[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT]
[Â§ 22. Calling Up as Privileged]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 775-806]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT
 
Sec.    22. Calling Up as Privileged

Prior to 1902, a conference report could be considered as soon as it 
was filed in the House. Therefore, no distinction was then made 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     John P. Murtha (Pa.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 776]]

between the privilege of filing and the privilege of considering such a 
report. However, the rules of the House were amended in that year to 
interpose the requirement that, except during the last six days of a 
session, the report and accompanying statement must have been printed 
in the Congressional Record before the report would be privileged for 
consideration.(8) This qualified but did not diminish the high 
privilege accorded the consideration of a conference report. Subject to 
this qualification, as amended by the "three-day rule"(9) (which 
originated in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970(10) and which 
was incorporated into the standing rules of the House pursuant to House 
Resolution 5, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 1971), the consideration of 
a conference report continues to enjoy the same privilege as does the 
filing of the report.(11) It may be presented for consideration at any 
time in the House except during the reading of the Journal, during a 
roll call, or when the House is voting on any proposition.(12) 
This section includes precedents which predate the "three-day rule," 
but which nonetheless reflect valid principles pertaining to the 
privilege of considering conference reports. For the effect of the 
"three-day rule" on this privilege, see Sec. 27, infra.
The time requirements of Rule XXVIII clause 2(a) may be waived whenever 
the House by resolution, unanimous consent, or a suspension of the 
rules agrees to its waiver.(13) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6516. This provision, as amended, 
now appears as Rule XXVIII clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912 
(1997).
 9.     The "three-day rule" dictates that, except during the last six 
days of a session, a conference report shall not be considered until 
the third day after the report and accompanying statement shall have 
been filed in the House, and that the report and statement shall have 
been printed in the daily edition of the Congressional Record for the 
day on which they shall have been filed before such consideration shall 
be in order. In addition, the rule requires that copies of both the 
report and statement be available on the floor before consideration 
shall be in order. Rule XXVIII clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 
912 (1997). See, generally, Sec. 27, infra.
10.     84 Stat. 1140, Pub. L. 91-510 Sec. 125(b)(1) (Oct. 26, 1970).
11.     See Sec. 16.1, supra.
12.     Rule XXVIII clause 1(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 909 (1997).
13.     See Sec.Sec. 22.6-22.8, 27.3-27.9, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 777]]

Privileged Status of Conference Report
Sec.    22.1 A conference report which has been properly filed and 
available for the three days required under the rule may be called up 
as privileged; and objection to a unanimous-consent request to read the 
statement in lieu of the report does not prevent consideration. 
The proceedings of June 28, 1974,(14) relating to calling up the 
conference report on H.R. 7724, the Biomedical Research Act, 
demonstrate the privileged status accorded a conference report.

MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 7724) to amend the Public Health 
Service Act to establish a national program of biomedical research 
fellowships, traineeships, and training to assure the continued 
excellence of biomedical research in the United States, 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 bill.
THE SPEAKER:(15) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from West Virginia?
MRS. [MARGARET M.] HECKLER of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
right to object, I would like to address a question to our 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce (Mr. Staggers).
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will read the report.
The Clerk proceeded to read the conference report.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I understood the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts to object to the consideration of the conference report.
THE SPEAKER: The gentlewoman did not make any such objection. The 
request was that the statement be read in lieu of the conference report 
and there was objection, so we are reading the report.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I distinctly heard the gentlewoman's 
statement, and she just reaffirmed to me that she objected to the 
consideration.
THE SPEAKER: The gentlewoman has no right to object to the 
consideration. It is a privileged conference report. It has been on 
file the requisite time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     120 CONG. REC. 21734, 21735, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
15.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 778]]

The Clerk will continue to read the report.
The Clerk proceeded to read the conference report.
MRS. HECKLER of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, in view of the pressing 
business of this House, I withdraw my objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
Requirement of Printing in Congressional Record
Sec.    22.2 The consideration of a conference report is privileged 
business, and (in 1959) the calling up of such a report did not require 
unanimous consent after the report had been printed in the 
Congressional Record in accordance with the then-current provisions of 
Rule XXVIII clause 2.(16) 
On Sept. 2, 1959,(17) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, called up the 
conference report on S. 2524, relating to the power of the states to 
impose taxes on income derived from interstate commerce, and asked 
unanimous consent that the statement of the managers on the part of the 
House be read in lieu of the report. Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, 
reserved the right to object, and questioned both the propriety of such 
a measure originating in the Senate, and the wisdom of the merits of 
the bill. The following then occurred:

MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the regular order.
THE SPEAKER:(18) The regular order has been demanded.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Celler] that the statement of the managers on the part of the House be 
read in lieu of the report?
MR. PATMAN: Well, I reserved the right to object.
THE SPEAKER: The regular order has been demanded.
MR. PATMAN: Well, I will be compelled to object, Mr. Speaker, if the 
regular order is demanded.
THE SPEAKER: Then, the Clerk will read the conference report.
MR. PATMAN: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. PATMAN: If I do not object to the reading, that does not foreclose 
me from objecting to the consideration of the conference report?
THE SPEAKER: This is a privileged matter. No objection lies.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912 (1997).
17.     105 CONG. REC. 17769, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 779]]

MR. PATMAN: No objection lies on this? The Speaker is talking about the 
reading?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is talking about the conference report, which is 
a privileged matter.(19) 
MR. PATMAN: And one objection would not lie to it?
THE SPEAKER: No objection would.

Parliamentarian's Note: At the time this precedent occurred, Rule 
XXVIII clause 2 required only that a conference report and accompanying 
statement be printed in the Record prior to the consideration of the 
report (except during the last six days of a session). In this case, 
the report had been filed and ordered printed on Sept. 1, 1959, and was 
therefore privileged for consideration when called up by Mr. Celler. 
Subsequent amendments to clause 2 are noted elsewhere in this section.
Privileged Status of a Conference Report-Rescission Bill
Sec.    22.3 Consideration of a conference report on a measure that began 
its passage through the Congress as a rescission bill under section 
1017 of the Impoundment Control Act is pursuant to the normal 
provisions of Rule XXVIII involving conference reports and does not 
lose its status as privileged thereunder because it reaches the floor 
after the 45-day period delineated in the Act. 
Under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, a rescission bill must be 
considered in the House before 45 days have elapsed after the receipt 
of the President's rescission proposals. In the instance cited below, 
which was a case of first impression under the Act, a point of order 
was raised when the conference report was called up after the 
expiration of the 45-day period. The detailed argument on the point of 
order brought by Mr. James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, and the response 
by George H. Mahon, of Texas, Chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, are carried herein.(20) 

MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday 
last, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3260) to 
rescind certain budget authority recommended in the message of the 
President of November 26, 1974 (H. Doc. 93-398) and as those 
rescissions are modified by the message of the President of January 30, 
1975 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     Rule XXVIII clause 1(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 909 (1997).
20.     121 CONG. REC. 8484, 8485, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 25, 1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 780]]

(H. Doc. 94-39) and in the communication of the Comptroller General of 
November 6, 1974 (H. Doc. 94-391), transmitted pursuant to the 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and ask unanimous consent that the 
statement of the managers be read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER:(1) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
POINT OF ORDER
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the conference 
report.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the conference 
report. Approval of this conference report at this time would 
constitute a violation of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974 in that more than 45 days prescribed in that act 
have expired.
The rescissions that are the subject of this conference report were 
proposed by the President in House Document 93-398, November 26, 1974, 
and as amended by House Document 94-39, January 30, 1975.
Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we follow proper procedures as we 
implement the provisions of title X of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
These rescissions were originally proposed on November 26 by the 
President. The 93d Congress adjourned before the expiration of the 45-
day period as prescribed in title X, part B, section 1011, paragraph 
(5), and these rescissions were automatically retransmitted at the 
beginning of the 94th Congress, and thus the 45-day period which 
Congress is allowed in which to complete its action began running 
again, this time expiring on February 28, 1975. And even though the 
President later revised these rescissions, the time period upon which 
the 45-day period is based is determined by the date of the original 
rescission message.
In House Document 93-410, December 13, 1974, as submitted by the 
Comptroller General of the United States, the Comptroller General held 
that the time frames for congressional and General Accounting Office 
action on rescissions are not altered by the supplemental messages of 
the President. I quote this sentence:

They start from the date of the President's original message.

And Mr. Speaker, the opinion of the Comptroller General is even more 
important than usual because of the special responsibilities conferred 
upon him under sections 1015 and 1016 of title X.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 781]]

Thus, Mr. Speaker, it is clearly established that the 45-day period has 
elapsed in regard to rescissions 75-28 and 75-28A.
And it is essential that such an opinion be sustained, because if it 
were not, then the President could send a revision of a rescission to 
the Congress whenever he desired in order to keep the 45-day period 
from ever expiring. Such a procedure would clearly violate the very 
heart and purpose of title X.
Mr. Speaker, once the 45-day period elapses, a rescission cannot be 
part of a rescission bill under the definitions of title X of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This is clearly spelled out in title X, part B, section 1011, paragraph 
(3) which defines what a "rescission bill" is, and I quote:

(3) "rescission bill" means a bill or joint resolution which only 
rescinds, in whole or in part, budget authority proposed to be 
rescinded in a special message transmitted by the President under 
section 1012, and upon which the Congress completes action before the 
end of the first period of 45 calendar days of continuous session of 
the Congress after the date on which the President's message is 
received by the Congress.

This is further reinforced by section 1012(b) of title X which reads as 
follows:

(b) REQUIREMENT TO MAKE AVAILABLE FOR OBLIGATION.-Any amount of budget 
authority proposed to be rescinded or that is to be rescinded as set 
forth in such special message shall be made available for obligation 
unless, within the prescribed 45 day period, the Congress has completed 
action on a rescission bill rescinding all or part of the amount 
proposed to be rescinded or that is to be reserved.

Mr. Speaker, clearly 45 days of continuous session have elapsed and a 
rescission bill containing rescission 75-28 as amended by rescission 
75-28A would not be in order. The executive branch, recognizing that 
the 45-day period has expired, has proceeded to make the funds in 
question available for obligation.
The Comptroller of the Department of Defense in a letter to the 
chairman of the House Appropriations Committee recognizes that the 
period provided by law for approving this rescission has legally 
expired. He states that he and the Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget have proceeded to implement the obligation of the defense 
funds after the expiration of the 45-day period of February 28.
Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Texas wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I ask to be heard on the point of order.
Mr. Speaker, we are breaking new ground in the House of Representatives 
today. For the first time in the life of the House of Representatives, 
we have a conference report on a rescission bill under the new law. I 
wish to be heard against the point of order.
I would say that the thrust of the point of order of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Wright) is that the Impoundment Control Act defines a 
rescission bill as a bill or joint resolution which rescinds budget 
authority, and upon which Congress completes action before the end of 
the first period of 45 days of continuous session after the time on 
which the President's message is received by the Congress.
The gentleman from Texas argues that this period has now elapsed and 
that further consideration is not in order. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, when the House considered the bill before us 1 month ago 
today, on February 25, we were within the 45-day period specified by 
the act 


[[Page 782]]

for the consideration of a rescission. If the House were considering 
the item contained in this rescission bill for the first time today, 
the point of order made by the gentleman would, of course, lie. But 
this is a conference report. The House passed this bill a month ago 
under the rules and under the requirements of the Budget Control and 
Impoundment Act, and the other body passed the bill. There is nothing 
in the law prohibiting the consideration of conference reports after 
the 45-day period on a bill that has been considered and passed, as 
this one has within the 45-day period. There are no grounds not to 
consider the conference report today, as I see it.
Further, Mr. Speaker, section 1017(c)(5) of the act entitled "Floor 
Consideration in the House," says that except to the extent 
specifically provided in this subsection-and there is no such reference 
in the subsection-consideration of any conference report on rescission 
bills shall be governed by the Rules of the House of Representatives 
applicable to other conference reports in similar circumstances.
There is nothing in this conference report that would have been subject 
to a point of order when the bill was originally considered in the 
House and the bill itself was considered within the 45-day period 
referred to in the act.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, if we are considering these particular 
rescissions today for the first time in a bill just reported to the 
House, the gentleman's point of order might lie. But at this stage in 
the legislative process, when we have before us this conference report, 
that is, a consideration of a proper conference report, the point of 
order does not lie, in my judgment, and should be overruled.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the point of order be overruled. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) has made a point of order against 
the consideration of the conference report on the basis that it would 
violate provisions of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 
Act of 1974. Specifically, it is alleged that since the 45-day period 
provided for in section 1011 of the act has expired, the report may not 
be considered.
The section referred to by the gentleman defines a rescission bill for 
the purposes of title X of the act. Technically speaking, after the 
expiration of the 45-day period a bill does not meet the definition of 
a "rescission bill" under the terms of the act. The effect of this, 
however, is simply to deny to the bill the privilege for initial 
consideration in the House afforded under section 1017. This is not 
tantamount to the proposition that the Congress cannot pass a bill the 
effect of which is to rescind certain budget authority irrespective of 
any particular time frame. The act itself recognizes the power of 
Congress to pass such a bill by providing in section 1001 that nothing 
contained in the act shall be construed as conceding the constitutional 
powers of the Congress.
The House passed this bill within the time period specified in the act. 
The other body then acted on the bill, and the differences were 
resolved in conference. The conference report is now before the House. 
All rules of the House relative to consideration of conference 


