With respect to any amendment (including an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute) which-
"(A) is proposed by the Senate to any measure and thereafter-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manual Sec. 913c (1997) and the annotation which follows for the 
current application of this clause.  
 1.     Dawson Mathis (Ga.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1014]]

"(i) is reported in disagreement between the two Houses by a committee 
of conference; or
"(ii) is before the House, the stage of disagreement having been 
reached; and
"(B) contains any matter which would be in violation of the provisions 
of clause 7 of Rule XVI if such matter had been offered as an amendment 
in the House; 
it shall be in order, immediately after a motion is offered that the 
House recede from its disagreement to such amendment proposed by the 
Senate and concur therein and before debate is commenced on such 
motion, to make a point of order that such nongermane matter, as 
described above, which shall be specified in the point of order, is 
contained in such amendment proposed by the Senate.
"(2) If such point of order is sustained, it then shall be in order for 
the Chair to entertain a motion, which is of high privilege, that the 
House reject the nongermane matter covered by the point of order. It 
shall be in order to debate such motion for forty minutes, one-half of 
such time to be given to debate in favor of, and one-half in opposition 
to, the motion.
"(3) Notwithstanding the final disposition of any point of order made 
under subparagraph (1), or of any motion to reject made pursuant to a 
point of order under subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, it shall be in 
order to make further points of order on the ground stated in such 
subparagraph (1), and motions to reject pursuant thereto under such 
subparagraph (2), with respect to other nongermane matter in the 
amendment proposed by the Senate not covered by any previous point of 
order which has been sustained.
"(4) If any such motion to reject has been adopted, after final 
disposition of all points of order and motions to reject under the 
preceding provisions of this clause, the motion to recede and concur 
shall be considered as rejected, and further motions-
"(A) to recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment, 
where appropriate (but the offering of which is not in order unless 
copies of the language of the Senate amendment, as proposed to be 
amended by such motion, are then available on the floor when such 
motion is offered and is under consideration); . . . 
EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 8. The amendments made by this resolution to the Rules of the 
House of Representatives shall become effective at the beginning of the 
thirtieth day after the date of adoption of this resolution. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: Are there further amendments? If not, under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the 
chair, Mr. Mathis of Georgia, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee having 
had under consideration the resolution (H. Res. 998) to amend the House 
rules regarding the making of points of no quorum, consideration of 
certain Senate amendments in conference agreements or reported in 
conference disagreement, request for recorded votes and expeditious 
conduct of quorum calls in Committee of the Whole, and postponement of 
proceedings on suspension motions, and for other purposes, pursuant to 
House Resolution 1018, he reported the resolution back to the House 
with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.


[[Page 1015]]

THE SPEAKER:(2) Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the resolution.
MR. [JOHN M.] ASHBROOK [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays. 
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 374, nays 
27, not voting 31. . . . 

Portions of the debate pertaining to House Resolution 998 follow:

MR. [B. F.] SISK [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House 
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
the Union for the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 998) to 
amend the House rules regarding the making of points of no quorum, 
consideration of certain Senate amendments in conference agreements or 
reported in conference disagreement, request for recorded votes and 
expeditious conduct of quorum calls in Committee of the Whole, and 
postponement of proceedings on suspension motions, and for other 
purposes.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Sisk).
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the resolution 
(H. Res. 998), with Mr. Mathis of Georgia in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
By unanimous consent, the first reading of the resolution was dispensed 
with.
THE CHAIRMAN: Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sisk) 
will be recognized for 1 hour, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) 
will be recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
MR. [SPARK M.] MATSUNAGA [of Hawaii]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in solid 
support of House Resolution 998, which would reform a number of House 
rules to simplify and streamline certain procedures in the House. . . . 
The other changes in the rules proposed by House Resolution 998 are 
also directed at expediting the business of the House. . . . 
Rules for controlling House consideration of nongermane Senate 
amendments would be tightened. . . . 
MR. [RICHARD C.] WHITE [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
MR. SISK: Yes, I will, briefly.
MR. WHITE: On page 3, section 2, it states:

The last two sentences of clause 1 of Rule XX of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives are repealed.

As I read that portion of the repeal, it would obviate the new 
procedures that the House has experienced in the last 2 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1016]]

years of being able to vote on nongermane amendments to a bill placed 
by the Senate.
MR. SISK: Well, I had hoped to comment briefly on that. That is purely 
a technical amendment. What we have done is to shift the matters 
dealing with nongermane amendments in conference reports exclusively to 
rule XXVIII. We are simply transferring that specific language in rule 
XX to rule XXVIII, and consolidating all the matters that are of 
concern in connection with the rules dealing with the handling of 
nongermane matters.(3) . . . 
I appreciate that. I have now used up about half of the time that I 
have, and I do not want to cut off anybody because I realize the 
interest of Members in this matter. I appreciate it.
Let me run through it briefly, and then I will yield myself such 
additional time as is necessary to answer any questions.
Mr. Chairman, section 6 extends the present procedure permitting 
separate debate and votes on nongermane Senate amendments to nongermane 
matter that first, originally appeared in a Senate bill; or second, was 
not included in the House-passed version of that bill; or third, 
appeared again in conference report.
This is, of course, a further attempt to make absolutely certain that 
with regard to any nongermane material placed on legislation by the 
other body or developed in a conference the Members of the House will 
have a right, if they desire to make a point of order on it, to debate 
it and to vote on it.
We have been through this and have been up and down the hill on it for 
4 or 5 years. Hopefully, the new language that the committee adopted 
will make it absolutely clear.
Section 6 further extends the procedure for dealing with nongermane 
Senate amendments to permit separate debate and votes on nongermane 
matter on Senate amendments reported in 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     A rather rudimentary method for addressing nongermane Senate 
amendments had been added to the rules of the House by the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1140, and made part of the Rules 
of the House on Jan. 22, 1971 (H. Res. 5), 117 CONG. REC. 144, 92d 
Cong. 1st Sess. The last two sentences of Rule XX clause 1, at that 
time provided as follows: "Any motion to agree, or agree with 
amendment, to any House or Senate bill or resolution or amendment 
thereto (other than a motion to agree to a conference report) shall 
require for adoption, or [on] demand of any Member, a separate vote on 
each such amendment (including a separate vote on any nongermane part 
of an amendment in the nature of a substitute), if, originating in the 
House, such amendment would be subject to a point of order on a 
question of germaneness under clause 7 of Rule XVI. Before such 
separate vote is taken, it shall be in order to debate such amendment 
or part for forty minutes, one-half of such time to be given to debate 
in favor of, and one-half to debate in opposition to, such amendment or 
part."  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1017]]

disagreement by a conference committee.
This will cover motions to recede and concur in Senate amendments, and 
motions to recede and concur with an amendment.

Separate Vote on Nongermane Provisions

Sec.    30.11 Parliamentarian's Note: The basic principle as set forth in 
Sec..542 of Jefferson's Manual-that a con- ference report cannot be 
amended or altered-was preserved in Rule XXVIII clause 4, adopted in 
1972.(4) While that rule permits separate motions to reject those 
portions of a conference report containing Senate amendments or bills 
which would not have been germane to the House-passed version, it also 
provides that upon rejection of a portion of a conference report under 
that procedure, the entire report is considered as rejected, and the 
pending question shall be a motion to recede and concur with an 
amendment consisting of that portion of the conference report not 
rejected.

On Oct. 13, 1972,(5) Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 1153, amending the rules 
of the House concerning, I, nongermane Senate amendments included in 
conference reports. With respect to this provision, Mr. Sisk explained 
in part:

Mr. Speaker, the first section of the resolution grapples with this 
thorny problem of Senate nongermane amendments. Frankly, I thought we 
had settled that matter through section 126 of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1970.(6) But our experiences under the rules 
changes brought about by that act make it pretty clear that our rules 
do not yet adequately deal with the situation.
I think we all understood the basic purpose of section 126. It was to 
give the House an opportunity to have separate debate and a separate 
vote on Senate nongermane provisions attached to House-passed measures. 
Unfortunately, the way in which that section was written did not take 
into account the special parliamentary problems raised by amendments in 
the nature of a substitute. Our present rules permit us to debate and 
vote on the whole of nongermane Senate amend-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 913b (1997).
 5.     118 CONG. REC. 36013-15, 36021-23, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     Pub. L. No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140, Sec. 126(a) (Oct. 26, 1970).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1018]]

ments, but not on the specific nongermane parts of Senate amendments. 
This means that when we are dealing with a Senate amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, under the present rules and precedents we are 
limited to a single vote on the whole amendment-all up, or all down. We 
cannot separate out the nongermane parts of that amendment in the 
nature of a substitute for individual consideration.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules literally spent months trying to 
find a way out of this dilemma. We finally settled on the approach that 
appears in the first section of this resolution.
I will not go into the details of the proposed procedure; most of them 
are laid out in the report. But I do want to point out to the House 
that this approach will introduce three new parliamentary devices into 
the practices of the House.
First, it will permit us to have separate votes on the nongermane parts 
of conference reports, where now we may not have such separate votes.
Second, it will permit the House to debate and vote separately on all 
nongermane parts of a conference report, even after the House has 
rejected any one of them.
Third, and this is a modification of what we originally reported-we 
retain the present concept that when any part of the conference report 
has been rejected, the whole report is automatically rejected. But, we 
provide that if any part is rejected, the pending question will then be 
to recede and concur with an amendment, and that amendment shall 
consist of all of the conference report except the rejected parts. With 
this device we will give the Senate an opportunity to accept our 
version, to ask for another conference, or to deal with the measure in 
some other suitable way.

Mr. Sisk then offered the following amendment:

Amendment offered by Mr. Sisk: On page 8, immediately below line 5, 
insert the following:

"Sec. 6. The amendments made by the foregoing sections of this 
resolution shall become effective immediately before noon on January 3, 
1973."

After debate on Mr. Sisk's amendment had transpired, consideration of 
the resolution was concluded by the following proceedings:

THE SPEAKER:(7) The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sisk).
The amendment was agreed to.
MR. SISK: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the resolution. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 281, nays 57, not voting 
93. . . . 
So the resolution was agreed to. . . . 
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Rejection of Nongermane Section
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1019]]

Sec.    30.12 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4(d),(8) where the House has 
agreed to one or more motions to reject a portion of a conference 
report, the report is considered as rejected, and the pending question 
is whether the House shall recede from disagreement to the Senate 
amendment(s) and concur with an amendment consisting of that portion of 
the conference report not rejected.(9) 

On Sept. 11, 1973,(10) the House was considering the conference report 
on H.R. 7645, Department of State authorizations, fiscal 1974, when Mr. 
Robert L. F. Sikes, of Florida, rose with a point of order:

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the matter contained in 
section 10 of the substitute offered by the conference committee and 
accepted by the House conferees would not have been germane to H.R. 
7645 under clause 7, rule XVI(11) if offered in the House and is 
therefore subject to a point of order under clause 4, rule 28.

After listening to debate on the point of order, Speaker Carl Albert, 
of Oklahoma, reached the following conclusion:

The Chair, therefore, concludes that the amendment would not have been 
germane if offered to the House bill and the point of order against 
section 10 of the conference report is, therefore, sustained.
MR. SIKES: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Sikes moves that the House reject section 10 of the conference 
report.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 20 minutes.

