[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT]
[Â§ 26. Waiving Points of Order]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 866-909]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT
 
Sec.    26. Waiving Points of Order
Resolution Waiving All Points of Order

Sec.    26.1 A conference report may be called up pursuant to the 
provisions of a resolution waiving points of order thereon.

On July 31, 1963,(18) the following took place in the House:
MR. [RICHARD] BOLLING [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 453 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report on the bill, H.R. 5207, to 
amend the Foreign Service Buildings Act, 1926, to authorize additional 
appropriations, and for other purposes, and all points of order against 
the conference report are hereby waived. . . . 

THE SPEAKER:(19) The question is on the resolution. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 234, nays 166, not voting 
32. . . . 
So the resolution was agreed to.

Sec.    26.2 Where conferees on a general appropriation bill bring back 
all amendments within the conference report, a special order providing 
a blanket waiver may be employed to protect the report from a variety 
of points of order. 

The form of resolution carried here(20) is the most frequently 
utilized form since it not only protects the report from all points of 
order, both against consideration and content, but waives the reading 
of the report. Such a broad waiver protects the contents of the report 
from challenge because of possible violations of scope, the inclusion 
of legislation, and unauthorized appropriations or nongermane 
provisions; and in addition waives the three-day availability rule.

MR. [MARTIN] FROST [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 301 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     109 CONG. REC. 13816, 13822-25, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
19.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
20.     See 139 CONG. REC. 28520, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 10, 1993.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 867]]

and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 301
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3116) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1994, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The 
conference report shall be considered as read.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(1) The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] is 
recognized for 1 hour.

Rule Protecting Conference Report Against Procedural Interruptions

Sec.    26.3 Form of a special order which provides for the immediate 
consideration of a conference report following adoption of the special 
order, waiving points of order against the report and its 
consideration, and ordering the previous question on its adoption 
without any intervening motion except one to recommit. 

This form of a resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules and 
called up as privileged,(2) was designed to expedite consideration and 
avoid the intervention of procedural motions. The conference report on 
S. 21, the California Desert Protection Act of 1994, had survived 
numerous parliamentary battles,(3) but the majority leadership used 
this type of special order to avoid other procedural pitfalls.

CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 21, CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT OF 1994

MR. [ANTHONY C.] BEILENSON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 568 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 568
Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution the House 
shall consider the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 21) to 
designate certain lands in the California Desert as wilderness, to 
establish Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and Mojave National Parks, and for 
other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
considered as read. The previous question shall be 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
 2.     See 140 CONG. REC. 28610, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 6, 1994.
 3.     See Sec.Sec. 2.2-2.4, 2.12, 9.9, supra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 868]]

considered as ordered on the conference report to final adoption 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(4) The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson] is recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
MR. BEILENSON: . . . The rule waives all points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration, provides that the 
conference report shall be considered as read, and provides one motion 
to recommit. The waivers apply to the 3-day layover rule and to the 
germaneness rule.

Special Orders Waiving All Points of Order 

Sec.    26.4 Example of a special order waiving all points of order 
against a conference report.

Special orders waiving all points of order against a conference report 
and its consideration are frequently used to protect the report from 
possible points of order.
Certain Members of the House objected to "blanket waivers," preferring 
that the rule spell out which specific points of order were being 
waived. The rule, and the statement by the member of the Committee on 
Rules(5) and the Member(6) protesting the formulation of the rule are 
carried here(7) to illustrate the approach taken by one member of the 
committee.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2000, HUMAN SERVICES AMENDMENTS OF 1994

MR. HALL of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 421 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 421
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 2000) to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1995 through 1998 to carry 
out the Head Start Act and the Community Services Block Grant Act, and 
for other purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
and against its consideration are waived.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(8) The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
MR. HALL of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 421 is the rule 
providing for the consideration of the conference report on S. 2000, 
the Human Services Amendments of 1994. The rule waives all points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration. 
Because there are several amendments that were agreed to by 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     Pete Peterson (Fla.).
 5.     Tony P. Hall (Ohio).
 6.     James H. Quillen (Tenn.).
 7.     See 140 CONG. REC. 10030, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., May 12, 1994.
 8.     Josï¿½ E. Serrano (N.Y.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[Page 869]]

House and Senate conferees, but are technically outside of the scope of 
the conference, it was necessary to waive points of order. This rule 
will allow us to bring this important legislation to the floor. . . . 
MR. QUILLEN: . . . It has become so customary to grant a rule waiving 
all points of order against conference reports that the House just 
accepts this process as noncontroversial and routine. Even those of us 
who do not particularly support these blanket waivers have allowed 
these rules to be debated and adopted without putting up much of a 
fight. But not this time, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this rule.
The rule waives all points of order, but it does not specify which 
rules are being waived and for what purpose. We discussed this matter 
at some length in the Rules Committee yesterday, and we know that there 
are scope violations in the conference report. A list of those 
violations was provided to us, and we understand that the conferees all 
agreed to these provisions. So there is an obvious need for a waiver of 
clause 3 of rule 28 to protect these scope violations.
No member of the Rules Committee seemed to be aware of any other rules 
violation, and the minority members of the committee wanted to know why 
it was necessary to waive all points of order. The response was 
something along the lines of "just in case there's something in the 
conference report that we don't know about that needs protection." That 
is not a direct quote, Mr. Speaker, but I think it accurately describes 
the answer we were given.
The Rules Committee and the committees of jurisdiction of any 
legislation that comes to this floor have an obligation to make sure 
all Members are aware of any rules violations contained in any bill or 
conference report.
An amendment was offered in the Rules Committee to waive only the scope 
rule, but it was defeated on a party-line vote and the rule was adopted 
on a party-line vote.

Parliamentarian's Note: Resolutions of this type were used repeatedly 
during the remainder of the session. For other examples of special 
orders designed to protect conference reports from a variety of points 
of order, see 140 CONG. REC. 6076, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 23, 1994 
(H. Res. 393); 140 CONG. REC. 13552, 13553, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., June 
21, 1994 (H. Res. 439); and 140 CONG. REC. 19561, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., 
Aug. 4, 1994 (H. Res. 505).

Sec.    26.5 A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules waived all 
points of order against a conference report on a House amendment in the 
nature of a substitute where the conferees included matter outside the 
scope of the differences committed to conference.


[[Page 870]]

On Dec. 4, 1973,(9) the following occurred in the House after Speaker 
Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. Morgan F. Murphy, of Illinois:

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House 
Resolution 725 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 725
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report on the bill (S. 1443) to 
authorize the furnishing of defense articles and services to foreign 
countries and international organizations, and all points of order 
against said conference report are hereby waived. . . . 

MR. [DELBERT L.] LATTA [of Ohio]: . . . Mr. Speaker, if I may just 
summarize, I wish to state that to adopt the rule is the only thing we 
can do here.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is necessary, because the Senate passed two 
separate foreign aid authorization bills, one dealing with military aid 
and the other dealing with economic aid, while the House passed only 
one bill covering both subjects.
In conference, the conferees technically had before them only the text 
of one Senate bill, and one House bill. Anything reported by the 
conference which was in the one Senate bill dealing with military aid 
and the one House bill is within the scope of conference. However, 
anything reported by the conference which was in the second Senate bill 
only was not technically within the scope of conference and, therefore, 
a  waiver of points of order is required to keep the matter from being 
knocked out on a point of order. . . . 
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 265, nays 
137, not voting 31. . . . 
So the resolution was agreed to.

Parliamentarian's Note: In this instance, the Senate had passed two 
foreign assistance bills-one for foreign economic assistance (S. 2335) 
and one for foreign military assistance (S. 1443). The House struck all 
after the enacting clause of both Senate bills and inserted the text of 
H.R. 9360, which contained the House version of military and economic 
assistance, and both Senate bills with that House amendment were sent 
to different conferences. The conferees reported on S. 1443, the Senate 
military assistance bill. Because the Senate provisions on foreign 
economic aid had not been technically committed to that conference, 
House conferees exceeded their authority under Rule XXVIII clause 3 
when they agreed to certain provisions beyond the scope of the Senate 
bill and House substitute.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     119 CONG. REC. 39311, 39312, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 871]]

Use of Special Rules To Waive Points of Order; Modifying Normal Rules 
for Debate and Amendment

Sec.    26.6 In recent Congresses, the Committee on Rules has formulated 
and brought to the floor of the House a variety of special orders, pro-
tecting conference reports against a certain point of order or all 
points of order and tailoring the terms of consideration of such 
reports to focus the debate on particular issues addressed therein.

An early example of a complex special order protecting and providing 
for the consideration of a conference report under special procedures 
not contemplated in the standing rules of the House was brought to the 
floor on Dec. 11, 1975.(10) 
The conference report on H.R. 3474 was flawed in several procedural 
respects: it contained provisions not germane to the House version, 
contained subjects beyond the scope of the matter submitted to 
conference, and included in the text of the report a Senate amendment 
carrying an appropriation on a legislative bill. The report was thus 
subject to points of order under Rule XXVIII clauses 3 and 4(a)(1)(11) 
and Rule XX clause 2.(12) 
The text of the rule as it was called up on Dec. 11, 1975,(13) is 
carried here, as well as the procedure under the rule which permitted 
consideration of two motions to reject provisions of the report 
seriatim, so that the adoption of either would reject the entire 
conference agreement.