[[Page 783]]

reports having been complied with, the Chair finds no reason to 
prohibit the consideration of this report. The point of order is 
therefore overruled.
Requirement for Printing Conference Report in Record
Sec.    22.4 The consideration of a conference report is not in order 
until the third day after the report and statement have been filed in 
the House; and then only if they were printed in the Record for the day 
on which filed; and because of this requirement, a Part II of the Daily 
Record has sometimes been printed to accommodate the report so the 
consideration of the report will not be delayed. 
On Sept. 13, 1976,(2) the rather voluminous conference report and 
statement of the managers on the bill H.R. 10612, the Tax Reform Act of 
1976, were filed in the House. The text of the conference report was 
printed in the Congressional Record but a special Part II of the Daily 
Record was authorized to carry the statement so the filing would meet 
the mandate of Rule XXVIII clause 2(a)(3) which specifies that the 
printing must be in the Record of the day filed.
Calling Up During Last Six Days of a Session
Sec.    22.5 The requirement of Rule XXVIII clause 2(4) that a conference 
report and accompanying statement be printed in the Record does not 
apply during the last six days of a session.
On Dec. 29, 1970,(5) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, submitted the 
conference report and the statement of the managers on the part of the 
House on H.R. 19590, defense appropriations, fiscal 1971. Immediately 
thereafter, the following occurred:

MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill 
(H.R. 19590) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, and for other purposes, and ask 
unanimous consent that the statement of the managers on the part of the 
House be read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     122 CONG. REC. 30103, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
 4.     Id.
 5.     116 CONG. REC. 43804-08, 43813-15, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 784]]

THE SPEAKER:(6) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
There was no objection.

The second session of the 91st Congress adjourned sine die on Jan. 2, 
1971.
Waiver of Printing Requirement
Sec.    22.6 The House has consented unanimously to the consideration of 
a conference report notwithstanding the rule requiring the printing of 
such reports in the Record.
On Oct. 3, 1940,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Clarence Cannon, of Missouri:

Mr. Speaker, I understand it is probable that the Senate will pass the 
bill (H.R. 10539) making supplemental appropriations for the support of 
the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1941, and for other 
purposes, and return it to the House with amendments before adjournment 
tonight.
I therefore ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding any adjournment 
of the House, the Clerk of the House be authorized to receive any 
message on that bill; and that the House disagree to any amendments of 
the Senate to the bill and agree to a conference thereon, and that the 
Speaker appoint managers on the part of the House to attend such 
conference.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
There was no objection. . . . 
MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, in view of the action just taken 
by the House on the bill H.R. 10539, I ask unanimous consent that it be 
in order tomorrow to consider the conference report on that bill, the 
rule requiring the printing of conference reports in the Record to the 
contrary notwithstanding.
THE SPEAKER: Without objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Immediate Consideration
Sec.    22.7 Consideration of a conference report was, by unanimous 
consent, made in order on the day presented, notwithstanding that the 
report had not been printed in the Record pursuant to Rule XXVIII 
clause 2.(8) 
On Oct. 21, 1963,(9) Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, submitted the 
conference report on S. 1576, to provide assistance in combating 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 7.     86 CONG. REC. 13138, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 8.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
 9.     109 CONG. REC. 19942, 19954, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 785]]

mental retardation. He then made the following request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order, 
notwithstanding that the privileged report has just been presented to 
call up the conference report this afternoon.
THE SPEAKER:(10) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Arkansas? . . . 
There was no objection.(11) 
Sec.    22.8 The House may adopt a resolution which provides, inter alia, 
for the consideration of a conference report notwithstanding the rule 
requiring printing in the Record.
On June 30, 1951,(12) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, who submitted House Resolution 309, 
taking from the Speaker's table House Joint Resolution 277, making 
temporary appropriations for fiscal 1952, disagreeing to the Senate 
amendments thereto, agreeing to a conference requested by the Senate, 
and authorizing the Speaker to appoint conferees without intervening 
motion. Section 2 of House Resolution 309 read as follows:

It shall be in order to consider the conference report on the said 
joint resolution when reported notwithstanding the provisions of clause 
2, rule XXVIII.

The resolution was agreed to.
Privilege of Conference Report
Sec.    22.9 The consideration of a conference report is a matter of high 
privilege and takes precedence over unfinished business.
While unfinished business is considered pursuant to the Order of 
Business rule (Rule XXIV clause 1), the privilege of a conference 
report is specifically bestowed in Rule XXVIII clause 1. See House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 880, 105th Congress, for the privileged matters 
which may interrupt the order of business.
The parliamentary inquiry of Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland, and the 
Chair's response on Oct. 4, 1978,(13) are carried here.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 12930, TREASURY-POSTAL SERVICE 
APPROPRIATIONS, 1979
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
11.     See also 84 CONG. REC. 11105, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 4, 1939.
12.     97 CONG. REC. 7538, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
13.     124 CONG. REC. 33473, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 786]]

MR. [TOM] STEED [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference 
report on the bill (H.R. 12930) making appropriations for the Treasury 
Department, the U.S. Postal Service, the Executive Office of the 
President, and certain independent agencies, for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1979, 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 bill.
THE SPEAKER:(14) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Oklahoma?
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do so only to 
ask the Chair about the order of business. It was the impression of the 
gentleman from Maryland that the unfinished business before the House 
was the votes that were put off on yesterday.
THE SPEAKER: Conference reports are privileged and can take precedent 
[sic] over unfinished business. The House will consider the Treasury-
Postal Service appropriations conference report, managed by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed); the Older American Act amendments 
conference report; Environmental Protection Agency research and 
development amendments conference report; additional Federal judgeships 
conference report; and Small Business Administration authorizations 
conference report. These are all conference reports. Following the 
consideration of these conference reports, the unfinished business, the 
votes on suspensions from yesterday, will take place.
MR. BAUMAN: I thank the Chair.
Considering Conference Reports En Bloc Pursuant to Special Rule
Sec.    22.10 Where the House had passed one bill dealing with energy 
policy, and the Senate had amended five unrelated House bills with 
different aspects of its version of energy policy, and five conference 
reports had eventually been filed, the Committee on Rules  reported, 
and the House adopted, a special order permitting concurrent 
consideration of the five reports and permitting one indivisible vote 
on their final adoption. 
The resolution reported from the Committee on Rules and a portion of 
the debate, as excerpted from the proceedings of Oct. 13, 1978,(15) are 
carried here. 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORTS ON H.R. 4018, H.R. 
5146, H.R. 5037, H.R. 5289 (AND H.R. 5263 IF FIRST ADOPTED BY THE 
SENATE)
MR. [RICHARD] BOLLING [of Missouri]: By the direction of the Committee 
on Rules I call up House Resolution 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
15.     124 CONG. REC. 36966, 36975, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 787]]