After debate transpired on Mr. Sikes' motion, the proceedings concluded 
in the following manner:

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the adoption of the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Sikes).
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
THE SPEAKER: The motion to reject sections 10 and 13(12) of the 
conference 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(b) (1997).
 9.     See Sec. 30.13, infra, for an instance where a point of order was 
sustained, but the House defeated the motion to reject the nongermane 
provision.
10.     119 CONG. REC. 29243-46, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
11.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 794 (1997).
12.     The Speaker had previously sustained a point of order against 
section 13 on the ground that it embod-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1020]]

report having been adopted, under the rule the conference report is 
considered as rejected.
MR. [WAYNE L.] HAYS [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 4, rule 
28, in view of the action of the House, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Hays moves that the House recede from its disagreement and concur 
in the Senate amendment with an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment 
insert the following: . . . 

MR. HAYS (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
I will explain to the House that this is simply the conference report 
deleting the two amendments which the House has turned down.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
There was no objection.
MR. HAYS: Mr. Speaker, as I have just said, this is to get the 
conference report back to the conferees.(13) We are taking it back to 
the Senate conferees without the two sections, 10 and 13, which the 
House deleted. We will explain to them that the House refused to accept 
them.
We will see what we can do from there.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Hays).
The motion was agreed to.

Addressing a Nongermane Provision in a Senate Amendment in Disagreement

Sec.    30.13 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 5(b), a Member may make a 
point of order against a portion of a motion to recede and concur in a 
Senate amendment reported in disagreement with a further amendment, on 
the ground that the portion of the Senate amendment addressed in the 
motion was not germane to the House-passed bill, and a motion to reject 
that portion of the motion is in order if the point of order is 
sustained. 

Where a point of order raised under Rule XXVIII clause 5, against a 
motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment reported in 
disagreement from conference is sustained, the debate on a motion to 
reject may be di-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ied an amendment which was not germane to the House bill.
13.     Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Hays' explanation was misleading. The 
adoption of his motion would send the House bill with the Senate 
amendment in the nature of a substitute as herein amended to the Senate 
for its consideration. Senate concurrence in this action would obviate 
the need for a further conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1021]]

vided, 20 minutes to a side, between the Member pressing the point of 
order and the manager of the conference report; and where the motion to 
reject is itself defeated, the one hour for debate on the original 
motion to recede and concur with an amendment is often divided between 
the manager of the report and the ranking minority Member on the 
conference committee. The rule actually requires a division of the hour 
between the two parties.(14) 
An instance of the aforementioned proposition occurred on July 31, 
1974,(15) when the conference report on H.R. 8217 was taken up in the 
House. The report had been submitted to the House on July 16, 1974.(16) 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 8217, EXEMPTING FROM DUTY CERTAIN EQUIPMENT 
AND REPAIRS FOR VESSELS
Mr. Ullman submitted the following conference report and statement on 
the bill (H.R. 8217) to exempt from duty certain equipment and repairs 
for vessels operated by or for any agency of the United States where 
the entries were made in connection with vessels arriving before 
January 5, 1971:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO.  93-1197)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 8217) to exempt from 
duty certain equipment and repairs for vessels operated by or for any 
agency of the United States where the entries were made in connection 
with vessels arriving before January 5, 1971, having met, after full 
and free conference, have been unable to agree.
W. D. MILLS,
AL ULLMAN,
JAMES A. BURKE . . .

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 amendments of the 
Senate to the bill (H.R. 8217) to exempt from duty certain equipment 
and repairs for vessels operated by or for any agency of the United 
States where the entries were made in connection with vessels arriving 
before January 5, 1971, report that the conferees have been unable to 
agree.
W. D. MILLS,
AL ULLMAN . . . 

The report was taken up in the House on July 31:
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 8217, EXEMPTION FROM DUTY OF EQUIP-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     The rule providing for division of time was amended in the 99th 
Congress to specify a three-way division of time where the manager and 
the ranking member are both supporters of the motion. One-third may be 
claimed by a Member opposed to the motion. See H. Res. 7, 131 CONG. 
REC. 393, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1985.
15.     120 CONG. REC. 26082, 26083, 26088, 26089, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
16.     Id. at pp. 23359, 23360.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1022]]

MENT AND REPAIRS FOR CERTAIN VESSELS 
MR. [WILBUR D.] MILLS [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 8217) to exempt from duty certain 
equipment and repairs for vessels operated by or for any agency of the 
United States, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
manager be read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER:(17) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
MR. MILLS: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the text of the Senate 
amendments was printed in the Record last week and Members had access 
to it at that time, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 
reading of the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arkansas?
There was no objection.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MILLS
MR. MILLS: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Mills moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
Senate amendment to the text of the bill, H.R. 8217, and concur therein 
with an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment 
to the text of the bill (page 2, after line 6), insert the following:
SEC. 3. The last sentence of section 203(e)(2) of the Federal-State 
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (as added by section 20 
of Public Law 93-233 and amended by section 2 of Public Law 93-256 and 
by section 2 of Public Law 93-329) is amended by striking out "August 
1, 1974" and inserting in lieu thereof "April 30, 1975". . . . 
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [J. J.] PICKLE [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. PICKLE: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order on section 3 of this 
bill because it does not conform to the House germaneness rule, rule 
28, clause 5(b)(1).
In no way can this section be germane to the House-passed H.R. 8217.
The House bill dealt with exempting from duty certain equipment and 
repairs for vessels operated by or for any agency of the United States 
where the entries were made in connection with vessels arriving before 
January 5, 1971.
Section 3 deals with the unemployment compensation program as it 
relates to extended benefits. This has nothing to do with the "repair 
of vessels."
Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is necessary to take time to explain why 
the Senate unemployment compensation amendment is nongermane to the 
House-passed tariff bill.
It is nongermane on its face, and I ask that my point of order be 
sustained.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1023]]

THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Mills) desire to be 
heard on the point of order?
MR. MILLS: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the point of order is well 
taken. I cannot resist the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The point of order is sustained.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. PICKLE
MR. PICKLE: Mr. Speaker, I offer a  motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Pickle moves that the House reject section 3 of the proposed 
amendment to the Senate amendment to the text of the bill H.R. 8217.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pickle) will be recognized 
for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Mills) will be 
recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas. . . . 
The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the noes 
appeared to have it. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Iowa was seeking recognition for what 
purpose?
MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: To object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum was not present, and make the point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
MR. MILLS: Not on the previous question I hope?
MR. GROSS: No; I wanted it on the vote on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pickle).
MR. MILLS: Mr. Speaker, I must make the point of order that the 
gentleman's request comes too late.
MR. PHILLIP BURTON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, you had already put 
the question, and announced the result.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the Chair announced that the 
noes appeared to have it. The gentleman from Iowa states that he was on 
his feet and seeking recognition of the Chair to make the point of 
order that a quorum was not present, and to object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum was not present.
MR. MILLS: Mr. Speaker, the Chair had also recognized me on the 
previous question.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the Chair had not observed the 
gentleman from Iowa at the time when the gentleman from Iowa was 
seeking recognition to make the point of order that a quorum was not 
present and object to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not 
present.
Therefore the Chair must recognize the gentleman from Iowa, and the 
Chair does recognize the gentleman from Iowa who objects to the vote on 
the ground that a quorum is not present and makes the point of order 
that a quorum is not present, and evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 63, nays 
336, not voting 35. . . . 
So the motion was rejected.
The Clerk announced the following pairs:


[[Page 1024]]

Mr. Rostenkowski with Mr. Arends. . . .

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair desires to state that under the rule the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Mills) will be recognized for 30 minutes 
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Schneebeli) will be recognized 
for 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Mills).

Timing of Motion To Reject Nongermane Portion

Sec.    30.14 Motions to reject a section or sections of a conference 
report are in order immediately after the Speaker sustains a point of 
order that the material contained in such section(s) would not have 
been germane if offered as an amendment in the House, and are debatable 
for 40 minutes (20 minutes for and 20 minutes against each motion).

On Sept. 11, 1973,(18) Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 7645, authorizing Department of State 
appropriations, fiscal 1974, and obtained the consent of the House that 
the statement of the managers be read in lieu of the report. Speaker 
Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, then recognized Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of 
Michigan:

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against section 13 of the 
conference report, and I should like to be heard on the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
MR. [ROBERT L. F.] SIKES [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Michigan yield for a parliamentary 
inquiry?
MR. GERALD R. FORD: I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
MR. SIKES: Mr. Speaker, I will have a similar point of order against 
section 10 of the bill. Am I protected in my right to raise that point 
of order subsequent to the disposition of the point of order on section 
13?
THE SPEAKER: After the first point of order is disposed of, Members may 
be recognized to make additional points of order on other matters.
MR. SIKES: I thank the Chair.
MR. GERALD R. FORD: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the 
matter contained in section 13 of the substitute offered by the 
conference committee and accepted by the House conferees would not have 
been germane to H.R. 7645 under clause 7, rule XVI if offered in the 
House and is therefore subject to a point of order under clause 4, rule 
XXVIII. . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     119 CONG. REC. 29235-37, 29242, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1025]]

I make my point of order on the grounds that this language is in 
violation of rule XXVIII, clause 4(a)(19) which provides in brief that 
if a conference substitute contains language which, if originally 
offered in the House, would be nongermane under rule XVI, clause 7,(20) 
a valid point of order lies against the conference report.

After Mr. Ford spoke in favor of his point of order and Mr. Hays 
against, the following occurred:

THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule. . . . 
The Chair concludes that the conference provision would not have been 
germane if offered to the House bill and the point of order against 
section 13 is therefore sustained.
MR. [WILLIAM S.] MAILLIARD [of California]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
the provisions of clause 4, rule XXVIII, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Mailliard moves that the House reject section 13 of the conference 
report.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from California (Mr. Mailliard), is 
recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hays), is 
recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Mailliard), for 
20 minutes.

At the conclusion of 40 minutes of debate, Mr. Hays moved the previous 
question on the motion offered by Mr. Mailliard.

The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Mailliard). . . . 
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 213, nays 
185, not voting 36. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to.

Mr. Sikes then raised a point of order against section 10 of the 
conference report, and the procedure outlined above was repeated with 
respect thereto.

