[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT]
[Â§ 28. Debating Reports]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 921-938]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT
 
Sec.    28. Debating Reports

Time for debate on a conference report is under the hour rule(20) and 
since 1971 has been divided between the majority and minority parties.
(1) An additional 40 minutes of debate has been allowed on each of 
several specified sections of a conference report which contained 
Senate amendments which were alleged to be nongermane to the House 
bill,(2) and this time was divided in each instance between a Member 
supporting the section at issue and a Member opposed thereto.(3) This 
procedure was expanded and included in the standing rules of the House 
pursuant to House Resolution 1153, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct. 13, 1972) 
and became effective immediately before noon on Jan. 3, 1973.(4) The 
hour of debate on a conference report may be divided three ways, with 
20 minutes allotted to a Member opposed, if both managers support the 
report.(5) The standing rules governing debate time can be abrogated or 
altered by special order.(6) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     118 CONG. REC. 28351-57, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
18.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
19.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
20.     Sec.Sec. 28.1, 28.2, infra.
 1.     Sec. 28.6, infra, especially footnote, and Sec. 28.8, infra.
 2.     Sec.Sec. 28.11-28.13, infra.
 3.     Sec.Sec. 28.11-28.13, infra, and Rule XXVIII clause 4(b), House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 913(b) (1997).
 4.     See Rule XXVIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(b) 
(1997).
 5.     See Sec.Sec. 28.7, 29.24, infra.
 6.     See Sec.Sec. 28.3, 28.13, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 922]]

Hour Rule

Sec.    28.1 Debate on conference reports and amendments in disagreement 
is under the hour rule.(7) 

On Mar. 16, 1942,(8) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, to call up the conference report on S. 
2208, the Second War Powers Bill of 1942. After the statement of the 
managers was read in lieu of the report, the following occurred:

MR. SUMNERS of Texas: Mr. Speaker, let me inquire in regard to the 
time. How much time is allowed for the entire disposition of the 
conference report, including amendment No. 32?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is entitled to 1 hour on the conference 
report. He can yield such time as he desires. Then, if he desires, an 
hour may be taken on each amendment in disagreement.

Extending Hour-rule Debate Time

Sec.    28.2 Debate on a conference report is under the hour rule, and 
the Speaker has indicated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, that 
such time could be extended by unanimous consent.(9) 

On June 8, 1972,(10) Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, called up the 
conference report on S. 659, the Higher Education Amendments of 1972. 
Before the Clerk began reading the report, the following occurred:

MR. PERKINS: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 1 additional 
hour of debate on the conference report be provided and that the time 
be equally divided between the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Quie), the 
ranking minority member, and me.
THE SPEAKER:(11) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Kentucky? . . . 
MR. [WILLIAM L.] CLAY [of Missouri]: I object, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Objection is heard.
MR. [ROMAN C.] PUCINSKI [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. PUCINSKI: Mr. Speaker, is it in order under the rules of the House
to 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 758 (1997) states, 
inter alia, that ". . . no Member shall occupy more than one hour in 
debate on any question in the House. . . ."
 8.     88 CONG. REC. 2502-04, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9.     But see Sec.Sec. 28.12, 28.14, infra.
10.     118 CONG. REC. 20278-80, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 923]]

move that an additional hour be afforded for this discussion?
THE SPEAKER: It requires unanimous consent.(12) 

Debate on Conference Report Under Special Order

Sec.    28.3 Where a special order providing for consideration of a 
conference report al-locates the debate time thereon, the provisions of 
Rule XXVIII, concerning the allocation of debate time to a Member 
opposed, no longer apply to the debate on that report. 