1434 and ask for its immediate consideration.
H. RES. 1434
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution, any rule of the 
House to the contrary notwithstanding, it shall be in order in the 
House to consider en bloc the conference reports on the bills H.R. 
4018, H.R. 5146, H.R. 5037, H.R. 5289 (and H.R. 5263 if first adopted 
by the Senate), and all points of order against said conference reports 
are hereby waived. After debate in the House on said conference 
reports, which shall continue not to exceed four hours, to be equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Ad Hoc Committee on Energy, the first hour of which shall be 
confined solely to the conference report on the bill H.R. 5289, the 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on said conference 
reports to one vote on their final adoption, and the vote on said 
conference reports shall not be subject to a demand for a division of 
the question or to a motion to reconsider.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(16) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. BOLLING: . . . We reported out a rule that would put together all 
of the work of the House on energy, and which follows exactly what we 
did in the beginning when we had the ad hoc committee's bill on the 
floor of the House.
We are finishing as we began, dealing with the matter in whole as the 
various parts survive.
Mr. Speaker, I know there is great controversy over this rule; and 
having presented what I believe to be the salient point of the rule, 
that all the available conference reports will be dealt with in one 
vote, I am going to reserve the balance of my time in order to be able 
to continue in the debate at a later time. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(17) The question is on ordering the previous question.
MR. [JOHN B.] ANDERSON of Illinois: 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 207, nays 
206, answered "present" 1, not voting 16 . . . . 
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Calling Up Conference Reports En Bloc
Sec.    22.11 The Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Energy called up en 
bloc the conference reports on five bills, where such consideration had 
been provided for by a previously adopted special order which waived all 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
17.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 788]]

points of order and specified four hours of debate time.
House Resolution 1434, which provided for this unusual procedure, had 
been adopted by the House(18) when only four of the conference reports 
had been passed by the Senate and messaged to the House. The fifth was 
also in order for this en bloc procedure if its adoption by the Senate 
had been accomplished before House consideration of the five began. The 
action of the chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee, the Speaker's response 
to an inquiry about the availability of all five reports, and the 
Chair's statement about the division of debate time, taken from the 
proceedings of Oct. 14, 1978,(19) are carried here.
CONFERENCE REPORTS ON NATIONAL ENERGY ACT
 MR. [THOMAS L.] ASHLEY [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 1434, I call up the conference reports on the bills (H.R. 
4018) to suspend until the close of June 30, 1980, the duty on certain 
doxorubicin hydrochloride antibiotics, (H.R. 5037) for the relief of 
Jack R. Misner, (H.R. 5146) to amend the Tariff Schedules of the United 
States to provide for the duty-free entry of competition bobsleds and 
luges, (H.R. 5289) for the relief of Joe Cortina of Tampa, Fla., and 
(H.R. 5263) to suspend until the close of June 30, 1980, the duty on 
certain bicycle parts.
The Clerk read the titles of the bills.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(20) Pursuant to House Resolution 1434, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley) will be recognized for 2 hours and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) will be recognized for 2 hours.
The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) for 30 minutes to debate the 
conference report on H.R. 5289.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this:
Under the rule governing the conference reports, it made the fifth 
conference report dealing with energy tax credits subject to 
consideration contingent upon consideration by the other body and its 
availability. Do I understand from the reading that this fifth 
conference report is also included in the motion of the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ashley)?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) that 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     See Sec. 22.10, supra, for H. Res. 1434 and the adoption thereof.
19.     124 CONG. REC. 38349, 38350, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     William H. Natcher (Ky.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 789]]

the message was just received from the Senate.
MR. BAUMAN: So that all five conference reports are available?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is correct.
MR. BAUMAN: And we have the papers for that conference report at this 
time?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The papers are here at the Speaker's table.
MR. BAUMAN: May I further inquire of the Chair whether the first hour 
of debate is to be directed to the natural gas conference report and 
not to the other four conference reports?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct.
MR. BAUMAN: Only to the natural gas conference report?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct.
MR. BAUMAN: Would it be out of order to discuss the other parts during 
that time?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman 
that the Chair would have to rule as points along that line are brought 
to the attention of the Chair.
MR. BAUMAN: I thank the Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman 
that the resolution provides the first hour of which shall be confined 
solely to the conference report on the bill H.R. 5289.
Points of Order Preserved Where Consideration Postponed
Sec.    22.12 Where a conference report is considered as read and further 
proceedings are postponed, points of order against the report may still 
be raised when the report is again before the House as unfinished 
business. 
On Sept. 23, 1976, a voluminous conference report on the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1976, was called up in the 
House. After attempts to dispense with the reading by unanimous consent 
were unsuccessful, the manager of the conference report, John M. 
Murphy, of New York, made a two-part request: that reading be dispensed 
with and that consideration of the report be postponed until the 
following week. There followed a series of inquiries as shown here:(1) 

MR. MURPHY of New York: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on 
the Senate bill (S. 521) to increase the supply of energy in the United 
States from the Outer Continental Shelf; to amend the Outer Continental 
Shelf Lands Act; 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. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     122 CONG. REC. 32102, 32103, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 790]]

THE SPEAKER:(2) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York.
MR. [HAMILTON] FISH [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
right to object, I should like to ask the chairman of the ad hoc select 
committee at this time if he will withdraw this report from 
consideration or seek to postpone further consideration of the report. 
If not, those on this side will be constrained to object to the request 
of the gentleman from New York.
Mr. Speaker, the House should not squander its precious remaining hours 
on a bill that is clearly destined, if not designed, to be vetoed.
MR. MURPHY of New York: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention to withdraw 
the conference report.
MR. [JOHN M.] ASHBROOK [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, then I object.
THE SPEAKER: Objection is heard. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
(For conference report and statement see proceeding of the House of 
September 20, 1976.) . . . 
MR. MURPHY of New York: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
dispense with further reading of the report, and that consideration 
thereof be the unfinished business when the House convenes on Tuesday 
next.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(3) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
MR. FISH: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object-and I shall not object-I 
wish to be sure that I understand the request of the gentleman from New 
York. The gentleman is asking that: First, the rest of the report be 
considered as read; second, that further consideration today be 
dispensed with; and, third, that it not be considered until next 
Tuesday at the earliest.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I reserve several points of order against the 
conference report, and would ask, is this the understanding with my 
reservation of these points of order?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The points of order will still be in order.
MR. FISH: I thank the Chair.
MR. MURPHY of New York: I would clarify for my colleague that the 
unanimous-consent request specifically stated that this would be the 
first order of business on Tuesday next.
MR. FISH: On Tuesday next?
MR. MURPHY of New York: Tuesday next.
MR. FISH: Not before that?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The first order of unfinished business on 
Tuesday next.
MR. MURPHY of New York. That is correct.
MR. FISH: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, is the 
Chairman also of the opinion that the several points of order which I 
have so reserved will be protected when we take this matter up?
MR. MURPHY of New York: If the gentleman will yield, the Chair always 
protects the points of order of the minority.
MR. FISH: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 3.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 791]]