Nongermane Provision in Senate Amendment, Motion To Reject

Sec.    30.15 To a title of a House-passed bill reported from the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce containing a program to 
improve automotive fuel efficiency by imposing fuel economy standards 
on manufacturers, a modified portion of a Senate amendment contained in 
a conference substitute providing loan guarantees for automotive 
research and development (a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
Com-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(b) (1997).
20.     Id. at Sec. 794.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1026]]

mittee on Science and Technology), was conceded to be not germane, and 
a motion was agreed to under Rule XXVIII clause 4, to reject that 
portion of the conference report. 
When the conference report on S. 622, the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act of 1975, was called up for consideration in the House 
on Dec. 15, 1975,(1) a timely point of order was stated by Mr. Barry M. 
Goldwater, Jr., of California, under Rule XXVIII clause 4,(2) to the 
effect that a portion of the conference text would not have been 
germane to the House text. The provision and the point of order are 
carried below:(3) 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 622, ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT
MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the Senate bill (S. 622) to increase domestic 
energy supplies and availability; to restrain energy demand; to prepare 
for energy emergencies; and for other purposes, and ask unanimous 
consent that the statement of the managers be read in lieu of the 
report. . . . 
POINT OF ORDER
MR. GOLDWATER: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
THE SPEAKER:(4) The gentleman will state it.
MR. GOLDWATER: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order to that part of 
section 301 which adds to the new motor vehicle improvements and cost 
saving account a new title V, part B, entitled "Application Advanced 
Automotive Technology."
My point of order is that it is nongermane, pursuant to clause 4, rule 
XXVIII.
Part B of title V was not in the House bill, as passed in H.R. 7014, 
but it was in the Senate version and it is in the conference report.
If the section had been offered as an amendment on the House floor, it 
would have been subject to a point of order as nongermane. Hence, it is 
subject to a nongermaneness point of order now under rule XXVIII, 
clause 4.
May I point out to the Speaker that the automotive R & D part of title 
V is wholly unrelated to the oil pricing and conservation thrust of the 
bill. Besides, the Science and Technology Committee has jurisdiction of 
all nonnuclear energy R. & D. matters, and this is an R. & D. incentive 
program which clearly falls in that jurisdiction.
The original Senate version of section 546 was contained in title II of 
the Senate bill (S. 1883). H.R. 9174 was introduced on July 31, 1975, 
by the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     121 CONG. REC. 40671, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 913b (1997).
 3.     See 121 CONG. REC. 40676, 40677, 40680, 40681, 94th Cong. 1st 
Sess., Dec. 15, 1975.
 4.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 1027]]

gentleman from Washington (Mr. McCormack) and was referred to the 
Committee on Science and Technology. H.R. 9174 basically included all 
of title II of the Senate bill (S. 1883), specifically the loan 
guarantee provision. The committee jurisdiction was positively 
established by that referral.
Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is that I had asked 
unanimous consent that the statement on the part of the managers be 
read in lieu of the report.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to go through with that before any other 
unanimous-consent requests or any other points of order are made 
against the bill. It does not jeopardize any point of order and then I 
would be glad to answer any questions.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair had asked whether there was any objection to the 
request and there was no objection. It was so ordered.
MR. STAGGERS: So, Mr. Speaker, it is now considered as read?
THE SPEAKER: The request that the statement be read in lieu of the 
report has been granted. It does not jeopardize any point of order. . . 
MR. GOLDWATER: Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time. I have made my point 
of order.
MR. DINGELL: Mr. Speaker, I think that this is not a good point of 
order, but out of grace and in order to give the House a chance to vote 
on this as an orderly procedure-I protested the disorderly procedure 
with the ERDA bill which was before us-but in order to have orderly 
procedure I will not contest the point of order, and I do not think my 
good friend from West Virginia, the chairman of the committee (Mr. 
Staggers) will contest it. Under those circumstances, I think it is 
appropriate for the Chair to rule on the point of order with regard to 
germaneness in order that we may proceed. 
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I would say that we have a separate vote on 
the point of order and then under those circumstances we would be able 
to proceed.
THE SPEAKER: The point of order is conceded and sustained.
MR. STAGGERS: I would say to the gentleman from California that it is 
without prejudice--
MR. [OLIN E.] TEAGUE [of Texas]: Whether he concedes it or not, I would 
like to be heard on the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is going to sustain the point of order.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. GOLDWATER
MR. GOLDWATER: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Goldwater moves that part B, title V in section 301 of S. 622 be 
rejected.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from California (Mr. Goldwater) is 
recognized for 20 minutes and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Staggers) is recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California. . . . 


[[Page 1028]]

The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Goldwater).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that he was in doubt.
MR. GOLDWATER: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 300, nays 
103, not voting 31 . . . . 

So the motion to reject was agreed to.

Consideration of Several Points of Order Against a Conference Report

Sec.    30.16 Where a point of order is sustained against a provision in 
a conference substitute on the ground that it is not germane under Rule 
XXVIII clause 4,(5) another point of order against a provision in the 
report or against the totality of the report will not be entertained by 
the Speaker until the motion to reject the nongermane provision has 
been disposed of. 

During consideration of the conference report on S. 622, the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, a point of order was sustained 
against a portion of the conference substitute as not germane.(6) 
Before a motion was entertained and disposed of to reject the offending 
provision, further proceedings transpired as follows:(7) 

MR. [OLIN E.] TEAGUE [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, may I reserve the right 
to make a point of order? I am going to make a point of order against 
the whole conference report.
THE SPEAKER:(8) That would come later.
MR. TEAGUE: But the Speaker will reserve my right?
THE SPEAKER: Could the Chair make himself clear to the gentleman? That 
might depend upon the outcome of the motion the gentleman from 
California will make.
MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [Jr., of Michigan]: I think the gentleman wants 
to be heard; he desires to be heard.
I ask unanimous consent that he be heard at this time on the point of 
order which, by concession, without waiving questions of jurisdiction--
THE SPEAKER: The Chair has no authority to hear arguments on matters 
not related to the point of order made by the gentleman. If the 
gentle-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 913b (1997).
 6.     See proceedings carried in Sec.Sec. 25.11, 25.20, supra.
 7.     121 CONG. REC. 40677, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 15, 1975.
 8.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1029]]

man from California makes a motion, the business which transpires 
after the motion made by the gentleman will determine whether certain 
other points of order will be in order.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. GOLDWATER: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. GOLDWATER: Has the Chair ruled on the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair sustained the point of order.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. GOLDWATER
MR. GOLDWATER: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Goldwater moves that part B, title V in section 301 of S. 622 be 
rejected.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from California (Mr. Goldwater) is 
recognized for 20 minutes and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Staggers) is recognized for 20 minutes.

Debate on Motion To Reject Nongermane Provision

Sec.    30.17 The House conferee who has been recognized for the 20 
minutes debate in opposition to a motion to reject a nongermane 
provision in the report is entitled to close the debate on the motion. 

When a point of order against a conference report on the Senate bill, 
S. 3201, amending the Public Works and Economic Development Act, was 
conceded, a motion to reject the provision which was not germane was 
offered. The proceedings and the recognition to debate the motion were 
as indicated herein.(9) 

MR. [ROBERT E.] JONES of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference 
report on the Senate bill (S. 3201) to amend the Public Works and 
Economic Development Act of 1965, to increase the antirecessionary 
effectiveness of the program, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous 
consent that the statement of the managers be read in lieu of the 
report.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
THE SPEAKER:(10) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Alabama?
There was no objection.
MR. [JACK B.] BROOKS [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
against the conference report.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. BROOKS: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that title II of the 
conference report constitutes a nongermane Senate provision to the 
House-passed version of the bill, in violation of rule XXVIII, clause 
4.
Mr. Speaker, I ask to be heard on my point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     122 CONG. REC. 20020, 20027, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., June 23, 1976.
10.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1030]]

THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brooks).
MR. BROOKS: Mr. Speaker, we are in the identical position we were in 
last January when a House-passed bill authorizing grants for public 
works construction projects was brought back to the House containing a 
Senate amendment that established an entirely new program of Federal 
assistance to State and local governments. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, we have precisely the same situation here. The House has 
passed H.R. 12972, providing solely for the construction of public 
works projects to help cut unemployment. The Senate added a provision 
for grants to State and local governments to pay for basic governmental 
services, and that provision has been brought back again as title II of 
the conference report.
Title II is still a form of revenue sharing and clearly not germane to 
the subject matter of H.R. 12972. Also, it is not within the 
jurisdiction of the Public Works and Transportation Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I could elaborate on this argument, but in view of the 
Chair's ruling last January, I do not think it is necessary to do so.
MR. JONES of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I was going to be a little bit more gracious than the 
gentleman expected.
Mr. Speaker, this proposition has been resolved before. We concede the 
point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Jones) concedes the point 
of order. The point of order is sustained.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BROOKS
MR. BROOKS: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Brooks moves the House reject title II of S. 3201 as reported by 
the Committee of Conference.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) is recognized for 20 
minutes. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(11) The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) has 
2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) has 2 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) has the right 
to close debate.

Application of Germaneness Rule to Provision in Senate Bill in 
Conference

Sec.    30.18 Where a germaneness point of order is sustained against a 
provision of a conference report, the House may vote to reject the 
provision. A provision in a conference report on a Senate bill sent to 
conference with a House amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
held to violate Rule XXVIII clause 4 where it would not have been 
germane had it been offered as an amendment to 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     Sam M. Gibbons (Fla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1031]]

the House amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
The conference report on S. 555, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 
recommended that the Senate recede from its disagreement to the House 
amendment in the nature of a substitute and concur therein with a 
further amendment. The point of order was directed to the germaneness 
of the proposed amendment to the House amendment.
The House amendment in the nature of a substitute related to official 
actions of federal officials, while the Senate provision permitted the 
appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate any criminal 
offenses, whether official actions or not, by a federal official.
Portions of the argument on the point of order raised by Mr.     
Charles E. Wiggins, of California, the statements of Mr. James R. Mann, 
of South Carolina, in defense of the conference report, and the ruling 
of the Chair, excerpted from the Record of Oct. 12, 1978,(12) follow. 
Note that Members refer to the provision of the conference report in 
question as a Senate amendment, technically, as stated above, it is a 
provision of a conference report although apparently included at the 
insistence of the Senate conferees.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. WIGGINS: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against title VI of 
the conference report. That, for the Speaker's information, is the 
title dealing with the special prosecutor language in the conference 
report, and I request to be recognized on my point of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(13) The Chair will hear the gentleman from 
California.
MR. WIGGINS: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is based upon rule XXVIII, 
which is the germaneness section. It is my position, Mr. Speaker, that 
title VI is a nongermane Senate amendment and it violates that section 
of the House rules which I have cited. It is to be remembered, Mr. 
Speaker, that a similar amendment to the Senate amendment was offered 
on the House floor during our consideration of H.R. 1. At that time an 
objection was raised to the amendment on the ground that it was 
nongermane to the bill. At that time the Speaker sustained the point of 
order.
It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that for the very reasons cited by the 
Speaker in rejecting the so-called Hyde amendment, the present Senate 
amendment is similarly defective and subject to a point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     124 CONG. REC. 36460, 36461, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
13.     Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1032]]

