[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT]
[Â§ 27. Time for Consideration; the Three-day Rule]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 909-921]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT
 
Sec.    27. Time for Consideration; the Three-day Rule

Prior to the 92d Congress, a conference report was eligible for 
consideration once it and the accompanying statement of the managers 
had been printed in the Congressional Record. As a practical matter 
this meant that a conference report could not be considered until the 
day after it had been filed, since the daily edition of the 
Congressional Record for a particular day is not printed and published 
until the following day. This restriction was not in effect during the 
last six days of a session.(15) 
The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 amended the rules of the 
House in this regard and imposed a three-day layover period before 
conference reports could be considered in the House. This qualification 
of the privilege of considering conference reports is inapplicable 
during the last six days of a session.(16) This provision was perfected 
late in the 92d Congress to clarify the method for calculating the 
three-day period.(17) However, this three-day layover requirement is 
often waived by the House, either by a suspension of the rules,(18) by 
unanimous consent,(19) or pursuant to a resolution reported by the 
Committee on Rules.(20) Such a waiver may provide for consideration on 
the day after the report is 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     Rule XXVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 912 (1969).
16.     84 Stat. 1140, Pub. L. No. 91-510, Sec. 125(b)(2) (Oct. 26, 
1970), the provisions of which became part of the rules of the House 
pursuant to H. Res. 5, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 22, 1971); Rule XXVIII 
clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
17.     See Sec. 27.1, infra, especially Parliamentarian's Note.
18.     Sec. 27.3, infra.
19.     Sec.Sec. 27.3, 27.4, 27.7-27.9, infra. See also Sec.Sec. 22.2, 
22.6, 22.7, 22.19, supra, for comparable precedents which predate the 
three-day rule.
20.     Sec.Sec. 27.5, 27.6, infra. See also Sec.Sec. 22.8, 22.18, supra, 
for comparable precedents which predate the three-day rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 910]]


filed(1) or at any time after filing,(2) and may be effective for a 
specified time period(3) or even for the remainder of a session.(4) 
Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(5) does not require separate unanimous consent 
for the consideration of numbered Senate amendments reported in 
disagreement after unanimous consent has been obtained for 
consideration of the conference report.(6) 
A rule adopted in the 94th Congress specifies that the availability of 
conference reports for two hours is a prerequisite for their 
consideration. This requirement may also be waived.(7) 

Consideration Three Days After Filing

Sec.    27.1 In the 92d Congress, the House adopted a privileged 
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules amending the rules of 
the House to permit consideration of conference reports, including 
reports in complete disagreement, on the third day following the filing 
thereof in the House, provided that such reports had been printed in 
the daily edition of the Record for the day on which they had been 
filed.

On Oct. 13, 1972,(8) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. 
B. F. Sisk, of California, to call up House Resolution 1153, to amend 
the rules of the House. Mr. Sisk explained that the resolution 
provided, inter alia, for the following change:

First, it changes the wording of the 3-day rule on conference reports 
and the 3-day rule on committee reports to make it clear that what we 
mean is 3 days and not 4. As the rules are presently interpreted, a 
conference report filed on a Monday is not eligible for floor 
consideration until Friday. We think this is unreasonable. So we 
suggest changing the language of the rule to make sure that a 
conference report filed on Monday could be considered on 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Sec. 27.7, infra.
 2.     Sec.Sec. 27.7-27.9, infra. See also Sec.Sec. 22.6-22.8, 22.18, 
supra, for comparable precedents which predate the three-day rule.
 3.     Sec. 27.4, infra. See also Sec.Sec. 22.16, 22.18, supra, for 
comparable precedents which predate the three-day rule.
 4.     Sec. 27.11, infra. See also Sec.Sec. 22.19, 22.20, supra, for 
comparable precedents which predate the three-day rule.
 5.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912b (1997).
 6.     Deschler's Procedure (93d Cong.), Ch. 33 Sec. 21.7.
 7.     See Sec. 27.10, infra.
 8.     118 CONG. REC. 36014, 36021-23, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 911]]

Thursday. Surely, this should give Members enough time to study the 
report.