Where the House had adopted a special order providing for the 
consideration of the conference report on a concurrent resolution on 
the budget, which provided for two hours of debate "equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on the Budget," the normal allocation of time and the opportunity to 
gain one-third of the time for a Member opposed to the report, are 
abrogated. 
The rule and the ensuing debate and inquiries related thereto, as 
excerpted from the proceedings of Oct. 4, 1990,(13) are carried here. 
SETTING FORTH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR 
FISCAL YEARS 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, AND 1995
MR. [BUTLER] DERRICK [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 488 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 488
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 310) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States 
Government for the fiscal years 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995, and 
all points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration are hereby waived. The conference report shall be 
considered as having been read when called up for consideration. Debate 
on the conference report shall be limited to not more than 2 hours, to 
be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Budget.
SEC. 2. Following disposition of the conference report, on motion with 
respect to disposition of H. Con. Res. 310 shall be in order except 
pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.
SEC. 3. The allocations of spending and credit responsibility to the 
com-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     See also 115 CONG. REC. 40217, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 19, 
1969 and 88 CONG. REC. 2502-04, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 16, 1942.
13.     136 CONG. REC. 27590, 27599, 27600, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 924]]

mittees of the House, to be printed in the Congressional Record by the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget as soon as practicable, shall 
be considered to be the allocations required to be printed in the joint 
statement of managers on H. Con. Res. 310 pursuant to section 302(a) of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
SEC. 4. Rule XLIX shall not apply with respect to the adoption by the 
Congress of the conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 310). . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [BUD] SHUSTER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(14) The gentleman will state it.
MR. SHUSTER: Mr. Speaker, rule XXVIII provides that the time shall be 
divided between the proponents and the opponents of a report; however, 
it is my understanding that that rule has been waived.
Does that mean, therefore, that even though a large number, if not 
possible a majority of the Members of this House oppose this 
legislation, those in opposition will not be permitted to control any 
of the time?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under the rule, if adopted, the debate on the 
conference report will be controlled by the chairman representing the 
majority, and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Budget. They will be able to yield time to whomever they see fit.
MR. SHUSTER: So that means, Mr. Speaker, that those in opposition will 
not be able to control any of the time, is that my understanding?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is correct. They would not be able to 
control the time, but certainly could get time from either of the two 
gentlemen. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MS. [MARY ROSE] OAKAR [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentlewoman will state it.
MS. OAKAR: Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the manner in which the 
time is allocated? Is there any allocation? Is the time equally divided 
for those who are for the budget resolution and those who are opposed?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will announce that under House 
Resolution 488 the time is controlled, 1 hour by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Panetta], and 1 hour for the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Frenzel].
MS. OAKAR: Mr. Speaker, that did not answer my question, though.
I merely want to inquire whether there is an equal division of time for 
those who are for the budget resolution and those who have a different 
opinion of it.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The rule provides that one-half of the time 
will be allocated to the gentleman from California [Mr. Panetta], and 
one-half will be allocated to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Frenzel]. They will be able to yield time.

Following Adoption of Conference Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     John P. Murtha (Pa.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 925]]

Sec.    28.4 The House granted unanimous consent to permit 40 minutes of 
debate on a conference report which had just been adopted without 
debate, and to include the debate in the Record preceding the adoption 
of the report.

On May 22, 1968,(15) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, called up the 
conference report on S. 5, the Consumer Credit Protection Act, and 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, immediately put the 
question thereon. The report was agreed to, and a motion to reconsider 
laid on the table. Mr. Patman then obtained unanimous consent that all 
Members might have five legislative days in which to extend their 
remarks regarding the conference report. After a call of the House and 
the granting of a unanimous-consent request concerning another matter, 
the following occurred:

MR. [WILLIAM T.] CAHILL [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend my 
remarks, and to include extraneous matter.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
MR. CAHILL: Mr. Speaker, it may come to you as it did to me as a great 
surprise to learn that the conference report on the very important 
truth-in-lending bill has passed the House. . . . 
MR. GERALD R. FORD [of Michigan]: . . . It is my understanding from 
what I have heard from others that the chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from Texas, did not ask for time at the time he brought the 
matter to the floor of the House, and it is our feeling that by his 
failure to ask for time-and he is the only one who can officially ask 
for such time-that Members on our side, and I suspect others, were 
deprived of an opportunity to discuss in person the very important 
legislation which went through the House in a matter of seconds. I 
regret that this unfortunately took place. . . .
I think it would be helpful if the record were full and complete for 
the benefit of those individuals who have to interpret what the 
Congress intended in some of these very difficult areas. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: . . . [T]he gentleman from Texas called up the conference 
report and had asked that the statement of the managers on the part of 
the House be read and after the Clerk had proceeded to read the 
statement, the gentleman from Texas asked unanimous consent that the 
further reading of the statement of the managers on the part of the 
House be dispensed with and that it be placed in the Record.
The gentleman from Texas was standing and the Chair rose and said-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     114 CONG. REC. 14375-98, 14402-05, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 926]]

"The question is on agreeing to the conference report." The Chair did 
it deliberately-and the report was agreed to. The Chair acted most 
deliberately. . . . 

After objection was heard to a unanimous-consent request to vacate the 
proceedings by which the conference report was adopted, the Speaker 
recognized Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma:

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

Sec.    28.5 An agreement to permit discussion of a conference report, 
even though the report had already been agreed to, and to insert the 
debate in the Record preceding that point where the conference report 
was agreed to, does not reopen the report to permit the making of any 
motions, such as the motion to recommit, the adoption of which would 
alter the prior action of the House in agreeing to the report.

On May 22, 1968,(16) after a controversy arose concerning the adoption 
without debate of the conference report on S. 5, the Consumer Credit 
Protection Act, Majority Leader Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, made the 
following request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 40 minutes of debate may be 
had on this matter, to be equally divided between the gentleman from 
Texas and the gentleman from New Jersey, and that it appear in the 
Record prior to the adoption of the conference report.
THE SPEAKER:(17) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Oklahoma? . . . 
MR. [RICHARD H.] POFF [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right 
to object.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Virginia reserves the right to object.
MR. POFF: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object in order to 
propound a question to the distinguished majority leader. In the event 
the House agrees to the request of the gentleman, would the minority 
maintain the right under the rules of the House to offer motions to 
recommit if it were so disposed?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     114 CONG. REC. 14398-14405, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
17.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 927]]

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman ought to address his question to the Chair. 
That question should be addressed to the Chair, and, assuming that the 
gentleman did address the Chair, the Chair will state that point has 
gone by, and a motion to recommit under those circumstances would not 
be in order.
MR. POFF: . . . Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.

Division of Time

Sec.    28.6 One hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and 
minority parties, is permitted on a conference report; and where 
conferees have been appointed from two committees of the House, the 
Speaker recognizes one of the minority members (not necessarily a 
member of the same committee as the Member controlling the majority 
time) to control 30 minutes of debate.(18) 

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

MR. [WAYNE L.] HAYS [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference 
report on the bill (S. 382) to promote fair practices in the conduct of 
election campaigns for Federal political offices, and for other 
purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the managers 
be read in lieu of the report. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the gentleman on the other side, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Springer) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine) 
will use some time. . . . 
MR. [WILLIAM L.] SPRINGER: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. . . . 
MR. [SAMUEL L.] DEVINE: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(20) The gentleman will state it.
MR. DEVINE: Mr. Speaker, how is the time allocated, and how much time 
is left?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair assumes the gentleman was using time from the 30 
minutes allocated to his side.
MR. DEVINE: Does the 30 minutes represent the time of both committees, 
the Committee on House Administra-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     Prior to 1971 all debate on conference reports was controlled by 
the Member calling up the report. However, the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1140, Pub. L. No. 91-510, Sec. 125
(b)(2) (Oct. 26, 1970), amended Rule XXVIII clause 2(a), House Rules 
and Manual Sec. 912a (1997), to provide that the time for debate on 
conference reports be equally divided between the majority and minority 
parties.
19.     118 CONG. REC. 319, 320, 324, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 928]]

tion and the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce?
THE SPEAKER: The total time allowable is 1 hour, 30 minutes to each 
side.

Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Springer, the ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, who had resigned as a 
conferee, nevertheless controlled 30 minutes for the minority party, 
although Mr. Devine, the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
House Administration was on the floor and participated in the debate.

Member Signing Conference Report Presumed To Be in Favor

Sec.    28.7 Where the Chair is dividing the hour's debate on a 
conference report among three Members, one third of the time having 
been claimed by a Member opposed under Rule XXVIII clause 2(a), the 
Chair may assume that one of the party managers who is temporarily not 
on the floor would want time in favor of the report if his signature 
appears thereon.

On Oct. 12, 1995,(1) the conference report on H.R. 1976, the 
Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996, was called up for 
consideration. One Member demanded time in opposition and the Chair 
proceeded to allot the time in 20-minute segments as provided in the 
cited rule.(2) 
The proceedings were as indicated below.

MR. [JOSEPH R.] SKEEN [of New Mexico]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the 
rule just adopted, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 
1976) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
GENERAL LEAVE
MR. SKEEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
that I be permitted to include tables, charts, and other extraneous 
material.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(3) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     141 CONG. REC. 27795, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
 3.     Steven C. LaTourette (Ohio).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 929]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to the rule, the conference report is 
considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 28, 1995, at page H9628.)
MR. [DAVID R.] OBEY [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding 
that since the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] is in support of 
the conference report as it now stands, as is the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin], the ranking Democratic member on the 
subcommittee, that the rule provides that the time be allocated with at 
least one-third being given to a Member who is at this point opposed to 
the proposal. Given that rule, I would ask that one-third of the time 
be assigned to me.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Since the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] 
does not appear to be present, the Chair is going to assume that the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] is in favor of the conference 
report because he signed it. Therefore, pursuant to the rule, the time 
will be allocated 20 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Skeen], 20 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], and 20 
minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Who May Control

Sec.    28.8 Debate on a conference report is equally divided between the 
majority and minority parties; and while   the Members controlling the 
time for such debate on the floor are normally among those who served 
as House managers at the conference, this is not invariably the case.

On Jan. 19, 1972,(4) Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, Chairman of the Committee 
on House Administration, called up the conference report on S. 382:
Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill (S. 382) to 
promote fair practices in the conduct of election campaigns for Federal 
political offices, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent 
that the statement of the managers be read in lieu of the report. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Springer) and 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine) will use some time. . . . 
After Mr. Hays used his allotted time, Speaker Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, recognized William L. Springer, ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to control 30 minutes 
of debate.
MR. SPRINGER: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     118 CONG. REC. 319, 320, 324, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 930]]

Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Springer had resigned as a conferee.

Recognition To Control Debate in Opposition to Conference Report

Sec.    28.9 It is within the discretion of the Speaker as to whom he 
will recognize to control 20 minutes in opposition to a conference 
report, where both the managers are in favor thereof, and such 
recognition does not depend on party affiliation. 

On Dec. 16, 1985,(5) the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, 
Jamie L. Whitten, of  Mississippi, called up the conference report on 
the continuing appropriation bill for fiscal year 1986, House Joint 
Resolution 465. Inquiries followed about which Member would be entitled 
to control one-third of the time in opposition.

MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
I call up the conference report on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 465) 
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1986, and 
for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [JAMES M.] JEFFORDS [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. JEFFORDS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Chair as to whether or not 
there is a rule on this particular resolution.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: This conference report is being considered 
pursuant to the unanimous-consent request granted earlier today, which 
the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Whitten asked unanimous consent that it shall be in order, any rule 
of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, at any time on Monday, 
December 16, or any day thereafter, to consider the conference report 
and amendments in disagreement and motions to dispose of said 
amendments on House Joint Resolution 465 subject to the availability of 
said conference report and motions to dispose of amendments in 
disagreement for at least 1 hour, that all points of order be waived 
against the conference report and amendments in disagreement and 
motions to dispose of said amendments, and that said conference report 
and amendments in disagreement be considered as having been read when 
called up for consideration.

MR. JEFFORDS: Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     131 CONG. REC. 36716, 36717, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6.     Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 931]]

If I had a point of order, in that a legislative matter was contained 
herein that would make permanent the temporary law denying States their 
highway funds if they refused to raise their drinking age to 21, under 
this rule is that point of order now waived?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: All points of order were waived, pursuant to 
the unanimous-consent request.
MR. JEFFORDS: I thank the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a terrible process and a terrible thing 
for the young people of this country to be treated in this manner.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Conte] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
MR. [BARNEY] FRANK [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] opposed to the bill?
MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts]: No. I signed the conference 
report.
MR. FRANK: Mr. Speaker, I ask for 20 minutes recognition in opposition 
because the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] is for the bill.
MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for 20 
minutes, under the rule.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair can hear only one Member at a time. 
Members will speak in order after they are recognized.
MR. FRANK: Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman from Massachusetts is for 
the bill, under the rule I ask for the 20 minutes to be allotted to a 
Member in opposition, when both the chairman and the ranking minority 
Member are in support of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman has that right.
The time will be divided in this fashion: The gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] will be recognized for 20 minutes; the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] will be recognized for 20 
minutes; and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, the minority has just been effectively frozen 
out of controlling any of the time, when I was seeking recognition to 
take the 20 minutes. The Chair has denied, then, the minority the 
opportunity to control our portion of the time.
Can the Chair explain why Members on this side were not recognized? I, 
too, am opposed to the bill and should have been entitled to the 20 
minutes.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will state that recognition of one 
Member who is opposed is in the Speaker's discretion, and the Speaker 
tries always to be fair.
The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] may yield time as he 
wishes.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
Under the procedure, we now have a bill that has been brought to us in 
this form, and the minority has been totally denied any time under this 
procedure 


[[Page 932]]

to debate this particular resolution because the Chair recognized two 
Members on the other side of the aisle to control all of the time. . . 
. 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: . . . The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Conte], on the minority side, will be recognized for 20 minutes; the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], who is opposed, will be 
recognized for 20 minutes; and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
Whitten] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The procedure under which we are proceeding was agreed upon earlier 
today, and the Chair will be guided by the will of the House, which was 
stated earlier today.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten].

Subsequent Yielding of Time

Sec.    28.10 It is contrary to the usual practice for a Member in charge 
of a conference report to yield time to other Members to be in turn 
yielded by them.

On July 27, 1939,(7) the House was considering the conference report on 
H.R. 6984, relating to construction charges on federal reclamation 
projects. The following occurred:

MR. [COMPTON I.] WHITE of Idaho: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Hawks] 5 minutes.
MR. [CHARLES] HAWKS [Jr.]: I would like to have 20 minutes for the rest 
of the committee.
MR. WHITE of Idaho: I will give the gentleman 20 minutes if he will 
allocate it on his side.
THE SPEAKER:(8) It is contrary to the usual practice for the chairman 
of a conference to yield time to other Members to be in turn yielded by 
them. The gentleman may yield such times as he desires to individual 
Members.
MR. WHITE of Idaho: Then I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker, and I yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Hawks].

Debate After Demand for Separate Vote on Specified Section

Sec.    28.11 Where a Member demanded a separate vote on a section of a 
conference report pursuant to a special rule permitting such procedure, 
that Member (who was opposed to the section) and the Member calling up 
the conference report were each recognized for 20 minutes of debate.

On Nov. 10, 1971,(9) the House adopted House Resolution 696, which 
provided for the considera-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     84 CONG. REC. 10220, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
 9.     117 CONG. REC. 40479, 40483, 40489, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 933]]

tion of the conference report on H.R. 8687, military procurement 
authorizations, fiscal 1972. F. Edward Hï¿½bert, of Louisiana, Chairman 
of the Committee on Armed Services, called up the report and obtained 
consent of the House that the statement of the managers be read in lieu 
of the report. In response to another request by Mr. Hï¿½bert, the House 
dispensed with the further reading of the statement, and the following 
occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(10) House Resolution 696 provides that a separate vote may 
be demanded on those individual parts of the conference report numbered 
as sections 503, 505, and 601.
Is a separate vote demanded on any of these sections?
MR. [DONALD M.] FRASER [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the 
rule adopted, and pursuant to clause 1, rule XX, I demand a separate 
vote on section 503.
THE SPEAKER: Is a separate vote demanded on any other amendment? The 
Chair hears none.

Under clause 1 of rule XX(11) 40 minutes of debate are permitted before 
a separate vote is taken on a nongermane Senate amendment, one-half of 
such time in favor of, and one-half in opposition to the amendment.
Pursuant to that rule, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Hï¿½bert) will 
be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Fraser) will be recognized for 20 minutes.

Additional Debate on Specified Section

Sec.    28.12 When a pending resolution made in order demands for 
separate votes on three designated sections of a Senate amendment in 
the nature of a substitute which were not germane to the House bill and 
had been included in a conference report, the Speaker indicated that 
the 40 minutes of debate allowable on each nongermane Senate amendment 
could be further limited only by the two Members controlling the time.

On Nov. 10, 1971,(12) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, called up House 
Resolution 696, providing for the consideration of the conference 
report on H.R. 8687, military 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
11.     The provisions of Rule XX clause 1, upon which Mr. Fraser relied 
in the 92d Congress were contained in the House Rules and Manual Sec. 
827 (1971). The comparable provisions were transferred in the 93d 
Congress to Rule XXVIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(b) 
(1997).
12.     117 CONG. REC. 40479-82, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 934]]

procurement authorizations, fiscal 1972. The resolution provided, inter 
alia, that

It shall also be in order, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XX,(13) for a 
separate vote to be had upon demand on those individual parts of the 
Senate amendment now contained in the conference report and numbered as 
sections 503, 505, and 601. . . . 

During debate on the resolution, Mr. Charles M. Teague, of California, 
posed two parliamentary inquiries.

MR. TEAGUE of California: As I understand, the rule(14) would make 
three nongermane amendments in order for debate with 40 minutes of time 
given to each. I address this question to the Chair: Under the rule 
could the time be shortened by unanimous consent or by motion?
THE SPEAKER:(15) The Members in charge of debate could use or not use 
the time as they see fit.
MR. TEAGUE of California: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. TEAGUE of California: Since the rule provides 40 minutes on each of 
the nongermane amendments, under the circumstances of each amendment, 
would the amendment be subject to a limitation of debate?
THE SPEAKER: No, except by those Members who have charge of the time.

Sec.    28.13 The House agreed to the language of a section of a 
conference report under a special rule permitting such procedure 
following 40 minutes of debate, and then considered the entire 
conference report, the Member calling up the report and a member of the 
minority party each being recognized for 30 minutes under Rule XXVIII 
clause 2.(16) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     The provisions of Rule XX clause 1 referred to in the resolution 
provided that, on demand of any Member, 40 minutes of debate and a 
separate vote were in order on any Senate amendment which would have 
been nongermane if offered in the House as an amendment to the House 
bill. In the 92d Congress these provisions were contained in the House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1971). The comparable provisions were 
transferred in the 93d Congress to Rule XXVIII clause 4, House Rules 
and Manual Sec. 913(b) (1997).
14.     The "rule" referred to here was H. Res. 696, the "special rule" 
for the consideration of H.R. 8687. The procedure set out in this 
special rule was in accordance with the purpose of House Rule XX clause 
1.
15.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
16.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 935]]

On Nov. 10, 1971,(17) the House adopted House Resolution 696, providing 
for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 8687, Military 
Procurement Authorizations, fiscal 1972. After F. Edward Hï¿½bert, of 
Louisiana, the Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, called up 
the conference report, and after the House dispensed with the reading 
of the statement of the managers, Mr. Donald M. Fraser, of Minnesota, 
pursuant to House Resolution 696 and Rule XX clause 1,(18) demanded a 
separate vote on Sec. 503 of the report. After 40 minutes of debate on 
this section, with the time divided between Mr. Hï¿½bert and Mr. Fraser, 
the following occurred:

MR. Hï¿½BERT: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.(19) 
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER:(20) The question is, Will the House agree to the language 
contained in section 503 of the conference report? . . . 
The House divided, and the tellers reported that there were-ayes 251, 
noes 100, not voting 80. . . . 
So the House agreed to the language contained in section 503 of the 
conference report.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Hï¿½bert) will be 
recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Arends) 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.

Length of Debate on Budget Resolution Reported in Disagreement From 
Conference

Sec.    28.14 Where conferees on a concurrent resolution on the budget 
report in total disagreement, the five hour statutory period for debate 
specified in the Congressional Budget Act does not apply; and a motion 
to concur in a Senate amendment to a House amendment is debated under 
the hour rule. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     117 CONG. REC. 40483, 40489, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     The provisions of Rule XX clause 1, upon which Mr. Fraser relied 
in the 92d Congress were contained in the House Rules and Manual Sec. 
827 (1971). The comparable provisions were transferred in the 93d 
Congress to Rule XXVIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(b) 
(1997).
19.     Parliamentarian's Note: The motion for the previous question was 
technically not in order at this point, since 20 minutes of debate were 
permitted to each side under Rule XX clause 1, and because nothing 
could have been accomplished by voting down the previous question 
(amendments and further debate would not be in order).
20.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 936]]

Section 305(a)(4) of the Congressional Budget Act provides for not more 
than five hours of debate in the House on a conference report on a 
concurrent resolution on the budget; but since under House rules, a 
report in total disagreement is called up and read but not acted on, 
the statutory time does not apply, and an amendment in disagreement is 
debated under the general rules of the House. 
The conferees on S. Con. Res. 80, the First Concurrent Resolution on 
the Budget for fiscal year 1979, was reported in technical but complete 
disagreement because the compromise reached by the managers included 
aggregate figures beyond those proposed in the Senate resolution or the 
House amendment.
The conference report, filed in the House on May 15, 1978,(1) is 
carried, in part, below:
CONFERENCE REPORT ON SENATE CONCURRENT RESOON 80
Mr. Giaimo submitted the following conference report and statement on 
the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 80) setting forth the 
congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal year 1979:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 95-1173)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the House to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. 
Res. 80) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States 
Government for the fiscal year 1979, having met, after full and free 
conference have been unable to agree on a conference report because the 
conference decisions have reduced certain budget figures, including the 
deficit and the public debt, below the provisions enacted by either 
House. As set forth in the accompanying Joint Explanatory Statement, 
the conferees do propose a congressional budget, containing the lower 
figures, incorporated in a further amendment for the consideration of 
the two Houses.
ROBERT N. GIAIMO,
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN,
BUTLER DERRICK,
WILLIAM LEHMAN,
PAUL SIMON,
JOSEPH L. FISHER,
JIM MATTOX. . . . 

The House proceedings of May 17, 1978,(2) when the report was called 
up, are carried here.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 80, FIRST CONCURRENT 
RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1979
MR. [ROBERT N.] GIAIMO [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 80)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     124 CONG. REC. 13615, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     124 CONG. REC. 14116, 14117, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 937]]

setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the 
fiscal year 1979, and ask for its immediate consideration.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(3) The Clerk will read the conference report.
The Clerk read the conference report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the Senate amendment to 
the House amendment.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment, as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House engrossed 
amendment, insert:
That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to section 
301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that for the fiscal 
year beginning on October 1, 1978 . . . .

MR. GIAIMO (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate amendment to the House amendment be considered as read 
and printed in the Record.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Connecticut?
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, could the gentleman tell us in what parliamentary form this 
budget comes before us? Are we dealing with a conference report or a 
motion to agree to the Senate amendment with an amendment?
MR. GIAIMO: We are in technical disagreement on the conference report, 
because of the questions of scope, both as to the aggregates and as to 
the functional categories.
We have before us an amendment to the House amendment to the original 
Senate resolution. The amendment to the House amendment is the 
substitute amendment which was agreed upon in conference by the 
conferees.
It is our intention to move to concur in the Senate amendment to the 
House amendment. . . . 
MR. [BARBER B.] CONABLE [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, does this 
result in us not having the statutory period of time to debate the 
conference report?
MR. BAUMAN: The full 5 hours the Budget Act allows.
MR. GIAIMO: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, not 5 hours, we 
have 1 hour, as I understand the parliamentary situation.
MR. CONABLE: Why is it brought up in this way, Mr. Chairman?
MR. GIAIMO: As I understand the rules, this is the only way it can be 
brought up and it has been done in this way in the past.
MR. CONABLE: Why do we have the 5-hour rule statutorily, if it has been 
brought up under a 1-hour rule in the past?
MR. GIAIMO: The 5-hour rule provides where the conference report is not 
in technical disagreement, because of questions of scope. . . . 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. GIAIMO
MR. GIAIMO: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 938]]

Mr. Giaimo moves that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the 
House amendment.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The    gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. GIAIMO: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Latta), for the purposes of debate only, pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.