When the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) argued forcefully that the 
amendment he proposed was germane, he called to the attention of the 
Speaker that the issue dealt broadly with ethics in Government, but 
that argument did not prevail. He also called to the attention of the 
Speaker that the special prosecutor language was referred to the 
Judiciary Committee, but that language did not prevail.
Indeed, every argument which I think the proponents of the Senate 
language must now make in order to sustain the germaneness of this 
amendment was considered by the Speaker only several days ago and was 
rejected.
I wish, however, to not rest my case entirely upon the arguments which 
were made most cogently by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Danielson) as he argued against the point of order earlier but rather 
wish to proceed by saying that the language in the special prosecutor 
amendment added by the Senate is so broad and sweeping that it covers 
in several respects private individuals, that is to say, new classes of 
people who are not covered under the sweep of the ethics bill.
As the Speaker knows, the ethics bill in the various titles affects 
those in   the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the 
judicial branch of Government. However the special prosecutor 
legislation goes beyond that. It includes former members of the 
executive branch who are by hypothesis in private life. It also 
includes private individuals who have never served in Government, 
namely the campaign manager of a Presidential campaign or a person in a 
similar position connected with a Presidential campaign.
Under the Senate amendment a special prosecutor may be appointed in the 
event of alleged irregularities by these private individuals.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is extending the categories of coverage in a 
very significant way and is a basis for my point of order to be 
sustained, but before I rest my case, Mr. Speaker, I wish to address 
myself to a more fundamental reason.
The special prosecutor bill, which is tacked on to the ethics bill, is 
a complicated and important piece of legislation. It was considered in 
detail by a different subcommittee in the Committee on the Judiciary 
which did not consider the ethics bill. It is true that the Committee 
on the Judiciary reported out a special prosecutor bill but it was 
never brought to the floor of the House and, indeed, has never been 
debated nor subject to amendment by Members of this House. . . . 
I hope the Speaker will sustain my point of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
South Carolina on the point of order.
MR. MANN: . . . The House amendment to S. 555 is actually the text of 
H.R. 1 as passed by the House. The text of H.R. 1, as finally approved, 
was actually the text of an amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
amended. Thus, the issue, as I understand it, is whether the provisions 
of title VI of the conference report would have been germane to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute which eventually became the 
text of House bill, H.R. 1, had the provisions of title VI been offered 
as an amendment to the amend-


[[Page 1033]]

ment in the nature of a substitute. I believe that the provisions of 
title VI would have been germane to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute and that the Chair should therefore overrule the point of 
order.
During the consideration of the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) offered an amendment 
with provisions similar to, but also critically different from, the 
provisions of title VI of the conference report. Unlike title VI of the 
conference report, the gentleman's amendment included Members of 
Congress. Since title II of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
was limited to financial disclosure by executive branch personnel, the 
amendment of the gentleman from Illinois was not germane to title II 
and a point of order to his amendment was sustained.
The basic test for determining germaneness is whether the fundamental 
purpose of the amendment is germane to the fundamental purpose of the 
bill. The question here, then, is whether the fundamental purpose of 
title VI is germane to the fundamental purpose of the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. I submit that it is. The purpose of the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, which is subtitled the "Ethics 
in Government Act," is to promote ethical conduct by Federal Government 
officials and certain other private citizens. The purpose of title VI 
of the conference report is also to promote ethical conduct.
A second test for germaneness is whether the subject matter of the 
amendment relates to the subject matter of the bill. The question here 
is whether the subject matter of title VI of the conference report 
relates to the subject matter of the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. I submit that it does.
The subject matter of the amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
broad. It encompassed ethical standards and conduct involving officials 
in all three branches of the Federal Government-legislative, executive, 
and judicial-as well as certain private citizens.
With regard to Federal Government employees and officials, it required 
detailed financial disclosure statements to be filed by people in all 
three branches of Government. It established an Office of Government 
Ethics with broad authority, including the power to promulgate 
regulations pertaining to "conflicts of interest and ethics in the 
executive branch." It amended our Federal criminal law in the area of 
conflicts of interest. . . . 
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
applied to private citizens when their status or relationship to people 
within the Government would create ethical or conflict-of-interest 
problems within the Federal Government. . . . 
Based upon the above, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the provisions of 
title VI of the conference report would have been germane to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute if those provisions had been 
offered as a separate title to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
Therefore, I submit that the point of order should be overruled. . . . 
MR. WIGGINS: Mr. Speaker, I am fully sympathetic with the awkward 


[[Page 1034]]

position in which the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mann) finds 
himself. He knows full well that the Chair sustained a point of order 
against a similar special prosecutor proposal when this matter was 
considered in the House. It is incumbent upon him to distinguish that 
action, obviously, in order to take the contrary point of view. Now he 
attempts to distinguish the recent decision of the Speaker by pointing 
out that the so-called Hyde amendment was nongermane to a title. 
However, had it been offered as a separate title, the argument of 
nongermaneness would not have prevailed.
Since this Senate proposal is a separate title, he urges the Speaker to 
adopt that reasoning. However, the trouble, Mr. Speaker, is that my 
friend, the gentleman from South Carolina, misunderstands the 
germaneness rule. An amendment, in order to overcome a charge of 
nongermaneness, must be germane to the bill and not to a title. That is 
the basis upon which the distinction is made that it was nongermane to 
a title. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair has examined the ruling cited by the 
gentleman from California and the previous discussion relative to title 
II of the House bill in the discussion of the 27th of September and the 
ruling of the Chair at that time. In examining that, it is a narrow 
ruling, and it only applies to title II and not to the whole bill. In 
looking at the gentleman's point of order in this instance the 
gentleman from California makes two points, one as title VI relates to 
new classes of persons not covered by the House-passed bill, and the 
other in terms of the breadth of the types of conduct subject to 
investigation by the special prosecutor.
It seems that under what is being considered here, the breadth of the 
investigation which the special prosecutor may undertake, goes far 
beyond the scope of the activity regulated by the House-passed bill. In 
looking at title VI, it authorizes the special prosecutor to 
investigate any violation of any Federal criminal law other than a 
violation constituting a petty offense-conduct which may or may not 
directly relate to the official duties of the persons covered. For that 
reason and for the reason that the Chair does not feel that the prior 
ruling is directly in point or a precedent in the present situation, 
the Chair does sustain the point of order.
Does the gentleman have a motion?
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. WIGGINS
MR. WIGGINS: Mr. Speaker, I now move that the House reject title VI of 
the conference report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Wiggins moves to reject title VI of the conference report on Senate 
555.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from California (Mr. Wiggins) is 
recognized for 20 minutes.
[Mr. Wiggins asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.]
MR. WIGGINS: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the ruling of the Chair that 
the motion has been made to reject the Senate amendment, and 40 minutes 
of debate will follow, 20 minutes apparently to be controlled by me 
and, I pre-


[[Page 1035]]

sume, 20 minutes by the other gentleman from California. At the 
conclusion of 40 minutes of debate, or such portions thereof as we may 
consume, it is my intention to ask for a vote to reject title VI of the 
bill, the special prosecutor section.

Use of Motion To Reject Non-germane Conference Provision

Sec.    30.19 Where conferees agreed to a Senate amendment which, in the 
House, was conceded to be not germane, a point of order was raised 
under Rule XXVIII clause 4(a) and a motion to reject the provision was 
offered. 

Where a House bill (reported by the Committee on Public Works) 
contained an authorization for state and local governments to embark on 
new public works projects, a Senate amendment adding a new title to the 
bill mandating the use of previously appropriated funds for public 
works and reclamation (and within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Appropriations) was agreed to by the conferees. As a consequence, a 
point of order was made in the House that the conferees had agreed to 
an amendment which was not germane, the point of  order was conceded, 
and a motion was offered to reject the provision. 

The relevant proceedings of May 3, 1977,(14) were as follows:

MR. [ROBERT A.] ROE [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 11) to increase the authorization 
for the Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act of 
1976, 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.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [ROBERT A.] YOUNG of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
against the conference report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(15) The gentleman will state his point of 
order.
MR. YOUNG of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, the inclusion of title II of the 
conference report on H.R. 11 is in violation of clause 4 of rule XXVIII 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, it should be obvious to my colleagues that this bill-H.R. 
11-has come back from conference with an unrelated, nongermane 
mendment.
Title 1 of this bill authorizes $4 billion to be channeled to State and 
local governments throughout the country to create new public works 
jobs. The goal is to reduce the Nation's high unemployment rate.
In contrast, title 2 concerns previously approved water projects, with 
a 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     123 CONG. REC. 13242, 13243, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
15.     Abraham Kazan, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1036]]

principal goal of providing new flood control, water management and 
recreational benefits.

The jurisdiction over title 2 currently rests with the Appropriations 
Committee, and no longer involves the Public Works Committee. 
Therefore, title 2 should be excluded from consideration now and 
allowed to be handled by the appropriate committee.
My argument of nongermaneness is based on several precedents cited in 
Deschler's Procedure. May I call your attention to 4.25 of Deschler's 
chapter 28 which reads:

To a bill reported by the Committee on Public Works authorizing funds 
for highway construction and for mass transportation systems which use 
motor vehicles on highways, an amendment relating to urban mass transit 
(a subject within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and 
Currency) and to rapid rail transportation and assistance to the 
railroad industry (within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce) was ruled out as not germane. 118 
Congressional Record 34111, 34115, 92d Congress, 2nd Session, Oct. 5, 
1972.

I would also like to cite 4.12 reading:

An amendment relating to railroads generally, which was offered to a 
bill pertaining solely to urban transportation, was ruled out as not 
germane. 116 Congressional Record 34191, 91st Congress, 1st Session, 
Sept. 29, 1970.

Finally I ask you to refer to 4.12 which reads:

To a bill establishing penalties for desecration of the American flag, 
an amendment establishing certain restrictions upon exporting the flag 
was ruled out as not germane. 113 Congressional Record 16495, 90th 
Congress, 1st Session, June 20, 1967.

These precedents form the basis of my point of order-that title 2 is 
simply not germane to the local public works bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Roe) 
wish to be heard in debate on the point of order?
MR. ROE: No, Mr. Speaker. We concede the point of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Roe) 
concedes the point of order. The Chair sustains the point of order.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. YOUNG OF MISSOURI
MR. YOUNG of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move, in conformity with the 
matter involved in the point of order, that the House reject title II 
of the conference report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Young) is 
recognized for 20 minutes on his motion.
MR. YOUNG of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. ROE: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(16) The gentleman will state it.
MR. ROE: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Chair has allotted 20 
minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Young).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1037]]

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct. And the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Roe) will also be recognized for 20 minutes.
MR. ROE: I thank the Chair.

The motion to reject was itself defeated,(17) and the conference report 
as reported was eventually agreed to.(18) 

Determining Whether Conference Provision Is Germane

Sec.    30.20 In determining wheth-er a portion of a Senate amendment to 
a House bill included in a conference agreement would have been germane 
if offered in the House, the Chair examines, inter alia, the diversity 
of the House bill, the House committee jurisdiction of a particular law 
amended in the Senate provision; and the fact that a part of that law 
bestows a duty on another House committee is not necessarily conclusive 
in deciding whether a point of order under Rule XXVIII clause 4(a) 
would lie in the House. 