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
There was no objection.
Question of Consideration Against Postponed Conference Report
Sec.    22.13 Where the initial consideration of a conference report, 
after the reading thereof had been dispensed with, was postponed to a 
day certain, the question of consideration may be raised when the 
report is laid before the House as unfinished business; and the 
question of consideration is addressed before the Chair entertains 
points of order against the report. 
Where the House had by unanimous consent dispensed with the reading of 
a conference report and then postponed consideration to a later day, it 
was, on the appointed day, laid before the House. The proceedings of 
Sept. 28, 1976,(4) were as shown: 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 521, OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT 
AMENDMENTS OF 1976
THE SPEAKER:(5) The unfinished business is the further consideration of 
the conference report on the Senate bill S. 521, which the Clerk will 
report by title.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
MR. [HAMILTON] FISH [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
question of consideration.
THE SPEAKER: The question is, Will the House now consider the 
conference report on the Senate bill S. 521.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
MR. FISH: 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 236, nays 
150, not voting 44 . . . . 
So consideration of the conference report was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. FISH: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. FISH: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is as to whether my 
reserved points of order are in order at this time?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that they are.
Conference Report "Considered as Agreed To"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     122 CONG. REC. 33018, 33019, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 792]]

Sec.    22.14 On rare occasions, the House, acting by unanimous consent, 
has considered a conference report as agreed to, thus precluding a vote 
on the question of adoption. 
The type of unanimous-consent request utilized by the chairman of the 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation, carried below,(6) was 
unusual. Normally, a request is made for the consideration of a 
measure, and if that is granted, the question is then put on its 
adoption.

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the Speaker 
pro tempore [Mr. Emerson] at 1 o'clock and 29 minutes p.m.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 440, NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT 
OF 1995
MR. [BUD] SHUSTER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of both the 
majority and the minority, I ask unanimous consent that the conference 
report to accompany the Senate bill (S. 440) to amend title 23, United 
States Code, to provide for the designation of the National Highway 
System, and for other purposes, be considered as agreed to.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
November 15, 1995, at page H12459.)
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(7) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania? . . . 
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the conference report is 
agreed to.
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Parliamentarian's Note: The second Congressional Record line "There was 
no objection" was technically not required. Only one unanimous-consent 
request was before the House.
Agreeing to Report by Unanimous Consent
Sec.    22.15 Instance where the House, by unanimous consent, agreed to 
consider and adopt a conference report thus avoiding the possibility of 
a vote on the question.
The State, Commerce, Justice and the Judiciary Appropriation Act, 
fiscal 1990, had been reported from conference with amendments 
remaining in disagreement. After adoption of the conference report, the 
amendments in disagreement 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     See 141 CONG. REC. 33981, 33988, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 18, 
1995.
 7.     Bill Emerson (Mo.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 793]]

were acted on in the House, then in the Senate. Most issues in 
disagreement were resolved, except for three amendments which had 
reached the third degree between the two Houses. These Senate 
amendments to House amendments to Senate amendments to the House bill 
remained unresolved when a final conference report was called up on 
Nov. 7, 1989.(8) 
The conference solution provided for the House to recede from its 
disagreement to each of the Senate amendments to the House amendments 
to the original Senate amendments and concur with  further House 
amendments. The unusual unanimous-consent request, the form of the 
report, and the action of the House are carried here. 
FURTHER CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2991, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, 
JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
ACT, 1990       
Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa submitted the following conference report and 
statement on the bill (H.R. 2991) making appropriations for the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990, and for other 
purposes:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. 101-332)
The further committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2991) making 
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
Judiciary and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1990, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free 
conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
respective Houses as follows:
Amendment numbered 53:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
Senate numbered 53, and agree to the same with an amendment, as 
follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment insert:
INTERAGENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT
ORGANIZED CRIME DRUG                      
ENFORCEMENT
For necessary expenses for the detection, investigation, and 
prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime drug trafficking 
not otherwise provided for, $168,560,000: Provided, That any amounts 
obligated from appropriations under this heading may be used under 
authorities available to the organizations reimbursed from this 
appropriation: Provided further, that appropriations under this heading 
may be used to reimburse agencies for any costs incurred by Organized 
Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces between October 1, 1989 and the date 
of enactment of this Act: Provided further, That section 506(a)(1) of 
part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
1968, as amended by 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     135 CONG. REC. 27738, 27746, 27747, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 794]]

section 6091 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, is amended by adding 
"or 0.25 percent, whichever is greater," after "$500,000".
And the Senate agree to the same. . . . 
NEAL SMITH,
BILL ALEXANDER,
JOSEPH D. EARLY . . . 
Managers on the Part of the House.
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
DANIEL K. INOUYE,
DALE BUMPERS . . . 
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
FURTHER CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2991, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, 
JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
ACT, 1990
MR. SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House 
immediately consider and agree to the further conference report to 
accompany the bill (H.R. 2991) making appropriations for the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990, and for other 
purposes, and that said conference report and statement of the managers 
be considered as having been read. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(9) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
(For conference report and statement see proceedings of the House of 
earlier today). . . . 
The conference report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Rule Requiring "Layover" Waived for Remainder of Week
Sec.    22.16 By unanimous consent, consideration of conference reports 
the same day reported has been made in order during the remainder of 
the week.
On Sept. 8, 1959,(10) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized 
Majority Leader John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, to make the 
following request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the remainder of this 
week it shall be in order to consider conference reports the same day 
reported, notwithstanding the provisions of Rule XXVIII clause 2.(11) 
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.(12) 
Sec.    22.17 The House may grant a unanimous-consent request that it may 
be in order for a 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     Charles E. Bennett (Fla.).
10.     105 CONG. REC. 18626, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
11.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
12.     See also 113 CONG. REC. 36409, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 13, 
1967.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 795]]

stated period to consider conference reports as they are submitted 
notwithstanding the fact that they have not been printed in the Record.
On July 25, 1947,(13) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, to make the following 
request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order for the 
balance of the week to consider conference reports as they are 
submitted, notwithstanding the fact that they have not been printed in 
the Record.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
There was no objection.(14) 
Sec.    22.18 The House adopted a resolution providing during the 
remainder of the week for the consideration of conference reports the 
same   day reported, notwithstanding the provisions of Rule XXVIII 
clause 2.(15) 
On July 25, 1956,(16) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules, presented House Resolution 630, and asked for 
its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That during the remainder of this week it shall be in order  
to consider conference reports the same day reported notwithstanding 
the provisions of clause 2, rule XXVIII. . . . 

THE SPEAKER:(17) The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) 
the resolution was agreed to.(18) 
Rule Waived for Remainder of Session
Sec.    22.19 By unanimous consent the consideration of conference 
reports the same day reported has been made in order during the 
remainder of the session.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     93 CONG. REC. 10258, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
14.     See also 100 CONG. REC. 14670, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 16, 1954.
15.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
16.     102 CONG. REC. 14456, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
17.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
18.     A two-thirds vote of the Members present and voting is required 
for the immediate consideration of resolutions reported from the 
Committee on Rules. See Rule XI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 
729 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 796]]

On Sept. 16, 1961,(19) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, made the following 
request:

. . . I would like to ask unanimous consent that . . . during the 
remainder of the session it shall be in order to consider conference 
reports the same day reported, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 
2 of rule XXVIII.(20) 
MR. [CHARLES A.] HALLECK [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, may I say in connection with this request that this matter 
has been called to my attention. It is standard procedure as we come up 
to the end of a session. I sincerely hope it is not objected to, 
because its adoption will very materially expedite the business of the 
House of Representatives to the objective of sine die adjournment.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(1) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.(2) 
Sec.    22.20 The Speaker Pro Tempore declined to recognize a Member to 
ask unanimous consent for the revocation of the proceedings whereby the 
House had agreed to permit the consideration of conference reports on 
the same day reported for the remainder of the session.
On Sept. 25, 1961,(3) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I have a unanimous-consent 
request to make concerning the procedure of the House. I ask unanimous 
consent that the action by which clause 2 of rule XXVIII(4) was 
suspended a week ago last Saturday(5) be revoked, and that clause 2, 
rule XXVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives be restored.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to be heard briefly on my reasons for so 
doing.
Mr. Speaker, as the Members well know, suspension of clause 2, rule 
XXVIII, provides for the consideration of a conference report when it 
is reported to the House. I agreed a week ago last Saturday and offered 
no objection to suspension of that provision of the rule for the 
reason, I thought, that by not objecting the business of the House 
during the past week would be expedited. But if this session is to 
continue interminably, I think the Members of the House ought to know 
what the remaining conference reports contain. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, the deficiency appropriation bill coming up, as now 
pending before the other body, contains over a 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     107 CONG. REC. 19800, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
20.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
 1.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 2.     See also 105 CONG. REC. 19128, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 11, 
1959.
 3.     107 CONG. REC. 21183, 21184, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. 
 4.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
 5.     See Sec. 22.19, supra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 797]]

billion dollars or an increase of almost half a billion dollars over 
the bill which the House approved. I certainly want, and I would hope 
the other Members of the House would want to know why this deficiency 
appropriation bill has been increased by a half-billion dollars. I do 
not want to see that bill considered nor do I want to see the foreign 
aid appropriations bill, dealing with billions of dollars, considered 
without ample notice to the House.
Mr. Speaker, that is the reason I have asked unanimous consent that 
clause 2, rule XXVIII, be restored with full force and effect.
MR. [CARL] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, we sincerely hope that Members handling conference reports will 
cooperate in advising the House as to any changes that have been made 
in House bills. The procedure about which the gentleman is talking is 
the one generally used toward the end of sessions of Congress. Of 
course, it is necessary for the expeditious handling of the business 
leading to adjournment of the House as the gentleman well knows. . . . 
The procedure by which the handling of these matters may be expedited 
is not only an accommodation to individual Members, but is beneficial 
to the House of Representatives as a whole. I hope the gentleman will 
not pursue his unanimous-consent request. I would like to cooperate 
with the gentleman in having matters thoroughly explained as they come 
from conference, but I would be constrained to object if the gentleman 
should pursue his request. . . . 
I would respectfully suggest that the gentleman withdraw his request.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) Under the circumstances the Chair declines 
to recognize the gentleman from Iowa to submit the request.
Calling Up Report as Privileged Pursuant to Unanimous-consent Agreement
Sec.    22.21 A conference report was called up as privileged following 
agreement to a unanimous-consent request permitting it to be called up 
the same day reported.
On Oct. 21, 1963,(7) after Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, submitted the 
conference report and statement on S. 1576, a bill providing assistance 
for combating mental retardation, the following occurred:

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in 
order, notwithstanding that the privileged report has just been 
presented, to call up the conference report this afternoon.
THE SPEAKER:(8) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arkansas?
MR. [PAUL F.] SCHENCK [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 7.     109 CONG. REC. 19942, 19954, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 798]]

may I inquire of the chairman of the committee if he intends to fully 
explain the conference report when it is brought up?
MR. HARRIS: I may say to the gentleman it is my intention with other 
members of the conference committee to explain in full the conference 
report. I should like to say to the gentleman I do this because we did 
not have the privilege of filing the report last week prior to 
adjournment of the House. We had no idea that the conferees would get 
together on the bill. We were at an impasse and it looked like it would 
be impossible to reach agreement and, therefore, I did not ask 
permission to file it at that time. To our amazement and complete 
satisfaction the conferees did agree. I have just now had the 
opportunity of filing the report. I am leaving late this afternoon as 
one of the delegates appointed by the Speaker to the U.S. delegation at 
an international conference in Geneva, and I would like to get the 
report considered before I leave. That is the reason for asking for 
this privilege. . . . 
MR. [LESLIE C.] ARENDS [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, and I shall not object, in view of the circumstances 
explained by the gentleman from Arkansas. May I ask the chairman if you 
have agreed on any time later in the day for consideration of this 
conference report?
MR. HARRIS: That is up to the Speaker. It is his prerogative. I assume 
it will be following the Consent Calendar, and disposition of the bill 
to be considered under suspension, but that is up to the Speaker.
MR. ARENDS: I understand. The only statement I should like to make to 
the gentleman is that I trust this action later today will not in any 
way set a precedent. It is unusual procedure, but under the 
circumstances that prevail at the moment I voice no objection to 
consideration of the conference report later on in the day.
MR. HARRIS: I would not want it to be a precedent.
MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, I want it clearly understood that this is not to be considered 
as establishing any kind of precedent. It is extremely fast action to 
bring a conference report to the House and within an hour or so 
consider it without having conformed to the rules which require that it 
lay over. I want it thoroughly understood, therefore, this is not to be 
considered as a precedent but, rather, in the nature of an 
accommodation under the circumstances to the gentleman from Arkansas 
[Mr. Harris]. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arkansas?
There was no objection. . . . 
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill 
(S. 1576) to provide assistance in combating mental retardation through 
grants for construction of research centers and grants for facilities 
for the mentally retarded and assistance in improving mental health 
through grants for construction and initial staffing of community 
mental health centers, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous 
consent that the statement of the managers on the part of the House be 
read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.


[[Page 799]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(9) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Sec.    22.22 Where consideration of a conference report is made in 
order, by unanimous consent, on the same day the report is filed, the 
report is called up as privileged.
On Sept. 12, 1962,(10) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [CARL] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that consideration of the military construction appropriation bill for 
fiscal 1963 may be in order this afternoon.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(11) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.

Later that day Mr. Harry R. Sheppard, of California, submitted the 
conference report on H.R. 12870. Immediately thereafter Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Sheppard:

Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 12870) 
making appropriations for military construction for the Department of 
Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, and for other 
purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the managers 
on the part of the House be read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from California [Mr. Sheppard] is 
recognized.
Example of Requests To Expedite Consideration of Conference Report
Sec.    22.23 Instance where a conference report was filed from the floor 
during debate on a special order reported from the Committee on Rules 
waiving the "layover" requirement for consideration of the conference 
report.
Where Congress was pressing toward an Easter recess, it: (1) permitted 
the immediate filing of a conference report of a major bill; and (2) 
provided for debate on the report before printed copies were available 
and before the official debate was in order. These requests are carried 
here as exam-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
10.     108 CONG. REC. 19258, 19278, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     Roland V. Libonati (Ill.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 800]]

ples of the way consideration of a measure may be expedited.(12) 

MR. [SPARK M.] MATSUNAGA [of Hawaii]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 358, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 358
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, clause 
2, rule XXVIII to the contrary notwithstanding, it shall be in order to 
consider any conference report on the bill (H.R. 2166) to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide for a refund of 1974 
individual income taxes, to increase the low-income allowance and the 
percentage standard deduction, to provide a credit for certain earned 
income, to increase the investment credit and the surtax exemption, and 
for other purposes.

THE SPEAKER:(13) The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Matsunaga) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
MR. MATSUNAGA: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Quillen), pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 358 provides that, clause 2, rule XXVIII 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives to the contrary 
notwithstanding, it would be in order to consider the conference report 
on the bill H.R. 2166, known as the Tax Reduction Act of 1975.
Clause 2 of rule XXVIII is divided into two paragraphs. Paragraph (a) 
relates to the 3-day filing requirement for the conference report and 
the accompanying statement, and the printing of both in the 
Congressional Record for the day on which such report and statement are 
filed.
Paragraph (b) relates to the consideration of Senate amendments 
reported from conference in disagreement. . . . 
MR. [JOHN B.] ANDERSON of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, the hour is late in 
the afternoon, and I realize the cries of "Vote! Vote!" have begun to 
rise in the Chamber. But as one who was not present in the Committee on 
Rules and, therefore, did not vote on this particular rule, I do have 
some reservations about the apparently very hasty manner in which we 
are going to consider this bill this afternoon. . . . 
As I understand it, there are three copies-and I stand to be corrected 
if I am wrong-there are only three copies available of a conference 
report on a $23 billion bill. I do not want to stand here and pose as a 
purist and as a stickler for detail, because I am perfectly willing to 
take shortcuts when it is necessary. But my vacation is not so 
important, we are not so busy that we should not take more time to 
consider this matter today.
THE SPEAKER: The time of the gentleman has expired. . . . 
MR. MATSUNAGA: Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Ways 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     121 CONG. REC. 8895-97, 8899, 8900, 8916, 8917, 94th Cong. 1st 
Sess., Mar. 26, 1975.
13.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 801]]

and Means, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman).
MR. [AL] ULLMAN [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, let me tell my friends in the 
House that the conferees have worked about as diligently as any Members 
ever have. We have attempted to keep the American people, as well as 
the Members of Congress informed.
We have had full press conferences yesterday and today following every 
action that we have taken. It has been rather widely publicized in the 
press.
. . . [W]e have had the staff working as hard and as efficiently as 
possible. They are in the process of copying all the material now. We 
had expected this to be on the floor by 5:30, and I am rather sure that 
it will. That is the timetable they are meeting for both copies of the 
bill and the statement of the managers.
Now, the statement of the managers is here now and copies of the bill 
will be very shortly. . . . 
MR. MATSUNAGA: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the 
gentleman from Oregon.
MR. [MAX] BAUCUS [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? . 
. . 
Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning, about noon, I, as a new Member of 
Congress, thought that I should inform myself so that I could inform my 
constituents of what is in the tax bill, so I found out where the 
conferees were meeting. I went over to the room, talked to the 
policeman. He said I could enter because I was a Member of Congress.
I got into the meeting room, and I was asked to leave.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that not only Members of Congress who are not 
conferees, but also other Members of the Committee on Ways and Means 
are not entitled to sit in on the closed conference committee meetings. 
. . . 
MR. ULLMAN: Mr. Speaker, if I have any additional time, let me reply to 
the gentleman.
The gentleman raised the issue of an open conference. It has never been 
done. I am not going to be adverse to doing it. I think one can make an 
argument for doing it. The Senate has not passed rules that correspond 
to the House as of yet. If they would have, I am sure this conference 
would have been open. But we also have space problems. We did move over 
into the main hearing room of the Committee on Ways and Means for part 
of the conference, but we were over here at H-208, and we were also 
over on the Senate side into a small room. If there were any problems, 
I apologize to my friend from Montana (Mr. Baucus). I did not ask him 
to leave. I think it was another member of the committee. But it would 
not have been fair to allow one member and not allow others. It is a 
Senate rule that prevents it, and the Senators are rather touchy about 
it, and I think, under the circumstances, it would have been very 
unfair to us to allow this to happen. . . . 
MR. MATSUNAGA: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Ullman).
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2166, TAX REDUCTION ACT OF 1975
Mr. Ullman submitted the following conference report and statement on 
the bill (H.R. 2166) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to 
provide for a refund of 1974 individual income taxes, 


[[Page 802]]

to increase the low-income allowance and the percentage standard 
deduction, to provide a credit for certain earned income, to increase 
the investment credit and the surtax exemption, and for other purposes:

CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. 94-120)

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2166) to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide for a refund of 1974 
individual income taxes, to increase the low income allowance and the 
percentage standard deduction, to provide a credit for certain earned 
income, to increase the investment credit and the surtax exemption, and 
for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have 
agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as 
follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of 
the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS
(a) SHORT TITLE.-This Act may be cited as the "Tax Reduction Act of 
1975". . . .
SPECIAL ORDER REQUESTS 
MR. ULLMAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that upon the adoption 
of the rule I be granted a 60-minute special order.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oregon?
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Reserving the right to object, 
Mr. Speaker, we have in the rules of the House an adequate rule for the 
consideration of conference reports, which provides for points of order 
for nongermane amendments, motions to reject, debate of the conference 
report, and that rule governing conference reports protects both the 
rights of the majority and the minority. I have no way of knowing, nor 
does any Member in this Chamber know, who will control the time during 
a special order, except the gentleman from Oregon, whether questions, 
once raised, will be answered, or whether or not debate will 
deteriorate into partisan debate.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is very effectively but improperly stating 
the rules. The minority has 30 minutes and the majority has 30 minutes 
on the conference report.
MR. BAUMAN: I am talking about the lack of protection contained in the 
request for the 1-hour special order that was just made by the 
gentleman from Oregon.
THE SPEAKER: Any Member of the House may make a request for a special 
order.
MR. BAUMAN: I withdraw my reservation of objection.
MR. [HERMAN T.] SCHNEEBELI [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, further 
reserving the right to object, I also ask for a 60-minute special order 
following that of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman).
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.


[[Page 803]]

MR. SCHNEEBELI: 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. . . . 
MR. MATSUNAGA: 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 the Speaker announced that the ayes appear 
to have it.
MR. [WILLIAM L.] ARMSTRONG [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 240, noes 
172, not voting 20. . . . (14) 
Appointing Conferees Before Papers Received From Senate
Sec.    22.24 Instance where the House deemed a general appropriation 
bill to be in conference, although the Senate had not yet acted on the 
matter and requested a conference, and provided that the Speaker be 
deemed to have appointed conferees, but permitting an immediate motion 
to instruct.  
The wording of unanimous-consent requests to anticipate Senate action 
and deem a matter in conference has varied from time to time, depending 
on the emphasis placed on preserving the option for a motion to 
instruct the conferees. 
In the 100th Congress,(15) a request was made to deem a bill in 
conference and authorized the Speaker to appoint conferees without 
intervening motion, thus precluding a motion to instruct. In the 101st 
Congress,(16) a request was utilized which deemed the matter in 
conference and authorized the Speaker to appoint conferees, thus 
assuring a motion to instruct. In the instance discussed here,(17) the 
availability of the motion to instruct is left somewhat in doubt, 
although as shown by the proceedings below, a motion was offered and no 
objection or question was raised.
DEEMING HOUSE TO HAVE DISAGREED TO SENATE AMENDMENTS AND AGREED TO 
CONFERENCE AND DEEMING SPEAKER TO HAVE APPOINTED CONFEREES ON H.R. 
3759, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     See Sec. 25.21, infra, for proceedings on calling up the 
conference report and consideration thereof.
15.     See 133 CONG. REC. 35049, 100th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 11, 1987.
16.     See 135 CONG. REC. 18642, 101st  Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 3, 1989.
17.     See 140 CONG. REC. 1903, 1904, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 10, 
1994.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 804]]

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1994
MR. [RICHARD A.] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that if and when the Clerk receives a message from the Senate 
indicating that that body has passed H.R. 3759, the emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill, with amendments, insisted on its 
amendments and requested a conference with the House, that the House be 
deemed to have disagreed to the amendments of the Senate and agreed to 
the conference asked by the Senate, and that the Speaker be deemed to 
have appointed conferees. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(18) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 3759, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL 
APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1994
MR. [JOSEPH M.] MCDADE [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
to instruct conferees on H.R. 3759.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. McDade moves that the managers on the part of the House, at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on H.R. 3759, be 
instructed to agree to the D'Amato amendment number 1442 as modified, 
as adopted by the Senate. On vote number 36, as follows:
SEC. . Extension of RTC Civil Statute of Limitations.
"Section 21A(b)(14)(C) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 
1441a(b)(14)(C) is amended by striking clause (i) and inserting in lieu 
thereof the following:
"(i) the period beginning on the date the claim accrues (as determined 
pursuant to section 11(d)(14) (B) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) 
and ending on December 31, 1995; or ending on the date of the 
termination of the corporation pursuant to section 21A(m)(1), whichever 
is later; or."

MR. MCDADE (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to instruct conferees be considered as read and printed 
in the Record. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Smith] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade].

Parliamentarian's Note: The difficulty of drafting a motion to instruct 
where the Senate action on the matter has not yet been finalized is 
shown by the somewhat ambiguous form of the motion offered by Mr. 
McDade.
Validity of Report as Effected by Informal Meeting of Conferees
Sec.    22.25 A conference report having been signed by a majority of the managers of 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     Jim Chapman (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 805]]

each House, the Senate having received and acted upon it and notified 
the House of its action, the report is properly before the House when 
called up.
On June 19, 1948,(19) Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, submitted the 
conference report on S. 2655, the Selective Service Act of 1948. Mr. 
Vito Marcantonio, of New York, made a point of order in which he 
contended that the document submitted by Mr. Andrews was not a valid 
conference report because he alleged the agreement contained therein 
had been reached prior to the formal appointment of the Senate 
managers. Mr. Andrews acknowledged that the House managers had met 
informally prior to the appointment of their Senate counterparts, but 
he asserted that subsequent to that meeting a full and free conference 
with the duly appointed Senate managers took place at which the report 
at issue was agreed upon.

THE SPEAKER:(20) The Chair is ready to rule.
On page 770, volume 5, of Hinds' Precedents, section 6497 states:
A conference report is received if signed by a majority of the managers 
of each House.

The Chair has examined the report and the papers and finds that it is 
signed by five of the managers on the part of the Senate and six of the 
seven managers on the part of the House.
The Chair has no knowledge, of course, how this report was reached, but 
the Chair cannot impeach the names of the managers on the part of the 
two Houses. Furthermore, the Senate having already received the report, 
and according to a message heretofore received by the House has 
officially adopted it, the Chair feels that under the circumstances the 
report is properly before the House for such action as the House may 
see fit to take. The Chair overrules the point of order.
Precedence Over Call of the Consent Calendar
Sec.    22.26 Consideration of conference reports takes precedence over 
the calling of the Consent Calendar.
On Nov. 30, 1945,(1) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. John 
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the conference report on the 
rescission bill may precede the call of the Consent Calendar on Monday.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     94 CONG. REC. 9253, 9268, 9269, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
 1.     91 CONG. REC. 11279, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 806]]

THE SPEAKER: It is not necessary to obtain unanimous consent for that. 
The Chair can recognize the gentleman to call up the conference report 
before the call of the Consent Calendar and will do so.
Sec.    22.27 While the call of the Consent Calendar under Rule XIII 
clause 4(2) is mandatory on the first and third Mondays of the month 
immediately after approval of the Journal, the Speaker may recognize a 
Member to call up a conference report under Rule XXVIII clause 1,(3) 
before directing the Clerk to call the Consent Calendar.
On May 4, 1970,(4) after the announcement of the death of Mr. William 
L. St. Onge, of Connecticut, the following occurred:

MR. [CARL D.] PERKINS [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 515) to amend the National School 
Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, to clarify 
responsibilities related to providing free and reduced-price meals and 
preventing discrimination against children, to revise program matching 
requirements, to strengthen the nutrition training and education. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(5) The question is on the conference report.
The conference report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: This is Consent Calendar day. The Clerk will call the 
first bill on the Consent Calendar.