Mr. Sisk then proposed and the House approved an amendment to the
resolution making its provisions effective immediately before noon, 
Jan. 3, 1973, after which the House adopted the resolution as so 
amended.
Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 1153 amended Rule XXVIII 
clause 2 (applying to conference reports) and added clause 2(b) 
(applying to amendments reported from a conference still in 
disagreement) to clarify the manner for calculating the three-day 
layover period that must precede the consideration of such reports. The 
original "three-day rule" was in effect a four-day rule, since pursuant 
thereto, a conference report became privileged for consideration three 
days after it and the accompanying statement had been printed in the 
daily edition of the Congressional Record. However, as a practical 
matter, the daily edition of the Record for a given day is not 
published until the next day. Hence, a report filed on Monday would be 
printed on Tuesday (in Monday's Record), and therefore would not be 
eligible for consideration until Friday. House Resolution 1153 took 
cognizance of this fact and specified that the three-day layover period 
would begin on the day of filing, and that consideration of the report 
would be in order only if the report and statement had been printed in 
the daily edition of the Congressional Record for the day on which such 
report had been filed.

Saturdays, Sundays, and Legal Holidays (Under Rule in Effect in 1974)

Sec.    27.2 Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are not count-ed in 
computing the three-day layover period after which conference reports 
become privileged for consideration.(9) 

On Tuesday, Oct. 17, 1972,(10) Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, called 
up the conference report on H.R. 16810 (providing for a temporary 
increase in the public debt limitation), which had been filed in the 
House the previous Saturday, Oct. 14.(11) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     See Rule XXVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1972).
10.     118 CONG. REC. 36938, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     Id. at p. 36520.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 912]]

MR. MILLS of Arkansas (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(12) The gentleman will state it.
MR. MILLS of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, is it true that this conference 
report not having laid over for 3 days cannot be called up except by 
unanimous consent?
THE SPEAKER: That is correct.
MR. MILLS of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my request for 
consideration of the conference report.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Arkansas withdraws his request for 
consideration of the conference report.

Consideration Prior to Expiration of Three Days

Sec.    27.3 Prior to the expiration of three calendar days (not 
including Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) from the filing of a 
conference report in total disagreement, the report and Senate 
amendment in disagreement may be considered by unanimous consent or 
under suspension of the rules on suspension days.

On June 29, 1973,(13) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [WILBUR D.] MILLS of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
for the immediate consideration of the conference report and the Senate 
amendment reported from the conference in disagreement on the bill 
(H.R. 8410) to continue the existing temporary increase in the public 
debt limit through November 1973, and for other purposes. . . . 
MR. [WILLIAM A.] STEIGER of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, may I propound a parliamentary inquiry?
THE SPEAKER:(14) The gentleman from Wisconsin may propound a 
parliamentary inquiry.
MR. STEIGER of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is 
this: that if an objection is heard to the request made by the 
gentleman from Arkansas, is it in order for the gentleman from 
Arkansas, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, to move to suspend the rules to bring this to the floor of the 
House?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the Chair has the authority to 
recognize the gentleman for such a motion.

Sec.    27.4 By unanimous consent, the consideration of a conference 
report was made in order during the following week on a day prior to 
the expiration of the three cal-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
13.     119 CONG. REC. 22381, 22382, 22384, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
14.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 913]]

endar days required by Rule XXVIII clause 2.(15) 
On June 24, 1971,(16) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, made the following 
request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the managers on the part of 
the House on the bill (H.R. 7016) making appropriations for the Office 
of Education and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1972, and for other purposes, may have until midnight Monday next to 
file the conference report and that it may be in order on Wednesday 
next to consider the conference report in the House.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(17) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.

Sec.    27.5 Resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules have 
provided for the consideration of conference reports prior to the 
expiration of three calendar days as required by Rule XXVIII clause 2.
(18) 

On Feb. 24, 1972,(19) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [JOHN A.] YOUNG of Texas: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 838 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. RES. 838
Resolved, That it shall be in order to consider a conference report on 
the bill (H.R. 12067) making appropriations for foreign assistance and 
related programs for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and for 
other purposes, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2, rule 
XXVIII.

THE SPEAKER:(20) The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. YOUNG of Texas: . . . Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 838 merely 
provides for consideration of the conference report on H.R. 12067, the 
foreign assistance and related programs appropriation bill, 1972, 
notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2, rule XXVIII, which is the 
so-called 3-day rule. . . . 
MR. YOUNG of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.(1) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
16.     117 CONG. REC. 21905, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Hale Boggs (La.).
18.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
19.     118 CONG. REC. 5495, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 1.     See also 118 CONG. REC. 29128, 29129, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 
18, 1972.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 914]]

Sec.    27.6 At the end of a session, the House often adopts a special 
order permitting the same day consideration of conference reports and 
amendments in disagreement, waiving the necessity for a three-day 
layover but retaining the requirement of two-hour availability.