On Aug. 3, 1977,(19) the conference report on the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act for fiscal 1978 was called up for consideration. A 
point of order was raised under Rule XXVIII clause 4(a) that section 
515 of the report was derived from a Senate amendment, included in the 
conference report, which would not have been germane had it been 
offered in the House to the House text. 
A part of section 515 is carried below, with the point of order and the 
Speaker's response. 
FOREIGN GIFTS AND DECORATIONS
SEC. 515. (a)(1) Section 7342 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 7342. Receipt and disposition of foreign gifts and decorations
"(a) For the purpose of this section-
"(1) 'employee' means-
"(A) an employee as defined by section 2105 of this title and an 
officer or employee of the United States Postal Service or of the 
Postal Rate Commission; . . . 
"(E) the President and the Vice President;
"(F) a Member of Congress as defined by section 2106 of this title 
(except the Vice President) and any Delegate to the Congress; and . . . 
"(6) 'employing agency' means-
"(A) the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the House of 
Representatives, for Members and employees of the House of 
Represen-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     123 CONG. REC. 13245, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Id. at p. 13256.
19.     123 CONG. REC. 26532, 26533, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1038]]

tatives, except that those responsibilities specified in subsections 
c)(2)(A), (e), and (g)(2)(B) shall be carried out by the Clerk of the 
House;
"(B) the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate, for Senators and 
employees of the Senate;
"(C) the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, for judges 
and judicial branch employees; and . . . 
"(2) Within 60 days after accepting a tangible gift of more than 
minimal value (other than a gift described in paragraph (1)(B)(ii)), an 
employee shall-
"(A) deposit the gift for disposal with his or her employing agency; or 
. . . 
"(j) Nothing in this section shall be construed to derogate any 
regulation prescribed by any employing agency which provides for more 
stringent limitations on the receipt of gifts and decorations by its 
employees. . . . 
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [BRUCE F.] CAPUTO [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
I would like to make a point of order and I regret that it comes at so 
late an hour and after the previous discussion. I make the point of 
order that the matter contained in section 515 of the conference report 
would not be germane to H.R. 6689 under clause 7 of rule XVI if offered 
in the House and is therefore subject to a point of order under clause 
4 of rule XXVIII.
Let me state that the language in the conference report substantially 
changes the terms under which the Members of Congress can accept or 
authorize acceptance of things of value from foreign governments.
The Constitution clearly provides in article I that each House shall 
write its own rules. The House has a rule of its own on this matter, 
rule 44, which we only recently modified, under which Members of 
Congress could receive things of value from foreign governments.
The conference report changes that rule because it is a subsequent act 
of this House and in direct conflict with that rule. . . . 
If the Chair does not sustain my point of order, he will be in effect 
sustaining the other body in writing the rules of this House.
I insist on my point of order Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(20) Does the gentleman from Florida wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
MR. [DANTE B.] FASCELL [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be 
heard on the point of order.
First of all, we are dealing with the 1966 Foreign Gifts and 
Declarations Act which is clearly and certainly within the jurisdiction 
of the committee.
The bill that went to the conference is broad and diverse enough to 
handle the subject matter in this amendment.
Finally, we do not in any way change the rules of the House. We are 
dealing with an act. We in no way impinge on the Ethics Committee or 
the rule the gentleman cited. That is clearly within their 
jurisdiction, it stays there, and is in no way affected by this 
amendment.
Therefore I would hope the Chair would overrule the point of order. . . 
. 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is ready to rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1039]]

The gentleman from New York makes a point of order that the conference 
report contains, in section 515, matter contained in the Senate 
amendment which would not have been germane to the bill if offered in 
the House.
Section 515 amends the Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act to provide 
new guidelines and procedures relating to the acceptance by employees 
of the United States of gifts and awards from foreign governments. The 
section provides that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
shall have the functions of regulating the minimum value of an 
acceptable gift for Members and employees of the House of 
Representatives, of consenting to the acceptance by Members and 
employees of gifts in certain circumstances, and of disposing of 
unacceptable gifts through the General Services Administration. H.R. 
6689, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, as passed by the House, 
contained a wide variety of amendments to existing laws within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations relating 
generally to the foreign relations of the United States and the 
operations of the Department of State, the U.S. Information Agency, and 
the Board for International Broadcasting. It thus appears to the Chair 
that an amendment to the Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act, a law 
within the jurisdiction of the committee and relative to our foreign 
relations, would have been germane to the bill if offered in the House, 
particularly since section 111 of the House bill dealt with foreign 
employment by officers of the United States notwithstanding article I, 
section 9 of the Constitution. The Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act 
arose from the identical constitutional provision. The fact that the 
Senate amendment placed new responsibilities on a standing committee of 
the House does not render the provision subject to a point of order, 
since no attempt is made to amend the rules of the House or to 
otherwise exceed the jurisdiction of the Committee on International 
Relations.
For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Parliamentarian's Note: The thrust of the point of order was that the 
conference language implicitly amended the rules of the House by 
imposing an obligation on the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct. But the impact of the provision, carried in an act over which 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs had jurisdiction, was to vest the 
regulatory authority under that act in relation to the House of 
Representatives, not to supersede a more restricting standard imposed 
by the rules of the House.

Determining Whether Provision in Conference Report Is Germane

Sec.    30.21 The test of germaneness of a motion to recede and concur in 
a Senate amendment in disagreement with a further amendment is 


[[Page 1040]]

the relationship between the proposed House amendment and the total 
Senate amendment, and not the relationship between one portion of the 
Senate amendment and that of the proposed House amendment.
Where conferees reported in complete disagreement from the conference 
on the omnibus judgeship bill, H.R. 7843, the manager of the House 
report moved to recede from disagreement and concur in the Senate 
amendment (a complete amendment in the nature of a substitute) with a 
further amendment. The proceedings of Oct. 4, 1978,(1) were as follows:
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 7843, OMNIBUS JUDGESHIP BILL
MR. [PETER W.] RODINO [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 7843) to provide for the 
appointment of additional district and circuit judges, and for other 
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(2) The Clerk will read the conference report.
The Clerk read the conference report.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 28, 1978.)
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: . . . 
SEC. 5. That section 41 of title 28 of the United States Code is 
amended to read in part as follows:
"The twelve judicial circuits of the United States are constituted as 
follows:

"Circuits       Composition
*          *          *          *          *
Fifth. . . . . . . . Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Canal 
Zone. . . . 

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

Mr. Rodino moves that the House recede and concur in the Senate 
amendment to the bill H.R. 7843 with an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, 
insert the following: . . . 
Sec. 6. Any court of appeals having more than 15 active judges may 
constitute itself into administrative units complete with such 
facilities and staff as may be prescribed by the Administrative Office 
of the United States Courts, and may perform its en banc function by 
such number of members of its en banc courts as may be prescribed by 
rule of the court of appeals. . . .
POINT OF ORDER 
MR. [ROBERT] MCCLORY [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order on section 6 of the amendment which is being offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     124 CONG. REC. 33502-06, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1041]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. MCCLORY: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that section 6 of 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey is not a germane 
modification of the House bill and the Senate amendment thereto. 
Section 6 is an entirely new subject introduced under color of 
amendment contrary to clause 7 of rule XVI. Section 6 is not what is 
commonly known as a nongermane Senate amendment but rather is a 
nongermane House amendment.
Section 6 treats with the subject of "administrative units." Neither 
the House bill nor the Senate amendment treat with that subject. The 
Senate amendment did create a new 11th circuit. But the creation of new 
administrative units are very different subjects, the former being 
quite fundamental and the latter being-in the chairman's view-much less 
so. Moreover, while the Senate amendment dealt with the creation of one 
new circuit, the pending amendment deals with all circuits.
Finally, section 6 sets new law for en banc courts. The House bill did 
not. The Senate amendment did not. But the pending amendment says that 
the number of members of an en banc court may be set by rule of court. 
Current law-which neither body has sought to change-requires en banc 
courts comprised of all the judges.
For these reasons, section 6 is not germane.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
MR. RODINO: Mr. Speaker, I urge, first of all, that the matter in 
section 6 is wholly appropriate to the subject matter of the bill, 
which includes matters pertaining to all 11 circuits, and there is no 
issue of germaneness, therefore. If it is outside of the scope of the 
conference, that is not relevant. We are in technical disagreement.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge, therefore, rejection of the point of order.
MR. MCCLORY: Mr. Speaker, I just point this out, as I did: It is not a 
question of technical disagreement; it is a question that there was 
nothing in the Senate bill and nothing in the House bill. The Senate 
bill did provide for splitting the fifth circuit. I guess that is what 
they are trying to accomplish here, but what in fact is occurring is 
that they are trying to develop an administrative procedure which will 
set up the courts themselves without any law, without any act on the 
part of this body, to do something. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair agrees with the gentlewoman from Texas on the essence of her 
argument. The essential question, since the conferees reported in 
disagreement, is whether the proposed motion is germane to the Senate 
amendment. The Senate amendment was much broader than the House 
version.
The Chair has a little difficulty in really pinpointing the point that 
the gentleman from Illinois makes. It may be that he intends his point 
of order to lie against the motion under rule XXVIII, clause 5. Clause 
5(b)(2) of rule XXVIII provides that a point of order may be made upon 
the offering of a motion to recede and concur with an amendment in an 
amendment of the Senate reported from conference in 


[[Page 1042]]

disagreement, but only if the Senate amendment or a portion thereof as 
proposed to be amended by such motion contains matter which would not 
have been germane if offered to the House bill when it was under 
consideration.
The Chair would note, however, that the nongermane Senate matter to 
which the gentleman refers, the split of the 5th circuit into a 5th and 
an 11th circuit, is not proposed to be included even in modified form 
in the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey.
The amendment proposed to the Senate amendment provides, in section 6, 
for the establishment of administrative units in any court of appeals 
with more than 15 active judges, but deletes any mention of an 
adjustment of the fifth circuit.
Section 6 appears to the Chair to be a new proposition, not a 
modification of the portion of the Senate amendment dealing with the 
fifth circuit. Therefore, a point of order under clause 5 of rule 
XXVIII does not apply in this instance.
The only appropriate test is whether the entire amendment proposed by 
the gentleman from New Jersey in his motion is germane to the Senate 
amendment as a whole, and it appears to the Chair that it is germane 
since the Senate amendment dealt with diverse subjects including 
appointment of additional district and circuit judges, a split of the 
fifth circuit, assignments and terms of the courts, and jurisdictional 
requirements.
For all of these reasons, the Chair will very respectfully overrule the 
point of order.

Special Order May Protect Nongermane Motion While Not Precluding a 
Preferential Motion

Sec.    30.22 Where a special order specified that it would be in order 
to offer a motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment reported 
from conference in disagreement and then concur therein with an 
amendment which would not be germane, it is still in order to offer a 
preferential motion to recede and concur; and if the House does recede 
from its disagreement (the preferential motion being divided), the 
motion to concur with the nongermane amendment remains preferential.