MR. [RICHARD W.] BOLLING [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 919 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. RES. 919
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it 
shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
notwithstanding, to consider the conference report on the bill (H.R. 
3474) to 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     H. Res. 919, providing for the consideration of H.R. 3474, the 
conference report on Energy Research and Development Administration 
authorization for fiscal year 1976. See 121 CONG. REC. 40081, 94th 
Cong. 1st Sess.
11.     House Rules and Manual Sec.Sec. 913a, 913b (1997).
12.     Id. at Sec. 829.
13.     121 CONG. REC. 40081, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 872]]

authorize appropriations to the Energy Research and 
Development Administration in accordance with section 261 of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, section 305 of the Energy 
Reorganization Act of 1974, and section 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear 
Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, and for other purposes, 
and all points of order against said conference report are hereby 
waived. Debate on said conference report shall continue not to exceed 
two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Science and Technology and 
the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Joint Committee on 
Atomic Energy. At the conclusion of said debate, it shall be in order 
for the Chair to entertain separate motions to strike out sections 102 
and 103 of said conference report. It shall be in order to debate each 
such motion, if offered, for forty minutes, one-half of such time to be 
given to debate in favor of, and one-half in opposition to, the motion. 
At the conclusion of votes on any motion to strike offered under this 
procedure, and if neither of the motions to strike have been adopted, 
the previous question shall be considered as ordered on agreeing to the 
conference report.


THE SPEAKER:(14) The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 1 hour.

Later in the same day,(15) the conference report was considered 
pursuant to the special order.

MR. [OLIN E.] TEAGUE [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference 
report on the bill (H.R. 3474) to authorize appropriations to the 
Energy Research and Development Administration in accordance with 
section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, section 305 
of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and section 16 of the Federal 
Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, and for other 
purposes, 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: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
There was no objection. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Teague) is recognized for 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Mosher) is recognized for 30 
minutes.
MR. TEAGUE: . . . Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3474 authorizes appropriations for 
the Energy Research and Development Administration for fiscal year 1976 
and the transition period. In the House, this bill has been handled 
jointly by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and the Committee on 
Science and Technology. The Joint Committee handled the nuclear 
programs and the Science Committee handled the nonnuclear ones. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(16) The time of the gentleman has expired.
All time controlled by the Committee on Science and Technology has 
expired.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
15.     121 CONG. REC. 40087, 40135, 40136, 40146, 40167-70, 40174, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 11, 1975.
16.     John J. McFall (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 873]]

Under the rule, 1 additional hour of debate is permitted to the Joint 
Committee on Atomic Energy; 30 minutes of which are allotted to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price) and 30 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Anderson).
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price). . 
. . 
MR. [KEN] HECHLER of West Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Hechler of West Virginia moves to strike section 103 from the 
conference report on the bill H.R. 3474.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Hechler) 
will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Teague) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. TEAGUE: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. TEAGUE: Would the Chair state what the time situation is?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would repeat for the benefit of the 
gentleman from Texas that the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Hechler) is recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Teague) is recognized for 20 minutes.
MR. TEAGUE: I thank the Chair.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Hechler). . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. HECHLER of West Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. HECHLER of West Virginia: Is it correct that an "aye" vote will be 
in opposition to section 103 and will strike section 103 of the pending 
legislation?
THE SPEAKER: An "aye" vote is to strike section 103.
MR. HECHLER of West Virginia: I thank the Speaker. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. HECHLER OF WEST VIRGINIA
MR. HECHLER of West Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Hechler of West Virginia moves to strike section 102 of the 
conference report on the bill H.R. 3474.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Hechler) is 
recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Teague) is 
recognized for 20 minutes.
MR. TEAGUE: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the debate be 
limited to 10 minutes, with 5 minutes for each side.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
There was no objection. . . . 


[[Page 874]]

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. HECHLER of West Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. HECHLER of West Virginia: Would an "aye" vote on the pending motion 
strike section 102 of the conference report?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct.
MR. HECHLER of West Virginia: I thank the Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Hechler).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
appeared to have it. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to.
So the conference report was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. TEAGUE
MR. TEAGUE: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Teague moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3474), and concur therein 
with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, 
insert the following: . . . 

MR. TEAGUE (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
MR. [CHARLES A.] MOSHER [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, may I ask, will the gentleman state what his motion contains?
MR. TEAGUE: Mr. Speaker, this motion sends this bill back to the other 
body without the sections 102 and 103 in the form it was voted on back 
in June. The vote was about 317 to 9. That is all the amendment does.
MR. MOSHER: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
There was no objection.
MR. TEAGUE: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Teague).
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Special Order Waiving Certain Points of Order Against Conference 
Report, Preserving Others

Sec.    26.7 The Committee on Rules may report a special order which 
selectively waives points of order against a conference report and may 
preserve one point of order while waiving all others. 


[[Page 875]]

An example of a special order for the consideration of a conference 
report is carried here.(17) 

MR. [CLAUDE D.] PEPPER [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 999 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. RES. 999
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it 
shall be in order to consider the conference report on the bill (H.R. 
5247) to authorize a local public works capital development and 
investment program, and all points of order against said conference 
report are hereby waived, except that it shall be in order to consider 
points of order against title II of said conference report under the 
provisions of rule XXVIII, clause 4.

THE SPEAKER:(18) The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Pepper) is recognized 
for 1 hour.
MR. PEPPER: . . . House Resolution 999 provides that all points of 
order against the conference report are waived, except that it shall be 
in order to consider points of order against title II of the conference 
report under the provisions of rule XXVIII, clause 4. Thus, if a point 
of order made under the provisions of rule XXVIII, clause 4 is 
sustained a motion shall then be in order that the House reject the 
nongermane matter covered by the point of order. It shall be in order 
to debate such motion for 40 minutes, one-half of such time to be given 
to debate in favor of, and one-half in opposition to, the motion.

Selective Waivers of Points of Order Against Conference Report

Sec.    26.8 The Committee on Rules has sometimes recommended selective 
waivers of points of order under Rule XXVIII clause 3, permitting 
points of order to lie against only specified sections of the report 
which might go beyond the scope of differences submitted to conference. 

On Feb. 27, 1974,(19) the Committee on Rules called up a special order 
for consideration of the conference report on S. 2589, the Energy 
Emergency Act. The rule waived points of order against the report, but 
permitted points of order to be raised against two sections therein 
which arguably contained matter beyond the scope of the managers' 
authority under Rule XXVIII clause 3. 
The previous question on the rule was defeated, an amendment was 
offered and adopted which 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     122 CONG. REC. 1579, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 29, 1976.
18.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
19.     120 CONG. REC. 4397, 4407, 4408, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 876]]

provided for a blanket waiver but permitted a separate vote on the 
controversial sections.
The rule as reported, and the amendment offered after defeat of the 
previous question, are carried here. 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2589, ENERGY 
EMERGENCY ACT
MR. [CLAUDE] PEPPER [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 901 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. RES. 901
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it 
shall be in order to consider the conference report on the bill (S. 
2589) to declare by congressional action a nationwide energy emergency; 
to authorize the President to immediately undertake specific actions to 
conserve scarce fuels and increase supply; to invite the development of 
local, State, National, and international contingency plans; to assure 
the continuation of vital public services; and for other purposes, and 
all points of order against said conference report except against 
sections 105 and 110 thereof for failure to comply with the provisions 
of clause 3, rule XXVIII are hereby waived. Debate on said conference 
report shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. At the conclusion of the 
debate, it shall be in order, on the demand of any Member, for a 
separate vote to be had on a motion to strike out section 104 of the 
conference report. At the conclusion of any separate vote demanded 
under this procedure, and if section 104 has not been stricken out by 
such separate vote, the previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on agreeing to the conference report.

THE SPEAKER:(20) The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Pepper) is recognized 
for 1 hour.
MR. PEPPER: . . . House Resolution 901 provides that all points of 
order against the conference report are waived except against sections 
105 and 110 for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 3, rule 
XXVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives-pertaining to 
amendments accepted by the conferees which are beyond the scope of the 
House and Senate bills. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute for the purpose of discussion only to the 
distinguished gentleman from West Virginia, the chairman of the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (Mr. Staggers). . . . 
MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I take the 
floor to urge the defeat of the previous question on this rule. As I am 
sure my colleagues are aware, the rule would permit a single Member of 
this House to assert a point of order against two sections of the bill-
section 105 dealing with energy conservation plans and section 110, the 
so-called price rollback provision. In so doing the Rules Committee has 
provided an opportunity for 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 877]]

a single opponent of this legislation to defeat it. Such a result most 
certainly would not be in the public interest. . . . 
I know that the conference agreement remains controversial. I would 
expect legislation this important and complex to be so. But I urge that 
we permit the conference agreement to stand the test of a vote by the 
435 Members of this House.
If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule in the nature of a substitute which waives points of order on the 
entirety of the conference agreement, but permits separate votes on its 
most controversial sections. Accordingly, Members would have an 
opportunity to specifically express their assent or dissent to sections 
104, 105, and 110 of the bill. If the House defeats the conference 
agreement then so be it. But at least let us give the House the chance 
to vote on it. Accordingly, I respectfully ask you to defeat the 
previous question on this rule. . . . 
MR. PEPPER: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on ordering the previous question.
MR. PEPPER: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 144, noes 
259, answered "present" 3, not voting 25. . . . 
So the previous question was not ordered.
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote: . . . 
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE OFFERED BY MR. STAGGERS
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: Strike 
out all after the resolving clause of House Resolution 901 and insert 
in lieu thereof the following:
"That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report on the bill (S. 2589) to 
declare by congressional action a nationwide energy emergency; to 
authorize the President to immediately undertake specific actions to 
conserve scarce fuels and increase supply; to invite the development of 
local, State, National, and international contingency plans; to assure 
the continuation of vital public services; and for other purposes, and 
all points of order against said conference report for failure to 
comply with the provisions of clause 3, Rule XXVIII, are hereby waived. 
Debate on said conference report shall continue not to exceed one hour, 
to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. At 
the conclusion of the debate, it shall be in order, on the demand of 
any Member for a separate vote to be had on motions to strike out the 
following provisions of the conference report: Sections 110, 105, and 
104, and such separate votes, if demanded, shall be taken in the 
foregoing order. At the conclusion of all of the separate votes 
demanded under this procedure, and if none of the sections have been 
stricken by such separate votes, the previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on agreeing to the conference report."


[[Page 878]]

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his 
comments. I am certain he is very sincere.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment and on the 
resolution.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on ordering the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.

Provisions Outside Scope of Disagreement Protected by Waiver

Sec.    26.9 The Speaker overruled a point of order against a conference 
report containing a provision not included in either the Senate bill or 
House amendment in the nature of a substitute, where the House had 
adopted a resolution waiving points of order against the inclusion of 
additional matter in the conference report in violation of Rule XXVIII 
clause 3.(1) 

On Jan. 25, 1972,(2) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [THOMAS E.] MORGAN [of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (S. 2189) to provide foreign military and 
related assistance authorizations for fiscal year 1972 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:(3) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a point of 
order against the consideration of the conference report.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order on the grounds that 
certain provisions of the bill are not germane and exceed the authority 
of the conference. I point specifically, Mr. Speaker, to the language 
to be found on page 13 of the report, section 658:

SEC. 658. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.-(a) Except as otherwise provided 
in this section, none of the funds appropriated to carry out the 
provisions of this Act or the Foreign Military Sales Act shall be 
obligated or expended until the Comptroller General of the United 
States certifies to the Congress that all funds previously appropriated 
and thereafter impounded during the fiscal year 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(a) (1997).
 2.     118 CONG. REC. 1076, 1077, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 879]]

1971 for programs and activities administered by or under the direction 
of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare have 
been released for obligation and expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, I contend that this language goes far beyond the scope of 
the legislation, far beyond any intent of the Congress. It is neither 
germane nor does it come within the scope of the legislation. . . . 

After addressing himself to another issue raised in the point of order, 
the Speaker stated,

The Chair also points out that the resolution under which this 
conference report is being considered specifically waives points of 
order under clause 3, rule XXVIII.
The action of the conferees in adding the language in section 658 of 
the conference report is protected by this waiver of points of order.
For these reasons, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec.    26.10 The House adopted a resolution reported from the Committee 
on Rules which waived points of order against a conference report where 
House conferees had: (1) included provisions beyond the scope of the 
differences between the House bill and Senate amendment; and (2) agreed 
to an appropriation in the Senate substitute.

On July 27, 1972,(4) the following occurred in the House after Speaker 
Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. John A. Young, of Texas:

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House 
Resolution 1057 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. RES. 1057
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report on the bill (H.R. 12931) to 
provide for improving the economy and living conditions in rural 
America, and all points of order against the conference report for 
failure to comply with the provisions of clauses 2 and 3, rule XX(5) 
and clause 3, rule XXVIII(6) are hereby waived.

MR. YOUNG of Texas: . . . Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1057 provides 
for waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 
12931, the Rural 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     118 CONG. REC. 25822, 25830, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 5.     Rule XX clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997). The 
provisions of Rule XX clause 3 were substantially modified late in the 
92d Congress pursuant to H. Res. 1153 (Oct. 13, 1972) which became 
effective immediately prior to the beginning of the 93d Congress. See 
Rule XXVIII clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(b) (1997).
 6.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(a) (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 880]]

Development Act, for failure to comply with the provisions of clauses 2 
and 3 of rule XX, and clause 3 of rule XXVIII. Clause 2 of rule XX has 
to do with a Senate amendment to an appropriation bill which lacks 
authorization; clause 3 of rule XX has to do with nongermane Senate 
amendments; clause 3 of rule XXVIII has to do with a nongermane 
modification of a matter in disagreement. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(7) The question is on ordering the previous 
question. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 214, nays 162, not voting 
56. . . . 
So the previous question was ordered. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.

Special Order Waiving "Scope"
Point of Order

Sec.    26.11 Example of a special order reported from the Committee on 
Rules, specifically waiving points of order against a conference report 
where conferees had exceeded "scope" by including a new "topic" (a 
Presidential reporting requirement) not in either the Senate bill or 
the House amendment. 

The proceedings of Aug. 2, 1977,(8) are illustrative of the practice of 
the Committee on Rules in anticipating possible points of order and 
providing a specific waiver to protect a conference report.

MR. [RICHARD] BOLLING [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 731 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 731
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it 
shall be in order to consider the conference report on the bill (S. 
826) to establish a Department of Energy in the executive branch by the 
reorganization of energy functions within the Federal Government in 
order to secure effective management to assure a coordinated national 
energy policy, and for other purposes, said conference report shall be 
considered as having been read, and all points of order against said 
conference report for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 
3, rule XXVIII are hereby waived.

THE SPEAKER:(9) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling) is recognized 
for 1 hour.
MR. BOLLING: . . . It provides that the conference report shall be 
considered as read and all points of order against the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     Richard Bolling (Mo.).
 8.     123 CONG. REC. 26103, 26104, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 881]]

rule that deals with scope be waived. . . . 
MR. [TRENT] LOTT [of Mississippi]: . . . Mr. Speaker, this rule waives 
points of order against the conference report to accompany S. 826, the 
Department of Energy Organization Act, for failure to comply with 
clause 3 of rule XXVIII. The waiver is necessary because title X is a 
variation of the House sunset provision for which the Senate had no 
comparable language.
The House version states that the act will expire on December 31, 1982. 
The Senate version is silent on this matter. So the conferees 
substituted a requirement that the President submit to Congress a 
comprehensive review of each program in the Department by January 15, 
1982. This report is to be made available to the House and Senate 
committees having jurisdiction over annual authorizations for such 
programs for fiscal year 1983.
Since there is no similar Senate provision and since the House's 
version is different, title X of the conference report appears to be 
beyond the scope of the conference. Hence, the waiver of rule XXVIII, 
clause 3.

Waiving Specific Points of Order Against a Conference Report

Sec.    26.12 The House considered a special order waiving all points of 
order against a conference report which would have been subject to 
points of order under Rule XXVIII clauses 3 and 4, because of 
violations of the rules on the scope of conference and the inclusion of 
provisions not germane to the House text. 

The rule and some of the debate preceding its adoption are carried as 
excerpted from the Record of Dec. 4, 1980,(10) and as illustrative of 
the problems faced by conferees in resolving differences in text.

MR. [RICHARD W.] BOLLING [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 820 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 820
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report on the bill (S. 1159) to 
authorize appropriations for the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act of 1966 and the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings 
Act, and for other purposes, and all points of order against said 
conference report for failure to comply with the provisions of clauses 
3 and 4, rule XXVIII are hereby waived.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(11) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling) 
is recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
MR. [JAMES H.] SCHEUER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 
the rule providing for consideration 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     126 CONG. REC. 32145, 32147, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     John Joseph Moakley (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 882]]

of the conference report on S. 1159, the Motor Vehicle Safety and Cost 
Savings Authorization Act of 1980. . . . 
Before concluding, I would like to address the concern that this 
conference report contains provisions which are beyond the scope of the 
conference or which are nongermane.
Certainly, there are such provisions and much has been made of that 
fact.
However, such provisions were included by the conferees neither lightly 
nor carelessly. . . . 
Let me cite a few examples.
The seven germaneness problems in the conference report resulted 
because the House bill contained only a 1-year authorization.
The Senate bill ran for 3 years and contained permanent amendments to 
the act.
Thus, any Senate provision adopted by the conferees was automatically 
nongermane to the House bill.
For instance, section 2 of the conference report is nongermane because 
it authorizes NHTSA through fiscal year 1982.
As I mentioned before, the House bill only authorized the agency 
through fiscal year 1980. . . . 
Unfortunately, the conference did not convene until July of this year.
At that point, 2 months remained of the House authorization period.
I would note that by now, the House authorization would have expired.
Rather than follow the letter of House rules and produce an absurd 
result, the conferees adopted the Senate provision which authorized 
NHTSA through fiscal year 1982. . . . 
These are also some provisions in S. 1159 which are outside the scope 
of the conference.
Section 8 dealing with passive restraints is a good example of this 
problem.

Amending Special Rule To Allow Germaneness Point of Order

Sec.    26.13 In an unusual sequence of events, the House: (1) considered 
a special order providing for the consideration of two measures (a 
conference report and a separate bill identical to a nongermane 
amendment included in the report); (2) rejected the previous question 
on the special order; and (3) then adopted an amendment providing for 
consideration of the report but modifying the application of Rule 
XXVIII clause 4 with respect to the nongermane amendment.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act had been passed by the House 
on May 27, 1987. The Senate amended the bill including as a new section 
5 thereof a nongermane provision relating to "dial-a-porn," a matter 
not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor, 
but within the province of the Com-


[[Page 883]]

mittee on Energy and Commerce. The matter went to conference, managers 
on the part of the House including members from the Committees on 
Education and Labor and from Energy and Commerce. The conferees 
reported a text which included a modifica-tion of the nongermane Senate 
amendment on telecommunications policy. The proceedings leading to the 
rejection of the conference report on April 19, 1988,(12) and motions 
which followed are shown here. 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 5, ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
MR. [MARTIN] FROST [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 427 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 427
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report on the bill (H.R. 5) to improve 
elementary and secondary education, and all points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration are hereby waived, and 
the conference report shall be considered as having been read when 
called up for consideration. A motion to recommit the conference report 
may not contain instructions.
SEC. 2. At any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved 
into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of a bill containing the text printed in section three of 
this resolution, and the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
with. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and 
which shall not exceed thirty minutes, equally divided and controlled 
by a proponent and an opponent, the bill shall be considered as having 
been read for amendment under the five-minute rule. No amendment to the 
bill shall be in order in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. 
At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill, the Committee shall 
rise and report the bill to the House, and the previous question shall 
be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
intervening motion except one motion to commit, which may not contain 
instructions.
SEC. 3. The text of the bill as follows:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,
"Section 223(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended-
"(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking out 'under eighteen years of age 
or to any other person without that person's consent';
"(2) by striking out paragraph (2);
"(3) in paragraph (4), by striking out 'paragraphs (1) and (3)' and 
inserting in lieu thereof 'paragraphs (1) and (2)'; and
"(4) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as paragraphs (2), 
(3), and (4), respectively.".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     134 CONG. REC. 7345-47, 7353-55, 7446, 7448, 7484, 7485, 100th 
Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 884]]

THE SPEAKER:(13) The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] is recognized for 
1 hour.
MR. FROST: Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 427 is a rule waiving all 
points of order against the conference report on H.R. 5, the School 
Improvement Act of 1987, and waiving all points of order against its 
consideration. The rule provides that the conference report shall be 
considered as having been read when called up for consideration and 
that a motion to recommit the conference report may not contain 
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement on H.R. 5, named the Augustus F. 
Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement 
Amendments of 1988, is the result of months of work on the part of both 
the House and the Senate and both the majority and the minority. . . . 
MR. [TRENT] LOTT [of Mississippi]: . . . The rule also provides for 
consideration at any time of a bill which is identical to the one we 
just passed under suspension of the rules under a sudden change in 
scheduling. I think this is the first time I can recall in which we 
passed a bill before adopting the rule making it in order. I think it 
says something about the extent of the leadership's concern that 
Congress might actually enact a meaningful dial-a-porn provision as 
part of the conference report. . . . 
MR. [THOMAS J.] BLILEY [Jr., of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
strong opposition to the rule before us today. I oppose this rule 
because it represents just one more attempt to sidestep the issue of 
dial-a-porn through clever procedural gimmicks. It's precisely this 
type of gimmickry that has put us in the situation we're in today.
That is precisely the thrust of the language that is included in the 
conference report-language that was included in the conference report 
without the conferees on that issue ever having met in open public 
session as required by rule 28 clause 6. . . . 
MR. FROST: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolutions.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(14) The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
The question was taken. . . . 
So the previous question was not ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE OFFERED BY MR. LOTT
MR. LOTT: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Lott: Strike all 
after the resolving clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report on the bill (H.R. 5) to improve 
elementary and secondary education, and all points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration, except as provided by 
section 2 of this reso-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
14.     Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 885]]

lution, are hereby waived, and the conference report shall be 
considered as having been read when called up for consideration.
"SEC. 2. It shall be in order pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXVIII of 
the rules of the House to raise a point of order against sec. 6101 of 
the conference report. If, pursuant to such clause, the point of order 
is sustained and the section is then rejected by a vote of the House, 
it shall immediately be in order, without intervening motion, for any 
Member to offer a preferential motion to take from the Speaker's table 
the bill H.R. 5, together with the Senate amendment thereto, and to 
recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment which shall 
consist of the text of that portion of the conference report not 
rejected together with the text of sec. 7003 of said Senate amendment 
as a substitute for sec. 6101 of the conference report as rejected by 
the House, said motion shall be considered as having been read, and all 
points of order against said motion are hereby waived.".

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] is recognized 
for 1 hour.
MR. LOTT: Mr. Speaker, I see no reason to prolong this debate any 
further. There is no need to take any longer than a couple minutes.
I would like to urge the adoption of this substitute rule which would 
provide for the consideration of the ban on dial-a-porn language in the 
conference report and also, of course, the conference report on H.R. 5, 
the education bill.
We all know what is involved in the debate. We know what is in the 
rule. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield to anyone for purposes of debate 
only, but I think we have debated this issue at length for the last 
hour and 5 minutes, so I am ready to move the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute and the resolution.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on ordering the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Lott].
The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the resolution, as amended.
The resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MR. [AUGUSTUS F.] HAWKINS [of California]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
House Resolution 427, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 
5) to improve elementary and secondary education, and for other 
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER: Pursuant to the rule, the conference report is considered 
as having been read. . . . 
POINT OF ORDER
MR. BLILEY: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule just adopted and clause 4 
of rule XXVIII, I make a point of order against section 6101 of the 
conference report, and ask to be heard on my point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman's point of order is well-taken, the 
modification of the Senate provision in question is 


[[Page 886]]

not germane to the bill as passed by the House. The point of order is 
sustained.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BLILEY
MR. BLILEY: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bliley moves pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXVIII and House 
Resolution 427 as adopted by the House that the House do now reject 
section 6101 of the conference report on the bill H.R. 5.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes and a Member, of opposed, will be recognized 
for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
MR. BLILEY: Mr. Speaker, we have been over this ground all day and in 
deference to the time of the Members and in the light of the vote we 
just had on voting down the ordering of the previous question, I would 
urge the Members to adopt this motion so that we can get on with the 
business at hand.
Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I move the previous 
question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
The motion was agreed to. . . . 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BLILEY
MR. BLILEY: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bliley moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill H.R. 5, 
together with the Senate amendment thereto, and recede and concur in 
the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of that 
portion of the conference report on the bill H.R. 5 not rejected by the 
House together with the text of section 7003 of the Senate amendment in 
place of section 6101 as rejected by the House, 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 "Augustus F. Hawkins-
Robert T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement 
Amendments of 1988".
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.- . . . 
PART B-PROHIBITION OF DIAL-A-PORN
SEC. 6101. AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.
Section 223(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended-
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking out "under eighteen years of age 
or to any other person without that person's consent";
(2) by striking out paragraph (2);
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking out "paragraphs (1) and (3)" and 
inserting in lieu thereof "paragraphs (1) and (2)"; and
(4) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as paragraphs (2), 
(3), and (4), respectively. . . .

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Hawkins] or his desig-


[[Page 887]]

nee from the majority party will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley]. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(15) The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] that the House recede and 
concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text 
of that portion of the conference report on the bill H.R. 5 not 
rejected by the House together with the text of section 7003 of the 
Senate amendment in place of section 6101 as rejected by the House.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. BLILEY: 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 397, nays 
1, not voting 34, as follows: . . . 
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Special Order Protecting Conference Report From Point    of Order and 
Self-executing Adoption of Concurrent Resolution Correcting Enrollment

Sec.    26.14 Special order, waiving points of order against a conference 
report, and "self-executing" the adoption in the House of a concurrent 
resolution correcting the enrollment, thus giving the Senate two 
options: to accept the conference report as filed and agreed to by the 
House or to modify it's provisions in the enrollment process by 
adoption of the concurrent resolution. 
The resolution reported by the Committee on Rules, a portion of the 
explanation thereof, and the proceedings for adopting the concurrent 
resolution made in order in the resolution, as excerpted from the 
Record of Sept. 30, 1992,(16) are carried here.

MR. [BART] GORDON [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 581 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 581
 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 5503) 
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993, and for other 
purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against 
its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered 
as read. Upon the adoption of the conference report the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     Richard J. Durbin (Ill.).
16.     138 CONG. REC. 29064, 29077, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 888]]

House shall be considered to have adopted a concurrent resolution 
introduced by Representative Yates of Illinois (for himself and 
Representative Miller of California) on or before September 30, 1992, 
directing the Clerk of the House to make corrections in the enrollment 
of the bill (H.R. 5503) making appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1993, and for other purposes.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(17) The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. GORDON: . . . Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 581 provides for the 
consideration of the conference report on H.R. 5503, the Interior and 
related agencies appropriations for fiscal year 1993. The conference 
report is debatable for 1 hour.
The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration. The rule also provides that the conference 
report will be considered as read.
Finally, upon adoption of the conference report, the House will be 
considered as having adopted a concurrent resolution jointly introduced 
by Representative Yates of Illinois and Representative Miller of 
California. The concurrent resolution directs the Clerk of the House to 
make corrections in the conference report on H.R. 5503.

Immediately after adoption of the special order, the concurrent 
resolution, introduced by Mr. George Miller, of California, and Mr. 
Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, was "considered to have been adopted."

The conference report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
ADOPTION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 365, MAKING CORRECTIONS IN 
ENROLLMENT OF H.R. 5503
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to House Resolution 581, House 
Concurrent Resolution 365, introduced today by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates], on behalf of himself and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller], is considered to have been adopted.
The text of House Concurrent Resolution 365 is as follows:
H. CON. RES. 365
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That 
in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 5503) entitled "An Act making 
appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993, and for other purposes", 
the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the following 
corrections, namely:
In the paragraph under the heading "Land Acquisition", Bureau of Land 
Management, after the figure "$28,034,000" insert ", of which 
$5,000,000 is for the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in 
National Environmental Policy Foundation and $23,034,000 is"; . . . 
Under the heading "Administrative Provisions, Forest Service" delete 
the following paragraph:
"As a pilot effort, for the purpose of achieving ecologically 
defensible management practices, the Kaibab, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (Miss.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 889]]

Dixie, Idaho Panhandle, and Coconino National Forests and the Lake 
Tahoe Basin Management Unit are authorized to apply the value or a 
reasonable portion of the value of timber removed under a stewardship 
end result contract as an offset against the cost of stewardship 
services received including, but not limited to, site preparation, 
replanting, silviculture programs, recreation, wildlife habitat 
enhancement, and other multiple-use enhancements on selected projects: 
Provided, That timber removed shall count toward meeting the 
Congressional expectations for the annual timber harvest.".

Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate had insisted, in the conference on 
the Interior Department appropriation bill, fiscal 1993, that certain 
unauthorized items and legislative provisions, added to the bill by the 
Senate, be included in the report. Members of the House authorizing 
committee, (at that time the Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs), objected to the inclusion of unauthorized appropriations. 
This "compromise rule" protected the conference report from a point of 
order but signaled the opposition of certain Members of the House to 
the Senate amendments and the action of the conferees in seeking a rule 
protecting the inclusion of the items which would otherwise have been 
subject to a point of order. 

Special Orders Sending Bill to Conference; Protecting Specific Motion 
To Amend Senate Bill

Sec.    26.15 The House can, by means of a special order, provide for the 
consideration in the House of a Senate bill, protect a particular 
motion to amend from any point of order (leaving alternative motions 
unprotected) and specify that if the protected motion is adopted, and 
the bill as amended is passed, it shall be in order to move to insist 
on the House amendment and request a conference.

House Resolution 374 was designed to "hook up" the Senate numbered bill 
with the text of a related House bill, H.R. 796, which had passed the 
House in the previous session of the Congress. The so-called "Freedom 
of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1993" was not without controversy, 
and the rule was designed to permit a variety of points for debate and 
for motions to test the will of the House on how to proceed. Some of 
these procedural alternatives were 


[[Page 890]]

mentioned in the debate on the rule.(18) 

MR. [JOHN JOSEPH] MOAKLEY [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 374 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 374
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 636) to amend the 
Public Health Service Act to permit individuals to have freedom of 
access to certain medical clinics and facilities, and for other 
purposes, and to consider the Senate bill in the House. All points of 
order against the Senate bill and against its consideration are waived. 
It shall be in order to move to strike all after the enacting clause of 
the Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 
796 as passed by the House. All points of order against that motion are 
waived. If the motion is adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is 
passed, then it shall be in order to move that the House insist on its 
amendments to S. 636 and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

THE SPEAKER:(19) The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], is 
recognized for one hour. . . . 
MR. [ANTHONY C.] BEILENSON [of California]: . . . The rule makes it in 
order to take the Senate bill, S. 636, from the Speaker's table and 
consider it in the House. All points of order against the Senate bill 
and its consideration are waived.
The rule also makes in order a motion to strike out all after the 
enacting clause of the Senate bill and insert the provisions of H.R. 
796 as passed by the House. All points of order against that motion are 
waived. . . . 
MR. [JAMES H.] QUILLEN [of Tennessee]: . . . Mr. Speaker, as the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Beilenson, has explained, this rule 
provides for the consideration of S. 636, the Senate-passed version of 
the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
The rule makes in order motions to consider the Senate bill, to 
substitute the text of the House-passed version, H.R. 796, to pass the 
amended bill, to insist on the amendments and to request a conference. 
All points of order are waived against S. 636 and its consideration, as 
well as the motion to amend the bill.
Now, that may seem simple enough, but let me describe the potential 
debate and votes that this rule would allow. First, we have up to 1 
hour of debate on the rule, a possible vote on the previous question 
and a vote on adoption of the rule.
Then we have up to 1 hour of debate on the Senate bill. There could be 
a vote on the motion to strike the text of S. 636 and insert the 
language of H.R. 796 as passed by the House. That might be followed by 
a vote on the motion to commit the Senate bill to the appropriate House 
committee. Then there could be a vote on passage of the Senate bill as 
amended.
There is still more, Mr. Speaker. After passage, we have up to 1 hour 
of debate on the motion to go to confer-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     See 140 CONG. REC. 5389, 5390, 5398, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 17, 1994.
19.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 891]]

ence, followed by a possible vote on that motion. And finally, we have 
up to 1 hour of debate on the motion to instruct conferees to agree to 
the Hatch amendment providing protection to places of worship. I 
strongly support the Hatch amendment, and there may be a vote on the 
motion to instruct conferees. I hope my explanation clears up any 
existing questions or confusion about this rule, and I am strongly 
opposed to this bill. . . . 
MS. [LOUISE M.] SLAUGHTER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a simple housekeeping procedure to get to 
conference. It is not an unusual device or a closed rule. We have 
considered rules to hook up with a Senate bill and go to conference 19 
times in the 102d Congress and several times already in this Congress, 
as recently as last month on the Independent Counsel bill. . . . 
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

 Parliamentarian's Note: The waivers specified in the rule were 
designed to protect the Senate bill and the motion to amend with the 
text of the House bill from possible points of order under the Budget 
Act. Both the bill and the amendment provided for criminal penalties 
and there was some question whether increases in penalties should be 
scored as new budget authority. Points of order had been waived against 
such provisions on previous occasions.

Sending Bill to Conference and Waiving Points of Order Against Report

Sec.    26.16 In an effort to facilitate the passage of a House bill with 
Senate amendments before an impending adjournment, the House adopted a 
special order both sending the matter to conference and waiving the 
two-thirds requirement for same-day consideration of a subsequent rule 
providing for consideration of the conference report if filed later on 
that same legislative day. 

Where it would be difficult either to get unanimous consent to send a 
bill to conference or to schedule a meeting of the appropriate 
legislative committee to authorize a motion to accomplish that result, 
the Committee on Rules may be called upon to expedite the process by a 
special order. Under the form of resolution utilized in this instance,
(20) no motion to send the bill to conference was necessary from the 
floor since the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     See 139 CONG. REC. 31810, 31814, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 22, 1993.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 892]]

adoption of the rule placed the matter in conference. A motion to 
instruct conferees was thus in order immediately after the 
adoption of the resolution, before the Speaker named conferees.

MR. [BUTLER] DERRICK [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 322 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 322
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall be 
considered to have taken the bill (H.R. 1025) to provide for a waiting 
period before the purchase of a handgun, and for the establishment of a 
national instant criminal background check system to be contacted by 
firearms dealers before the transfer of any firearm, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, from the Speaker's table, to have disagreed to the 
Senate amendment, and to have agreed to the request of the Senate for a 
conference thereon. The requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to a 
resolution reported on the legislative day of November 22, 1993, 
providing for the consideration or disposition of a conference report 
to accompany that bill.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(1) The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Derrick] is recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [F. JAMES] SENSENBRENNER [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. SENSENBRENNER: Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] have to 
make the motion to send the bill to conference provided for under this 
rule?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: No, the adoption of the rule accomplishes 
that.
MR. SENSENBRENNER: I thank the Chair.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 1025
MR. SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Sensenbrenner moves that the managers on the part of the House at 
the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate 
amendment to the bill, H.R. 1025, be instructed to accept section 302
(d) of the Senate amendment, and subsection (i)(1)(A) of the matter 
proposed to be added by section 302(e) of the Senate amendment.

Special Orders Protecting Conference Reports Where Disagreements are 
Bundled Inside the Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Thomas H. Andrews (Maine).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 893]]

Sec.    26.17 In the 104th Congress, many of the conference reports on 
general appropriation bills were protected from points of order by 
privileged resolutions granting "blanket waivers," a necessity since 
amendments in disagreement were routinely brought back "inside the 
conference report" instead of being reported in disagreement for 
disposition by separate motions.
The standard form of the special orders reported from the Committee on 
Rules is set forth below.(2) By waiving "[a]ll points of order against 
the report and its consideration" items in the report containing 
legislative or unauthorized items in violation of Rule XX clause 2,(3) 
were protected. Matters included by the conferees which were beyond the 
differences committed to conference were also safe from attack under 
Rule XXVIII clause 3.(4) Reading was usually dispensed with so the 
report could be considered prior to the expiration of the three-day 
availability requirement in Rule XXVIII clause 2(c).(5) 
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST FURTHER CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1977, 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
1996
MS. [DEBORAH] PRYCE [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 253 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 253
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the further conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
1977) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for 
other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
considered as read.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
MS. PRYCE: . . . The blanket waiver includes a waiver of clause 2 of 
rule XX as well as a waiver of clause 3 of rule XXVIII which permits 
the House to discuss provisions which may exceed the scope of 
differences between the House and Senate. Under the normal 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     See 141 CONG. REC. 32601, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 15, 1995 
(H. Res. 253).
 3.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
 4.     Id. at Sec. 913a.
 5.     Id. at Sec. 912d.
 6.     Dan Burton (Ind.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 894]]

rules of the House, we will have 1 hour of debate on the conference 
report itself in addition to the minority's customary right to offer a 
motion to recommit with or without instructions. . . . 

Special Order Placing Before House a Corrected Version of a Conference 
Report Originally Filed With an Error

Sec.    26.18 Form of a special order vacating the filing and printing of 
a conference report on a preceding day, authorizing the refiling of the 
report in a corrected form as delineated in the resolution, accepting 
original signature sheets as valid for purposes of second report, 
waiving points of order against the report and its consideration, and 
permitting one motion to recommit without instructions.

House Resolution 272 in the 104th Congress provided for the 
consideration of a corrected version of a conference report on the bill 
H.R. 2491.
The resolution, a portion of the explanation of the special order by 
its proponent from the Committee on Rules, David Dreier, of California, 
and the filing of the corrected report are carried below.(7) 
AUTHORIZING CORRECTION IN CON-FERENCE REPORT AND WAIVING POINTS OF 
ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2491, SEVEN-YEAR BALANCED 
BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995
MR. DREIER: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 272 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 272
Resolved, That the proceedings of the legislative day of November 15, 
1995, by which the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2491) 
to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 105 of the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996 was presented to the 
House and ordered printed, are hereby vacated, to the end that the 
managers on the part of the House may immediately present the 
conference report in the form actually ordered reported to the House as 
a product of the meeting and signatures of the committee of conference 
and actually to be presented in the Senate, in pertinent corrected part 
as depicted in section 3 of this resolution. The existing signatures of 
the committee of conference shall remain valid as authorizing the 
presentation of the conference report to the House in corrected form.
SEC. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report presented to the House pursuant to the 
first 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     See 141 CONG. REC. 33741, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 17, 1995.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 895]]

section of this resolution. All points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report 
shall be considered as read. The conference report shall be debatable 
for two hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. After such 
debate the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
conference report to final adoption without intervening motion except 
one motion to recommit, which may not contain instructions and on which 
the previous question shall be considered as ordered. After disposition 
of the conference report, no further consideration of the bill shall be 
in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.
SEC. 3. The correction described in section 2 of this resolution is to 
insert between subtitles J and L of title XII a subtitle K (as depicted 
in the table of contents) as follows:

"Subtitle K-Miscellaneous

"SEC. 13101. FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY.
"Section 6(f) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2015(f)) is 
amended by striking the third sentence and inserting the following: 
'The State agency shall, at its option, consider either all income and 
financial resources of the individual rendered ineligible to 
participate in the food stamp program under this subsection, or such 
income, less a pro rata share, and the financial resources of the 
ineligible individual, to determine the eligibility and the value of 
the allotment of the household of which such individual is a member.'
"SEC. 13102. REDUCTION IN BLOCK GRANTS FOR SOCIAL SERVICES.
"Section 2003(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397b) is amended-
"(1) by striking 'and' at the end of paragraph (4); and
"(2) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
'(5) $2,800,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1990 through 1996; and
'(6) $2,240,000,000 for each fiscal year after fiscal year 1996.'.".
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(8) The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
is recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
MR. DREIER: Mr. Speaker, due to a technical error committed during the 
filing of the conference report on H.R. 2491, this rule vacates the 
proceedings by which the conference report on H.R. 2491, the Seven-Year 
Balanced Budget Act, was filed. The rule authorizes the managers to 
immediately refile the report in the form actually signed and ordered 
reported, with the corrected part printed in section 3 of the rule. The 
rule further provides that the existing signatures of the conferees 
shall remain valid as authorizing the presentation of the conference 
report to the House in its corrected form.
The rule then provides for the consideration of the newly filed 
conference report to accompany H.R. 2491. The rule waives all points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration. The 
rule provides for two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee.
The rule provides for one motion to recommit the conference report 
which may not contain instructions. Finally, the rule provides that 
following disposition of the conference report, no fur-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     Ray LaHood (Ill.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 896]]

ther action on the bill is in order except by subsequent order of the 
House. . . . 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2491, SEVEN-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET 
RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995
Mr. Kasich submitted the following conference report and statement on 
the bill (H.R. 2491) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 
105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996:
(For conference report and statement see proceedings of the House of 
November 15, 1995, as corrected by the following:)

SEC. 3. The correction described in section 2 of this resolution is to 
insert between subtitles J and L of title XII a subtitle K (as depicted 
in the table of contents) as follows:

"Subtitle K-Miscellaneous

"SEC. 13101. FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY.
"Section 6(f) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2015(f)) is 
amended by striking the third sentence and inserting the following: 
'The State agency shall, at its option, consider either all income and 
financial resources of the individual rendered ineligible to 
participate in the food stamp program under this subsection, or such 
income, less a pro rata share, and the financial resources of the 
ineligible individual, to determine the eligibility and the value of 
the allotment of the household of which such individual is a member.'
"SEC. 13102. REDUCTION IN BLOCK GRANTS FOR SOCIAL SERVICES.
"Section 2003(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397b) is 
amended-
"(1) by striking 'and' at the end of paragraph (4); and
"(2) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
'(5) $2,800,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1990 through 1996; and
'(6) $2,240,000,000 for each fiscal year after fiscal year 1996.'.".

MR. [JOHN R.] KASICH [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House 
resolution 272, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2491) 
to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 105 of the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to the rule, the conference report is 
considered as having been read.

Parliamentarian's Note: This special order, putting a corrected  
version of the conference report before the House, was possible since 
the original conference report had not been filed in the Senate. The 
other parliamentary steps which might have been used to correct the 
error in the report-to call up the original report and then recommit it 
to conference or to call up the original report and then have a 
concurrent resolution correcting the enrollment-would have been more 
cumbersome and would have involved more procedural steps than the 
method utilized here.


[[Page 897]]

While Rule XI clause 4(b)(9) precludes a special order from preventing 
a motion to recommit under Rule XVI clause 4(10) with instructions (if 
offered by the Minority Leader or his designee), that restriction on 
the authority of the Committee on Rules does not cover a conference 
report where the motion to commit or recommit is made pursuant to Rule 
XVII clause 1(11) and not Rule XVI.

Special Rule Waiving Three-fifths Vote Requirement on Tax Increase

Sec.    26.19 A special rule waiving points of order against a conference 
report on a budget reconciliation bill may also waive the applicability 
of Rule XXI clause 5(c),(12) requiring a three-fifths vote on any 
measure carrying an income tax increase. 

The Committee on Rules, in reporting H. Res. 495, waiving points of 
order against the conference report on the bill H.R. 3734, the Welfare 
and Medicaid Reform Act of 1996, included the waiver of the super-
majority vote in Rule XXI out of caution. No income tax rate increase 
was noted in the measure but because of the complicated legislation 
involved and the ambiguity of the rule, the waiver was thought prudent. 
The relevant proceedings of July 31, 1996,(13) are carried below.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3734, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK 
OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996
Mr. Solomon, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report 
(Rept. No. 104-729) on the resolution (H. Res. 495) waiving points of 
order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3734) 
to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a)(1) of the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997, which was 
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
MR. [GERALD B. H.] SOLOMON [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
resolution (H. Res. 495) waiving points of order against the conference 
report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3734) to provide for reconciliation 
pursuant to section 201(a)(1) of the concurrent resolution on the 
budget for fiscal year 1997 and ask for its immediate consideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 729a (1997).
10.     Id. at Sec. 782.
11.     Id. at Sec. 804.
12.     House Rules and Manual  Sec. 846c (1997).
13.     142 CONG. REC. 20697, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 898]]

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 495
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3734) to 
provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a)(1) of the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997. All points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration are 
waived. The conference report shall be considered as read. The yeas and 
nays shall be considered as ordered on the question of adoption of the 
conference report and on any subsequent conference report or motion to 
dispose of an amendment between the houses on H.R. 3734. Clause 5(c) of 
rule XXI shall not apply to the bill, amendments thereto, or conference 
reports thereon.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(14) The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. SOLOMON: . . . Additionally, the rule provides that the conference 
report shall be considered as read. The rule also orders the yeas and 
nays on the adoption of the conference report and on any subsequent 
conference report or motion to dispose of an amendment between the 
Houses.
Finally, the rule provides that the provisions of clause 5(c) of rule 
XXI requiring a three-fifths vote on any income tax rate increase shall 
not apply to the bill, amendments thereto, or to the conference report 
thereon.

Waiving Points of Order Against Motions To Dispose of Amendments in 
Disagreement Reported From Conference Committee

Sec.    26.20 The House adopted a resolution waiving points of order 
against a conference report, and making in order motions to recede from 
disagreement to any Senate amendment (reported from this conference 
still in disagreement) and concur therein with amendments not 
otherwise in order.(15) 

On Aug. 2, 1955,(16) the following occurred in the House:

Mr. [James W.] Trimble [of Arkansas], from the Committee on Rules, 
reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 337) which was 
referred to the House calendar and ordered to be printed:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report on the bill H.R. 7117, making 
appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1956, and for other purposes, and 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     Joel Hefley (Colo.).
15.     For a more detailed discussion of the unusual procedure utilized 
during the consideration of these amendments reported in disagreement, 
see Sec. 29.38, infra.
16.     101 CONG. REC. 13051-56, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 899]]

all points of order against the conference report are hereby waived; 
that during the consideration of the amendments of the Senate to the 
bill H.R. 7117 reported from the conference committee in disagreement 
it shall be in order, notwithstanding any rule of the House to the 
contrary, to move that the House recede from its disagreement to any 
such amendment and concur therein with an amendment inserting in the 
proper place in the bill any or all of the parts of the provisions of 
the bill H.R. 7440 and any amendments thereto as agreed upon by the 
House conferees on the bill H.R. 7117. . . . 

THE SPEAKER:(17) The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York] submitted the following conference 
report and statement on the bill (H.R. 7117) making appropriations for 
the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, and 
for other purposes: . . . 
MR. ROONEY: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill 
(H.R. 7117) making appropriations for the legislative branch for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, and for other purposes, and ask 
unanimous consent that the statement of the managers on the part of the 
House may be read in lieu of the report.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
The conference report was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the first amendment in disagreement. 
. . . 

After the Clerk read Senate amendment No. 52, Mr. Rooney offered the 
following motion:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recede and concur in the Senate 
amendment with an amendment. . . . 

After the Clerk read Mr. Rooney's motion, Mr. Rooney explained,

Mr. Speaker, this is the amendment which was discussed just prior to 
the adoption of the rule. This is where the provisions of H.R. 7440 
reported by the House Administration Committee and for which a rule was 
granted about a week ago, as amended by the House conferees, are 
inserted in this appropriation bill. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion.
The motion was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Sec.    26.21 The House adopted a resolution waiving points of order 
against a conference report, and which made in order and waived points 
of order against a motion to be made by the chairman of the managers on 
the part of the House to recede from disagreement to a Senate amend-
ment reported in disagree-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 900]]

ment and to concur therein with an amendment.(18) 

On Dec. 24, 1963,(19) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [HOWARD W.] SMITH of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I call up House 
Resolution 600 and ask for its immediate consideration.
THE SPEAKER:(20) The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider without the intervention of any point of order the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 9499) making appropriations for 
foreign aid and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1964, and for other purposes, and that during the consideration of the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 20 to the bill, it shall be in order 
to consider, without the intervention of any point of order, a motion 
by the chairman of the managers on the part of the House to recede and 
concur in said Senate amendment numbered 20 with an amendment.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] is recognized for 
1 hour. . . . 
MR. SMITH of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I hope we may adopt this resolution 
unanimously and get through with this matter.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.

Parliamentarian's Note: Since the motion that would be offered to 
recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment would have 
been subject to a point of order on the grounds that the language 
proposed was legislation on an appropriation bill, the resolution was 
prepared to waive points of order against the motion.

Special Order Protecting Conference Report and Amendment in 
Disagreement

Sec.    26.22 The House adopted a resolution reported from the Committee 
on Rules, waiving points of order against a Senate amendment in 
disagreement (the conferees having reported in total disagreement) and 
against a motion to recede from disagreement and concur in the 
amendment with a further amendment.

On July 1, 1976,(1) Mr. Richard W. Bolling, of Missouri, from the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     See also Sec. 29.38, infra.
19.     109 CONG. REC. 25520, 25528, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
20.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 1.     122 CONG. REC. 21829, 21830, 21832, 21834, 21835, 21840, 94th 
Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 901]]

Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 1393, waiving all points 
of order against a conference report, the Senate amendment in 
disagreement, and a motion to recede and concur therein with an 
amendment. 
The conferees on the bill H.R.  12455, which amended title XX of the 
Social Security Act, had agreed informally on an agreement in 
conference which would have, if filed, been subject to a point of order 
as exceeding the scope of the matters committed to conference. The 
Senate amendment and the agreed upon motion to recede and concur were 
also vulnerable to points of order under the Congressional Budget Act. 
By waiving points of order against  the conference report, the Sen-  
ate amendment and the motion, the path was cleared to resolve  the 
difference between the two Houses:

MR. BOLLING: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1393 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. RES. 1393
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it 
shall be in order to consider, any rule of the House to the contrary 
notwithstanding, the conference report, the Senate amendments reported 
from conference in disagreement, and the motions to dispose of said 
Senate amendments, on the bill (H.R. 12455) to extend from April 1 to 
October 1, 1976, the maximum period during which recipients of services 
on September 30, 1975, under titles IV-A and VI of the Social Security 
Act, may continue to receive services under title XX of that Act 
without individual determinations, and all points of order against said 
motions to dispose of the Senate amendments reported from conference in 
disagreement are hereby waived.

THE SPEAKER:(2) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling) is recognized 
for 1 hour. . . . 
So the resolution was agreed to. . . . 
MR. [AL] ULLMAN [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
1393, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 12455) to 
extend from April 1 to October 1, 1976, the maximum period during which 
recipients of services on September 30, 1975, under titles IV-A and VI 
of the Social Security Act, may continue to receive services under 
title XX of that act without individual determinations, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will read the conference report. . . . 
The Chair lays before the House the Senate amendments, which the Clerk 
will read.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
That (a)(1) section 2002(a) of the Social Security Act is amended by 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 902]]

striking out paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) thereof.
(2) The amendments made by paragraph (1) shall be effective on and 
after October 1, 1975. . . . 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. CORMAN
MR. [JAMES C.] CORMAN [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Corman moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate to the text of the bill, and concur therein 
with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be 
inserted by the Senate amendment, insert the following:
That (a) section 2002(a) of the Social Security Act is amended by 
adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph: . . . 

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from California (Mr. Corman) will be 
recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Vander 
Jagt) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Corman). . . . 
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. CORMAN
MR. CORMAN: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Corman moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
Senate amendment to the title of the bill and concur therein.

The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Form of Resolution Protecting Motions To Dispose of Certain Amendments 
in Disagreement

Sec.    26.23 Form of resolution waiving points of order against a 
conference report which had not been printed in the Record for the 
three days required by the rule, and protecting certain motions 
(printed in the statement of the managers) to dispose of certain Senate 
amendments reported in disagreement which would be subject to a point 
of order under Rule XVI clause 7, as not germane to the Senate 
amendment, if not protected. 

The special order noted here was adopted by the House on Nov. 14, 1989.
(3) The specific waivers against the motions to dispose of some of the 
amendments in disagreement were included in the rule at the request of 
the Committee on Appropriations. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     135 CONG. REC. 28738, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 903]]

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2939, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, 
AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1990
MS. [LOUISE MCINTOSH] SLAUGHTER of New York: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 288 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 288
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2939) making 
appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related 
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990, and for other 
purposes, and all points of order against consideration of the 
conference report for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 2 
of rule XXVIII are hereby waived. All points of order against the 
motions printed in the joint statement of the managers to dispose of 
Senate amendments numbered 22, 23, 44, 69, 122, 201, 289, and 295 for 
failure to comply with the provisions of clause 7 of rule XVI are 
hereby waived.

Special Orders Related to Budget Resolutions

Sec.    26.24 While a conference report on a concurrent resolution on the 
budget is privileged for consideration under the Budget Act,(4) special 
orders are often used to expedite consideration, to curtail and 
apportion the debate time, to waive points of order, and to defuse the 
provisions of the rule(5) which  automatically creates a debt limit, to 
have passed the House.

House Resolution 418, governing the consideration of the conference 
report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal years 
1995-99, is more or less typical of several which have been used to 
protect such conference reports.(6) 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H. CON. RES. 218, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE 
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
MR. [ANTHONY C.] BEILENSON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 418 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 418
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to ac-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     Sec. 305(a); House Rules and Manual Sec. 1007 (1997).
 5.     Rule XLIX, House Rules and Manual Sec. 945 (1997).
 6.     See 140 CONG. REC. 9411, 9412, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., May 5, 1994.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 904]]

company the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 218) setting forth the 
congressional budget for the United States Government for the fiscal 
years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. All points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration are waived. The 
conference report shall be considered as read. The conference report 
shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
SEC. 2. Rule XLIX shall not apply with respect to the adoption by the 
Congress of the conference report to accompany the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 218) setting forth the congressional budget 
for the United States Government for the fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 
1998, and 1999.

MR. BEILENSON: . . . Mr. Speaker, at this point I do wish to advise the 
Members that the conference report was filed only yesterday and that it 
does, therefore, violate the 3-day layover requirement. The committee 
generally does not like waiving the 3-day layover rule. Members usually 
do need time to read the conference report to become fully informed 
about it. In this case, however, the Committee on Rules felt that there 
were simple and persuasive reasons to waive that particular 
requirement. First is that the broad outline of the conference 
committee agreement has been known, with the exception of some details 
about Senate budget rules, since Monday, and the change provided from 
the report originally passed in the House are relatively minor. But 
more important, if we do not take up the conference report today, we 
will not be able to take it up again until next Thursday. The Committee 
on Appropriations has been waiting on the budget appropriation to make 
their allocation and be able, therefore, to begin moving on their bills 
and another week's delay would push the appropriations bill past the 
Memorial Day recess.
Therefore, we felt that there was substantial and good reason to waive 
that particular layover rule for that particular reason.
The rule before the Members also provides that rule XLIX will not apply 
upon adoption of the conference report. House rule XLIX provides for 
the automatic adoption by the House of a joint resolution changing the 
statutory limit on the public debt to conform to amounts in the budget 
resolution.

Special Order Addressing Conference Report and Remaining Amendment in 
Disagreement

Sec.    26.25 Form of special order waiving all points of order against a 
conference report and its consideration, as well as against a specified 
motion to recede and concur, with amendment, in the only Senate 
amendment remaining in disagreement outside of the conference report, 
providing for one hour of debate on the motion, ordering the previous 
question thereon, and prohibiting any intervening 


[[Page 904]]

motion or demand for division of the question. 

The motion to recede and concur protected by this special order was set 
forth in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the 
resolution. It could only be offered by the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations, 
Porter J. Goss, of Forida.(7) 
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1868, FOREIGN 
OPERATIONS, EXPORT FI-NANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
1996
MR. GOSS: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 249 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 249
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1868) making 
appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related 
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other 
purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against 
its consideration are waived. The motion printed in the report of the 
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution to dispose of the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 115 may be offered only by 
Representative Callahan of Alabama or his designee. That motion shall 
be considered as read and shall be debatable for one hour equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. All points of 
order against that motion are waived. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on that motion to final adoption without 
intervening motion or demand for division of the question.

Special Order Making in Order One Motion To Adopt Conference Report and 
To Dispose of Remaining Disagreement

Sec.    26.26 Example of a special order protecting a conference report, 
waiving all points of order against the report and its consideration, 
and then "self-executing" the adoption of a motion to disagree with the 
only Senate amendment in disagreement remaining outside the conference 
agreement.

The special order was designed to bring to a final conclusion the 
dispute over an item in H.R. 2020, Treasury and postal appropriations 
for fiscal year 1996. The conferees had reached agreement on all the 
amendments in disagreement and had placed them inside the conference 
report, thus necessitating a special order protecting the conference 
report from 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     See 141 CONG. REC. 30973, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 31, 1995.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 906]]

challenge under Rule XX clause 2,(8) (legislative provision and 
unauthorized items of appropriation) and Rule XXVIII clause 3,(9) 
provisions going beyond the scope of difference committed to 
conference. The one remaining amendment in disagreement dealt with a 
restriction on the use of federal grant funds for political advocacy. 
Since both Houses had provisions on this topic that were 
irreconcilable, the special order provided that if the conference 
report were adopted, the House would automatically inform the Senate of 
its disagreement to this controversial amendment.
The rule and a portion of the debate are carried here.(10) 

MR. [LINCOLN] DIAZ-BALART [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 267 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 267
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2020) making 
appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal 
Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain independent 
agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other 
purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against 
its consideration are waived. If the conference report is adopted, then 
a motion that the House insist on its disagreement to the amendment of 
the Senate numbered 132 shall be considered as adopted.

MR. DIAZ-BALART: Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only. . . . 
The rule waives points of order against the conference agreement and 
its consideration. In addition, the rule disposes of the amendment in 
disagreement by including a provision which considers the House's 
insistence on its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, numbered 
132, as adopted with the conference report's adoption. In other words, 
to demonstrate the resolve of the House, the rule self-executes out the 
amendment in disagreement so that the conference report can be passed 
expeditiously by both Chambers and sent to the President without 
further delay.
The amendment in disagreement concerned language prohibiting the use of 
funds for political advocacy by certain Federal grant recipients, and 
the conferees were unable to decide on advocacy language between 
Senator Simpson's version and Congressman Istook's proposed compromise. 
The 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
 9.     Id. at Sec. 913a.
10.     141 CONG. REC. 32583, 32584, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 15, 1995.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 907]]

President has indicated that a veto would be likely if this political 
advocacy language were to be included with the Treasury, Postal bill, 
and, in a spirit of compromise and in order to get this bill signed as 
soon as possible, without risking another trip back from the Senate in 
the interim, this lone amendment in disagreement is disposed of in the 
rule.

Effect of Suspension of the Rules on Points of Order

Sec.    26.27 Points of order may not be raised against a conference 
report which is being considered under a motion to suspend the rules.

On Aug. 20, 1937,(11) Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 7667, the Sugar Act of 1937, and asked 
unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be read in lieu of 
the report. Mr. Millard F. Caldwell, of Florida, was then recognized:

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object in order to make a point of 
order against the conference report. I have no objection to the 
statement being read in lieu of the report, but I do not want to lose 
the opportunity to make the point of order to the report.
MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, in order to save time I move to suspend the 
rules and adopt the conference report on the bill H.R. 7667, the sugar 
bill of 1937.
THE SPEAKER:(12) The gentleman from Texas moves to suspend the rules 
and adopt the conference report, which the Clerk will report. . . . 

After the Clerk read the report, the Speaker again recognized Mr. 
Caldwell:

Mr. Speaker, as I stated, I don't want to waive any rights that I have 
to make a point of order on the conference report.
MR. JONES: If the House agrees to suspend the rules, that suspends all 
rules and does away with points of order.
MR. CALDWELL: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. CALDWELL: Am I to understand that if the rules are suspended the 
point of order will not lie to the conference report?
THE SPEAKER: A motion to suspend the rules, if agreed to, suspends all 
rules. It must be adopted by a two-thirds vote. That would include a 
point of order against the conference report.
MR. CALDWELL: Then, Mr. Speaker, if this report actually exceeds the 
authority of the conferees by including matters neither in the House 
nor the Senate bill, am I given to understand that the suspending of 
the rules will prevent the making of a point of order on that account?
THE SPEAKER: The motion to suspend the rules, if adopted by a two-
thirds 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     81 CONG. REC. 9463-69, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 908]]

vote, waives the right of any Member to make a point of order against 
the conference report. . . . 

After 40 minutes of debate had transpired on the motion to suspend the 
rules and adopt the conference report, the proceedings concluded with 
the following:

The House divided and there were-ayes 198, noes 23.
So, two-thirds having voted in favor thereof, the rules were suspended 
and the conference report was agreed to.

Use of Suspension Motion To Consider Conference Report Previously Ruled 
Out on Point of Order

Sec.    26.28 Instance where the Speaker recognized a Member to move to 
suspend the rules and agree to a conference report which had been ruled 
out on a point of order because the managers had included a provision 
which was beyond the scope of the matter in disagreement in violation 
of Rule XXVIII clause 3.

On Dec. 20, 1974,(13) the House rejected a motion to suspend the rules 
and agree to a conference report, two-thirds not supporting the motion.

MR. [LLOYD] MEEDS [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the 
rules and agree to the conference report on the bill (H.R. 620) to 
establish within the Department of the Interior an additional Assistant 
Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER:(14) Is a second demanded?
MR. [DON] YOUNG of Alaska: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
THE SPEAKER: Without objection, a second will be considered as ordered.
There was no objection.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
December 7, 1974.)
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Meeds) will be 
recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) 
will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Meeds).
MR. MEEDS: Mr. Speaker, first of all I apologize for taking the time of 
the Members at this late hour, but this bill was knocked out just a 
little while ago as a conference report on a very technical little 
matter, and I think the House should have the opportunity to consider 
it on its merits. The purpose of this legislation is to provide for an 
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs . . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     120 CONG. REC. 41860, 41861, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
14.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 909]]


THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Meeds) to suspend the rules and agree to the 
conference report on the bill H.R. 620.
The question was taken.
MR. MEEDS: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 109, 
nays 132, not voting 193.