The special order called up in the House on Sept. 29, 1976,(2) is 
illustrative of those often used to facilitate business as sine die 
adjournment approaches.

MR. [B. F.] SISK [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1582 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. RES. 1582
Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time during the remainder of 
this session to consider conference reports and amendments reported 
from conference in disagreement on the same day reported or any day 
thereafter notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2, rule XXVIII (but 
subject to the two-hour availability requirement of that clause).

THE SPEAKER:(3) The gentleman from California (Mr. Sisk) is recognized 
for 1 hour. . . . 
MR. SISK: . . . The Rules Committee decided to report three separate 
resolutions rather than one omnibus resolution to permit Members a 
separate vote on each of the questions.
House Resolution 1582 permits the same-day consideration of conference 
reports. It waives the provisions of clause 2, rule XXVIII, the 3-day 
layover rule. However, the 2-hour availability requirement of that 
clause, adopted by this Congress, is retained.

Consideration on Day After Filing

Sec.    27.7 By unanimous consent, the consideration of a conference 
report was made in order on the day after it was filed, notwithstanding 
the requirement of Rule XXVIII clause 2(4) that the conference report 
be printed in the Record three calendar days prior to its 
consideration.

On June 29, 1971,(5) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [GEORGE W.] ANDREWS of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the managers on the part 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     122 CONG. REC. 33518, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 4.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
 5.     117 CONG. REC. 22568-70, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 915]]

of the House may have until midnight tonight to file a conference 
report on the bill (H.R. 8825) making appropriations for the 
legislative branch for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and for 
other purposes.
THE SPEAKER:(6) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
There was no objection. . . . 
MR. ANDREWS of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it 
may be in order on tomorrow, June 30, 1971, to consider the conference 
report on the bill (H.R. 8825) making appropriations for the 
legislative branch for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and for 
other purposes.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama? . . . 
There was no objection.(7) 

Consideration Immediately After Filing

Sec.    27.8 Consideration of a conference report was, by unanimous 
consent, made in order at any time following the filing of the report.

On May 20, 1971,(8) the following occurred in the House regarding H.R. 
8190, the second supplemental appropriation bill for fiscal 1971:

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]: . . . My purpose is to ask unanimous 
consent that it may be in order at any time after the filing of the 
conference report on the second supplemental appropriation bill to call 
up the conference report for consideration. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(9) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
There was no objection.

Sec.    27.9 By unanimous consent, the House considered a conference 
report and Senate amendments in disagreement immediately following 
their submission to the House.

On June 30, 1973,(10) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, submitted the 
conference report and statement of the managers on House Joint 
Resolution 636, and immediately made the following request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of 
the conference report and of the Senate amendments reported from 
conference in disagreement on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 636), 
making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1974, and for 
other purposes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 7.     See also 116 CONG. REC. 24030, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 14, 1970.
 8.     117 CONG. REC. 16148, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 9.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
10.     119 CONG. REC. 22632, 22633, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 916]]

THE SPEAKER:(11) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
There was no objection.

Availability of Conference Report

Sec.    27.10 In the second session of the 94th Congress the House 
amended Rule XXVIII clause 2, to require that conference reports and 
amendments reported from conference in disagreement to be available to 
Members at least two hours prior to consideration, but permitting a 
waiver of this rule by a two-thirds vote. 

On Feb. 26, 1976, a resolution amending the rules of the House, 
reported from the Committee on Rules, was called up for consideration 
in the House.(12) The purpose of this rules change was to impose a two-
hour availability on bills reported from standing committees, on 
conference reports, and on amendments reported from conference in 
disagreement. The new rule also permitted the immediate consideration 
of a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules waiving this 
requirement but requiring a two-thirds vote for the  adoption of such a 
waiver. 
The resolution was reported with a committee amendment which was 
adopted. The text of the resolution, together with portions of the 
debate on the new rules, are carried herein.(13) 