Following consideration of the urgent supplemental appropriation bill, 
fiscal year 1982, the House began consideration of  amendments reported 
from conference in disagreement. The House had previously adopted a 
special order, providing that it would be in order during consideration 
of one such amendment in disagreement, to offer a motion to recede and 
concur with an amendment which would not have 


[[Page 1043]]

been germane if offered without a waiver of points of order. 
Mr. Vic Fazio, of California, offered this special motion when the 
appropriate amendment in disagreement was reached. The subsequent 
proceedings of June 16, 1982,(3) are carried here.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(4) The Clerk will designate the next amendment 
in disagreement.
The amendment reads as follows:

Senate amendment No. 62: Page 22, after line 18, insert:
SEC. 217. (a) The last sentence of section 162(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to trade or business expenses) is 
amended by inserting ", but amounts expended by such Members within 
each taxable year for living expenses shall not be deductible for 
income tax purposes in excess of $3,000" after "home". . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 
502, it is in order to consider a motion to recede and concur with an 
amendment printed in the Congressional Record of June 15, 1982, by 
Representative Fazio.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, I propose to offer a preferential motion for 
the House to recede and concur with respect to Senate amendment No. 62.
At what point do I offer that amendment?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: After the motion of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Fazio) has been read, it will be in order for the 
gentleman to present the motion.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FAZIO
MR. FAZIO: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Fazio moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 62 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter inserted by said 
amendment, insert the following:
SEC. 217A. (a) The last sentence of section 162(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to trade or business expenses) is 
amended by inserting ", but amounts expended by such Members within 
each taxable year for living expenses shall not be deductible for 
income tax purposes in excess of $3,000" after "home". . . . 
SEC. 217B. (a)(1) Except as provided by paragraph (2), no Member may, 
in any calendar year beginning after December 31, 1981, have outside 
earned income attributable to such calendar year which is in excess of 
30 per centum of the aggregate salary as a Member paid to the Member 
during such calendar year.
(2) In the case of any individual who becomes a Member during any 
calendar year beginning after December 31, 1981, such Member may not 
have outside earned income attributable to the portion of that calendar 
year which occurs after such 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     128 CONG. REC. 13870, 13871, 13877, 13878, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1044]]

individual becomes a Member which is in excess of 30 per centum of the 
aggregate salary as a Member paid to the Member during such calendar 
year.
(b) For purposes of subsection (a), honoraria shall be attributable to 
the calendar year in which payment is received.
(c) For the purposes of this section-
(1) "Member" means a United States Senator, a Representative in 
Congress, a Delegate to Congress, or the Resident Commissioner from 
Puerto Rico;
(2) "honorarium" means a payment of money or any thing of value to a 
Member for an appearance, speech, or article, by the Member; but there 
shall not be taken into account for purposes of this paragraph any 
actual and necessary travel expenses incurred by the Member to the 
extent that such expenses are paid or reimbursed by any other person, 
and the amount otherwise determined shall be reduced by the amount of 
any such expenses to the extent that they are not paid or reimbursed;
(3) "travel expenses" means, with respect to a Member, the cost of 
transportation, and the cost of lodging and meals while away from his 
residence or the greater Washington, District of Columbia, metropolitan 
area; and
(4) "outside earned income" means, with respect to a Member, wages, 
salaries, professional fees, honorariums, and other amounts (other than 
copyright royalties) received or to be received as compensation for 
personal services actually rendered but does not include-
(A) the salary of such Member as a Member;
(B) any compensation derived by such Member for personal services 
actually rendered prior to the effective date of this section or 
becoming such a Member, whichever occurs later;
(C) any amount paid by, or on behalf of, a Member to a tax-qualified 
pension, profit-sharing, or stock bonus plan and received by such 
Member from such a plan; and
(D) in the case of a Member engaged in a trade or business in which the 
Member or his family holds a controlling interest and in which both 
personal services and capital are income-producing factors, any amount 
received by such Member so long as the personal services actually 
rendered by the Member in the trade or business do not generate a 
significant amount of income.
Outside earned income shall be determined without regard to any 
community property law. . . . 
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. YATES
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Yates moves that the House recede and concur with Senate amendment 
No. 62.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Conte) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
MR. FAZIO: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division of the question.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question will be divided.
Does the gentleman wish to debate the issue? . . . 
The gentleman is recognized for 30 minutes.
MR. FAZIO: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. . . . 


[[Page 1045]]

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [CHALMERS P.] WYLIE [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry. . . . 
If the motion or the amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Fazio) prevails, then that wipes out, in effect, the motion to instruct 
conferees by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). Is that correct? 
. . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The motion before the House as divided is a 
motion to recede from disagreement to Senate amendment No. 62. . . . 
MR. WYLIE: All right. If the motion to recede on the part of the 
gentleman from Illinois prevails, then we go to a vote on the amendment 
to that motion to recede?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If that is an inquiry, the answer is the House 
would then vote on a preferential motion to concur with an amendment if 
offered.
MR. WYLIE: All right. Now, if the amendment of the gentleman from 
California to the motion to recede prevails, then that, in effect, 
wipes out the motion to concur of the gentleman from Illinois.
MR. YATES: Yes.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is, of course, correct.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. YATES: Following up the gentleman's inquiry, if the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) is voted down, 
then a vote will occur on the motion that I have presented to concur 
with the Senate. Is that not correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. FAZIO: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. FAZIO: It is my understanding that the first vote will be on 
receding to the Senate on the language that was adopted through the 
instruction of the conferees on this floor.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair has stated that about three times.
MR. FAZIO: The second motion would be the vote on the addendum of the 
gentleman from California to that first language, and there is no 
question that that would take precedence.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct. That motion is 
protected by the rule.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) has 15 minutes remaining. 
. . . 
MR. YATES: I did ask the gentleman to yield for a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair cannot anticipate what the Senate 
might do to the House amendment. But if the Senate were merely [to] 
disagree to the House amendment, the gentleman is correct.

Standard Used in Determining Whether Portion of Conference Report Is 
Not Germane


[[Page 1046]]

Sec.    30.23 The test of germaneness under Rule XXVIII clause 4 of a 
portion of a conference report original-ly contained in a Senate 
amendment is its relationship to the final House version of the bill 
committed to conference and not to the original House-passed bill which 
may have been superseded by a House amendment to the Senate amendment 
prior to conference.

The proper way of determining whether a portion of a conference report 
is not germane and subject to the point of order and possible separate 
vote procedure under Rule XXVIII is the comparison between the 
provisions in the Senate text against the final House text sent to 
conference.
In the instant example, the original House bill, H.R. 2973, dealt only 
with the repeal of interest and dividend withholding. The Senate 
amendment to the House text included both the repeal and provisions 
dealing with the Caribbean Basin initiative (an unrelated tariff and 
trade issue).
The proceedings on July 28, 1983,(5) are carried below.

MR. [TOM] HARKIN [of Iowa]: Then I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) The gentleman will state it.
MR. HARKIN: Mr. Speaker, under rule 28, it seems to me that after the 
reading of any conference report a point of order lies if, in fact, 
there is a provision in the conference report that is not germane to 
the bill that was passed by the House, and I do not think CBI is 
germane to the repeal of withholding.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: In answer to the gentleman, by unanimous 
consent the House, prior to sending the bill to conference, joined both 
issues as a House amendment to the Senate amendment, so there is no 
germaneness question.
MR. HARKIN: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I cannot hear the Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: By unanimous consent, the House joined both 
these issues, so there is no ger-  maneness question.
MR. HARKIN: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. HARKIN: Mr. Speaker, in other words, a unanimous-consent request 
was offered on the floor of the House during a House session to join 
both these issues and no one objected to that unanimous-consent 
request?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     129 CONG. REC. 21401, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6.     John Joseph Moakley (Mass.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1047]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct.

Where Motion To Reject a Nongermane Provision Is Defeated

Sec.    30.24 Where a point of order is sustained against a portion of a 
conference report not meeting the test of Rule XXVIII clause 4(a), that 
the provision would have been germane if offered in the House, and the 
motion to reject the offending provision then is rejected, the debate 
then begins on the conference report itself. 

The sequence of events shown in the following proceedings from the 
Congressional Record of Oct. 11, 1984,(7) illustrate the procedural 
steps under Rule XXVIII clause 4(a).(8) Where the motion to reject is 
defeated, the Chair bestows the customary recognition for debating a 
conference report.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6027, LOCAL GOVERNMENT ANTITRUST ACT OF 1984
Mr. Rodino submitted the following conference report and statement on 
the bill (H.R. 6027) to clarify the application of the Federal 
antitrust laws to the official conduct of local governments:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 98-1158)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 6027) to clarify the 
application of the Federal antitrust laws to the official conduct of 
local governments, 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 to the text of the bill 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:
This Act may be cited as the "Local Government Antitrust Act of 
1984.". . . . 
SEC. 5. Section 510 of the Department of Commerce, Justice, and State, 
the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1985 (Public Law 
98-411), is repealed.(9) 

MR. [PETER W.] RODINO [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
House Resolution 616, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 
6027) to clarify the application of the Clayton Act to the official 
conduct of local governments, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     130 CONG. REC. 32219, 32220, 32223, 32224, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 913b (1997).
 9.     The conference report was filed on Oct. 10, 1984. See 130 CONG. 
REC. 31441, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1048]]


THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The Clerk will read the conference report.
The Clerk proceeded to read the conference report. . . . 
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [CHARLES] WILSON [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
I make the point of order that the last section of the conference 
report contains nongermane matters within the definition of clause 4 of 
rule XXVIII.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from New Jersey desire to 
be heard on the point of order?
MR. RODINO: The gentleman from New Jersey desires to be heard on the 
point of order.
MR. WILSON: I would also like to be heard, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, if the objectionable section had been offered 
to the House bill, it would have been in violation of the provisions of 
clause 7 of rule XVI of the House rules. The provision is a repeal of 
appropriations law.
That provision deals with spending levels for the Federal Trade 
Commission for this fiscal year. The legislation is a permanent piece 
of legislation that amends our antitrust laws. These amendments reduce 
monetary damages that local governments may be liable for in antitrust 
suits.
That has nothing to do with the provision of the last section of this 
conference report to which my point of order is directed.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Rodino].
MR. RODINO: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of order 
against section 5 of the conference report. The fundamental purpose of 
this conference report is to provide for continued enforcement of the 
antitrust laws without severely damaging local governments. This 
legislation before us continues to ensure that antitrust violations 
will be prosecuted; but limits the amount of damages which can be 
assessed in such a case against a local governmental unit. It allows 
the aggrieved party to ensure that injunctive relief will be available 
to terminate anticompetitive activity of a local government. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: . . .  [T]he Chair has had the opportunity of 
reviewing the point of order raised by the gentleman from Texas that 
pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXVIII, the conferees on H.R. 6027 have 
agreed to a nongermane Senate provision. Section 5 of the conference 
report on H.R. 6027 contains the substance of section 3 of the Senate 
amendment, which repealed section 510 of Public Law 98-411, the State, 
Justice, Commerce Appropriation Act for fiscal year 1985. . . . 
For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order. . . . 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. WILSON
MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to clause 4(b) of rule 
XXVIII, to strike section 5 of the conference report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] is 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Steny Hoyer (Md.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1049]]

entitled to 20 minutes in support of his motion.
Does the gentleman from Texas wish to use his time?
MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield back my time.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rodino] is 
entitled to 20 minutes in opposition to the motion. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson].
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Wilson) 
there were-yeas 8, nays 23. . . . 
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 36, nays 
298, not voting 98. . . . 
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(11) The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rodino] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Fish] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rodino].

Motion To Reject-Unusual Use of To Cure Defect Not Raised in Point of 
Order

Sec.    30.25 On one rare occasion, the motion to recede and concur with 
an amendment offered by the manager of a conference report following 
rejection of a provision in the report held not to be germane under 
Rule XXVIII clause 4, deleted not only   the nongermane part but  
another controversial paragraph which had been the focus of debate 
during argument on the first point of order. 

During consideration of the conference report on S. 622, the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, it became apparent in the debate 
that the conference report contained provisions exceeding its scope 
(Rule XXVIII clause 3)(12) as well as portions of text which were not 
germane to the House version and subject to motions to reject (under 
Rule XXVIII clause 4).(13) No point of order under clause 3 was 
pressed. Realizing that a subsequent conference report retaining that 
same scope problem would only delay a final resolution of the matters 
in disagreement, the manager(14) of the conference report modified his 
motion to 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     Frank Harrison (Pa.).
12.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 913a (1997).
13.     Id. at  Sec. 913b.
14.     Harley O. Staggers (W. Va.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1050]]

recede and concur in that portion of the conference amendment not 
rejected, going beyond what the provisions of Rule XXVIII clause 4, 
provide to rectify the parliamentary problem disclosed in debate but 
not the focus of a separate point of order. There was no objection 
raised to this procedure even though in contravention of the standing 
rule. Following an affirmative vote on a motion to reject under rule 
XXVIII clause 4, the following proceedings occurred:(15) 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. STAGGERS
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Staggers moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
Senate amendments to the House amendment and concur 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 "Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act" . . . 

MR. STAGGERS (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
THE SPEAKER:(16) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from West Virginia?
MR. [CLARENCE J.] BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to 
object.
MR. [BARRY M.] GOLDWATER [Jr., of California]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve 
the right to object.
MR. [JOHN B.] ANDERSON of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to 
object.
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain that what we are 
referring to is on page 8, commencing with article 4, down to the small 
"d," which the gentleman from Illinois had objected to, and that has 
been deleted from the amendment.
MR. ANDERSON of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, 
as the gentleman knows, I was prepared to offer a point of order to 
section 102 of the bill on the grounds it violates clause 3 of rule 
XXVIII, in that as the conference report came back from the House it 
contained a proposition which was not committed to the conference 
committee. That objection was based on the fact that H.R. 7014, the 
House bill in the section dealing with incentives to developing 
underground coal mines, limited it to a $750 million total program to 
new coal mines.
On page 8 of the conference report in subparagraph (2)(c)(4) is 
contained the language:

The term "developing new underground coal mines" includes expansion of 
existing underground coal mines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5.      121 CONG. REC. 40681, 40710, 40711, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 
15, 1975.
16.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 1051]]

Mr. Speaker, existing mines are clearly not the same thing as new 
mines.
Do I understand that the motion which the gentleman from West Virginia 
has now sent to the desk would eliminate from the definition of coal 
mines as contained on page 8 of the conference report that the 
definition of developing new underground coal mines no longer includes 
the words, "includes expansion of existing underground coal mines"; has 
that language, by the gentleman's amendment, been removed from the 
conference report?
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, it has been removed; but the rest of the 
definition, I will state again that on page 8, the section marked (4) 
has been deleted down through the small "d," deleted completely, the 
whole of the section.

Adoption of Conference Report Under Suspension of the Rules

Sec.    30.26 The House has agreed to a motion to suspend the rules and 
adopt a conference report.

On Dec. 31, 1970,(17) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New York, Chairman of the Committee 
on Post Office and Civil Service, to offer the following motion:

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the conference 
report on the bill (H.R. 13000) to implement the Federal employee pay 
comparability system, to establish a Federal Employee Salary Commission 
and a Board of Arbitration, and for other purposes. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: Is a second demanded?
MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
THE SPEAKER: Without objection, a second will be considered as ordered.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Dulski] is recognized.

After debate had transpired on Mr. Dulski's motion, the proceedings 
concluded as follows:

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(18) The question is on the motion of the 
gentleman from New York that the House suspend the rules and agree to 
the conference report on H.R. 13000. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 183, nays 54, not voting 
195. . . . 
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended 
and the conference report was agreed to.(19) 

Parliamentarian's Note: The conference report contained several 
provisions which were in neither the House bill nor the Senate 
amendment. The conference report was thus subject to a 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     116 CONG. REC. 44282, 44283, 44291, 44292, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
18.     John Slack (W. Va.).
19.     See also 81 CONG. REC. 9463-69, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 20, 
1937.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 1052]]

point of order under Rule XXVIII clause 3. The Member was advised that 
if the conference report were called up under the regular procedure and 
a point of order were timely raised, the Speaker could sustain the 
point of order, and, if the text of the conference report were then 
offered as an amendment to the Senate amendment, the Speaker could 
sustain a point of order against such an amendment as being not germane 
to the Senate amendment.

By Adoption of Special Order, House Rejected Conference Report

Sec.    30.27 By adoption of a special order, reported from the Committee 
on Rules, the House rejected a conference report, receded from its 
amendment to a Senate concurrent resolution, and concurred therein with 
a new amendment.

On Dec. 19, 1985,(20) the House utilized a special order from the 
Committee on Rules to expedite consideration of H.R. 3128, providing 
for reconciliation pursuant to the concurrent resolution on the budget.
The resolution and the reason for its adoption are carried below.
CONSOLIDATED OMNIBUS RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1985
MR. [BUTLER] DERRICK [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 349 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 349
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the conference 
report on the bill (H.R. 3128) to provide for reconciliation pursuant 
to section 2 of the first concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 1986 (S. Con. Res. 32, Ninety-ninth Congress) shall be 
considered as having been rejected, and the House shall be considered 
to have receded from its amendment to the Senate amendment to said 
bill, and to have concurred in the Senate amendment with an amendment 
inserting in lieu of the Senate amendment an amendment consisting of 
the text of the conference report, with the following modification: 
strike out Subtitle B of Title XIII.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(1) The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Derrick) is recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
MR. DERRICK: Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides that upon adoption 
of the rule, the House is deemed to have rejected the conference report 
to accompany H.R. 3128, the Deficit Re-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     131 CONG. REC. 38329, 38330, 38341, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1053]]

duction Amendments of 1985. It further provides that the House shall be 
deemed to have receded from its position, and to have concurred in the 
Senate amendment to the bill, with an amendment.
The amendment to the Senate amendment shall consist of the substitute 
amendment reported from the committee on conference as modified by the 
deletion of certain sections of the conference's amendment. The 
sections which would be stricken from the conference committee's 
amendment are those which relate to the broad-based tax proposed by the 
conferees as a means of funding the Superfund Program. The adoption of 
the rule would effectively remove Superfund funding from the bill, 
leaving the other body to deal with this modified version of the 
conferees' decision.
Mr. Speaker, the procedure being employed by this rule is an unusual 
one. The Rules Committee chose to recommend this approach after sensing 
that the House indeed wants to see the enactment of a reconciliation 
measure but has indicated opposition to the use of the broad-based tax 
to finance the Superfund Program. The committee made its decision after 
hearing the concerns of several Members of the House earlier this 
evening who voiced strong opposition to the adoption of the 
manufacturers' excise tax. While the other body considers the approach 
an appropriate one, the House clearly rejected it during consideration 
of Superfund reauthorization legislation on the floor of the House. 
Further, it has been the position of the House to deal with the taxing 
provisions related to Superfund as part of the overall reauthorization 
of that program. . . . 
So the resolution was agreed to. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 
349, the conference report on H.R. 3128 is rejected, and the House 
recedes from its amendment to the Senate amendment and concurs with an 
amendment inserting in lieu of the Senate amendment an amendment 
consisting of the text of the conference report, with the following 
modifications: Strike out subtitle B of title XIII.

Adoption of Conference Report, and Correction Thereto, by Suspension of 
Rules

Sec.    30.28 A conference report and a concurrent resolution making
changes therein (by altering the enrollment) were simultaneously 
adopted under a motion to suspend the rules.

On Aug. 1, 1983,(2) the House considered House Resolution 293. This was 
the first instance where a conference report and a concurrent 
resolution correcting its enrollment in advance of the adoption of the 
report were considered as one package. The reasons for this unusual 
procedure are de-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     129 CONG. REC. 21925, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1054]]

tailed in the Record extract included here.

MR. [PARREN J.] MITCHELL [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend 
the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 293) providing that the 
House shall be considered to have adopted the conference report on the 
bill (S. 272) to improve small business access to Federal procurement 
information, to have receded from its amendment to the title of said 
bill, and to have adopted the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 58) 
correcting the enrollment of S. 272.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. RES. 293
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall be 
considered to have adopted the conference report on the bill (S. 272) 
to improve small business access to Federal procurement information, to 
have receded from its amendment to the title of said bill, and to have 
adopted the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 58) correcting the 
enrollment of S. 272.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(3) Is a second demanded?
MR. [JOEL] PRITCHARD [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, a second will be considered 
as ordered.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Mitchell) 
will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Pritchard) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Mitchell).
MR. MITCHELL: . . . The reason that this conference report is being 
handled on the suspension calendar is to avoid any possible point of 
order for exceeding the scope of conference. The provision which is in 
question is the effective date of the bill. The original House bill, 
which subsequently became a House amendment to the Senate bill, would 
have been effective upon enactment. The Senate bill, S. 272, was a more 
extensive bill and among other things imposes restrictions upon the 
authority of a contracting officer to enter negotiations for a sole 
source contract. The Senate bill also changes some of the provisions 
regarding publication of notice of procurement in the Commerce Business 
Daily rather than simply imposing timely notice requirements. 
Presumably, for these reasons the Senate felt a 45-day lead time was in 
order. Although the House conferees agreed with many of the provisions 
in the Senate bill, we felt that Federal departments should receive 
additional time to begin their compliance. As a result, the conferees 
delayed the effective date of the bill beyond the date specified in the 
Senate bill and thus may have exceeded the scope of conference. 
Consideration of the conference report on the suspension calendar 
avoids the possible raising of this technical violation.
In addition, after the conference report had been filed and after the 
Senate had approved the conference report, we received a letter from 
the Department of Defense expressing its concern 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 1055]]


over some of the provisions of the conference report. . . .  Although I 
do not necessarily agree with the Defense Department's views or the 
conclusions as to the impact of the conference report, nonetheless I 
agreed with my ranking minority member and the principal Senate 
conferees that it was advisable to adopt minor changes so as to 
preclude the possibility of erroneous interpretations and unintended 
results. As my colleagues know, conference reports cannot be amended on 
the floor as can a bill. The procedure needed to accomplish the changes 
is for the House and Senate to adopt a resolution for the Secretary of 
the Senate to make the changes. Such a change was introduced as Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 58 which basically includes the following: . . . 
The Senate agreed to this resolution last Thursday.
Thus, under the motion I have made all we are doing is agreeing to the 
conference report with minor changes.

Procedure After Inadvertent Omission of Amendment

Sec.    30.29 Where a House amendment to the title of a Senate bill was 
in conference, but inadvertently omitted from the conference report, 
the House adopted the report and then receded from its amendment to the 
title of the Senate bill.

On Oct. 19, 1967,(4) Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, called 
up the conference report on S. 1160, the Public Broadcasting Act of 
1967. After the House adopted the conference report, the Clerk read the 
House amendment to the title of the bill, which had been omitted from 
the report. Speaker Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized 
Mr. Staggers:
Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Staggers moves that the House recede from its amendment to the 
title.

The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the votes by which action was taken on the 
conference report on the motion to recede from the title amendment was 
laid on the table.

Concurrent Resolution Deleting Item in Enrollment of Conference Report

Sec.    30.30 The House adopted a concurrent resolution, directing that 
in the enrollment of a conference report just adopted, a provision be 
deleted which was beyond 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     113 CONG. REC. 29382-88, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1056]]

the scope of the differences committed to conference.