MR. [CLAUDE D.] PEPPER [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 868 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. RES. 868
Resolved, That Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new clause:
"7. It shall not be in order to consider any report of a committee 
unless copies or reproductions of such report have been available to 
the Members on the floor for at least two hours before the beginning of 
such consideration. The provisions of this clause shall not be 
construed to supersede any other rule of the House requiring a longer 
period of time before such consideration is in order. The provisions of 
this clause shall not apply to any report of the Committee on Rules 
dealing with the consideration of a bill.".
SEC. 2. Rule XXII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new clause:
"7. It shall not be in order to consider any bill or resolution unless 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
12.     H. Res. 868. See 122 CONG. REC. 4625, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
13.     122 CONG. REC. 4625-27, 4629, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 26, 1976.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 917]]

copies or reproductions of such bill or resolution have been available 
to Members on the floor for at least two hours before the beginning of 
such consideration. The provisions of this clause shall not be 
construed to supersede any other rules of the House requiring a longer 
period of time before such consideration is in order. The provisions of 
this clause shall not apply to any resolution reported by the Committee 
on Rules dealing with the consideration of a bill.".
SEC. 3. Rule XXVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new clause:
"7. It shall not be in order to consider any report of a committee of 
conference unless copies or reproductions of such report have been 
available to Members on the floor for at least two hours before the 
beginning of such consideration. The provisions of this clause shall 
not be construed to supersede any other rules of the House requiring a 
longer period of time before such consideration is in order. The 
provisions of this clause shall not apply to any resolution or report 
of the Committee on Rules relating to any report of a committee of 
conference.".

With the following committee amendment:

Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu thereof:
That rule XI, clause 2(l)(6) of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by inserting after the first sentence the 
following: "Nor shall it be in order to consider any measure or matter 
reported by any committee (except the Committee on Rules in the case of 
a resolution making in order the consideration of a bill, resolution, 
or other order of business, or any other committee in the case of a 
privileged resolution), unless copies of such report and the reported 
measure or matter have been available to the Members for at least two 
hours before the beginning of such consideration; provided, however, 
that it shall always be in order to call up for consideration, 
notwithstanding the provisions of clause 4(b), rule XI, a report from 
the Committee on Rules specifically providing for the consideration of 
a reported measure or matter notwithstanding this restriction."
SEC. 2. The second sentence of rule XXVIII, clause 2(a) of the House      
of Representatives is amended by striking all after the word "state-
ment" and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "have been available 
to Members for at least two hours before the beginning of such 
consideration; provided, however, that it shall always be in order to 
call up for consideration, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 4
(b). Rule XI, a report from the Committee on Rules only making in order 
the consideration of a conference report notwithstanding this 
restriction."
SEC. 3. The second sentence of rule XXVIII, clause 2(b) of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives is amended by striking all after the 
second comma and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "have been 
available to Members for at least two hours before the beginning of 
such consideration; provided, however, that it shall always be in order 
to call up for consideration, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 
4(b), rule XI, a report from the Committee on Rules only making in 
order the consideration of such an amendment notwithstanding this 
restriction."
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.


[[Page 918]]

THE SPEAKER:(14) The gentleman will state it.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is to be considered in the 
House which would preclude an amendment from being offered by any 
Member.
THE SPEAKER: It is a rule that comes from the Committee on Rules. It is 
under the charge of the gentleman handling the resolution.
MR. BAUMAN: So unless the gentleman yields for the purpose of an 
amendment, none would be in order?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct. . . . 
MR. BAUMAN: If the gentleman would yield further, I would say that when 
we amended the rules the last time I seem to recall the resolution was 
considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole and all the 
Members had the right to offer amendments. What was the reason for 
precluding individuals from offering amendments today?
MR. PEPPER: This resolution comes out from the Rules Committee in the 
exercise of its jurisdiction relative to the rules of the House and it 
comes out as a closed rule and therefore I have no authority in 
handling the rule to yield to Members except for the purposes of 
debate. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the able gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Anderson), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 868, as amended by the Committee on 
Rules, proposes to amend two rules of the House in order to insure that 
Members have an adequate opportunity, no less than 2 hours, to review 
reported measures, conference reports, and Senate amendments in 
disagreement.
House Resolution 868, as reported, would amend rule XI, clause 2(l)(6), 
the 3-day layover rule, to provide that no measure or matter reported 
by any committee-except the Committee on Rules with respect to order of 
business resolutions, and other committees with respect to privileged 
resolutions-may be considered unless copies of the measure have been 
available for at least 2 hours prior to consideration. The requirements 
of rule XI, clause 2(l)(6) do not apply to measures for the declaration 
of war, the declaration of a national emergency by Congress, or to 
congressional actions with respect to executive decisions or 
determinations which would become or continue to be effective unless 
disapproved or otherwise invalidated by one or both Houses of Congress. 
The proposed 2-hour availability requirement would likewise not be 
applicable to the consideration of such measures.
House Resolution 868 also amends rule XXIII, clause 2 (a) and (b), 
relating to conference reports, to prohibit consideration both of 
conference reports and of any amendment of the Senate to any measure 
reported in disagreement, unless copies of the report and statement of 
the managers have been available for at least 2 hours prior to 
consideration.
The amendments to these rules contain a proviso which states that the 
2-hour requirement may be waived by the Committee on Rules and a 
resolution to that effect may be considered on the same day reported 
notwithstanding 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 919]]

rule XI, clause 4(b) prohibiting consideration of a resolution from 
rules on the same day reported unless so determined by a two-thirds 
vote. The requirement could also be dispensed with by unanimous consent 
or under suspension of the rules. . . . 
MR. [JOHN B.] ANDERSON of Illinois: . . . As the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Pepper) has already explained, the main purpose of these rules 
changes is to insure that Members will have advance access to written 
copies of bills, reports, and conference reports at least 2 hours 
before they are called up for consideration. . . . The only exceptions, 
in the case of bills, are if they are: brought up under unanimous 
consent, to which any Member may object; under suspension of the rules, 
which requires a two-thirds vote; through a waiver of the 3-day rule by 
the Committee on Rules, which must first be adopted by a majority vote; 
or through a blanket waiver of the 3-day rule applying to all bills 
brought up during a certain period of time, again which must first be 
adopted by a majority vote. Moreover, the House is doubly protected by 
clause 3 of rule XVI which reads, and I quote:

When any motion or proposition is made, the question, Will the House 
now consider it? shall not be put unless demanded by a Member. . . . 

In other words, Mr. Speaker, even if the House should adopt a special 
rule which waives the 3-day rule against a bill or conference report, 
any Member may still raise the question of consideration on the motion 
to resolve into the Committee of the Whole to consider the bill, and it 
takes a majority vote of the House to proceed with consideration.
The same situation applies with respect to the consideration of 
conference reports when the 3-day rule has been waived. Even though 
conference reports are highly privileged, the precedents are quite 
clear, and I quote:

The question of consideration may be demanded against a matter of the 
highest privilege.

The only apparent exceptions being veto messages and reports and orders 
of business out of the Committee on Rules. So again, any Member who is 
not satisfied that the conference report has been available for a 
sufficient amount of time prior to consideration, whether 2 hours or 1 
day, may force a vote on the question of consideration, and that 
conference report cannot be considered until a majority of the House 
votes to proceed with consideration.
MR. PEPPER: Mr. Speaker, I would just add this. The Committee on Rules 
had 4 days of hearings on this matter and concluded that, after fair 
consideration of the measure by the House, it should be adopted.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the committee amendment 
and the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the committee amendment.
The committee amendment was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


[[Page 920]]

MR. [WILLIAM A.] STEIGER of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I object to the 
vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of 
order that a quorum is not present.
THE SPEAKER: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 258, nays 
107, not voting 67. . . . 

Consideration on Same Day Reported for Remainder of Session

Sec.    27.11 A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules  made in 
order the consideration of conference reports on the same day reported 
during the remainder of the session of Congress.

On Dec. 9, 1971,(15) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. 
William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, to call up and explain House 
Resolution 729:

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House 
Resolution 729 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. RES. 729
Resolved, That during the remainder of the first session of the Ninety-
second Congress it shall be in order to consider conference reports the 
same day reported, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2, rule 
XXVIII.

MR. COLMER: . . . Mr. Speaker, I assure the Speaker and the Members of 
the House that I do not intend to use anything like the time that is 
permitted under the rule.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple resolution.
Under the rules of the House conference reports on bills must lay over, 
for a period of 3 days and be printed in the Record.
Now, under the standing rules of the House, for the last 6 days of the 
session, the House can take such action.
Mr. Speaker, since we are in the drive for adjournment and since no one 
can predict accurately when the 6 days begins, this is a simple 
resolution to expedite the consideration of the conference reports. 
Otherwise we would be forced to await the joint adoption of a sine die 
resolution before this waiver could become effective.(16) 

Immediate Consideration for Remainder of Week

Sec.    27.12 The House rejected a resolution reported from the Committee 
on Rules which would have provided for the immediate consideration of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     117 CONG. REC. 45873, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
16.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 921]]

conference reports for the remainder of that week.

On Aug. 16, 1972,(17) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [WILLIAM M.] COLMER [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1094 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 1094
Resolved, That during the remainder of this week it shall be in order 
to consider conference reports the same day reported, notwithstanding 
the provisions of clause 2, rule XXVIII.(18) . . . 

The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER:(19) The question is on the resolution. . . .
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 159, nays 223, not voting 
50. . . . 
So the resolution was rejected.