On Aug. 20, 1974,(5) before calling up the conference report on the 
Pension Reform Act, H.R. 2, the manager of the conference report 
announced his intention to ask unanimous consent for the consideration 
of a concurrent resolution which would have the effect of deleting a 
controversial provision in the report which was  not in either the 
House bill or the Senate amendment and would subject the conference 
report to a point of order.
The House adopted both the report and the concurrent resolution on Aug. 
20, 1974; the Senate did the same on Aug. 22. 
The explanation of the situation facing the House by Mr. Al Ullman, of 
Oregon, and pertinent parts of the concurrent resolution are carried 
here.
INTEGRATION BETWEEN PENSION PRO-GRAMS AND SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM
(Mr. Ullman asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
MR. ULLMAN: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the pension reform bill let 
me alert the Members as to how the matter of integration between the 
pension programs and the social security system will be handled.
Many of us have received telegrams expressing concern about one of the 
provisions in the conference report on the Employee Retirement Security 
Act of 1974, I am referring to section 1021 (g), which appears on pages 
131 and 132 of the conference report of the House Committee on Ways and 
Means. . . . 

Immediately following the action by the House on the Conference Report 
on H.R. 2, the "Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974", a 
concurrent resolution is to be offered for consideration of the House. 
This concurrent resolution authorizes the enrolling clerk of the House 
to make a series of clerical and technical corrections to the 
Conference Report before the enrollment of the bill. In addition to 
these technical and clerical corrections, however, there is also a 
provision instructing the enrolling clerk to delete from the Conference 
Report, section 1021(g) which appears on pages 131-132 of the 
Conference Report. The explanation of the provision deleted appears in 
the statement of managers on pages 280 and 281.

Later that day, Mr. Ullman called up House Concurrent Res-olution 609:
(6) 

MR. ULLMAN: Mr. Speaker, I offer a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 
609) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     120 CONG. REC. 29190, 29191, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     Id. at pp. 29216-19.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1057]]

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That 
in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 2) to provide for pension reform, 
the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the following 
corrections:
(1) In the item relating to section 405 of the bill in the Table of 
Contents, strike out "of" and insert in lieu thereof "by."
(2) In the item relating to part I of subtitle A of title II in the 
Table of Contents of the bill strike out "Part I" and insert in lieu 
thereof "Part 1". . . . 
(16) In section 401(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which 
is added by section 1021 of the bill, strike out the matter appearing 
after subparagraph (C) of such section 401 (a)(14) and insert in lieu 
thereof the same matter flush with the paragraph margin of such 
paragraph (14). 
(17) In section 1021 of the bill, strike out subsection (g). . . . 

MR. ULLMAN: This is the concurrent resolution that I spoke about 
earlier that deals primarily with technical corrections to the bill. 
This is a procedure that is used quite often on technical bills, but it 
also corrects the one substantive matter by removing from the 
conference report the language of section 1021(g) which was a matter 
that dealt with the integration between the private pension program and 
the social security system.
Now, this concurrent resolution will deal with that matter by removing 
it from the conference report.
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my 
reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oregon?
There was no objection.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Use of Concurrent Resolution To Place New Matter in Conference

Sec.    30.31 By adoption of a concurrent resolution in both Houses, 
conferees may be authorized to consider a matter not committed to them 
in the text a bill passed by one House and amended by the other. 

On Dec. 17, 1974,(7) the House, by unanimous consent, adopted the 
following concurrent resolution which had been messaged from the 
Senate.

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to take from the Speaker's table the Senate concurrent resolution (S. 
Con. Res. 124) relating to conference consideration of the bill (H.R. 
17468), and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     120 CONG. REC. 40472, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1058]]

THE SPEAKER:(8) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:
S. CON. RES. 124
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That, 
due to an inadvertent omission in the Senate reported version of H.R. 
17468, entitled "An act making appropriations for military construction 
for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, 
and for other purposes", in resolving the difference between the Senate 
and the House on such bill, it shall be deemed that the Senate agreed 
to an amendment (No. 6) striking from the House-passed bill the 
following section 111, and the conferees are authorized to consider the 
same:
SEC. 111. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds available 
to the Department of Defense during the current fiscal year for the 
construction of family housing units may be used to purchase sole 
interest in privately owned and Federal Housing Commissioner held 
family housing units if the Secretary of Defense determines it is in 
the best interests of the Government to do so. . . .

The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Other examples of enlarging the scope of conference can be found in 5 
Hinds' Precedents, Sec.Sec. 6437-6439.

Reconsideration of Vote

Sec.    30.32 A motion may be entered to reconsider the vote whereby a 
conference report was rejected.

On Apr. 22, 1943,(9) the following occurred in regard to legislation 
providing for the payment of overtime compensation to government 
employees:

MR. [EUGENE] WORLEY [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the 
action by which H.R. 1860 was on yesterday rejected.
MR. [ALBERT A.] GORE [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of 
order a quorum is not present.
MR. WORLEY: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter the motion.
MR. GORE: Mr. Speaker, then I withdraw the point of order.
THE SPEAKER:(10) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Worley]?
There was no objection.

Sec.    30.33 The House has reconsidered the vote whereby a conference 
report was rejected and then agreed to the conference report.

On Apr. 22, 1943, Mr. Eugene Worley, of Texas, entered a motion to 
reconsider the vote whereby the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 9.     89 CONG. REC. 3729, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1059]]

conference report on H.R. 1860 was rejected.(11) On May 5 of that year 
the following occurred in the House: (12) 

MR. [ROBERT] RAMSPECK [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule 18, I 
call up for consideration the motion to reconsider the vote whereby the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 1860) to provide for the payment of 
overtime compensation to Government employees, and for other purposes, 
was rejected.
MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(13) The gentleman will state it.
MR. TABER: Was the motion to reconsider made by one of those who was in 
the majority upon that question?
THE SPEAKER: It was. It was made by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Worley]. . . . 
The question is: Will the House reconsider the vote whereby the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 1860) to provide for the payment of 
overtime compensation to Government employees, and for other purposes, 
was rejected? . . . 
The question recurs on the motion to reconsider.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Vorys of 
Ohio) there were-ayes 169, noes 82.
So the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
MR. RAMSPECK: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk called the roll; and there were-yeas 275, nays 119, not 
voting 40. . . . 

Vacating Adoption of Report

Sec.    30.34 A unanimous-consent request to vacate the proceedings 
whereby a conference report was agreed to and a motion to reconsider 
laid on the table, was entertained by the Chair, but objected to.

On May 22, 1968,(14) after the conference report on S. 5 (the Consumer 
Credit Protection Act) was called up, the following occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(15) The question is on the conference report.
The conference report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . . . 
MR. [WILLIAM T.] CAHILL [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state the parliamentary inquiry.
MR. CAHILL: Mr. Speaker, would it be in order for a Member to move to 
re-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     See 89 CONG. REC. 3729, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     Id. at p. 4001.
13.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
14.     114 CONG. REC. 14375-96, 14398, 14402-05, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
15.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 1060]]

scind the action heretofore taken by the House?
THE SPEAKER: A motion would not be in order. But it would be in order 
for a unanimous-consent request to be made. . . . 
MR. [WRIGHT] PATMAN [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
vacate the proceedings by which the House adopted the conference report 
on the bill (S. 5) to assist in the promotion of economic stabilization 
by requiring the disclosure of finance charges in connection with 
extension of credit.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
MR. [WILLIAM L.] HUNGATE [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
right to object, all Members were notified this measure would be before 
the House today as the first order of business. This legislation has 
been before this body for 8 years. Objection should have been made 
before the vote was taken.
Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER: Objection is heard.

Sec.    30.35 Before the House has disposed of all Senate amendments 
reported from a conference in disagreement, and tabled a final motion 
to reconsider the action taken on all such amendments, a motion to 
reconsider a particular motion disposing of any of the said amendments 
is in order while no other motion is pending before the House.  

On Nov. 22, 1981,(16) during the consideration of amendments 
reported from the conference on the continuing appropriation bill, for 
fiscal year 1982, a parliamentary inquiry was addressed to the Speaker, 
as follows:

MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I would 
like to mention that on amendment No. 37 on which I rose and had hoped 
the Chair would recognize me, I must explain why I rose. I rose because 
I had a motion at the desk to have the 4.8-percent pay increase apply 
to the executive branch of the Federal Government.
THE SPEAKER:(17) The gentleman is aware that a motion to reconsider is 
in order at an appropriate time prior to disposition of all the 
amendments?
MR. CONTE: I thank the Speaker. I may do that if I can work it out.

Effect of Tabling a Motion To Reconsider Action Taken on an Amendment 
in Disagreement

Sec.    30.36 Where the House has amended a Senate amendment reported in 
disagreement from conference, it is in order to move to reconsider 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     127 CONG. REC. 28754, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1061]]

that action and to move to table that motion; but tabling would not 
preclude further House action if the Senate subsequently addressed this 
same amendment by a further stage of amendment.
At the conclusion of the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 
3363, the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 1984, and 
following the disposition of motions dealing with all the amendments 
reported from conference in disagreement, the Chair(18) stated the 
customary motion which would have the effect of laying on the table all 
motions to reconsider the various motions previously entertained. 
Proceedings were as indicated:(19) 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, a motion to reconsider the 
votes whereby the conference report and the various motions on 
amendments in disagreement were disposed of is laid on the table.
MR. [C. W. BILL] YOUNG of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to 
object on that unanimous-consent request.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his reservation.
MR. YOUNG of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the chairman if 
he would have any objection to that unanimous-consent request excluding 
amendment No. 91, so that we would have an opportunity to reconsider it 
when we come back to the House in view of our earlier discussion.
MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
yield?
MR. YOUNG of Florida: Yes, certainly.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, before I reply to the gentleman, may I propound 
a parliamentary inquiry?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Illinois will state it.
MR. YATES: One, as to whether or not the gentleman's request is in 
order and, two, whether it is necessary in order to preserve the 
gentleman's rights.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The motion to reconsider the vote on the 
motion on amendment No. 91 is in order. But if the Senate subsequently 
sends over a further amendment to that House amendment to Senate 
amendment 91, the House could consider that issue at a subsequent time.
The point the Chair is making is that there may be no need to 
reconsider at this time.
MR. YOUNG of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Only if the Senate sends over a subsequent 
amendment to the House amendment, the Chair wants to make that clear to 
the gentleman.
Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
19.     129 CONG. REC. 27323, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 5, 1983.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1062]]

There was no objection.

Debate Following Adoption of Report

Sec.    30.37 Following the adoption of a conference report which was 
agreed to without debate, the House agreed (by unanimous consent) to 
permit 40 minutes of debate on the matter and to include the debate in 
the Record preceding the adoption of the report.

On May 22, 1968,(20) the House adopted without debate the conference 
report on S. 5, the Consumer Credit Protection Act, and laid on the 
table a motion to   reconsider that action. Subsequently, several 
Members expressed their displeasure at the manner in which the 
conference report had been adopted. Wright Patman, of Texas, Chairman 
of the Committee on Banking and Currency, sought unanimous consent to 
vacate the proceedings by which the report was adopted, but Mr. William 
L. Hungate, of Missouri, voiced his objection. Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 40 minutes of debate may be 
had on this matter, to be equally divided between the gentleman from 
Texas and the gentleman from New Jersey, and that it appear in the 
Record prior to the adoption of the conference report.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
The Chair will always preserve the dignity of the proceedings of the 
House in protecting the rights of the Members.
The question now is: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Oklahoma. . . . 
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] is recognized for 20 
minutes and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Widnall] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes.