[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 331-347]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
        A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    1. In General


[[Page 331]]

This chapter examines House-Senate conferences, the procedures by which 
the two Houses arrive at conference, the appointment and instruction of 
the conference managers (conferees), and the contents and consideration 
of conference reports.(1) The reader is urged to consult chapter 32, 
supra, for a discussion of messages between the Houses and the various 
motions for the disposal of amendments between the Houses.
All matters in disagreement between the two Houses must be resolved 
before a bill can proceed to enrollment and presentation to the 
President. Both Houses must agree to the same text, no matter how 
trivial the discrepancy.(2) 
Differences between the two Houses which are unresolved through the 
regular exchange of amendments between the Houses may be reconciled at 
a conference to which both send managers (conferees).(3) Although 
conferences are usually asked on disagreements concerning legislative 
amendments, they may be sought on any matter on which a difference of 
opinion exists between the Houses.(4) Matters brought to conference 
have included differences over an amendment to a proposed amendment to 
the Con-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     For comparable precedents that occurred prior to 1935, consult 5 
Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 6254-6589, 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 
1571-1578, and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 3209-3332.
 2.     See  Sec.Sec. 1.4, 1.5, infra.
 3.     The words "managers" and "conferees" will be used 
interchangeably here, although a technical distinction may be drawn. 
Thus the word managers refers to the representatives of either the 
House or Senate and applies to them severally in their capacity as 
agents of their respective Houses. The term conferees refers to the 
managers on the part of both Houses acting jointly at a conference.
 4.     House Rules and Manual, Jefferson's Manual Sec. 530 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 332]]
stitution(5) as well as differences regarding the respective 
prerogatives of the two Houses.(6) In one instance a conference was 
held concerning the instructions to House conferees at an existing 
conference.(7) In another instance a conference was held on the issue 
of the proper procedure in an impeachment proceeding.(8) 
A conference may be requested only by the House that possesses the 
official papers;(9) and although in the past the House which disagreed 
to the amendments of the other usually left it to the other House to 
request a conference,(10) an accepted practice in recent years has been 
for the disagreeing House to request the conference.
The House that requests a conference does so by messaging such request, 
together with the official papers, to the other House. The House 
agreeing to conference likewise conveys this response and the papers by 
message to the requesting House. The managers on the part of the 
requesting House then bring the papers to conference. At the close of a 
successful conference the papers change hands and the managers on the 
part of the agreeing House take the papers(11) and this House acts 
first on the conference report.(12) Where there is one amendment in 
disagreement between the Houses, that is the only matter in conference. 
Where there are multiple amendments to be reconciled, the conferees may 
reach agreement on some-and state their compromise in a conference 
report. If they reconcile their differences on some, but not all, they 
may file a report encompassing those on which they 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 530 (1997); and 5 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec. 7037.
 6.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 531 (1997); and 2 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec.Sec. 1485, 1487, 1488, 1491, 1495.
 7.     5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6401.
 8.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 531 (1997); and 3 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec. 2304. 
 9.     See Sec. 1.1, infra. The official papers consist of the engrossed 
copy of the bill attested by either the Clerk of the House or the 
Secretary of the Senate, all engrossed amendments, all special acts 
concurring in amendments with amendments, all messages transmitting the 
foregoing between the Houses (all similarly attested), and finally the 
conference report and joint statement signed by the managers on the 
part of both Houses.
10.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 533 (1997); and 5 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec.Sec. 6278-6285.
11.     See Sec. 24.3, infra.
12.     See Sec.Sec. 24.3, 24.5, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 333]]

agree and report to 
their respective Houses that they remain in disagreement on others. 
When this happens, the House acts first on the "partial" conference 
report and then addresses separately, by motion, those that yet require 
reconciliation amendments. When a conference ends in total disagreement 
the papers do not change hands, but remain with the managers of the 
House that requested the conference, and that House therefore acts 
first on the amendments in disagreement.(13) 
Conferences are but one means to the desired end of bringing the two 
Houses into agreement on a particular matter. When a disagreement 
ceases to exist, a conference becomes unnecessary. Thus, where one 
House had requested a conference to which the second House had agreed, 
and the requesting House receded from its position before the 
conference could occur, such action passed the bill and allowed its 
enrollment and transmission to the President.(14) 
On rare occasions requests for conferences have been denied.(15) 
Sometimes one House will reject a request for a conference, and recede 
from its disagreement or from the amendment causing the disagreement, 
thereby rendering such conference unnecessary.(16) 
Prior to the 89th Congress motions to request or agree to a conference 
were not privileged in the House before the stage of disagreement had 
been reached between the two Houses.(17) However, in 1965, the rules of 
the House were amended to expedite the process whereby legislation 
could be sent to conference.(18) Rule XX clause 1, now gives the 
Speaker discretion to recognize a Member at any time(19) to offer a 
motion to disagree to Senate amendments and request or agree to a 
conference, or to insist on House amendments and request or agree to a 
conference, if such motion is authorized by the commit-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     See Sec. 24.13, infra.
14.     5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6319.
15.     See Sec. 1.10, infra; and 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 6313-6315.
16.     See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 6316-6318.
17.     The "stage of disagreement" is reached when one House informs the 
other of its disagreement concerning a particular matter. See 6 
Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 756, 757.
18.     Rule XX clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec.Sec. 827, 828 
(1997), as amended by H. Res. 8, 111 CONG. REC. 21, 89th Cong. 1st 
Sess., Jan. 4, 1965. See Sec. 2.1, infra.
19.     See Sec.Sec. 3.2, 3.3, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 334]]

tee (or 
committees) having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the bill or 
resolution at issue. Thus, it is no longer necessary for the two Houses 
to reach a formal stage of disagreement before such motion for 
conferences becomes privileged. Before this change in the rules, bills 
and resolutions were usually sent to conference by unanimous consent,
(20) pursuant to resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules,(1) 
or by motions to suspend the rules.(2) 

Possession of Official Papers as Basis for Request

Sec.    1.1 A conference may be requested only by the House in possession 
of the papers.

On Sept. 1, 1960,(3) Senator John J. Williams, of Delaware, alluded to 
reports in the press that attempts would be made in the House to block 
consideration of Senate amendments to H.R. 13062, to amend the Sugar 
Act of 1948. He then posed this parliamentary inquiry:
Under the rules, in the present situation, could the Senate request a 
conference at this moment if it wished?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(4) In the absence of the papers being before the 
Senate, there would be no power in the Senate to request a conference. 
For the Senate to have the power to act, the papers would have to be 
before the Senate.

Replacing Lost Official Papers

Sec.    1.2 Where the official papers are lost or destroyed, the House 
and Senate can authorize their recreation by the Clerk of the House and 
Secretary of the Senate.

The concurrent resolution carried here was considered by unanimous 
consent, adopted by the House (and later by the Senate); it authorized 
the preparation of duplicate original "official papers" where the 
original ones had been misplaced in the Senate.(5) 
MR. [NORMAN Y.] MINETA [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent for the immediate consideration of the concurrent resolution 
(H. Con. Res. 414) directing the preparation of duplicate conference 
papers on H.R. 5930.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     See generally Sec.Sec. 2.36-2.39, infra.
 1.     See generally Sec.Sec. 2.29-2.33, infra.
 2.     See Sec.Sec. 2.34, 2.35, infra.
 3.     106 CONG. REC. 18980, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. See Sec. 3.1, infra.
 4.     Gale W. McGee (Wyo.).
 5.     128 CONG. REC. 26058, 97th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 29, 1982.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 335]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
MR. [ELLIOTT H.] LEVITAS [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, I do so for the purpose of asking the gentleman from 
California if he would explain the effect of the concurrent resolution.
MR. MINETA: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. LEVITAS: I yield to the gentleman from California.
MR. MINETA: Mr. Speaker, this concurrent resolution merely recreates 
papers which apparently have been lost. It does not approve or 
constitute approval of the conference report.
I expect the bring that conference report before the House tomorrow.
MR. LEVITAS: Further reserving the right to object, and I will not 
object, I wanted to make certain that it did not constitute approval of 
the conference report by the adoption of the concurrent resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. CON. RES. 414
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That 
the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives are authorized and directed to prepare and sign 
official duplicates of the conference papers on the bill (H.R. 5930) to 
extend the aviation insurance program for five years.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Amendments Remaining in Disagreement After Adoption of Conference 
Report

Sec.    1.3 Where both Houses have adopted a conference report on a bill 
and amendments thereto, but certain amendments are still in 
disagreement between them, a further conference may be asked on the 
remaining amendments.

On Sept. 24, 1962,(7) Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, asked unanimous 
consent that the House agree to a further conference requested by the 
Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 
the bill (H.R. 12711) making appropriations for sundry independent 
executive bureaus, boards, commissions, corporations, agencies, and 
offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, and for other 
purposes, further insist on disagreement to the Senate amendments and 
agree to the further conference asked by the Senate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------  
 6.     John P. Murtha, Jr. (Pa.).
 7.     108 CONG. REC. 20489, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 336]]

May I explain that the other body adopted all of the conference report 
on the independent offices appropriation bill except three items, and 
we are asking unanimous consent to go back to conference on those three 
items.

The Speaker, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, hearing no objection 
to the unanimous-consent request, appointed five House conferees.

All Matters in Disagreement Must Be Reconciled Before Bill Can Become 
Law

Sec.    1.4 Pending a motion in the Senate to recede from its one 
amendment remaining in disagreement with the House following adoption 
of the conference report in both Houses and disposition of all other 
amendments, the Presiding Officer stated: (1) that if the motion were 
rejected, a motion to further insist upon the amendment and to request 
a further conference  on that one amendment would be in order; but (2) 
that action on the entire bill would remain incomplete and the bill 
could not proceed to enrollment until the remaining amendment in  
disagreement was resolved. 

Before a bill can be presented to the President as an enactment, both 
Houses must agree to the same text and must, through the amendment 
process and conference procedures, reach concurrence on each item 
therein.(8) 
On May 22, 1975,(9) H.R. 5899, supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
year 1975, which had been sent to conference with 58 amendments in 
disagreement, was again on the Senate floor, the House having messaged 
to the Senate its insistence on disagreement to one remaining Senate 
amendment which had not been reconciled. When a motion in the Senate to 
recede from that last Senate amendment was offered, the following 
inquiry was directed to the Chair:

MR. [JOHN L.] MCCLELLAN [of Arkansas]: Mr. President, I move that the 
Senate recede from its amendment No. 107.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(10) First, the Chair will lay before the Senate 
the House amendment in disagreement to Senate amendment No. 107, which 
the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 6233-6240. 
 9.     121 CONG. REC. 16127-29, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     Theodore F. Stevens (Alaska).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 337]]

The House insists on its disagreement to Amendment No. 107.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The question is on agreeing to the motion of the 
Senator from Arkansas. . . .
MR. [JACOB K.] JAVITS [of New York]: Mr. President, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator will state it.
MR. JAVITS: If the motion is rejected, will a motion to refuse to 
recede and to request the conferees to return to conference be in 
order?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: A motion to insist and ask for a further 
conference would then be in order.
MR. JAVITS: I thank my colleague.
Have the conferees been discharged by the Senate?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The conferees have been discharged in the House 
and a new conference would have to be appointed. The conference would 
be on one issue.
MR. JAVITS: I thank the Chair. . . .  
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Does the Chair understand the inquiry is whether 
or not the bill will be delayed until the one item that is in 
conference is determined? Is that the inquiry?
MR. MCCLELLAN: State the parliamentary inquiry.
MR. [JAMES B.] ALLEN [of Alabama]: I asked the question, though I think 
it is pretty well known, since at this stage of the proceeding both 
Houses have agreed to more than $14 billion in appropriations, if the 
motion made by the Senator from Arkansas that the Senate recede from 
its amendment does not carry, then these $14 billion in appropriations 
will, at least for the time, fall. Is that correct?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The action on the bill would not be complete. 
The Chair does not recognize the reference to the appropriations 
falling. They would not be complete. The bill would not be prepared to 
be sent to the President.
MR. ALLEN: A new conference would have to be appointed and delay would 
take place?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The whole bill would be delayed until that one 
item was resolved. That is correct. . . . 
So the motion was rejected.
MR. JAVITS: Mr. President, I move that the Senate further insist on its 
amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to. . . . 
MR. ROBERT C. BYRD [of West Virginia]: Mr. President, I shall shortly 
move to stand in recess awaiting the call of the Chair, pending 
whatever action the House may wish to take in view of the action that 
has just been taken by the Senate. The House may further insist upon 
its disagreement and ask for a conference, or it may concur. Therefore, 
until we hear further from the House, I move that the Senate stand in 
recess awaiting the call of the Chair.

The motion was agreed to, and at 4:50 p.m., the Senate took a recess 
subject to the call of the Chair.


[[Page 338]]

Failure To Address Title Amendment in Conference

Sec.    1.5 Every House amendment to a Senate bill must be reconciled 
before the Senate can enroll one of its bills sent to conference; and 
where conferees had neglected to address a House amendment to the title 
of a Senate bill, the House receded from its title amendment after the 
adoption of the conference report. 

The proceedings relating to the consideration of the conference report 
on S. 327 in the 94th Congress are carried below:(11) 

MR. [ROY A.] TAYLOR of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the Senate bill (S. 327) to amend the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, to establish the 
National Historic Preservation Fund, 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 PRO TEMPORE:(12) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 2, 1976.) . . . 
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MR. TAYLOR of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
the House recede from its amendment to the title of the Senate bill.
THE SPEAKER:(13) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from North Carolina?
There was no objection.

Rejection of Conference Report After Concurrence in Amendments

Sec.    1.6 Where one House adopts a conference report and concurs in 
certain amendments of the other House reported back from conference in 
disagreement, and the latter House then rejects the conference report, 
action on the amendments to which both Houses have agreed is 
nevertheless completed, and only those amendments which remain in 
disagreement are properly the subjects of a 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     122 CONG. REC. 29753, 29758, 29759, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 
10, 1976.
12.     Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
13.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 339]]

further conference between the two Houses.

On Dec. 29, 1970,(14) the managers on the part of the House on the 
Defense Department appropriations bill (H.R. 19590) submitted the 
following statement:

The managers on the part of the House at the further conference on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on certain of the amendments of the 
Senate to the bill (H.R. 19590) making appropriations for the 
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, and for 
other purposes, submit the following statement in explanation of the 
effect of the action agreed upon and recommended in the accompanying 
conference report as to each of such amendments, namely:
The House, on December 16, 1970, adopted the first conference report on 
the bill (H. Report 91-1759) and then adopted motions relating to 
amendments reported in technical disagreement. Four amendments of the 
Senate which had been reported in technical disagreement-Nos. 15, 18, 
29, and 48-were concurred in by the House without change. Thus, those 
four amendments are not at issue in the accompanying conference report 
or amendments in disagreement.

Joint Nature of Conference Committee

Sec.    1.7 A committee of conference is a joint committee composed of 
managers on the part of each House.

On July 31, 1935,(15) Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, presented to 
the House a report signed only by the managers on the part of the House 
on S. 2796, the Public Utilities Act of 1935. The report explained that 
the desired conference never occurred because the Senate managers were 
accompanied by an employee of the Public Works Administration. The 
House managers requested an executive session, the Senate managers 
refused, and the conference was prevented. Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
raised a point of order.

MR. RAYBURN: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the paper read 
is not a report of the conference committee; that a conference report 
or a disagreement must be signed by a majority of the Members of the 
House conference committee and of the Senate conference committee and 
that this statement or paper has no standing in the House.
THE SPEAKER:(16) The Chair will hear the gentleman from Alabama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     116 CONG. REC. 43804-07, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
15.     79 CONG. REC. 12237-39, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
16.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 340]]

Mr. Huddleston, responding to the point of order, explained that the 
report was intended to forestall a motion to discharge under what is 
now Rule XXVIII clause 1(c).(17) 

Mr. Speaker, this is submitted as a report so that the House conferees 
cannot be charged on tomorrow, which will be the next day after the 
twentieth day on which they were appointed, with default and failure to 
make a report within 20 days. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Huddleston] has presented 
a paper which purports to be a report signed by three of the House 
conferees on S. 2796, from which it appears that the conferees have not 
been able up to this time to reach an agreement. The gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Rayburn] makes the point of order that this paper cannot be 
considered as a report, inasmuch as the Senate conferees have not 
affixed their signatures. The gentleman from Alabama frankly states 
that he has filed this statement for the purpose of forestalling any 
action that may be taken under rule XXVIII, which rule authorizes any 
Member as a matter of the highest privilege to move to discharge and 
appoint conferees or to instruct conferees after a period of 20 days 
has elapsed from the time of their appointment when they have failed to 
make a report on the matter committed to them. The Chair does not think 
that the rules of the House can be circumvented in that manner. . . . 
A committee of conference is a joint committee composed of managers 
appointed on the part of each House. The managers of each House vote 
the sentiment of the House which they represent. In casting their votes 
they do so as separate committees and nothing may be agreed upon 
without the concurrent action of the two committees composing this 
joint committee, commonly called the "conference committee."
In instant case, the gentleman from Alabama admits that this purported 
report which he has presented has not been agreed to by the managers on 
the part of the Senate. Under such circumstances, the Chair does not 
believe that it is a report within the meaning of our parliamentary 
practice, and the Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Actions of Senate Managers at Conference

Sec.    1.8 A resolution alleging that the Senate managers of a 
conference committee had insisted upon having experts and counsel 
present at a committee meeting over the objections of the managers of 
the House, and that such Senate conferees had refused to consider the 
matter of differences committed to them unless they were permitted to 
have present their experts and counsel and instructing 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 341]]

conferees to insist on the exclusion of outside advisors, was held not 
to involve a question of the privilege of the House.

On July 29, 1935,(18) Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, presented to 
the House House Resolution 311 which he contended rectified an alleged 
violation of the privileges of the House, to wit: the insistence of the 
managers on the part of the Senate to bring with them to a conference 
on S. 2796 (the Public Utilities Act of 1935) certain counsel and 
advisors. The resolution provided that the House managers be instructed 
to insist that a conference be held with only the conferees of the two 
Houses in attendance. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made a point 
of order against the resolution on the ground that it did not state a 
question of a privilege of the House. He explained:

MR. RANKIN: . . . We have appointed conferees on the part of the House. 
They have a right to say whom they shall take into the conference. They 
have a right to say what advisers they shall select. If a question 
arose on that proposition, it might furnish a question of privilege or 
a question that would go to the integrity of the proceedings of the 
House.
That is the point, Mr. Speaker, on which this privilege hinges-whether 
or not it involves a question that goes directly to the integrity of 
the proceedings of the House of Representatives. To say that the Senate 
committee, when it brings its experts to advise them and to assist them 
in working out the parliamentary or the legislative problems involved, 
is a matter that goes to the integrity of the proceedings of the House 
of Representatives I submit does not meet the requirement; and 
therefore the resolution is not privileged.

Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, also made a point of order against the 
resolution:

I make the point of order that under rule XXVIII of the House of 
Representatives, after the Speaker appoints conferees, until the 
conferees make a report and file their report and statement here and 
have it printed, or unless 20 days have elapsed, and a proper motion is 
made under rule XXVIII(19) to discharge the conferees, the House loses 
jurisdiction entirely over the conferees until one of those two events 
happen.

Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, also referred to what is now 
Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), in making his ruling.

THE SPEAKER: . . . That clause was adopted on December 8, 1931, in the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     79 CONG. REC. 12007, 12008, 12012, 12013, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
19.     Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 342]]

first session of the Seventy-second Congress. Of course, the House had 
an object in adopting that rule. It was to preserve to the House the 
right to exercise authority, as the Chair construes it, in a matter 
pending between the House and Senate, insofar as its own conferees were 
concerned. . . . 
Now, it must be assumed that the House had an object in providing that 
20 days must elapse before the motion may be made, and the Chair 
assumes that that object was to give the conferees that length of time 
in which to come to an agreement, if possible. . . . 
Now, there were two courses which the conferees could have pursued: One 
was to report a disagreement, which has not been done. The other was to 
wait for 20 days, under this rule, and then to proceed under its 
provisions as a matter of the highest privilege. If the conferees had 
reported a disagreement, it would be in order for the House to take 
such action as it pleased, either with reference to instructions or to 
sending them back for further consideration.
. . . The Chair thinks that that is a matter of procedure that should 
be determined by the conferees. In the event that the conferees are 
unable to agree, it seems to the Chair that the remedy is provided in 
rule XXVIII. The Chair does not believe that under the facts stated a 
question of privilege is involved. The Chair, therefore, sustains the 
point of order.

Sec.    1.9 It is in order in debate while discussing a question of 
privilege of the House involving the procedure of a conference 
committee to state what occurred in the conference committee session 
but such license does not permit a Member to refer to a Senator by 
name.

On July 29, 1935,(20) the House was considering a point of order raised 
by Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, against a resolution offered by 
Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, which purported to raise a question 
of a privilege of the House. Mr. Huddleston had contended that the 
insistence of the Senate managers on the attendance at the conference 
on S. 2796, the Public Utilities Act of 1935, of Mr. Ben Cohen, who had 
counseled the Senate on the drafting of the bill, prevented the 
conferees from meeting in a free and fair conference. During the 
ensuing debate, Mr. John G. Cooper, of Ohio, one of the House 
managers stated:

. . . After all that hard work are we going to sit in the conference 
committee with Mr. Cohen there, with all his suggested changes and 
amendments that he would like to have incorporated in the bill? 
Senator Wheeler is the man--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     79 CONG. REC. 12011, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 343]]

MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio has no right to speak 
about a Senator by name on the floor of the House.
MR. COOPER of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I will say that the 
Senator, who is chairman of the conference committee, stated to us that 
if Mr. Cohen could not sit in at the conference there would be no 
conference. . . . 
MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the gentleman 
has no right to criticize Members of the Senate on the floor of the 
House, whether he calls them by name or not. This tirade against the 
Senate is in violation of the rules of the House.
THE SPEAKER:(1) The rule provides that Members shall not criticize a 
Member of the other body in a discussion on the floor. As the Chair 
understands the gentleman, he is not referring to a Senator by name, 
but stating what occurred in the conference committee.

Conference Refused

Sec.    1.10 The Senate may insist (as opposed to adhere) upon its 
amendment and disagree to a conference asked by the House.

On Mar. 20, 1951,(2) the House, with Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
presiding, received a message from the Senate:

A message from the Senate by Mr. Woodruff, its enrolling clerk, 
announced that the Senate insists upon its amendment to the bill (H.R. 
2615) entitled "An act to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 
1938, as amended," disagreed to by the House, and disagrees to the 
conference asked by the House on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses thereon.

Senate Rejection of Conference Report Before Official Papers Were 
Received

Sec. 1.11 Instance where the Senate, by unanimous consent, deemed a 
conference report "rejected" even though the official papers thereon 
had not been received from the House. 

On Nov. 19, 1989,(3) by unanimous consent, the Senate agreed that if a 
conference report then under debate in the House were accepted by the 
House, it would be considered as rejected when received in the Senate. 
The unusual request is carried here as one more example of how the 
course of business sometimes can be expedited by abnormal procedures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
 2.     97 CONG. REC. 2683, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
 3.     135 CONG. REC. 30156, 30157, 30159, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 344]]

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST-H.R. 3607
MEDICARE CATASTROPHIC COVERAGE REPEAL
MR. [GEORGE J.] MITCHELL [of Maine]: Mr. President, in a moment I am 
going to ask for unanimous consent that the conference report on H.R. 
3607, the catastrophic health care legislation, be rejected by the 
Senate when that report is received by the Senate, which we expect to 
be shortly this evening.
Prior to presenting the request, I would like to describe for the 
information of Senators the status of that matter and the purpose of 
this request.
The two bodies have enacted legislation on this matter which are not 
identical. By an overwhelming vote, the House passed legislation to 
repeal the program. By unanimous vote, the Senate passed legislation to 
substantially modify the legislation.
The conferees have been unable to agree on a compromise between those 
two positions, despite days of effort.
The conference report in effect accepts the House position on repeal. 
It will be approved by the House, and it is the purpose of this 
unanimous-consent request to have that rejected by the Senate for the 
purpose of enabling this matter to be returned to conference, in the 
hopes that a final good-faith effort on both sides can be made to 
achieve a compromise which will be acceptable to both bodies.
There are many Senators who favor repeal, among them the distinguished 
Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham]; both distinguished Senators from 
Nevada [Mr. Reid and Mr. Bryan], and others. . . . 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there objection?
MR. [BOB] GRAHAM [of Florida]: Mr. President, will the Senator yield 
for a question?
MR. MITCHELL: Certainly.
MR. GRAHAM: Am I correct that there has been a conference committee 
report issued on this matter, which the House is preparing to consider?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes.
MR. GRAHAM: And that conference committee has the approval of the 
conferees from both the House and the Senate?
MR. MITCHELL: A majority of the conferees, yes.
MR. GRAHAM: If the House passes the conference report and it then comes 
to the Senate, if the Senate were to also agree to the conference 
report, would that not be disposition of the matter?
MR. MITCHELL: That would be. . . . 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request propounded by the majority leader? If not, that will be the 
order of the Senate.

Where House "Blue-slips" Senate Request for Conference

Sec.    1.12 Where the Senate had amended a House-passed general 
appropriation bill, insisted on its amendments and requested a 
conference, and the House thereafter returned the measure to the Senate 
("blue-slipped" the 


[[Page 345]]

bill) because one of the Senate amendments violated the constitutional 
authority of the House to originate revenue measures, the Senate 
proceeded to modify the offending amendment, again insisted, requested 
a "new" conference with the House, and again appointed the same 
managers.

On Aug. 12, 1994,(4) the Senate amended a paragraph of the agricultural 
appropriation bill for fiscal year 1995 by adding a "user fee" 
amendment which permitted the Federal Food and Drug Administration to 
charge fees for services in excess of the cost of the services 
provided. In the House, the Committee on Ways and Means-and ultimately 
the House-viewed the Senate amendment as one "raising revenue." Members 
of the Committee on Appropriations, fearing a protracted delay if the 
bill was "blue-slipped," lobbied to let the matter go to conference 
where the managers pledged they would be successful in dropping the 
amendment; and if the House managers were not successful in this 
opposition, they would support an effort in the House to return the 
conference report to the Senate to protect the House's constitutional 
authority.  
The resolution adopted by the House returning the bill to the Senate, a 
portion of the House debate, and the proceedings in the Senate to 
modify the amendment are carried. 
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE-RETURNING TO THE SENATE THE SENATE AMENDMENTS 
TO H.R. 4554
MR. [SAM] GIBBONS [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of 
the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged resolution (H. 
Res. 518) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 518
Resolved, That Senate amendment No. 83 to the bill H.R. 4554 making 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, in the opinion of 
this House, contravenes the first clause of the seventh section of the 
first article of the Constitution of the United States and is an 
infringement of the privileges of this house and that such bill with 
the Senate amendments thereto be respectfully returned to the Senate 
with a message communicating this resolution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     140 CONG. REC. 21655, 21656, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 346]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(5) The resolution constitutes a question of 
privileges of the House.
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
MR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 518 is a simple resolution returning to 
the Senate the bill, H.R. 4554, because it contravenes the 
constitutional requirements that revenue measures originate only in the 
House of Representatives.
Specifically, the Senate amendments to H.R. 4554 provide that amounts 
are to be credited to the appropriations for the Food and Drug 
Administration "from fees established and collected to cover the costs 
of regulation of products under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug 
Administration." These fees are not limited to cover only the costs of 
providing specified regulatory activities. Further, the FDA would not 
be required to change the fees, in appropriate amounts, only to those 
persons who benefit from such regulatory activities. Instead, the 
Senate amendments would allow the FDA to charge a broad cross-section 
of the public in order to fund the costs of its activities in general. 
Thus, these fees are not true regulatory fees, but constitute revenues 
which would fund the Government generally. . . . 
I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
MR. [DAVID R.] OBEY [of Wisconsin]: Let me simply say that what is at 
issue here is whether or not the House will take an action which is 
called blue-slipping the appropriation bill for agriculture for the 
coming fiscal year. The reason the Committee on Ways and Means wants to 
do that is because the Senate inappropriately adopted an amendment 
which is clearly an effort simply to legislate more spending in the 
agriculture appropriation bill above the amount that would be allowed 
for the budget caps, and the way they do that is to inappropriately use 
a revenue device. I grant that. As chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, I fully appreciate the need for the Senate to cease and 
desist on items like this. But there are a number of ways that it can 
be done it seems to me. The committee can, if it chooses, pursue its 
right today. . . . 
An alternative manner in which to proceed would still preserve the 
rights of the Committee on Ways and Means to blue-slip this bill when 
it comes back from conference if the offending provision has not been 
removed. I have made it quite clear, both orally and in a letter to the 
chairman of the committee, that our committee will not come back from 
conference with that offending provision. We reject it outright and 
would insist that it not be included.

After further debate, the privileged motion offered by Mr. Gibbons was 
agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     Jim McDermott (Wash.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 347]]

The pertinent proceedings in the Senate were as follows:(6) 
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT-MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
MR. [WENDELL H.] FORD [of Kentucky]: I ask that the Chair lay before 
the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on H.R. 4554.
The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message from 
the House of Representatives:

Resolved, That Senate amendment No. 83 to the bill H.R. 4554 making 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, in the opinion of 
this House, contravenes the first clause of the seventh section of the 
first article of the Constitution of the United States and is an 
infringement of the privileges of this House and that such bill with 
the Senate amendments thereto be respectfully returned to the Senate 
with a message communicating this resolution.

MR. FORD: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Chair lay before 
the Senate a message on H.R. 4554, a bill making appropriations for 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies for fiscal year 1995, which was returned to the Senate 
by the House; that Senate amendment 83 be modified with the amendment I 
now send to the desk; that the Senate insist on its amendments, request 
a new conference with the House, and that those Senators currently 
serving as conferees on this bill be reappointed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, the amendment will be 
modified.
The amendment is as follows:

In lieu of Senate amendment No. 83, insert the following: "On page 70 
of the bill insert the following after line 6: Notwithstanding any 
other provision of law, no employee of the United States Department of 
Agriculture shall be preemptorily removed without a hearing from his or 
her position because of remarks made during personal time regarding 
Departmental policies or proposed policies."

MR. FORD: I yield the floor, Madam President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 15 
minutes.

Parliamentarian's Note: On July 15, 1994, where a similar conflict over 
a "revenue" amendment on an appropriation bill had resulted in a "blue-
slip" action by the House,(7) the Senate(8) authorized the 
reengrossment of its amendments, striking the one to which the House 
objected. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     140 CONG. REC. 22127, 22128, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 12, 1994.
 7.     See 140 CONG. REC. 16593, 16594, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., July 14, 
1994 (H.R. 4539).
 8.     140 CONG. REC. 16832, 16840, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 348]]


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
        A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    2. Motions, Resolutions, and Requests for Conference
Motion for Conference

Sec.    2.1 In the 89th Congress, Rule XX clause 1 was amended to make in 
order a motion to send a bill to conference.

On Jan. 4, 1965,(9) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, called up House 
Resolution 8.

MR. ALBERT: Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. RES. 8
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Eighty-
eighth Congress, together with all applicable provisions of the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, be, and they are 
hereby adopted as the Rules of the House of Representatives of the 
Eighty-ninth Congress, with the following amendments therein as a part 
thereof, to wit . . . 
In rule XX, strike out clause 1 and insert:
"1. Any amendment of the Senate to any House bill shall be subject to 
the point of order that it shall first be considered in the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, if, originating in the 
House, it would be subject to that point: Provided, however, That a 
motion to disagree with the amendments of the Senate to a House bill or 
resolution and request or agree to a conference with the Senate, or a 
motion to insist on the House amendments to a Senate bill or resolution 
and request or agree to a conference with the Senate, shall always be 
in order if the Speaker, in his discretion, recognizes for that purpose 
and if the motion is made by direction of the committee having 
jurisdiction of the subject matter of the bill or resolution." . . .

MR. ALBERT: . . . [N]ow I yield to our distinguished Speaker, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack].
MR. [JOHN W.] MCCORMACK: . . . Certainly when a bill is going to 
conference the regular procedure is for the Member in charge to ask 
unanimous consent for the bill to go to conference. In 19 cases out of 
20 or even 29 cases out of 30 unanimous consent is granted. It is very 
seldom unanimous consent is not granted for a bill to go to conference. 
This proposed rule would permit the will of the House to be ascertained 
and the majority of the Members present and voting then could send the 
bill to conference.

Raising Question of Consideration Against Motion To Send to Conference

Sec.    2.2 A Member may raise the question of consideration (Rule XVI 
clause 3) against a motion to send a bill to conference under Rule XX 
clause 1; but since the question of consideration is not subject 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 111 CONG. REC. 21-25, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 349]]

to debate, it is not subject to the motion to lay on the table. 
However, an affirmative vote on the question of consideration is 
subject to the motion to reconsider, and that motion can be laid on the 
table. 

On Oct. 4, 1994,(10) the Chair had just ruled that a motion to send to 
conference S. 21, the California Desert Protection Act of 1994, offered 
by Mr. George Miller, of California, was properly before the House 
under Rule XX clause 1.(11) Before the proponent of the motion was 
recognized for debate, a Member raised the question of consideration. 
When the Speaker stated the question: "Will the House now consider the 
motion?", the proponent of the underlying motion moved to lay on the 
table the question of consideration. When that motion was ruled 
inapplicable, a motion to reconsider the decision of the House to 
consider the motion was entertained and then, by motion, laid on the 
table.

MR. [JOHN T.] DOOLITTLE of California: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule 
XVI, I ask that the question of consideration be put.
MR. MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(12) The motion to table is not in order at 
this point. . . . 
So the House agreed to consider the motion offered by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Miller].
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, a motion to reconsider is 
laid on the table.
MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Objection is heard.
MR. MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote on 
the question of consideration.
MR. [BILL] RICHARDSON [of New Mexico]: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the 
motion to reconsider on the table.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] to lay on the table the 
motion to reconsider offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     140 CONG. REC. 27643, 27644, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1997).
12.     William J. Hughes (N.J.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 350]]

Motion To Table Motion To Go to Conference

Sec.    2.3 A motion to send a bill to conference, being debatable under 
the hour rule, is subject to the motions under Rule XVI clause 4; and 
when the previous question is ordered on the motion, a motion to lay on 
the table the substantive motion to go to conference is preferential 
and is first put.

After protracted parliamentary proceedings to prevent consideration of 
a motion to send a bill to conference under Rule XX clause 1,(13) the 
motion was eventually debated. When the previous question was moved by 
the proponent of the motion after debate, the following proceedings 
ensued:(14) 

MR. [GEORGE] MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XX, I 
have been directed by the Committee on Natural Resources to insist on 
the House amendment to S. 21, the California Desert Protection Act, and 
agree to a conference. The California Desert Protection Act upgrades 
Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Monument, and in addition the 
legislation designates approximately 3.9 million acres of wilderness.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time allotted be equally 
divided between the majority and the minority, which, I believe, 
entitles the minority to 30 minutes and the majority to 30 minutes.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(15) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. . . . 
MR. MILLER of California: . . .  Agreement has now been reached on both 
sides of the aisle in the Senate to allow us to go to conference. The 
motions have been made and carried out, and the Senate awaits the House 
in the conference committee. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: All time of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen] has expired.
MR. MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time and I move the previous question.
MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MR.    LEWIS OF CALIFORNIA
MR. [JERRY] LEWIS of California: Mr. Speaker, I move to table the 
previous question.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from California move to lay 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1997).
14.     See 140 CONG. REC. 27644-52, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 4, 1994 
(S. 21).
15.     William J. Hughes (N.J.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 351]]

on the table the original motion to go to conference.
MR. LEWIS of California: The previous question, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
California he cannot lay on the table the motion for the previous 
question. 
MR. LEWIS of California: Mr. Speaker, I move that the pending motion be 
laid on the table.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] to table the motion offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] to go to conference.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
MR. LEWIS of California: 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 PRO TEMPORE: 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 144, nays 
259, not voting 31. . . . 
Mr. Lewis of Florida changed his vote from "nay" to "yea."
So the motion to table the motion to [go to conference] was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [JOHN T.] DOOLITTLE [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. DOOLITTLE: Mr. Speaker, was the motion to reconsider laid on the 
table?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: No.
MR. DOOLITTLE: I ask unanimous consent to lay it on the table, in that 
event.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, a motion to reconsider the 
motion to lay on the table the motion to go to conference is laid on 
the table.
The question is on ordering the previous question on the motion to go 
to conference.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. [HOWARD P. (BUCK)] MCKEON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 265, noes 
144, not voting 25. . . . 
Mr. Zeliff and Mr. Hall of Texas changed their vote from "aye" to "no."
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
MR. [BILL] BAKER of California: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the 
vote by which the House agreed to ordering the previous question.
MR. MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Baker].


[[Page 352]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] to table the motion offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Baker] to reconsider the vote on 
ordering the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. BAKER of California: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 273, noes 
143, not voting 18. . . . 
So the motion to table was agreed to.

Motion To Commit Motion To Go to Conference
Sec.    2.4 After the previous question had been ordered on a motion to 
send a bill to conference, a motion to commit that motion to another 
committee having partial jurisdiction over the bill was entertained, 
rejected, and a motion to reconsider that vote was then laid on the 
table.

Under Rule XVII clause 1,(16) a motion to commit is in order "pending 
the motion for, or after the previous question shall have been 
ordered" on a pending motion. On the occasion noted here,(17) the 
motion was offered after the previous question had been ordered on the 
motion to send S. 21, the California Desert Protection Act, which had 
been reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to 
conference. The motion to commit was therefore not subject to debate 
(but would have been, under Rule XVII, if offered pending the motion 
for the previous question). This rather innovative use of the motion to 
commit, to refer the matter to the committee to which the bill had been 
sequentially referred but which had not reported to the House, is noted 
here.
MOTION TO COMMIT
MR. [RANDY (DUKE)] CUNNINGHAM [of California]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
rule XVII, clause 1, I move to commit the motion to go to conference to 
the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(18) The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] to commit the motion to 
go to conference to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 804 (1997).
17.     See 140 CONG. REC. 27652-54, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 4, 1994.
18.     William J. Hughes (N.J.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 353]]

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. CUNNINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 141, noes 
277, not voting 16. . . . 
MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE ON MOTION TO COMMIT
MR. [HOWARD P. (BUCK)] MCKEON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
reconsider the vote by which the House did not agree to the motion to 
commit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by  the 
gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] who voted on the prevailing side 
to reconsider the vote by which the House did not agree to the motion 
to commit.
MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MR.  MILLER OF CALIFORNIA
MR. [GEORGE] MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the 
table the motion to reconsider the vote offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McKeon].
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] to lay on the table the motion 
to reconsider the vote offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McKeon].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. MCKEON: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 280, noes 
141, not voting 13. . . . 
So the motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider the vote on 
the motion to commit the motion to agree to a conference was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] to insist on the House 
amendments and agree to a conference on S. 21.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. [JERRY] LEWIS of California: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 283, noes 
140, not voting 11. . . . 
MR. [JOHN T.] DOOLITTLE [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
reconsider the vote by which the House has agreed to the motion to 
agree to go to conference on S. 21.
MR. MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the 
motion to reconsider offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Doolittle].
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(19) The question is on the motion to lay on 
the table the motion to reconsider.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 354]]

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. DOOLITTLE: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were ayes 282, noes 
140, not voting 12. . . . 
Mr. Jacobs changed his vote from "no" to "aye."
So the motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider was [agreed to].

Motion Where Unanimous Consent Not Granted

Sec.    2.5 Where objection is raised to a unanimous-consent request to 
take a House bill with Senate amendment from the Speaker's table and 
request a conference with the Senate, the bill remains on the table and 
is subject to further action by the House; and it may be sent to 
conference by motion under Rule XX clause 1 if such action is 
authorized by the legislative committee having jurisdiction of the 
legislation.

On May 29, 1968,(20) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 
the bill (H.R. 5037) to assist State and local governments in reducing 
the incidence of crime, to increase the effectiveness, fairness, and 
coordination of law enforcement and criminal justice systems at all 
levels of government, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment and request a conference with 
the Senate thereon.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
MR. [RICHARD H.] POFF [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, in order that the House may be fully advised as to the 
procedural options and alternatives I propose to propound under my 
reservation a series of parliamentary inquiries.
Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. POFF: If objection is registered to the unanimous-consent request, 
will the effect be to send the bill either to the Committee on Rules or 
to the Committee on the Judiciary for a resolution instructing the 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to make a motion that the 
bill go to conference?
THE SPEAKER: In response the Chair will say if objection is made to the 
unanimous-consent request the bill will remain on the Speaker's desk. 
The Committee on the Judiciary could take action to authorize the 
chairman or any 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     114 CONG. REC. 15499, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 355]]

Member to make a motion to take the bill from the 
Speaker's desk for the purpose of sending it to conference.

Motion To Request Conference

Sec.    2.6 If there is an objection to a unanimous-consent request to 
take a House bill, with Senate amendment, from the Speaker's table and 
ask for   a conference, a motion to achieve the same goal is in order, 
if authorized by the appropriate committee (and if the Speaker agrees 
to recognize for the motion).

On Aug. 26, 1976,(1) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry about the available methods for getting to 
conference as follows:

MR. [DAVID N.] HENDERSON [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 8603) 
to amend title 39, United States Code, with respect to the 
organizational and financial matters of the U.S. Postal Service and the 
Postal Rate Commission, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference 
asked by the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina? . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [WILLIAM V.] ALEXANDER [Jr., of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to 
put a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, if an objection is heard, is it not so that 
the procedure that would be followed is for the chairman of the 
committee to go to the committee, convene the committee, and get a 
motion to come back to the floor asking for a conference, and that that 
then would be subject to 1 hour of general debate? Is that not so?
THE SPEAKER: That is one avenue of approach, the gentleman is correct. . . . 
MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Henderson). I do not want to delay the proceedings of 
this body either, and I will not object. However, I will advise the 
Speaker that I have a motion to instruct at the desk which I will 
insist upon offering immediately following the granting of the 
unanimous-consent request.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
There was no objection.

Sec.    2.7 Pursuant to Rule XX clause 1, the House may, on motion, 
disagree to Senate amendments to House amendments to a Senate bill 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     122 CONG. REC. 27828, 27831, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 356]]

and request a conference with the Senate.

On Dec. 17, 1970,(2) Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, offered the 
following motion:

Mr. Speaker,(3) pursuant to rule XX of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and at the direction of the Committee on Agriculture, I 
move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 1181) to amend 
section 8c(6)(I) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 
as amended, to permit projects for paid advertising under marketing 
orders, to provide for a potato research and promotion program, and to 
amend section 8e of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 
as amended, to provide for the extension of restrictions on imported 
commodities imposed by such section to imported raisins, olives, and 
prunes, with the Senate amendments to the House amendments thereto, 
disagree to the Senate amendments to the House amendments, and request 
a conference with the Senate thereon. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from California. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 214, nays 145, not voting 
75.(4) . . .

Point of Order Against Request To Go to Conference

Sec.    2.8 When the pending business was a unanimous-consent request to 
send a bill to conference, a point of order under Rule XX clause 1, and 
Rule XXIII clause 3, requiring consideration of  Senate amendments in 
Committee of the Whole, has no application, and the point of order was 
overruled.

On Sept. 28, 1962,(5) the following occurred on the floor of the House:

MR. [THOMAS J.] MURRAY [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker,(6) I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 7927) to adjust 
postal rates and for other purposes, together with the Senate amendment 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment and request a conference with 
the Senate thereon.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Tennessee? . . . 
MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, and I do so initially for the purpose of raising a point of 
order, the point of order being that H.R. 7927 contains a 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     116 CONG. REC. 42195, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 4.     See also 118 CONG. REC. 7540, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 8, 1972.
 5.     108 CONG. REC. 21149, 21150, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 357]]

pay increase 
bill which has never been considered by the House of Representatives, 
involving some $1 billion.
Mr. Speaker, I invoke rule XX which provides as follows, paragraph 1:

Any amendment of the Senate to any House bill shall be subject to the 
point of order that it shall first be considered in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union if, originating in the House, 
it would be subject to that point of order. . . .

Mr. Speaker, I further call attention to rule XXIII, paragraph 3, 
entitled "Bills Required To Be Considered in Committee of the Whole." 
Rule XXIII, paragraph 3, provides:

All motions or propositions involving a tax or charge upon the people, 
all proceedings touching appropriations of money, or bills making 
appropriations of money or property, or requiring such appropriation to 
be made, or authorizing payments out of appropriations already made, or 
releasing any liability to the United States for money or property, or 
referring any claim to the Court of Claims, shall be first considered 
in a Committee of the Whole, and a point of order under this rule shall 
be good at any time before the consideration of a bill has commenced.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that the regular prescribed order under the rules 
is for the Speaker to refer such propositions as H.R. 7927 to the 
standing committee having jurisdiction.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the rules mentioned by the 
gentleman from Iowa are not involved at the present time. The matter 
before the House is the unanimous-consent request to send a bill to 
conference. The unanimous-consent request, if granted, would waive all 
rules mentioned by the gentleman from Iowa.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee?

MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER: Objection is heard.

Entertaining Request for Conference in Legislative Schedule

Sec.    2.9 Where a series of bills are being considered under suspension 
of the rules and the Speaker has announced that votes will be postponed 
until the completion of the series, the practice of the House is to 
defer a request to send one of the bills to conference until after the 
completion of the deferred votes, so as to prevent interruption of 
five-minute votes by a possible motion to instruct and debate thereon. 

The motion to instruct conferees at the time of original appointment is 
subject to one hour of debate and is, of course, susceptible to a 
demand for the yeas and nays or a record vote. Such a debate and vote 
would lengthen the time required for taking a series of postponed 
votes, and for this reason the House has adopted the practice described 
here. In this 


[[Page 358]]

instance,(7) there were seven deferred votes; the yeas 
and nays were ordered on all. The bill which was sent to conference 
was, in fact, subject to a motion to instruct when it was called up at 
the end of the votes on the seven bills.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(8) Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b)
(3), rule XXVII, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic 
device may be taken on all of the additional motions to suspend the 
rules on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings. 
The unfinished business is the question of suspending the rules and 
passing the bill H.R. 8059, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill H.R. 8059, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are 
ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 420, nays 
0, not voting 14. . . . 
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended 
and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title was amended so as to read: "A bill to amend title 18 of the 
United States Code relating to the sexual exploitation of minors, and 
for other purposes."
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MR. [JOHN] CONYERS [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent for the immediate consideration of a similar Senate bill (S. 
1585) to amend title 18, United States Code, to make unlawful the use 
of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of 
promoting any film, photograph, negative, slide, book, magazine, or 
other print or visual medium, or live performance, and for other 
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows. . . . 
MR. CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Conyers moves to strike out all after the enacting clause of the 
Senate bill S. 1585, and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of 
H.R. 8059, as passed.

The motion was agreed to.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third 
time, and passed.
The title was amended so as to read: "A bill to amend title 18 of the 
United States Code relating to the sexual ex-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     See 123 CONG. REC. 35024-26, 35029, 35030, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., 
Oct. 25, 1977.
 8.     Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 359]]

ploitation of minors, and for other purposes."
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
A similar House bill (H.R. 8059) was laid on the table.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The unfinished business is the question of 
suspending the rules and passing the bill H.R. 8358.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Nedzi) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill H.R. 8358, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. . 
. .

After the vote on H.R. 8358, four more suspensions and four more yea 
and nay votes intervened before the following request was entertained:


MR. CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insist on the 
House amendment to the Senate bill (S. 1585) to amend title 18, United 
States Code, to make unlawful the use of minors engaged in sexually 
explicit conduct for the purpose of promoting any film, photograph, 
negative, slide, book, magazine, or other print or visual medium, or 
live performance, and for other purposes, and request a conference with 
the Senate thereon.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
MR. [JOHN M.] ASHBROOK [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, I have a motion to instruct the conferees. I just want my 
rights to be protected.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman's rights will be protected.
MR. ASHBROOK: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES OFFERED BY MR. ASHBROOK
MR. ASHBROOK: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Ashbrook moves that the managers on the part of the House in the 
conference on the Senate bill S. 1585 be instructed to agree to those 
provisions of the Senate bill that were included on page 5, line 12, 
through page 7, line 2, of the Senate bill.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) is 
recognized for 1 hour.

Committee Authorization for Motions To Go to Conference

Sec.    2.10 A motion to go to conference under Rule XX clause 1, is 
entertained at the discretion of the Speaker when authorized by the 
committee having jurisdiction of the measure, and where more than one 
committee has exercised jurisdiction and reported the measure, the 
motion discloses that each has authorized the motion.


[[Page 360]]

The form of the motion to go to conference, as excerpted from the 
proceedings of July 7, 1988,(9) is carried to show that all committees 
which reported the measure met and authorized the action taken by the 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, which, while the "lead 
committee," having reported first, had an equal number of conferees 
with the two other primary committees. The bill had not been referred 
to the Committee on Agriculture, but its jurisdiction was claimed at 
the time the measure was being readied for conference. 
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 1720, FAMILY WELFARE REFORM ACT OF 
1987
MR. [DAN] ROSTENKOWSKI [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 
of the House rule XX and by direction of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, the Committee on Education and Labor, and the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
H.R. 1720, to replace the existing AFDC program with a new Family 
Support Program which emphasizes work, child support, and need-based 
family support supplements, to amend title IV of the Social Security 
Act to encourage and assist needy children and parents under the new 
program to obtain the education, training, and employment needed to 
avoid long-term welfare dependence, and to make other necessary 
improvements to assure that the new program will be more effective in 
achieving its objectives with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to 
the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference requested by the 
Senate.
THE SPEAKER:(10) Does the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski] 
seek time on the motion?
MR. ROSTENKOWSKI: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski] is 
recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
The Chair appoints the following conferees on H.R. 1720, the Family 
Welfare Reform Act:
From the Committee on Ways and Means, for consideration of the House 
bill (except title X), and the Senate amendment (except sections 203(b)
(5), 203(b)(6), 302, 303, 402(d), and 509), and modifications committed 
to conference: Messrs. Rostenkowski, Downey of New York [and 8 more 
Members were named and listed].
From the Committee on Education and Labor, for consideration of title I 
and sections 202, 511, and 804 of the House bill, and title II and 
sections 502, 503, 506, 507, and 508 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Hawkins, Ford of 
Michigan [and 8 more Members were named and listed].
From the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for consideration of title 
IV of the House bill, and sections 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------         
9.      134 CONG. REC. 16772, 16779, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
10.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 361]]

203(b)(5), 203(b)(6), 302, 303, 402
(d), 402(f), 404, 508, 509, 510, and 704 of the Senate amendment, as 
well as that portion of section 201 of the Senate amendment which adds 
a new section 417(f)(6) to the Social Security Act, and modifications 
committed to conference: Messrs. Dingell, Waxman [and 8 more Members 
were named and listed].
From the Committee on Agriculture, for consideration of title X and 
section 801 of the House bill, and modifications committed to 
conference: Messrs. de la Garza, Panetta [and 8 more Members were named 
and listed].

Sec.    2.11 Although a motion to go to conference under Rule XX clause 1 
normally must be authorized by all committees having been included in a 
joint referral of the bill, a "lead" committee under the specific terms 
of such a referral may act alone to generate the motion. 

H.R. 5269, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990, was referred 
jointly to five House committees; but the Committee on the Judiciary 
was signaled as the "lead" committee by the terms of the referral: the 
remaining four committees were directed to report to the House within 
three days of the filing of a report by the Committee on the Judiciary. 
After Judiciary reported, other committees were added as "sequential" 
referrals. Ten committees were included in the mix of conferees. The 
motion to go to conference, which was not contested, is carried here.
(11) 

MR. [JACK B.] BROOKS [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5269) to control crime, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(12) The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
The motion was agreed to.

Committee Authorization To Move To Go to Conference

Sec.    2.12 A motion to send a bill to conference under Rule XX clause 
1, is privileged if offered at the direction of the only committee that 
reported the measure to the House and need not be authorized by a 
committee which has received a referral, joint or sequential, but has 
not reported thereon.

On Oct. 4, 1994,(13) the House had before it a motion to insist on 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     136 CONG. REC. 34090, 101st Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 25, 1990.
12.     Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).
13.     140 CONG. REC. 27642, 27643, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 362]]

its 
amendments to a Senate bill and agree to a conference requested by the 
Senate. Before debate on the motion began, a point of order was raised 
that the motion was not in order, not having been authorized by one of 
the committees of the House to which the Senate bill had been referred. 
The point of order and the Chair's response are included here.
REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON S. 21, CALIFORNIA DESERT 
PROTECTION ACT OF 1994
MR. [GEORGE] MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, 
rule XX, and by the direction of the Committee on Natural Resources, I 
move to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 21) to 
designate certain lands in the California Desert as wilderness, to 
establish the Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks and the 
Mojave National Monument, and for other purposes with House amendments 
thereto, insist on the House amendments, and agree to the conference 
asked by the Senate.
MR. [JAMES V.] HANSEN [of Utah]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the time for debate be equally divided between the majority and 
the minority.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [RICHARD V.] POMBO [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of 
order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(14) The gentleman will state his point of 
order.
MR. POMBO: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the Committee on 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries to which the bill S. 21 was referred, has 
not authorized the pending motion in violation of clause 1 of rule XX.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman makes a point of order that the 
motion is out of order.
Does the gentleman from California desire to be heard on the point of 
order?
MR. MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, to make the point of order that 
the primary committee of jurisdiction was authorized to ask to go to 
conference.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is prepared to rule.
MR. POMBO: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on that before the Chair 
responds?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is recognized to be heard 
further on the point of order.
MR. POMBO: Mr. Speaker, I serve on both the Committee on Natural 
Resources and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to which 
S. 21 was also referred. Unfortunately, the referral to Merchant Marine 
and Fisheries was very short and that committee did not file a report 
on the bill. The net result is that my Merchant Marine and Fisheries 
colleagues did not have an opportunity to debate this bill in 
committee. Now it appears that the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries will not have a role in making the recommendation to the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     William J. Hughes (N.J.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 363]]

House with regard to insisting or receding from the Senate amendments 
to S. 21.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that, under rule XX and the 
precedents of the House, a privileged motion to go to conference must 
be authorized by both committees to which a bill has been jointly 
referred. I have been told that this precedent was decided prior to the 
time when sequential referrals were used in the House. I believe that 
the interests of the House would be best served if this interpretation 
were extended to sequential as well as joint referrals to ensure that 
all committees of jurisdiction on a bill will be treated as equal 
partners in the process.
I do not believe that the Speaker has yet ruled on this precise issue 
and insist on my point of order to clarify the matter.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller] desire to be further heard on the point of order?
MR. MILLER of California: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Committee on Natural 
Resources is the primary committee of jurisdiction here. There was a 
referral to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. They could 
have exercised whatever actions they decided to. They did not decide to 
do that. By reason of the fact that we remain the primary committee, we 
have been instructed by our committee to go to conference on this 
matter.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from California makes the point of order that, to be 
privileged under clause 1 of rule XX, the motion must be authorized not 
only by the Committee on Natural Resources but also by the Committee on 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Under clause 1 of rule XX, a motion to send a bill to conference is 
always in order if the Speaker, in his discretion, recognizes for that 
purpose and if the motion is made at the direction of all reporting 
committees having original jurisdiction over the bill. The Chair is 
guided by the precedent of September 26, 1978,(15) standing for the 
proposition that the motion must be authorized by each committee of 
joint referral that has reported the measure to the House.
In the instant case, the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries was 
a committee of sequential referral of the House bill and did not report 
thereon to the House. The instant motion is therefore, offered at the 
direction of the only committee of original referral of the House bill, 
and the only committee that reported thereon to the House-the Committee 
on Natural Resources. Accordingly, the motion is privileged under 
clause 1 of rule XX.
The point of order is overruled.

Repetition of Motion To Go to Conference

Sec.    2.13 Rule XX clause 1 provides that it shall always be in order 
for the Speaker, in his discretion, to recognize for a motion to 
disagree to a Senate amendment and re-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     See 124 CONG. REC. 31623, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 364]]

quest or agree to a conference if the motion is authorized by the 
committee having jurisdiction over the bill; this rule has been 
interpreted by the Speaker to permit the repetition of such a motion 
(1) where the committee had met again (after the House's rejection of 
the first motion) to authorize its chairman to make a second motion and 
(2) where no other motions were then in order to dispose of the Senate 
amendment, the stage of disagreement not having been reached.

On Oct. 3, 1972,(16) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. 
Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, to move to take from the Speaker's table 
H.R. 7130, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, with the 
Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments and 
request a conference with the Senate thereon. Mr. John B. Anderson, of 
Illinois, rose with a point of order.

MR. ANDERSON of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the 
motion of the gentleman from Kentucky is contrary to the provisions of 
clause 1 of rule XX, disregards the established precedents of the House 
and is not in order, and I request an opportunity to be heard on the 
point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman may be heard on his point of order.
MR. ANDERSON of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kentucky's 
motion, to take the bill H.R. 7130 from the Speaker's desk, to disagree 
with the Senate amendments, and request a conference with the Senate 
thereon, is in violation of clause 1 of rule XX.(17) . . . 
On August 1, 1972, the Committee on Education and Labor directed the 
gentleman from Kentucky to make a motion to disagree with the Senate 
amendments to the bill H.R. 7130 and to request a conference. A motion 
pursuant to the direction of the committee was made on August 1 and 
defeated by a rollcall vote of 198 to 190-Congressional Record pages 
26152-26156. Furthermore, motion to reconsider was at that time made 
and laid on the table. Reconsideration of the original motion is 
therefore not in order. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, it is a firmly settled canon of general parliamentary law, 
including the rules and precedents of this body, that once motions have 
been made, and have failed, similar motions cannot be made during the 
same stage of proceedings. To permit otherwise would be to obviate any 
semblance of orderly procedure. . . . 
The Chair is aware of the precedent found in section 6325 of volume V 
of 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     118 CONG. REC. 33502, 33503, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
17.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 365]]

Hinds' Precedents. That precedent has the following summary in its 
caption:

A motion to request a conference on disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
having been rejected, may not be repeated at the same stage of the 
question, even though a recess of Congress may have intervened.

This precedent is clear. The present motion of the gentleman from 
Kentucky is not in order, and clause 1 of rule XX was not intended to 
supersede this precedent or to grant more than one opportunity for the 
House to work its will on this issue. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins) desire to 
be heard on the point of order?
MR. PERKINS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.
MR. PERKINS: Mr. Speaker, the point of order should not be sustained. 
The rule of the House under which I am proceeding is clause 1 of rule 
XX which in part reads:

Provided, however, That a motion to disagree with the amendments of the 
Senate to a House Bill or Resolution and request or agree to a 
conference with the Senate or a motion to insist on the House 
amendments to a Senate Bill or Resolution and request or agree to a 
conference with the Senate, shall always be in order if the Speaker, in 
his discretion recognizes for that purpose and if the motion is made by 
the direction of the Committee having jurisdiction over the subject 
matter of the bill or resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the rule is very clear. It says this motion shall always 
be in order if two conditions are met. First, the Speaker must 
recognize a Member for the purpose of making the motion and second, the 
motion must be made after the committee having jurisdiction over the 
subject matter has directed the Member to make the motion.
Mr. Speaker, the committee has directed me to make this motion.
It is certainly true that on August 1 the House Education and Labor 
Committee directed me to make a similar motion under the rule with 
respect to this legislation and the motion was made and defeated. But 
subsequent to that time and specifically on Tuesday, August 8, 1972, 
the committee directed that I make this motion with respect to this 
legislation. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from Kentucky 
has moved, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XX, that the House disagree 
with the amendments of the Senate to the bill H.R. 7130 and request a 
conference with the Senate. The gentleman states that he has been 
authorized to make this motion by the Committee on Education and Labor 
by its action of August 8, 1972.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) has raised a point of order 
against this motion on the ground that since the House has once 
rejected such a motion, it cannot be repeated.
In support of his argument, the gentleman cites a precedent which is 
found in volume V, section 6325, of Hinds' Precedents.
The Chair has examined that precedent-which carries the following 
headnote:

A motion to request a conference on disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
having been rejected, may not be repeated at the same stage of 


[[Page 366]]

the question, even though a recess of Congress may have intervened.

The Chair believes that precedent is clearly distinguishable from the 
present situation. In that case, which the Chair notes occurred in the 
34th Congress, the two Houses had reached the stage of disagreement 
with respect to the Senate amendments to the House bill. The stage of 
disagreement having been reached, there were other motions available in 
the House which could be used to dispose of the amendments in 
disagreement. A reading of that precedent shows that after the Speaker 
had declined to recognize for a second motion that the House ask a 
further conference with the Senate, the first such motion having 
already been rejected, the House at a later time did in fact consider 
the motions to recede from disagreement and to adhere.
In the present situation, the Chair notes that the stage of 
disagreement has not been reached. Any action on the Senate amendments 
to the House bill-that is to take the bill from the Speaker's table and 
to concur, to concur with amendment, to disagree-would have to be by 
unanimous consent.
The only motion which is in order under the present situation under the 
rules of the House is to disagree and ask a conference.
The Chair thinks it should also be pointed out that rule XX, clause 1-
the portion thereof making such a motion in order-was adopted in the 
89th Congress.
It is obviously a much later expression of the House than the precedent 
cited from the 34th Congress. 
Parliamentarian's Note: No further action was taken by the House on the 
Senate amendment to H.R. 7130 and the bill remained on the Speaker's 
table at the expiration of the 92d Congress.

Debate on Motion

Sec.    2.14 A Member making a motion to send a bill to conference under 
Rule XX clause 1 is recognized for one hour and is in control of the 
debate on the motion.

On Aug. 1, 1972,(18) Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, offered a motion 
to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 7130, amending the Fair Labor 
Standards Act of 1938, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the 
amendments and request a conference with the Senate thereon. Mr. John 
L. Erlenborn, of Illinois, posed a parliamentary inquiry.

MR. ERLENBORN: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(19) The gentleman will state it.
MR. ERLENBORN: Is there time to debate the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     118 CONG. REC. 26153, 26156, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
19.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 367]]

THE SPEAKER: It is under the 1-hour rule. The gentleman from Kentucky 
controls the time. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.(20) 

Sec.    2.15 The previous question having been ordered on a motion to 
send a bill to conference under Rule XX clause 1, further debate may be 
had on the motion only by unanimous consent.

On July 9, 1970,(1) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Thomas E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania.

MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of clause 1, rule 
XX, and by direction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I move to 
take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 15628) to amend the 
Foreign Military Sales Act, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to 
the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) is recognized 
for 1 hour on his motion.
MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to use any time and there has 
been no request for any time, and in an effort to move the legislation 
along I will move the previous question. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on ordering the previous question. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 247, nays 143, not voting 
41. . . . 
MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the previous 
question has been ordered on my motion to go to conference, I ask 
unanimous consent that there now be 1 hour of debate, one-half to be 
controlled by myself and one-half by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Riegle) who has announced that he will propose a motion to instruct the 
conferees.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
MR. [DURWARD G.] HALL [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object.

Recognition for Motion To Go to Conference Is at Discretion of Speaker

Sec.    2.16 A motion to go to conference under Rule XX clause 1 is in 
order at the Speaker's discretion, when authorized by the committee of 
jurisdiction; and the Speaker has exercised his discretion not to 
recognize the chairman of the reporting committee for the motion where 
he has referred a nongermane Senate amendment to the bill to an-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     See also 116 CONG. REC. 5722, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 3, 1970; 
and 114 CONG. REC. 23935, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 29, 1968.
 1.     116 CONG. REC. 23518, 23524, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 368]]

other committee having jurisdiction over the amendment.

On June 28, 1984,(2) the Speaker declined to recognize the chairman of 
a House committee to send a bill to conference under Rule XX clause 1, 
where he had earlier on that day acceded to the request of another 
House committee to refer a particular Senate amendment because of a 
valid jurisdictional claim.
MOTION OFFERED TO CONSIDER SEN-ATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1310, EMERGENCY 
MATHEMATICS AND SCI-ENCE EDUCATION ACT
MR. [CARL D.] PERKINS [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I move to take from 
the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1310) to provide assistance to 
improve elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education in 
mathematics and science; to provide a national policy for engineering, 
technical, and scientific personnel; to provide cost sharing by the 
private sector in training such personnel; to encourage creation of new 
engineering, technical, and scientific jobs; and for other purposes, 
with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and 
agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER:(3) The Chair would advise the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Perkins] that the Chair has referred a portion of the Senate amendment 
to the gentleman's committee and to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Consequently, under the rule, the gentleman is not recognized to make 
the motion. . . . 
MR. PERKINS: Mr. Speaker, there is not one thing in this so-called 
equal access or the math and science bill that refers to any legal 
remedy.
I do not want to see this bill sent to a burial committee.
In view of the Speaker's ruling, the only committees that have 
jurisdiction over this bill are the Committee on Education and Labor 
and the Committee on Science and Technology. . . . 
I repeat again, I know this referral is not justified under the law to 
the Committee on the Judiciary. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: . . . In the opinion of the Parliamentarian, as stated to 
the Speaker, the Committee on the Judiciary has partial jurisdiction 
over a portion of the Senate amendment. This was a nongermane Senate 
amendment. The Speaker is following the precedent that he has announced 
in this Congress.
The gentleman is asking for the unusual and in fairness, the committee 
has not had hearings on it. The Judiciary Committee is entitled to a 
referral and the Chair is referring the matter to that committee and to 
the Committee on Education and Labor until August 6. . . . 
REFERRAL OF SENATE AMENDMENT UNDER TIME LIMITATION
Pursuant to clause 5, rule X and clause 2, rule XXIV, the Senate 
amendment to the bill (H.R. 1310) to 
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 2.     130 CONG. REC. 19770, 19983, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 369]]

provide assistance to improve 
elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education in mathematics and 
science; to provide a national policy for engineering, technical, and 
scientific personnel; to provide cost sharing by the private sector in 
training such personnel; to encourage creation of new engineering, 
technical, and scientific jobs; and for other purposes, was referred 
from the Speaker's table to the Committees on Education and Labor and 
the Judiciary, for a period ending not later than August 6, 1984, 
solely for consideration of such provisions of title VIII of the Senate 
amendment as fall within the jurisdictions of the committees under 
clauses 1(g) and (m), rule X.

Parliamentarian's Note: When the Speaker exercises his authority under 
Rule X clause 5(a) to refer a Senate amendment to a House bill to a 
House committee, he does so by indicating the referral on the official 
papers at the desk. The referral is later noted in the Journal and the 
Congressional Record for that date. Such a referral would not prevent 
the motion to go to conference, if the Speaker wished to exercise his 
discretion and recognize for a motion properly authorized by a 
committee. In the instant case, the committee to which he had earlier 
that same day referred the Senate amendment had not had an opportunity 
to evaluate the amendment.

Motion To Agree to Conference, No Layover Required

Sec.    2.17 The motion to send a bill to conference under Rule XX clause 
1,(4) is privileged when the House is in possession of the official 
papers and the appropriate committee has authorized the motion and the 
Speaker, in his discretion, recognizes for the motion. 

The motion to go to conference before the stage of disagreement was 
added to the House rules in 1965.(5) There is no requirement for a 
"layover" period before the motion can be made and a Member may seek 
the Speaker's recognition immediately after the appropriate committee 
(or committees) has authorized the motion. The inquiry asked of the 
Chair on Mar. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------                      
 4.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1997).
 5.     See 111 CONG. REC. 21, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965 (H. 
Res. 5). Before the adoption of this rules change, a conference was 
normally asked by unanimous consent or by a motion to suspend the 
rules, unless the Committee on Rules reported, and the House adopted, a 
special order giving the motion a privileged status. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 370]]

20, 1975,(6) carried below, is illustrative:

MR. [OTTO E.] PASSMAN [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with 
rule XX of the House rules and by direction of the Committee on 
Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
4592) making appropriations for foreign assistance and related programs 
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, and for other purposes, with 
Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments and agree 
to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER:(7) The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Passman).
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that no objection is in order.
The motion was agreed to.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, does this report not have to lay over for a 
period of time prior to the request being made for conferees?
THE SPEAKER: Not for the appointment of conferees.
MR. BAUMAN: Then, Mr. Speaker, it is in order today?
THE SPEAKER: The motion to send the bill to conference is in order today.
MR. BAUMAN: I thank the Chair.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair appoints the following conferees: Messrs. 
Passman, Long of Maryland, Roush, Obey, Bevill, Chappell, Koch, Early, 
Mahon, Shriver, Conte, Coughlin, and Cederberg.

Amendment to Motion

Sec.    2.18 The Speaker has indicated that a motion to send a bill to 
conference under Rule XX clause 1, could not be amended to include 
instructions to House conferees, but that a motion to instruct could be 
offered following the adoption of the motion to go to conference.

On Oct. 19, 1971,(8) Mr. F. Edward Hï¿½bert, of Louisiana, introduced the 
following motion after objection was heard to a unanimous-consent 
request to the same effect.

MR. Hï¿½BERT: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Armed 
Services, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 8687) 
to authorize appropriations during the fiscal year 1972 for procurement 
of aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, tracked combat vehicles, 
torpedoes, and other weapons, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     121 CONG. REC. 7646, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 8.     117 CONG. REC. 36832-35, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 371]]

and research, development, test, and 
evaluation for the Armed Forces, and to prescribe the authorized 
personnel strength of the Selected Reserve of each Reserve component of 
the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, together with Senate 
amendments, thereto disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the 
conference request by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER:(9) The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 1 hour 
on his motion.
MR. Hï¿½BERT: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
motion.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on ordering the previous question on the 
pending motion.
MR. [LUCIEN N.] NEDZI [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. NEDZI: Mr. Speaker, is the motion of the gentleman from Louisiana 
amendable?
THE SPEAKER: Not if the previous question is ordered.
MR. NEDZI: If the previous question is voted down, can the motion be 
amended by instructing the conferees?
THE SPEAKER: Not on this particular motion, but a motion to instruct is 
in order following the adoption of the motion of the gentleman from 
Louisiana.
MR. NEDZI: Do I understand correctly that a motion to instruct as an 
amendment to the motion of the gentleman from Louisiana is not in 
order?
THE SPEAKER: This motion now under consideration only goes to the 
question of sending the bill to conference.

Vote on Motion

Sec.    2.19 Where there was pending a motion under Rule XX clause 1, to 
send a bill to conference, the Speaker indicated that a majority and 
not a two-thirds vote would be required to adopt the motion.

On Nov. 16, 1971,(10) after Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, moved 
pursuant to Rule XX clause 1, to send House Joint Resolution 946 
(continuing appropriations for fiscal 1972) to conference, Mr. H. R. 
Gross, of Iowa, posed several parliamentary inquiries.

MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(11) The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, my second parliamentary inquiry is this: This 
would require a two-thirds vote; would it not?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that it would not require a two-
thirds vote; only a majority vote.

Rules Committee Resolutions Agreeing to or Requesting Conference

Sec.    2.20 The House may adopt a resolution taking from the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
10.     117 CONG. REC. 41555, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
11.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 372]]

Speaker's table a House bill with Senate amendments, disagreeing to the 
amendments, and agreeing to a conference requested by the Senate.

On Aug. 9, 1949,(12) Mr. J. Vaughan Gary, of Virginia, sought unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill H.R. 4830 with Senate 
amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the 
conference requested by the Senate. After Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New 
York, objected to the request, the following occurred:

Mr. Lyle, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
privileged resolution (H. Res. 320, Rept. No. 1241), which was referred 
to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the bill (H.R. 
4830) making appropriations for foreign aid for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1950, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments 
thereto be, and the same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to 
the end that the Senate amendments be, and they are hereby, disagreed 
to and that the conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses be, and the same is hereby, agreed to.

MR. [JOHN E.] LYLE [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 320 and ask for its 
immediate consideration. 
The Clerk read the resolution. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(13) The question is, Will the House now consider the 
resolution?
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Marcantonio) 
there were-ayes 298, noes 4.
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the House agreed to 
consider the resolution.(14) 
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Lyle] is recognized. . . . 
MR. LYLE: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the resolution.
MR. MARCANTONIO: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were refused.
The resolution was agreed to.(15) 

Sec.    2.21 The House may adopt a resolution taking a Senate bill, with 
a Senate amendment to a House amendment 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     95 CONG. REC. 11139-42, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
13.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
14.     Resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules may not be 
considered on the same day they are presented to the House unless so 
ordered by a vote of two-thirds of the Members. Rule XI clause 4(b), 
House Rules and Manual Sec. 729a (1997).
15.     See also 100 CONG. REC. 8456, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., June 21, 1954; 
and 89 CONG. REC. 7309, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., July 6, 1943.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 373]]

thereto, from the Speaker's table, disagreeing to the Senate amendment, 
and agreeing to conference.

On Mar. 14, 1962,(16) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri:

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House 
Resolution 561 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill (S. 1969) to amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, 
to provide for supplemental air carriers, and for other purposes, with 
the Senate amendment to the House amendment thereto be, and the same is 
hereby taken from the Speaker's table; that the House disagrees to the 
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the said bill and agrees to 
the conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing votes 
thereon. . . .

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the adoption of the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair appoints the following conferees: Messrs. 
Harris, Williams, Staggers, Friedel, Bennett of Michigan, Springer, and 
Collier.

Unanimous Consent in Lieu of Motion

Sec.    2.22 A member of a House committee asked unanimous consent to 
insist on disagreement to Senate amendments and to agree to the further 
conference requested by the Senate, although a motion to accomplish 
that result would have been in order.

On Dec. 22, 1970,(17) Speaker Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized Mr. Otto E. Passman, of Louisiana, and the following 
occurred:

MR. PASSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 17867) making appropriations for foreign 
assistance and related programs for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1971, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, insist on 
disagreement to the Senate amendments and agree to the further 
conference requested by the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana? The Chair hears none, and, without objection, 
appoints the following conferees: Messrs. Pass-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     108 CONG. REC. 4049, 4056, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
17.     116 CONG. REC. 43398, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 374]]

man, Natcher, Mrs. Hansen 
of Washington, and Messrs. Cohelan, Long of Maryland, McFall, Mahon, 
Shriver, Conte, Reid of Illinois, Riegle, and Bow.
There was no objection.

Parliamentarian's Note: A motion to accomplish this result was in order 
for two reasons. First, motions for the disposal of House bills with 
Senate amendments are in order after the stage of disagreement has been 
reached. Second, pursuant to Rule XX clause 1, the Speaker may always 
recognize a Member to offer such a motion if that motion is authorized 
by the committee having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the 
legislation.

Early Example of Making in Order Appointment of Conferees on Senate 
Bill Anticipated During Adjournment

Sec.    2.23 The House granted unanimous consent that the House disagree 
to amendments of the Senate and agree to a conference, and that the 
Speaker appoint conferees on a bill expected from the Senate during 
adjournment.

On Aug. 4, 1939,(18) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
recognized Mr. Clifton A. Wood-rum, of Virginia, to pose the following 
request:

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Woodrum of Virginia asks unanimous consent that the House disagree 
to the amendments of the Senate to the bill H.R. 7462, the third 
deficiency appropriation bill, and agree to the conference which may be 
asked by the Senate, and that the Speaker be authorized to appoint 
conferees on said bill, notwithstanding the adjournment of the House 
today.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none, 
and it is so ordered. . . . 
In the event the Clerk receives the message tonight, under the 
unanimous-consent agreement, the Chair appoints the following conferees 
upon the part of the House: . . . . 

The Journal entry for the following day, Aug. 5, 1939, records the 
message from the Senate:(19) 
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Pursuant to a special order agreed to on yesterday, the Clerk of the 
House received on that day a message from the Senate announcing that 
the Senate had passed with amendments, in which the concurrence of the 
House is requested, the bill (H.R. 7462) making 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     84 CONG. REC. 11105, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
19.     H. Jour. p. 1083, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. (1939).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 375]]

appropriations to 
supply deficiencies in certain appropriations for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1939, and for prior fiscal years, to provide 
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1939, 
and June 30, 1940, and for other purposes. 
The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its amendments 
to the foregoing bill, requests a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. Adams,  . 
. .  and Mr. Townsend, conferees on the part of the Senate.

Parliamentarian's Note: On Aug. 5, 1939,(20) the Senate informed the 
House that it had passed H.R. 7462 without amendment. Hence, the 
authority granted by Mr. Woodrum was not utilized.

"Deeming Resolutions"-Use in the House

Sec.    2.24 On rare occasions, the House has anticipated legislative 
actions of the Senate and acted in futuro, deeming certain actions to 
be taken by the House if and when a message is received showing that 
the anticipated legislative acts in fact occurred. 

On Dec. 18, 1982,(1) as the House approached the end of the session, it 
was necessary to expedite the conclusion of the further continuing 
appropriation bill for fiscal year 1983. The measure was still under 
consideration in the Senate, but the House leadership thought it 
essential to begin the conference as quickly as possible.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 631, FURTHER 
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, 1983

MR. [JAMES C.] WRIGHT [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that if and when the Clerk receives a message from the Senate 
indicating that that body has passed the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 
631) with amendments, insisted upon its amendments and requested a 
conference with the House, that the House be deemed to have disagreed 
to the amendments of the Senate and agreed to the conference asked by 
the Senate, and that the Speaker be deemed to have appointed conferees.
THE SPEAKER:(2) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees: 
Messrs. Whitten, Boland, Natcher, Smith of Iowa, Addabbo, Long of 
Maryland, Yates, Roybal, Bevill, Dicks, Ginn, Sabo, Dixon, Fazio, 
Conte, McDade, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     84 CONG. REC. 11181, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     128 CONG. REC. 32137, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 375]]

Edwards of Alabama, Myers, Robinson, Coughlin, Kemp, and Lewis.

When the House reconvened on Dec. 19, 1982,(3) the Speaker laid before 
the House the following communication from the Clerk:

COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
THE SPEAKER: The Chair lays before the House the following 
communication:
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
December 19, 1982.
Hon. THOMAS P. O'NEILL, Jr.,
The Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to the permission granted in the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Clerk received, at 3:22 p.m. on 
Sunday, December 19, 1982, the following message from the Secretary of 
the Senate: That the Senate passed with amendments H.J. Res. 631 and 
requested a conference thereon.
In accordance with action taken by the House on Saturday, December 18, 
1982, the Clerk has notified the Senate that the House disagreed to the 
amendments of the Senate to H.J. Res. 631 and agreed to a conference 
thereon.
With kind regards, I am,
Sincerely,
EDMUND L. HENSHAW, Jr.,
Clerk, House of Representatives.
Parliamentarian's Note: This procedure is contrary to the principle in 
Jefferson's Manual(4) that the House should not take notice of bills in 
the other body, until the actions are communicated to the House. 
However, procedural steps such as this are used when necessary under 
the modern practice.

House Sometimes Anticipates Senate Action and Acts Before Formal 
Message Is Received

Sec.    2.25 On occasion, the House anticipates Senate action, and, by 
unanimous consent, has established the conditions for a conference on       
a House bill with Senate amendment even before the Senate has acted and 
messaged its request for a conference to the House.

The unanimous-consent request of Sept. 26, 1984,(5) made by the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Jamie L. Whitten, of 
Mississippi, relating to House Joint Resolution 648, making continuing 
appropriations for fiscal year 1985, and the Chair's anticipatory 
appointment of conferees are shown below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     128 CONG. REC. 32401, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 308 (1997).
 5.     130 CONG. REC. 27341, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 377]]

MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that if and when the 
Clerk receives a message from the Senate indicating that that body has 
passed the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 648) with amendments, insisted 
upon its amendments and requested a conference with the House, that the 
House be deemed to have disagreed to the amendments of the Senate and 
agreed to the conference asked by the Senate, and that the Speaker be 
deemed to have appointed conferees.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi? The Chair hears none and, without objection 
in this instance, the Chair appoints the following conferees: Messrs. 
Whitten, Boland, Natcher, Smith of Iowa, Addabbo, Long of Maryland, 
Yates, Roybal, Bevill, Lehman of Florida, Dixon, Fazio, Hefner, Conte, 
McDade, Edwards of Alabama, Myers, Robinson, Coughlin, and Kemp.
There was no objection.

When the Senate finally messaged its action to the House on Oct. 5, 
1984,(6) the Speaker made a further statement for the Record, 
confirming that the action which the House had anticipated had in fact 
occurred.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Sparrow, one of its clerks, announced 
that the Senate had passed with amendments in which the concurrence of 
the House is requested, bills of the House of the following titles:

H.R. 4966. An act to recognize the organization known as the Women's 
Army Corps Veterans' Association: . . . 

The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its amendments 
to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 648) "Joint resolution making 
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1985, and for other 
purposes," requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. Hatfield, Mr. 
Stevens, Mr. Weicker, Mr. McClure, Mr. Garn, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Andrews, 
Mr. Abdnor, Mr. Kasten, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Mattingly, Mr. Rudman, Mr. 
Specter, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Stennis, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hollings, 
Mr. Eagleton, Mr. Chiles, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Burdick, 
Mr. Leahy, Mr. DeConcini, and Mr. Bumpers to be the conferees on the 
part of the Senate.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER REGARDING HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 648, 
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS
THE SPEAKER:(7) Pursuant to the order of the House of September 26, 
1984, pertaining to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 648) making 
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1985, and for other 
purposes. The House is deemed to have disagreed to the amendments of 
the Senate and agreed to the conference asked by the Senate 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     130 CONG. REC. 30292, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 378]]

and the Speaker to have appointed managers on the part of the House as 
appointed on that date.

Putting Bill in Conference Before Senate Action

Sec.    2.26 As adjournment of the 100th Congress, 1st Session 
approached, the House again utilized the device of "deeming" that a 
bill had been sent to conference, that the Speaker had appointed 
conferees without intervening motion, taking this action before the 
Senate had passed the House bill and requested a conference. 

Following the granting of the request shown below,(8) the Speak-er(9) 
proceeded to appoint conferees.

MR. [THOMAS S.] FOLEY [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that if and when the Clerk receives a message from the Senate 
indicating that that body has passed the bill H.R. 3545, with an 
amendment, insisted upon its amendment, and requested a conference with 
the House, the House be deemed to have disagreed to the amendment of 
the Senate and agreed to the conference asked by the Senate, and that 
the Speaker be deemed to have appointed conferees without intervening 
motion.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees: 
. . . 

Parliamentarian's Note: This was the fifth instance where the House had 
taken this unusual procedure, appointing conferees in advance of Senate 
action on the bill.(10) 

Deeming a Matter To Have Been Sent to Conference

Sec.    2.27 By unanimous consent, the House agreed that upon receipt of 
a message from the Senate requesting a conference on a House-passed 
budget resolution, the House shall be considered to have disagreed with 
the Senate's amendment, agreed to the conference requested by the 
Senate, that the Speaker be authorized to appoint conferees while 
preserving the option to the Minority Leader to offer a motion to 
instruct on the following day.  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     133 CONG. REC. 35049, 100th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 11, 1987.
 9.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
10.     See, e.g., Sec.Sec. 2.24, 2.25, supra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 379]]

On Oct. 18, 1990,(11) the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, 
anticipating that the Senate would amend the House-passed Budget 
Reconciliation Act (H.R. 5835) that evening, asked that the House, by 
unanimous consent, take the steps necessary to begin a conference with 
the Senate notwithstanding that the House might adjourn before the 
Senate completed action. 
The request is as follows:
AUTHORIZING THE SPEAKER TO APPOINT CONFEREES AND PROVIDING FOR MOTION 
TO INSTRUCT ON H.R. 5835, OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1990
MR. [LEON E.] PANETTA [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that upon receipt of a message from the Senate transmitting an 
amendment to H.R. 5835, insisting on the amendment, and requesting a 
conference thereon, the House shall be considered to have taken H.R. 
5835 and the Senate amendment from the Speaker's table, disagreed with 
the Senate amendment, and agreed to the conference requested by the 
Senate; that the Speaker shall be authorized to appoint conferees in 
anticipation thereof and reserve the authority to modify the 
appointment at later times; and that the motion to instruct conferees 
otherwise in order at the time of their appointment shall instead be in 
order only if offered by the minority leader or his designee on the 
legislative day of Friday, October 19, 1990. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(12) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.

Effect of Resolution on Motion To Instruct

Sec.    2.28 The adoption of a resolution asking for a conference does 
not inherently preclude a motion to instruct the House managers.

On Oct. 31, 1939,(13) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
recognized Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois.

MR. SABATH: Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 320, which I send 
to the desk and ask to have read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. RES. 320
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, the 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 306), the Neutrality Act of 1939, with 
Senate amendments thereto, be, and the same is hereby, taken from the 
Speaker's table to the end that the amendments of the Senate be, and 
the same are hereby, disagreed to and a conference is requested with 
the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     136 CONG. REC. 31020, 31021, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
12.     Bob Traxler (Mich.).
13.     85 CONG. REC. 1092, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 380]]

MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Illinois yield for a parliamentary 
inquiry?
MR. SABATH: Yes.
MR. RANKIN: To ask whether or not the resolution will shut off the 
right to offer a motion to instruct the conferees?
THE SPEAKER: It will not. The resolution now pending makes it in order 
to consider such matters as that propounded by the gentleman from 
Mississippi. If the resolution is adopted, it will in no way prohibit 
subsequent proceedings, or offering a motion to instruct the conferees, 
or amendments thereto.

Form of Resolution Sending Bill to Conference, Precluding Motion To 
Instruct

Sec.    2.29 The House may pass a resolution taking from the Speaker's 
table a bill, dis-agreeing to the Senate amendments thereto, agreeing 
to a conference, and directing the Speaker to appoint conferees without 
intervening motion.

On June 4, 1948,(14) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Leo E. Allen, of Illinois:

Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 624 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That, immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, the 
bill (H.R. 5883) making appropriations for the Department of 
Agriculture (exclusive of the Farm Credit Administration) for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1949, and for other purposes, with Senate 
amendments thereto be, and the same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's 
table; that the Senate amendments be, and they are hereby, disagreed to 
by the House; that the conference requested by the Senate on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the said bill be, and hereby is, 
agreed to by the House; and that the Speaker shall immediately appoint 
conferees without intervening motion. . . .

MR. ALLEN of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the resolution.
MR. [SAM] RAYBURN [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 204, nays 140, not voting 
87. . . . 
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.
THE SPEAKER: Pursuant to the resolution just passed, the Chair appoints 
the following conferees: Messrs. Dirksen, Plumley, H. Carl Andersen, 
Horan, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     94 CONG. REC. 7155, 7161, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 381]]

Phillips of California, Cannon, Sheppard, and Whitten.(15) 

Sec.    2.30 The House has passed a special rule taking a House bill with 
Senate amendments from the Speaker's table, disagreeing to the 
amendments, agreeing to the conference requested, directing the Speaker 
to immediately appoint conferees without intervening motion, and giving 
specific authority to the conferees to agree or disagree to any Senate 
amendment.

On Mar. 26, 1935,(16) Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, called up 
House Resolution 174 relating to House Joint Resolution 117, a relief 
measure.

MR. O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 174, which I send 
to the desk and ask to have read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. RES. 174
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 117, with Senate amendments 
thereto, be, and the same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table; 
that the Senate amendments be, and they are hereby, disagreed to by the 
House; that the conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses on the said joint resolution be, and hereby is, 
agreed to by the House; that the Speaker shall immediately appoint 
managers on the part of the House without intervening motion; and that 
the managers on the part of the House are hereby given specific 
authority to agree, with or without amendment, or disagree to any 
amendment of the Senate to the said joint resolution notwithstanding 
the provisions of clause 2 of rule XX.

MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(17) The gentleman will state it.
MR. RANKIN: Of course, this rule is not subject to amendment at 
present; but if we should vote down the previous question on the rule, 
then the rule would be open to amendment, as I understand it.
THE SPEAKER: To any germane amendment, that is correct.
MR. O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Ransley]. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on ordering the previous question. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 265, nays 108, answered 
"present" 1, not voting 57. . . . 
So the previous question was ordered. . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     See also 96 CONG. REC. 14746, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 13, 
1950; and 92 CONG. REC. 9135, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 16, 1946.
16.     79 CONG. REC. 4465, 4474, 4475, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 382]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(18) The question is on the adoption of the 
resolution. . . . 
The House divided; and the tellers reported that there were-ayes 186, 
noes 78.

Sec.    2.31 The House may adopt a resolution taking a bill with Senate 
amendment thereto from the Speaker's table, disagreeing to the Senate 
amendments, and requesting a conference with the Senate on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon.

On Mar. 14, 1945,(19) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois:

Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 183 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill (H.R. 1752) to amend the Selective Training and Service Act of 
1940, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto be, and 
the same hereby is, taken from the Speaker's table to the end that all 
Senate amendments be, and the same are, disagreed to and a conference 
is requested with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
thereon. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
The Speaker appointed as conferees on the part of the House Messrs. 
May, Thomason, Brooks, Andrews of New York, and Short.(20) 

Use of Special Order To Send Multiply-referred Bill to Conference

Sec.    2.32 Where the authorization of four House committees was 
required to authorize the motion to go to conference under Rule XX 
clause 1, the Committee on Rules reported, and the House adopted, a 
special order providing that the House dis-agree with the Senate 
amendment and request a conference. 

On July 30, 1979,(1) the House agreed to a resolution sending H.R. 111, 
the Panama Canal Act of 1979, to conference, a unanimous-consent 
request to accomplish this step having been objected to. Following the 
adoption of the resolution, a motion was made to instruct the managers 
at the confer-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     Henry Ellenbogen (Pa.).
19.     91 CONG. REC. 2195, 2203, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
20.     See also 104 CONG. REC. 18542, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 19, 
1958.
 1.     125 CONG. REC. 21298, 21302, 21309, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 383]]

ence to "adhere" to the House position set forth in certain sections of 
the House text. 
PROVIDING FOR SENDING H.R. 111 TO CONFERENCE
MR. [LEO C.] ZEFERETTI [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 390 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 390
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the bill (H.R. 111) 
to enable the United States to maintain American security and interests 
respecting the Panama Canal, for the duration of the Panama Canal 
Treaty of 1977, with the Senate amendments thereto, is taken from the 
Speaker's table to the end that the House disagrees to the Senate 
amendments and requests a conference with the Senate thereof.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(2) The gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeferetti) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. ZEFERETTI: . . . [L]ast week on a motion to send House Resolution 
111 to conference an objection was raised by an opponent of the 
measure. In this instance it would require the four committees who have 
jurisdiction over this bill to meet and vote on whether to direct the 
chairmen of these respective committees to offer a motion on the floor 
to request a conference. Unfortunately, such a procedure would require 
a significant amount of time and would have delayed further 
consideration of this bill.
The Rules Committee has been informed by the chairman of the Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries Committee that it is imperative for the House and 
Senate conferees to begin deliberation immediately so as to effectively 
come to agreement at the earliest possible date. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BAUMAN
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bauman moves that the conferees on the part of the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill H.R. 111, be instructed 
to adhere to the language of sections 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 110 of 
chapter 1; sections 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, and 250 of chapter 5; 
sections 371, 372, 373, and 374 of chapter 9 of H.R. 111 as passed by 
the House with respect to the matters considered therein.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) is 
recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
MR. BAUMAN: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
motion.
The previous question was ordered. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to.

Parliamentarian's Note: While the House cannot "adhere and ask 
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
2.      George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 384]]

a conference," since adherence is inconsistent with the request for a 
conference(3) and the willingness to negotiate, the form of the motion 
to instruct conferees did not render it subject to a point of order, 
and none was raised. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 3230, 3237,
which indicate that consistency in motions to instruct is for the 
House, not the Chair, to decide.

Resolution Sending Two Senate Bills to Conference

Sec.    2.33 The House adopted a resolution reported from the Committee 
on Rules which had the effect of taking two Senate bills from the 
Speaker's table, amending and passing those bills, amending their 
titles, and sending those bills to conference. 

On Nov. 18, 1971,(4) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. 
Richard Bolling, of Missouri, to call up the following resolution from 
the Committee on Rules:
H. RES. 710
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of [this] resolution and 
without the intervention of any point of order the bills of the Senate 
S. 2819 and S. 2820 are hereby taken from the Speaker's table; that 
said Senate bills are hereby amended by striking out all after the 
enacting clause of each such Senate bill and inserting in lieu thereof 
the text of the bill H.R. 9910 as passed by the House on August 3, 
1971; that the said Senate bills as so amended shall be considered as 
read a third time and passed; that the title of each such Senate bill 
shall be amended by striking out such title and inserting in lieu 
thereof the title of H.R. 9910; that the House insists upon its 
amendments to each Senate bill and requests conferences with the 
Senate, and that the Speaker appoint managers on the part of the House 
to attend each such conference.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling) is recognized 
for 1 hour. . . . 
MR. BOLLING: Mr. Speaker, some say that this rule is without precedent. 
I have not searched the precedents. I do not know. But I do know it is 
a very unusual rule, and I think it deserves explanation so that the 
Members who are interested will know what the rule does and what its 
significance is. . . . 
What this does, in very frank terms, is to get before a conference the 
two Senate bills and the House-passed bill. Most of you will remember 
that the bill passed the House, went to the Senate, it was debated at 
length, amended and defeated. Then the Senate came back with two 
separate bills, which were 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6303.
 4.     117 CONG. REC. 42046, 42047, 42052, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 385]]

passed by very substantial majorities. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for sending the foreign aid matter 
to conference. That can be done by voting for this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the resolution. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 269, nays 115, not voting 
46. . . . 

Parliamentarian's Note: The House-passed bill, H.R. 9910, which 
provided authorizations for foreign military and economic aid, failed 
of passage in the Senate on Oct. 29, 1971. The Senate then passed S. 
2820 (foreign military aid) on Nov. 10, and passed S. 2819 (foreign 
economic aid) on Nov. 11, 1971, and messaged both bills to the House. 
After consultations with the Speaker, the Chairmen of the Committees on 
Foreign Affairs and Rules, a resolution was drafted for consideration 
by the Committee on Rules to accomplish the result described above. It 
was the first instance wherein the Committee on Rules had reported a 
resolution providing for amendment and passage of two Senate bills. 
Points of order were waived against this procedure because the Senate 
bills required consideration in Committee of the Whole under Rule XXIII 
clause 3.

Suspension of the Rules Asking for Conference

Sec.    2.34 The House agreed, under suspension of the rules, to     a 
resolution providing that the House insist upon its amendment to a 
Senate bill, ask a conference, and that the Speaker immediately appoint 
conferees.

On June 18, 1948,(5) Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, was recognized 
by Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, to make the 
following motion relating to S. 2655, the Selective Service Act of 
1948:

MR. ANDREWS of New York: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the resolution, House Resolution 690, which I send to the desk.

THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the resolution:
The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That the House insist upon its amendment to S. 2655, ask a 
conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes, and that the 
Speaker immediately appoint conferees. . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     94 CONG. REC. 8829, 8830, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 386]]

THE SPEAKER: The question is, Shall the rules be suspended and the 
resolution passed?
The question was taken and, two-thirds having voted in favor thereof, 
the motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair appoints the following conferees: Messrs. 
Andrews of New York, Short, Cole of New York, Bates of Massachusetts, 
Vinson, Brooks, and Kilday.

Suspension of Rules Agreeing to Conference

Sec.    2.35 The House suspended the rules and passed a res-olution 
taking from the Speaker's table an appropriation bill with Senate 
amendments thereto, further insisted on disagreement to the Senate 
amendments, agreed to a further conference, and authorized the Speaker 
to immediately appoint conferees without intervening motion, subsequent 
to objection to a unanimous-consent request therefor.

On July 27, 1956,(6) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, sought unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 12350, with Senate 
amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate. After objection was heard to this 
request, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Cannon to offer 
the following motion:

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the resolution (H. 
Res. 648).
The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill H.R. 12350, with the Senate amendments thereto, be, and the same 
is hereby taken from the Speaker's table; that the House further 
insists on disagreement to the Senate amendments and agrees to the 
further conference requested by the Senate and the Speaker shall 
immediately appoint the conferees without intervening motion.

THE SPEAKER: Is a second demanded? [After a pause.] The Chair hears no 
request for a second.
The question is on suspending the rules and passing the resolution.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) 
the rules were suspended and the resolution was passed.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair appoints as conferees on the part of the House: 
Messrs. Cannon, Kirwan, Gary, Taber, and Phillips.

Unanimous Consent To Send to Conference

Sec.    2.36 A House bill, with Senate amendments that require 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     102 CONG. REC. 15157, 15158, 15169, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 387]]

consideration in Committee of the Whole, may be taken from the 
Speaker's table,  and sent to conference, by unanimous consent.

On Aug. 13, 1957,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Kenneth B. Keating, of New York, to pose an inquiry concerning a civil 
rights bill.

MR. KEATING: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. KEATING: Specifically with regard to the bill H.R. 6127, which is 
now on the Speaker's desk, I wish the Speaker would advise whether a 
unanimous-consent request is necessary from some Member to dispose of 
it in some manner as a preliminary to its being sent to the Committee 
on Rules?
THE SPEAKER: It requires unanimous consent to take it up for 
consideration, send it to conference, or to agree to the amendments of 
the Senate.(8) 

Sec.    2.37 The House may agree to a unanimous-consent request sending 
an appropriation bill to conference and authorizing the House conferees 
to agree to Senate legislative amendments notwithstanding the 
restrictions contained in Rule XX clause 2.

On June 3, 1936,(9) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, 
recognized Mr. James P. Buchanan, of Texas:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 
the bill H.R. 12624, the first deficiency appropriation bill, together 
with the Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, 
and agree to the conference requested by the Senate; also that the 
managers on the part of the House, notwithstanding the provisions of 
clause 2, rule XX, be authorized to agree to any Senate amendment with 
or without amendment, except the Senate amendment having to do with the 
Florida ship canal and the Senate amendment providing $300,000,000 for 
public-works projects.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas? . . . 
There was no objection.
The Chair appointed the following conferees: Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Taylor 
of Colorado, Mr. Oliver, Mr. Woodrum, Mr. Boyland, Mr. Cannon of 
Missouri, Mr. Taber, Mr. Bacon, and Mr. Thurston.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     103 CONG. REC. 14568, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8.     See also 106 CONG. REC. 18920, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 1, 1960 
(Calendar Day).
 9.     80 CONG. REC. 8822, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 388]]

Objection to Unanimous-consent Request; Referral of Bill

Sec.    2.38 Where objection is made to a unanimous-consent request to 
take a House bill from the Speaker's table, disagree to the Senate 
amendments, and ask for a conference, the Speaker in his discretion may 
refer the bill to the committee which reported it or hold it on the 
Speaker's table subject to such disposition as the House may order.

On Mar. 25, 1935,(10) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, recognized 
Mr. James P. Buchanan, of Texas:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 
House Joint Resolution 117, making appropriations for relief, disagree 
to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked for by the 
Senate.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Texas asks unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table House Joint Resolution 117, with Senate 
amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate. Is there objection?
MR. [MARTIN] DIES [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to 
object.
MR. [LUTHER A.] JOHNSON of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I object.
MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to submit 
a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. RANKIN: Objection has just been made to sending the public-works 
bill to conference by unanimous consent. What course does it take now? 
Does it go to the committee automatically?
THE SPEAKER: It could be referred to the committee or it can lie on the 
Speaker's table.

Sec.    2.39 Objection having been made to a unanimous-con-sent request 
to take from the Speaker's table the foreign aid appropriation bill 
with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the amendments, and agree 
to a conference, the Committee on Rules met immediately and reported 
out a resolution to accomplish such action; the rule was considered by 
a two-thirds vote and adopted that day.

On Aug. 9, 1949,(11) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recog-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     79 CONG. REC. 4369, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
11.     95 CONG. REC. 11139, 11140, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 389]]

nized Mr. J. Vaughan Gary, of Virginia:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 
the bill (H.R. 4830) making appropriations for foreign aid for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1950, and for other purposes, with Senate 
amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia? . . . 
MR. [VITO] MARCANTONIO [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I object. . . . 
MR. [JOHN E.] LYLE [Jr., of Texas], from the Committee on Rules, 
reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 320, Rept. No. 
1241), which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
printed:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the bill (H.R. 
4830) making appropriations for foreign aid for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1950, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments 
thereto be, and the same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to 
the end that the Senate amendments be, and they are hereby, disagreed 
to and that the conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses be, and the same is, hereby agreed to.

MR. LYLE: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 320 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the bill (H.R. 
4830) making appropriations for foreign aid for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1950, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments 
thereto be, and the same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to 
the end that the Senate amendments be, and they are hereby, disagreed 
to and that the conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses be, and the same is hereby, agreed to.


THE SPEAKER: The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Marcantonio) 
there were-ayes 298, noes 4.
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the House agreed to 
consider the resolution.(12) 

The resolution was agreed to, and a motion to reconsider laid on the 
table.(13) 
Speaker's Discretion Prevents Use of Motion for Dilatory Purposes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     A two-thirds vote was required to consider a resolution reported 
from the Committee on Rules on the same day on which it was reported to 
the House. Rule XI clause 23, House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973). 
The language, now contained in Rule XI clause 2l(6), House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 715 (1997), was amended in the 94th Congress to "permit the 
immediate consideration of a resolution reported from the Committee on 
Rules waiving this layover requirement."
13.     95 CONG. REC. 11146, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 9, 1949.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 390]

Sec.    2.40 The requirements of Rule XX clause 1-that the Speaker has 
discretionary authority to recognize for motions to send a bill to 
conference and that each such motion must be authorized by the 
committee having jurisdiction over the bill-prevent the use of that 
motion as a dilatory tactic.

On Oct. 3, 1972,(14) Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, offered a motion 
to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 7130, to amend the Fair Labor 
Standards Act of 1938, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to 
those amendments, and request a conference with the Senate thereon. A 
similar motion by Mr. Perkins had been defeated in the House on Aug. 1, 
1972,(15) and he had subsequently obtained authorization from the 
Committee on Education and Labor to offer the motion again. Mr. John B. 
Anderson, of Illinois, raised a point of order.

MR. ANDERSON of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the 
motion of the gentleman from Kentucky is contrary to the provisions of 
clause 1 of rule XX, disregards the established precedents of the House 
and is not in order, and I request an opportunity to be heard on the 
point of order.
THE SPEAKER:(16) The gentleman may be heard on his point of order.
MR. ANDERSON of Illinois: . . . The gentleman from Kentucky made the 
motion provided for in clause 1 of rule XX and the House worked its 
will in refusing to send the bill to conference. Rule XX does not 
authorize a committee chairman to make repetitive motions on a question 
already determined by the House in the vain hope that he will someday 
wear down the patience of the Members and be successful. How many times 
will the gentleman from Kentucky be allowed to ride a dead horse?
Mr. Speaker, it is a firmly settled canon of general parliamentary law, 
including the rules and precedents of this body, that once motions have 
been made, and have failed, similar motions cannot be made during the 
same stage of proceedings. To permit otherwise would be to obviate any 
semblance of orderly procedure. Rule XX is no exception; it does not 
grant a license to committee chairmen to make a series of motions, 
hoping sooner or later they will be successful. Rather, the rule 
clearly provides for one opportunity to have the question considered by 
the House, and the will of the House must prevail. It would be a 
travesty upon this body to allow repetitive motions of this sort once 
the House has decided the question. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from Kentucky 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     118 CONG. REC. 33502, 33503, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
15.     Id. at pp. 26153, 26156.
16.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 391]]

has moved, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XX, that the House disagree 
with the amendments of the Senate to the bill H.R. 7130 and request a 
conference with the Senate. The gentleman states that he has been 
authorized to make this motion by the Committee on Education and Labor 
by its action of August 8, 1972.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) has raised a point of order 
against this motion on the ground that since the House has once 
rejected such a motion, it cannot be repeated. . . . 
In the present situation, the Chair notes that the stage of 
disagreement has not been reached. Any action on the Senate amendments 
to the House bill-that is to take the bill from the Speaker's table and 
to concur, to concur with amendment, to disagree-would have to be by 
unanimous consent.
The only motion which is in order under the present situation under the 
rules of the House is to disagree and ask a conference.
It might be suggested that to permit repeated use of the motion under 
Rule XX would be to invite its use as a dilatory motion. That does not 
appear to the Chair to be a real possibility, since the motion can be 
made only by direction of the legislative committee having jurisdiction 
over the measure and can be called up only if the Speaker in his 
discretion recognizes for that purpose. Both of these restrictions 
would prevent its employment as a dilatory tactic.
Finally, the Chair would like to point out the precise language of the 
rule, which is that the motion "shall always be in order, if the 
Speaker, in his discretion, recognizes for that purpose and if the 
motion is made by direction of the committee having jurisdiction."
For all these reasons, the Chair holds that the motion is in order and 
overrules the point of order made by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Anderson).


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
        A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    3. When Motion Is in Order

Possession of Official Papers

Sec.    3.1 A request to agree to a conference on a bill and appoint 
conferees is not in order until the bill and papers are received from 
the Senate.

On June 18, 1947,(17) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, and the following 
proceedings occurred:

MR. ANDREWS of New York: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the House passed the 
bill H.R. 3303, the so-called War Department enlistment bill. The 
Senate passed Senate 1213, striking out all after the enacting clause 
in the House bill and substituting the Senate provisions. By motion of 
the Senate today, they request a conference. That is being messaged 
over to the House. I move that we agree to the conference and that the 
Speaker appoint conferees.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     93 CONG. REC. 7252, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 392]]

THE SPEAKER: The Chair would inform the gentleman from New York that 
the papers have not yet arrived, and the request to agree to the 
conference and appoint conferees is not in order at this time.

Stage of Disagreement

Sec.    3.2 Rule XX clause 1 (au-thorizing a single motion to disagree to 
Senate amendments to a House bill on the Speaker's table and to request 
or agree to a conference if that motion is authorized by the committee 
having jurisdiction of the bill and if the Speaker recognizes for that 
purpose) was held to supersede those precedents established prior to 
the adoption of that rule which precluded the motion to go to 
conference until the stage of disagreement had been reached.

On Aug. 1, 1972,(18) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Carl 
D. Perkins, of Kentucky, Chairman of the Committee on Education and 
Labor:

Mr. Speaker, upon direction of the Committee on Education and Labor, I 
move to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 7130) to amend the 
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the minimum wage under 
that act, to extend its coverage, to establish procedures to relieve 
domestic industries and workers injured by increased imports from low-
wage areas, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, 
disagree to the Senate amendments, and request a conference with the 
Senate thereon.
MR. [JOHN N.] ERLENBORN [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order against the motion.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. ERLENBORN: Mr. Speaker, the motion to request a conference is not 
in order until a motion to disagree to the Senate amendments has been 
made and disposed of. I should like to be heard on the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear the gentleman on the point of order.
MR. ERLENBORN: Mr. Speaker, Jefferson's Manual, section 535, on page 
265, states:

The motion to ask a conference is distinct from motions to agree or 
disagree to amendments of the other House and is not in order until the 
House has disposed of the preferential motions to agree, recede, or 
insist. . . . 

THE SPEAKER: The rule which the gentleman is talking about has been 
superseded by clause 1 of Rule XX which provides a procedure for 
sending bills to conference. The Chair overrules the point of order.
The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Kentucky. . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     118 CONG. REC. 26153, 26156, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 393]]

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 190, nays 198, not voting 44.

After Conference Report Ruled Out

Sec.    3.3 Where a point of order against a conference report is 
sustained, the amendments of the Senate are again before the House, and 
a motion to send the bill and amendments to conference is again in 
order.

On Oct. 4, 1962,(19) after Speaker Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, sustained a point of order against a conference report on 
H.R. 7927, a bill to adjust postal rates, Mr. Tom Murray, of Tennessee, 
offered a motion to send the bill and amendments in disagreement to 
conference again.

MR. MURRAY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House insist upon its 
disagreement with the amendments of the Senate and request a conference 
with the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee.
The motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Murray, Morrison, and Corbett.
There was no objection. 

Where Preferential Motions Are Pending

Sec.    3.4 A motion to request a further conference on an amendment 
reported in disagreement by conferees is not in order so long as 
preferential motions to dispose of amendments in disagreement are 
pending.

On Oct. 17, 1967,(20) the House was considering the amendment in 
disagreement reported back from a conference on H.R. 11476, Department 
of Transportation appropriations for fiscal 1968. Mr. Edward P. Boland, 
of Massachusetts, moved that the House recede from its disagreement to 
Senate amendment No. 13 and concur therein. Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of 
Illinois, posed the following parliamentary inquiry:

This is a motion to recede and concur in the Senate amendment. What 
would be the effect of voting down such a motion? Will it have the 
effect of sending the conferees back to conference for the purpose of 
ironing out this particular item again?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     108 CONG. REC. 22332, 22333, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     113 CONG. REC. 29044, 29048, 29049, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 394]]

THE SPEAKER:(1) The amendment would still be before the House subject 
to another form of a motion.
MR. YATES: What would be the nature of that motion, Mr. Speaker?
THE SPEAKER: The motion could be that the House insist on its 
disagreement.
MR. YATES: I thank the Speaker.
MR. [DURWARD G.] HALL [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
yield?
MR. BOLAND: I yield to the gentleman.
MR. HALL: If the gentleman from Massachusetts' motion that the House 
recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 13 and 
concur therein was voted down, then another motion would be in order, 
would it not, I would ask as a parliamentary inquiry, to instruct the 
conferees to maintain the position of the House or that the House 
insist upon its disagreement with the other body?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state in response to the parliamentary 
inquiry propounded to the Chair by the distinguished gentleman from 
Missouri that if the House should insist upon its disagreement, then 
the matter could go back to conference. . . . 
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Massachusetts will yield 
further for a parliamentary inquiry, is it in order, in the event the 
motion to recede and concur is voted down?
THE SPEAKER: After the House has taken some specific action with 
relation to the amendment of the other body, the Chair assumes that a 
further conference could be requested.

Same Day as Receipt of Senate Message

Sec.    3.5 A motion to disagree to a Senate amendment to a House joint 
resolution and request a conference with the Senate is in order under 
Rule XX clause 1 on the same day the joint resolution and Senate 
amendment are messaged back from the Senate, if the Speaker in his 
discretion recognizes for that purpose and if the motion is authorized 
by the committee which had reported the measure to the House.

On Nov. 16, 1971,(2) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, made a motion to 
take from the Speaker's table House Joint Resolution 946, making 
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1972, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, and request a conference with the Senate. Mr. H. R. 
Gross, of Iowa, raised a parliamentary inquiry:

Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 2.     117 CONG. REC. 41555, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 395]]

Can this kind of a motion be made on the same day the message is 
received from the Senate?
THE SPEAKER:(3) The Chair will state to the gentleman that the answer 
to his question is "Yes; it can be."


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
        A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    4. Who May Request Conference

Committee Chairman

Sec.    4.1 The Speaker, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, 
indicated that only the chairman of the committee having jurisdiction 
of the subject matter of a bill would be recognized to ask unanimous 
consent to take it from the Speaker's table, disagree to any Senate 
amendment, and ask for a conference.

On Sept. 1, 1960,(4) the Senate messaged to the House H.R. 13062, a 
bill to amend the Sugar Act of 1948, as amended by the Senate. Mr. 
Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, raised the following parliamentary 
inquiry:



Would it be in order for a unanimous-consent request to be made to send 
the bill that has just come from the Senate to conference?
THE SPEAKER:(5) That would be up to the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Cooley].(6) 
MR. HALLECK: In other words, if he submitted a unanimous-consent 
request to send the matter to conference, that could be considered 
subject to an objection?
THE SPEAKER: It could be.

Sec.    4.2 The chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
Service submitted a resolution to take a House bill with Senate 
amendments thereto from the Speaker's table, disagree to Senate 
amendments and request a conference with the Senate thereon, and the 
Speaker recognized him to move to suspend the rules and agree thereto.

On Oct. 1, 1962,(7) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Tom Murray, of Tennessee, Chairman of the Committee on Post 
Office and Civil Serv-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 4.     106 CONG. REC. 18919, 18920, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. Compare Sec. 
4.7, infra.
 5.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 6.     Harold D. Cooley was chairman of the Committee on Agriculture 
during the 86th Congress.
 7.     108 CONG. REC. 21528, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 396]]

ice, for the purpose of offering the following resolution in connection 
with H.R. 7927, the Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act of 
1962:

MR. MURRAY: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to House 
Resolution 818.
The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill H.R. 7927, with the Senate amendment thereto, be, and the same 
hereby is, taken from the Speaker's table, to the end that the Senate 
amendment be, and the same hereby is, disagreed to and a conference is 
requested with the Senate upon the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
thereon.

Sec.    4.3 Objection having been raised to a unanimous-consent request 
to send a bill or joint resolution to conference, the chairman of a 
House committee, acting by direction of that committee, may move to 
send the bill to conference pursuant to Rule XX clause 1.

On Oct. 19, 1971,(8) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized F. 
Edward Hï¿½bert, of Louisiana, Chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services, to make the following request:
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk 
the bill (H.R. 8687) to authorize appropriations during the fiscal year 
1972 for procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, tracked 
combat vehicles, torpedoes, and other weapons, and research, 
development, test, and evaluation for the Armed Forces, and to 
prescribe the authorized personnel strength of the Selected Reserve of 
each Reserve component of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, 
together with the Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendments, and agree to the conference requested by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Louisiana? . . . 
The gentleman from Michigan objects?
MR. [DONALD W.] RIEGLE [Jr., of Michigan]: Yes, I object.
THE SPEAKER: Objection is heard.
MR. Hï¿½BERT: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Armed 
Services, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 8687) 
to authorize appropriations during the fiscal year 1972 for procurement 
of aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, tracked combat vehicles, 
torpedoes, and other weapons, and research, development, test, and 
evaluation for the Armed Forces, and to prescribe the authorized 
personnel strength of the Selected Reserve of each Reserve component of 
the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, together with Senate 
amendments, thereto disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the 
conference request by the Senate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     117 CONG. REC. 36832-35, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 397]]

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 1 hour on 
his motion.
MR. Hï¿½BERT: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
motion. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on ordering the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The motion was agreed to.(9) 

Sec.    4.4 Objection having been made to a unanimous-consent request to 
take a House bill with Senate amendments from the Speaker's table and 
agree to a conference, the Committee on Appropriations met and 
authorized its chairman to move to send the bill to conference pursuant 
to Rule XX clause 1.

On June 5, 1973,(10) George H. Mahon, of Texas, Chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, was recognized by the Speaker, Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma.

MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of clause 1 of rule 
XX and by the authority of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to 
take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 7447) making further 
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, 
and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the 
Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations met this morning and 
authorized me to make a motion to send the second supplemental 
appropriation bill, 1973, H.R. 7447, to conference. Insofar as I know, 
there is no objection to sending the bill to conference. We would hope 
to meet this afternoon and begin deliberations. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the 
motion.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Texas.
The motion was agreed to.(11) 

Sec.    4.5 The chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, pursuant to 
Rule XX clause 1 and by the direction of his committee, moved to take a 
House bill with the Senate amendment from the Speak-er's table and to 
send the bill to conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     See also 119 CONG. REC. 18116, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 5, 1973; 
and 117 CONG. REC. 41555, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 16, 1971.
10.     119 CONG. REC. 18116, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
11.     See also 117 CONG. REC. 41555, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 16, 
1971; and 117 CONG. REC. 36832-35, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 1971.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 398]]

On Mar. 28, 1973,(12) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized 
William R. Poage, Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

MR. POAGE: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule XX, by direction of 
the Committee on Agriculture, I move to take from the Speaker's table 
the bill (H.R. 2107) to require the Secretary of Agriculture to carry 
out a rural environmental assistance program, with the Senate amendment 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and request a conference 
with the Senate.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Poage moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill H.R. 2107, 
with the Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, 
and request a conference with the Senate. . . .

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Poage).
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.(13) 

Authorizing Motion To Go to Conference

Sec.    4.6 A motion to send a bill to conference, if to be considered 
privileged under Rule XX clause 1, must be authorized by the committees 
of jurisdiction; and where more than one committee has reported on the 
measure, each must authorize the motion. 

The form of the motion used to send to conference a bill reported from 
two House committees, cited from the proceedings of Sept. 26, 1978,(14) 
is carried here. Other examples are carried in section 2 of this 
chapter.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON S. 1566, FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SUR-VEILLANCE 
ACT OF 1978
MR. [EDWARD P.] BOLAND [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
clause 1 of rule XX, and at the direction of the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on the Judiciary, I move to 
take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1566), the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, with House amendments thereto, 
insist on disagreement, and request a conference with the Senate 
thereon.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
THE SPEAKER:(15) The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland).
The motion was agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     119 CONG. REC. 10032-34, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
13.     See also 117 CONG. REC. 22406-13, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., June 28, 
1971.
14.     124 CONG. REC. 31623, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
15.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 399]]

THE SPEAKER: The Chair appoints the following conferees: Messrs. 
Boland, Murphy of Illinois, Mazzoli, Rodino, Kastenmeier, Bob Wilson, 
McClory and, as an additional conferee, Mr. Ertel, but only for the 
purpose of considering differences with the Senate which relate to 
elimination of language providing for special courts and providing that 
U.S. district courts shall have jurisdiction over orders for 
surveillance.

Parliamentarian's Note: This was a case of first impression regarding 
the authorization required to send a multiply-referred bill to 
conference. The motion to disagree or insist and request or agree to a 
conference was added to Rule XX clause 1, in 1965. The Speaker's 
authority to refer a bill to each committee having jurisdiction was 
added to Rule X clause 5, in 1974.

Committee Member

Sec.    4.7 A subcommittee chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, 
acting by the direction of that committee and pursuant to Rule XX 
clause 1, moved to take a House bill, reported by the 
subcommittee which he chaired, with the Senate amendments thereto, from 
the Speaker's table, disagree to the amendments, and agree to the 
conference requested by the Senate.

On Mar. 3, 1970,(16) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of Pennsylvania, to offer the following 
motion:

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Rule XX clause 1 of the Rules of the House, 
and by the direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill-H.R. 15931-making appropriations for 
the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare and related 
agencies, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and for other 
purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendments, and agree to the conference requested by the Senate.(17) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     116 CONG. REC. 5722, 5723, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
17.     See also 117 CONG. REC. 27305-07, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1971.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 400]]


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
B. CONFERENCE MANAGERS OR CONFEREES
 
Sec.    5. In General

Managers are appointed by the Speaker(1) and he has discretion as to 
their identity and number,(2) although he usually consults with the 
chairman of the committee which considered the matter being sent to 
conference before exercising this discretion.(3) The Speaker may 
appoint a manager to fill a vacancy at a conference(4) and, since a 
change in House rules in 1993, he has the authority to add or remove 
conferees after his initial appointment.(5) Under the earlier practice, 
the consent of the House was required to appoint or change conferees 
after the original appointment.(6) A Speaker Pro Tempore may appoint 
managers only pursuant to the consent of the House.(7) The election of 
a Speaker Pro Tempore bestows the appointment power as well as certain 
other prerogatives that attach to the Speaker.(8) 
Managers on the part of each House constitute in effect two separate 
committees, each of which acts by majority vote.(9) 
Managers may be excused from service on a conference committee only by 
the consent of the House.(10) 
When either House makes a change in the identity or number of its 
managers it so notifies the other House by message.(11) 

Informal Meetings Prior to Appointment

Sec.    5.1 Where a conference report before the House contained the 
signature of all the managers, the Speaker held that the report was 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Rule X clause 6(f), House Rules and Manual Sec. 701e (1997). The 
reader is urged to refer to future supplements to this volume as they 
are published for changes in the procedures applicable to managers.
 2.     Sec.Sec. 6.3, 6.4, infra.
 3.     Sec.Sec. 6.1, 6.2, infra.
 4.     Sec.Sec. 8.2-8.6, infra.
 5.     See 139 CONG. REC. 49, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1993 (H. 
Res. 5); Rule XI clause 6(f), House Rules and Manual (1997).
 6.     Sec.Sec. 6.12, 8.1, infra.
 7.     Sec.Sec. 6.15, 6.16, 8.11, infra.
 8.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 634a (1997).
 9.     See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6334; and House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 536 (1973).
10.     Sec.Sec. 8.1, 8.5, infra.
11.     Sec.Sec. 8.16, 8.17, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 401]]

properly before the House notwithstanding a point of order that the 
managers had met informally prior to their appointment.

On Aug. 9, 1954,(12) Mr. John M. Vorys, of Ohio, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 9678, a foreign aid measure. Mr. H. R. Gross, 
of Iowa, made a point of order against the conference report, stating 
that certain Members of the House had entered into a conference before 
the Chair had appointed conferees on the part of the House. Mr. Gross 
explained:

. . . Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that even before the 
papers were received from the other body, requesting a conference on 
the part of the House, before authority was given by the House for a 
conference, and well before the formal appointment of conferees on the 
part of the House, certain Members of the House of Representatives had 
apparently designated themselves as conferees and entered into 
agreement on one or more substantial issues in disagreement in 
connection with the bill H.R. 9678; that such agreement or agreements 
were entered into even before the House of Representatives formally and 
officially convened at 12 o'clock noon on August 4, 1954, and gave 
assent to a conference. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I can find no precedent which permits Members of the House 
to enter into a conference without first obtaining authority from the 
House for so doing. The weight of all precedents governs from the 
initial authority for a conference, the appointment of conferees and 
their conduct flow therefrom.

Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, made the following 
ruling:

The Chair wishes to state on the gentleman's point of order that he has 
no cognizance of informal meetings that may have been held. As a matter 
of fact, he would not know what Members were doing if they met 
informally in a group to discuss any specific subject. All the Chair 
can do is to take the report that is here. All 10 signatures are on the 
conference report. The conference report is here in a legal manner.

Closing a Conference, Vote Required

Sec.    5.2 In the 94th Congress, the House adopted a new rule requiring 
managers to vote, by a roll call, to close a conference. In the 95th 
Congress, the rule was modified to require a roll call vote in the full 
House to close a conference.

Conferences on matters in disagreement between the House and Senate 
were, until relatively recently, held behind closed doors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     100 CONG. REC. 13787, 13802, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 402]]

Occasionally, Members of the House were admitted to comment on the 
matters before the managers.(13) 
In the 94th Congress, the House adopted a new rule providing that 
conferences should be held in open session unless the managers of 
either the House or the Senate determined by a roll call vote to close 
the meeting.(14) 
The Senate, later in the same year,(15) adopted a rule similar to that 
adopted by the House, but normally follows the lead of the House 
managers and of the House when meeting in conference. 
Rule XXVIII clause 6, was again amended in the 95th Congress to require 
the vote to close a conference meeting to occur in the full House of 
Representatives by roll call.(16) 
In the 94th Congress, Majority Leader Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, called up the resolution establishing rules for the 
House.

MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 5) and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. RES. 5
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-
third Congress, together with all applicable provisions of the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1970, as amended, and the Congressional Budget 
and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, be, and they are hereby adopted as 
the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-fourth 
Congress, with the following amendments as part thereof, to wit: . . . 
(26) In Rule XXVIII, add the following new clause:
"6. Open Conference Meetings
"Each conference committee meet-ing between the House and Senate shall 
be open to the public except when the managers of either the House or 
Senate, in open session, determine by a rollcall vote of a majority of 
those managers present, that 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     See 5 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 6254 for the traditional method of 
holding a conference meeting.
14.     121 CONG. REC. 20-32, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 14, 1975 (H. 
Res. 5). 
15.     The Senate rule was incorporated into its Rule XXVIII clause 3, 
on Nov. 5, 1975. 121 CONG. REC. 35203-209, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. The 
rule remains part of current Senate Rule XXVIII clause 6 and reads as 
follows:
"6. Each conference committee between the Senate and the House of 
Representatives shall be open to the public except when managers of 
either the Senate or the House of Representatives in open session 
determine by a rollcall vote of a majority of those managers present, 
that all or part of the remainder of the meeting on the day of the vote 
shall be closed to the public."
16.     123 CONG. REC. 53-70, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1977 (H. Res. 
5).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 403]]

all or part of the remainder of the meeting on the day of the vote 
shall be closed to the public: Provided that this provision shall not 
become effective until a similar rule is adopted by the Senate." . . . 

THE SPEAKER:(17) The question is on the resolution.
MR. [BILL] FRENZEL [of Minnesota]: 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 259, nays 
150, not voting 22. . . .

In the 95th Congress, on Jan. 4, 1977,(18) Rule XXVIII was modified as 
a result of the following proceedings:

MR. [JAMES C.] WRIGHT [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
privileged resolution (H. Res. 5) and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. RES. 5
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-
fourth Congress, including all applicable provisions of law which 
constituted the Rules of the House at the end of the Ninety-fourth 
Congress, be, and they are hereby, adopted as the Rules of the House    
of Representatives of the Ninety- fifth Congress, with the following 
amendments included therein as part thereof, to wit: . . . 
(37) In Rule XXVIII, clause 6 is amended to read as follows:
"6. (a) Each conference committee meeting between the House and Senate 
shall be open to the public except when the House, in open session, has 
determined by a rollcall vote of a majority of those Members voting 
that all or part of the meeting shall be closed to the public.
"(b)(1) After the reading of the report and before the reading of the 
joint statement, a point of order may be made that the committee of 
conference making the report to the House has failed to comply with 
paragraph (a) of this clause.
"(2) If such point of order is sustained, the conference report shall 
be considered as rejected, the House shall be considered to have 
insisted upon its amendment(s) or upon disagreement to the amendment(s) 
of the Senate, as the case may be, and to have requested a further 
conference with the Senate, and the Speaker shall be authorized to 
appoint new conferees without intervening motion."; . . .

THE SPEAKER:(19) The question is on the resolution. 
MR. [JOHN J.] RHODES [of Arizona]: 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 256, nays 
142, not voting 35. . . . 
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
18.     123 CONG. REC. 53, 55, 70, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
19.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 404]]

Closing a Conference Meeting
Sec. 5.3 A motion to close a conference meeting to the public, but 
permitting Members of Congress to attend, is privileged and has been 
adopted under Rule XXVIII clause 6(a). 
On May 23, 1977,(20) the newly adopted rule governing the procedure for 
closing a conference was applied for the first time in the House.
After the Speaker had appointed the conferees on the Department of 
Defense authorization bill, fiscal 1978, Mr. Charles E. Bennett, of 
Florida, offered a motion to close the conference to the public. A 
series of inquiries followed, the motion was eventually withdrawn and a 
new motion offered to permit Members to attend sessions of the 
conference.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 5970, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
APPROPRIATION AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1978
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5970) to authorize appropriations during 
the fiscal year 1978, for procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval 
vessels, tracked combat vehicles, torpedoes, and other weapons, and 
research, development, test, and evaluation for the Armed Forces, and 
to prescribe the authorized personnel strength for each active duty 
component and of the Selected Reserve of each Reserve component of the 
Armed Forces and of civilian personnel of the Department of Defense, 
and to authorize the military training student loads, and for other 
purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER:(1) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees: 
Messrs. Price, Bennett, Stratton, Ichord, Nedzi, Charles H. Wilson of 
California, Leggett, White, Nichols, Bob Wilson, Dickinson, Whitehurst, 
and Spence.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BENNETT
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bennett moves, pursuant to rule XXVIII 6(a) of the House rules that 
the conference committee meetings between the House and the Senate on 
H.R. 5970 the fiscal year 1978 military authorization bill be closed to 
the public at such times as classified national security information is 
under consideration.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) is recognized for 
1 hour.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     123 CONG. REC. 15880-84, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 405]]

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bob Wilson), the ranking minority member on the 
committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume; at 
the conclusion of which I will be happy to yield to any Member who 
wishes to be heard.
Mr. Speaker, in discussing the military authorization bill in 
conference, there are times when it is impossible to consider many of 
the individual items without closing the session because of the 
security classification which understandably must be attached to many 
of the items under consideration. . . . 
MR. [THOMAS J.] DOWNEY [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, what I would like to 
know is whether or not the conferees and the acting chairman of the 
conference would have any objection to sitting Members of Congress 
sitting in on the session. It seems to me that is the crux of the 
matter. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, if I might address the Chair, is it possible for the 
gentleman from Florida to amend his own motion to incorporate that? . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The answer is that the motion may be modified by unanimous 
consent.
MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. Must that 
unanimous-consent request come from the gentleman from Florida or can 
that come from any Member?
THE SPEAKER: If the gentleman yields for that purpose, it can come from 
any Member. The gentleman from Florida is in control of the time.
MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Florida would yield 
further, the language that "any sitting Member of Congress shall have 
the right to attend any meeting, open or closed, of the conference"-
would that be suitable?
MR. BENNETT: The gentleman wants me to amend the motion to provide that 
during meetings of the conference committee any sitting Member may have 
the right to sit in on any open or closed meeting of the conference.
May I address the Chair and ask the Chair if I so amend my motion, is 
that a proper motion? I had understood that it was not.
THE SPEAKER: By unanimous consent the gentleman may so modify his 
motion.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, then by unanimous consent I ask that the 
motion I have offered be modified to allow any sitting Member of 
Congress to have the right to attend any closed or open meeting of the 
conference.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
MR. [SAMUEL S.] STRATTON [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I object. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will respond to an earlier parliamentary 
inquiry. In view of the fact that the gentleman has a motion pending, 
in order to modify this motion the gentleman must obtain unanimous 
consent. The gentleman does have the right in the House, as the 
gentleman is aware, of withdrawing his motion and offering a completely 
new motion. . . . 
MR. STRATTON: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. STRATTON: Mr. Speaker, if the House approves the Bennett motion, as 
originally moved, does that mean that 


[[Page 406]]

on those occasions when the conference goes into executive session that 
a Member of the House under the existing rules would have the 
opportunity to join that executive session?
THE SPEAKER: Under the precedents, all Members of the House, other than 
the conferees of the House, would be considered to be part of the 
public under the language of the motion and not entitled to go into the 
conferees' closed session.
The changing of clause 6 of rule XXVIII this year does not on its face 
alter the situation with respect to attendance by Members who are not 
named as conferees.
MR. STRATTON: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. STRATTON: If the conferees, having gone into executive session, 
were to agree that certain Members could be admitted to that conference 
for certain purposes, would that be permitted?
THE SPEAKER: The will of the House would bind House conferees. If the 
House has decided by rollcall that the conference will be a session 
closed to all persons, then the will of the House would prevail as 
indicated in rule XXVIII, clause 6. Or a motion could be made to 
clarify the term "public" so as not to include Members. It could well 
be that it would be a stalemate and that the Senate would not agree, 
but as far as House conferees are concerned, they could be instructed, 
on a motion made by the chairman of the committee that the Members of 
the House are not considered to be part of the public, but as Members 
of this body with the right of nonparticipating attendance.
MR. STRATTON: I thank the Speaker.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is proper for me to 
offer a substitute motion?
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman withdraw his previous motion?
MR. BENNETT: I do, Mr. Speaker.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BENNETT
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bennett moves that, pursuant to Rule XXVIII 6(a) of the House 
Rules, the conference committee meetings between the House and the 
Senate on H.R. 5970, the fiscal year 1978 military authorization bill, 
be closed to the public at such times as classified national security 
information is under consideration, provided however, that any sitting 
Member of Congress shall have the right to attend any closed or open 
meeting.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
MR. BOB WILSON [of California]: . . . Mr. Speaker, if I may, I wish to 
pose my parliamentary inquiry now.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. BOB WILSON: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the ruling that the 
Chair has just made on the previous motion offered by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Bennett) is to the effect that passage of this motion 
by the House would bind our conferees or at least would represent the 
views of the House, but then we would, of course, have to take into 
consideration the views of the Senate at such time as we 


[[Page 407]]

have a conference with the Senate? Is my understanding correct?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct. Each House would have one vote 
at the conference. . . . 
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: Under the provisions of rule XXVIII, clause 6(a), the yeas 
and nays are considered as ordered on this motion.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 273, nays 
114, not voting 46. 

Closing Conference, Select Committee on Intelligence

Sec.    5.4 The House has on occasion given a committee the authority to 
close its conference meetings without coming to the floor for the vote 
normally required under Rule XXVIII clause 6(a). 

On July 14, 1977,(2) the House  adopted House Resolution 658, 
establishing a Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  Among 
the powers and mandate given that committee was a specific grant of 
authority to close its conference meetings. 
The portion of the resolution specifically amending the rules of the 
House was carried in section 2, paragraph 11, which provides as 
follows:

"11. Clause 6(a) of rule XXVIII does not apply to conference committee 
meetings respecting legislation (or any part thereof) reported from the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.".

This authority survives in Rule XLVIII clause 11 of the current House 
rules.(3) 

Closing a Conference Meeting by Motion

Sec.    5.5 The motion to close a conference meeting under Rule XXVIII 
clause 6(a): (1) is properly made after the request to go to conference 
has been agreed to and the Speaker has appointed the conferees; (2) 
must be agreed to by a yea and nay vote; (3) may be limited in its 
terms to allow sitting Members to attend; and (4) may be modified to 
close the meetings to the public only when national security 
information (classified material) is under consideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     123 CONG. REC. 22949, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 944a (1997). 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 408]]

The rule requiring a yea and nay vote in the full House to close a 
conference meeting was added to Rule XXVIII in the 95th Congress.(4) 
The modified form of the motion to close used in this example from the 
proceedings of July 21, 1977,(5) has been used frequently by the 
Committee on Appropriations when sending a defense appropriation bill 
to conference.

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 7933) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1978, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and request a conference 
with the Senate thereon.
THE SPEAKER:(6) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees: 
Messrs. Mahon, Sikes, Flood, Addabbo, McFall, Flynt, Giaimo, Chappell, 
Burlison of Missouri, Edwards of Alabama, Robinson, Kemp, and 
Cederberg.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
MR. MAHON: Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Mahon moves, pursuant to rule XXVIII 6(a) of the House rules that 
the conference committee meetings between the House and the Senate on 
H.R. 7933, the fiscal year 1978 Department of Defense appropriation 
bill, be closed to the public at such times as classified national 
security information is under consideration, provided however, that any 
sitting Member of Congress shall have the right to attend any closed or 
open meeting.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) 
for 1 hour.
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, the object here is to comply with the rules and 
procedures of the House. The conference will be open if the motion is 
agreed to, except for the consideration of classified material. 
Classified material may arise from time to time in the conference. It 
will be possible to arrange for the classified material to be discussed 
under circumstances which will permit most of the conference to be an 
open conference. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, it would be my purpose, as the head of the House 
conferees, to work out an arrangement in the conference whereby it will 
be agreed that wherever there are classified materials we can try to 
discuss them at one particular time and not have classified material 
intermingled constantly with the discussion otherwise on the bill. I 
think that can be done and should be done. In the past, I know of 
nothing improper that has ever taken place in 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4.      See H. Res. 5, 123 CONG. REC. 53-77, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 
4, 1977. See Rule XXVIII clause 6(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 913d 
(1997). 
 5.     123 CONG. REC. 24365, 24366, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 409]]

the conference with the Senate on a defense bill, and I have had 
considerable experience in that area. But as a matter of convenience, 
we have moved to close the conferences because there is so much 
classified material, and we cannot always tell when the material may 
arise for discussion. . . . 
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. Mahon).
MR. [JOHN J.] FLYNT [of Georgia]: 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: Under the provisions of rule XXVIII, clause 6(a), the yeas 
and nays are considered as ordered on this motion.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 376, nays 
0, not voting 57. 

Closing Conference Meetings

Sec.    5.6 Following the adoption of a motion to instruct conferees, 
and pending the Speaker's appointment of the managers on the part of 
the House, the Chair has entertained a motion to authorize the 
conferees to close the conference meetings, a motion which requires a 
roll call vote.

Rule XXVIII clause 6(a)(7) does not specify a time period within which 
a motion to close a conference must be entertained. These proceedings, 
excerpted from the Record of June 10, 1988,(8) show the exercise of the 
Chair's discretion about when to recognize for a motion to close a 
conference.

The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(9) The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Dickinson].
The motion to instruct was agreed to.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will delay the appointment of 
conferees until the Speaker returns to the Chair.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. ASPIN
MR. [LES] ASPIN [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Aspin moves that pursuant to rule XXVIII 6(a) of the House rules, 
the conference committee meetings between the House and the Senate on 
H.R. 4264, the fiscal year 1989 Department of Defense authorization 
bill, be closed to the public at such times as classified national 
security information is under consideration: 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 913d (1997).
 8.     134 CONG. REC. 14068, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9.     William J. Hughes (N.J.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 410]]

Provided, however, That any sitting Member of Congress shall have the 
right to attend any closed or open meeting.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Aspin] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
MR. ASPIN: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Requirement for Open Conference  Meetings

Sec.    5.7 A point of order against a conference report was overruled 
where Member making challenge failed to establish that the report 
differed from that agreed upon in open conference meeting. 

Where a Member pressed a point of order that a conference report was 
reported in violation of Rule XXVIII clause 6, which requires that 
conference meetings be open, he has the burden of showing that an 
actual meeting of the conferees took place in violation of the "open 
conference" rule. 
On Sept. 28, 1976,(10) when the conference report on S. 521, the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1976, was taken up in the 
House as unfinished business, a point of order was pressed as shown in 
the Record excerpts set out below.

MR. [HAMILTON] FISH [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order against the conference report on grounds that it has been 
reported in violation of Rule XXVIII, clause 6, which requires that 
conference meetings be open to the public except when ordered closed by 
rollcall vote in open session.
Mr. Speaker, on the first day of this Congress, as one of its first 
moves toward reform, the House voted to amend its rules and open up 
conferences to public scrutiny. The Senate soon passed a similar 
measure, and the rule took effect.
At the first open meeting of the conference committee, one of the 
managers on the part of the Senate moved that the Senate recede from 
its disagreement to the House amendment with several amendments which 
he had caused to be printed as part of a conference document. 
Additional linear amendments were proposed by other Senate managers in 
the form of amendments to the motion, and in due course a majority of 
the Senators voted for the motion as amended.
The chairman of the conference committee, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Murphy) then moved that the House agree to the amendments of the 
Senate. This motion was presumably amendable, although the chairman 
refused to allow any amendments to be offered. If he had, they would 
have been restricted to germane modifications of the various Senate 
amendments which would have been the only items in disagreement at that 
time. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     122 CONG. REC. 33019, 33020, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 411]]

The motion was rushed to a vote and agreed to by the House managers, 
and the conference meeting was adjourned.
Mr. Speaker, the conference committee must have met again. It must have 
met without any notice to the minority and far from public view. It 
must have met in closed session without first having voted to do so in 
open session. I must assume that there was a closed session of the 
conference committee, because instead of reporting linear Senate 
amendments, as had been agreed to in open session, the committee 
reported a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute. . . . 
There must have been one more meeting-a closed meeting-in which a 
majority of the Senate conferees and a majority of the House conferees 
agreed to switch from linear amendments to an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute without giving minority House managers a chance to 
offer amendments and without being open to the public. . . . 
Clause 6 has never before been tested to my knowledge. If this point of 
order is overruled, it will mean that a majority of the managers can, 
in open session, agree to things they think the public will like, and 
then change those things around in private to suit themselves. Whether 
this is done by the managers at a face-to-face meeting, or by telephone 
or by mail or by staff without even informing the managers, it is being 
done in secret, in violation of the rules. Defeat of this point of 
order will make clause 6 meaningless and destroy the concept of open 
conferences.
THE SPEAKER:(11) Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) desire 
to be heard on the point of order?
MR. [JOHN M.] MURPHY of New York: I do, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I would refer to the recorded 
minutes of the conference on page 2 of the opening day of the 
conference. Senator Jackson moved that the conference be open to the 
public. The motion was seconded by Senator Jackson and adopted by the 
conference without objection. If my colleague, the gentleman from New 
York, had been present at all sessions of the conference, I doubt if he 
would make this point of order. The motion made by Senator Jackson at 
the conference and on page 8 of the first day's minutes of the 
conference is as follows:
Mr. Chairman, I therefore move the Senate recede from its disagreement 
with the House and accept the House amendment with the amendment set 
forth in the September 13 conference print, except the technical 
amendments that occur on page 123 of the print.

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the gentleman's argument, he is asserting 
that the Chair is to find an implied or "constructive" secret meeting 
of the majority of the conferees because the conference report is not 
consistent with the gentleman's interpretation of the procedures of the 
conference committee. . . . 
In addition, I would point out that the conference report is consistent 
with the actions of the conference. Senator Jackson moved that the 
Senate recede from its disagreement and agree to the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 412]]

amendment of the House with an amendment. During the course of the 
deliberations, the Senate conferees agreed to modify Senator Jackson's 
proposed amendments. The Senate conferees then approved the Jackson 
motion.
The House conferees then agreed to adopt the language agreed to by the 
Senate conferees, to be inserted in lieu of the House amendment.
The conference report properly reflects these actions.
Moreover, rules of the House make it clear that once a conference 
report is filed by the required number of conferees there is a 
conclusive presumption as to the validity of the conference.
The Speaker will not look behind the signatures as to the procedures in 
conference. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from New York has made a point of order directed against 
conference procedure alleging a violation of clause 6, rule XXVIII.
The gentleman's point of order is that the form of the conference 
report does not conform to his understanding as to which motion was 
agreed to by the House conferees. The gentleman contends that there was 
a further constructive meeting of the conferees which was closed and 
unannounced.
The chief manager of the conference report has reported that in a 
meeting of the conferees which was open to the public, pursuant to the 
provisions of clause 6, rule XXVIII, a proper motion was made to agree 
to an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the House amendment 
to the Senate bill, and the signatures of a majority of the conferees 
of both Houses reflecting this agreement appear on the conference 
report.
The Chair does not feel that a violation of conference rules has been 
shown, and the Chair overrules the point of order.

Quorum Requirements in a Conference Meeting

Sec.    5.8 In response to a series of parliamentary inquiries, the 
Speaker commented on essential features of a valid conference under 
House rules: (1) while there is no rule specifying what constitutes a 
quorum for a meeting of House managers at a conference, a quorum is 
required on the signature sheets of the conference report and joint 
statement; (2) a conference report is valid only if there has been a 
public meeting of the conferees under Rule XXVIII clause 6; and (3) no 
rule of the House precludes conferees meeting during a period when the 
House is conducting five-minute votes.

In the following instance, Mr. Lewis' parliamentary inquiry was 
directed to the Speaker while the House was conducting a series of 
votes. In that sense, the inquiry 


[[Page 413]]

was directed at "pending business" and not to some hypothetical 
situation to which the Chair normally would not respond.(12) 

MR. [JERRY] LEWIS of California: Mr. Speaker, is it appropriate to have 
a parliamentary inquiry at this moment?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(13) The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. LEWIS of California: Mr. Speaker, I presume it is appropriate to 
make an inquiry about our procedure as it relates to conference 
reports.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is not able to hear the gentleman.
MR. LEWIS of California: Mr. Speaker, I presume it is appropriate to 
ask information of the Chair as to the procedure as it relates to 
conference meetings, conferences of the House.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman must state a parliamentary 
inquiry, and it should relate to the pending business.
MR. LEWIS of California: My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is do 
Members of the House in majority forum have to be present for a 
conference to take place?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis] that there is no quorum requirement for meeting 
of the conference beyond the requirement for a majority of signatures.
MR. LEWIS of California: They do have to meet; is that correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: There needs to be a public meeting of the 
conference.
MR. LEWIS of California: A public meeting of the conference, and I 
presume that the conferees at least should have an opportunity to be 
there. Is that correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair has responded to the gentleman's 
inquiry.
MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. WALKER: MR. Speaker, is it appropriate to hold conference committee 
meetings during 5-minute votes of the House?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] that there is no rule prohibiting a meeting 
of a conference during 5-minute votes of the House.
MR. LEWIS of California: I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
Is it appropriate to hope to begin a conference where Members are in 
the middle of votes and there are no Republican Members present?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair does not believe the gentleman has 
stated a parliamentary inquiry.

Authority To Sit During Recesses and Adjournments
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     See 140 CONG. REC. 27662, 27663, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 4, 
1994.
13.     David E. Skaggs (Colo.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 414]]

Sec.    5.9 The House may authorize its conferees to sit during recesses 
or during adjournments between sessions of a Congress.

On Dec. 21, 1937,(14) Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made the following 
request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the 
adjournment of the House, the House conferees in charge of the bill 
H.R. 8730, the National Housing Act, may be allowed to sit during the 
adjournment.
THE SPEAKER:(15) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
There was no objection.(16) 

Proxy Voting

Sec.    5.10 Proxy voting by Senate conferees is a matter to be 
determined among the conferees themselves.

On Aug. 24, 1950,(17) Senator Burnet R. Maybank, of South Carolina, 
made the following parliamentary inquiry:

If a conferee is absent from a meeting of the conference, and should 
leave his proxy, could his proxy be voted if the other conferees 
agreed?
I desire to have the judgment of the President of the Senate on that 
question.
THE VICE PRESIDENT:(18) In the opinion of the Chair that is a matter 
for the conferees themselves. If they agree that the absent member of 
the conference may have his vote recorded, the Chair knows no rule 
against it.

Requirements for Filing Conference Report

Sec.    5.11 A conference report cannot be filed before the conferees 
have been formally appointed in both Houses and had a meeting.

On Sept. 28, 1976, the conferees representing the House met with the 
not-yet-appointed Senate conferees to reconcile the differences on S. 
3131, amending the Rail Passenger Service Act. A consensus was reached, 
the conferees signed the report which was subsequently filed in the 
House on Sept. 29, 1976.(19) 
When it was then determined that the Senate had never, in fact, 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     82 CONG. REC. 2045, 2046, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
15.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
16.     See also 82 CONG. REC. 1905, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 18, 1937.
17.     96 CONG. REC. 13266, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
18.     Alben W. Barkley (Ky.).
19.     H. Rept. No. 94-1734, 122 CONG. REC. 33761, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., 
Sept. 29, 1976.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 415]]

formally appointed its conferees, the report was again filed in the 
House following the official notification, by message, that the 
conferees had been named.(20) Note the sequence of Senate action and 
the single message to the House in which the Senate announces not only 
its agreement to the House request for a conference and the appointment 
of conferees, but also its agreement to the conference report.(1) 
The proceedings in the Senate were as follows:

MR. [JOHN O.] PASTORE [of Rhode Island]: Mr. President, I ask the Chair 
to lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on 
S. 3131.
The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate a message from the House 
of Representatives insisting upon its amendments to the bill (S. 3131) 
to amend the Rail Passenger Service Act to provide financing for the 
National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and for other purposes, and 
requesting a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the 
two Houses thereon.
MR. PASTORE: I move that the Senate disagree to the amendments of the 
House and agree to the request of the House for a conference on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that the Chair be 
authorized to appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to: and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. 
Magnuson, Mr. Pastore, Mr. Hartke, Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Ford, Mr. 
Weicker, and Mr. Beall conferees on the part of the Senate. . . . 
MR. PASTORE: Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of 
conference on S. 3131, and ask for its immediate consideration.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(2) The report will be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 3131) to amend the Rail 
Passenger Service Act to provide financing for the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation, and for other purposes, having met, after full 
and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
respective Houses this report, signed by all of the conferees.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.

The proceedings in the House(3) when it received a message from the 
Senate regarding S. 3131 are set out below:

The message . . . announced that the Senate disagrees to the amendments 
of 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     H. Rept. No. 94-1743, 122 CONG. REC. 34322, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., 
Sept. 30, 1976.
 1.     122 CONG. REC. 33829, 33831, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. Sept. 30, 1976.
 2.     John C. Culver (Iowa).
 3.     122 CONG. REC. 34100, 34101, 34202, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 
30, 1976.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 416]]

the House to the bill (S. 3131) entitled "An act to amend the Rail 
Passenger Service Act to provide financing for the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation, and for other purposes," agrees to the 
conference asked by the House on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. Magnuson, Mr. Pastore, and Mr. Hartke, 
Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Ford, Mr. Weicker, and Mr. Beall to be the 
conferees on the part of the Senate. . . . 
The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the report of the 
committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 
the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 3131) entitled "An Act to 
amend the Rail Passenger Service Act to provide financing for the 
National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and for other purposes." . . . 
Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia] submitted the following 
conference report and statement on the Senate bill (S. 3131) to amend 
the Rail Passenger Service Act and to provide financing for the 
National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and for other purposes.
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 94-1743)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 3131) to amend the Rail 
Passenger Service Act to provide financing for the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation, and for other purposes, having met, after full 
and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
House to the text of the bill and agree to the same with an amendment 
as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House 
amendment insert the following . . . .

What Constitutes a Conference Meeting

Sec.    5.12 Instance where a privileged motion to close a conference was 
offered, debated, and ultimately rejected by the House after a 
discussion of what actions and gatherings of conferees, under the 
rules, constitute a "meeting" of a conference committee. 

On Apr. 13, 1978,(4) although the Speaker was not called upon to 
interpret when informal discussions and gatherings of conferees cross 
the threshold of the requirement in Rule XXVIII clause 6(a) that 
conference meetings be open except when closed in accordance with that 
clause, the debate on a motion to close a conference is informative.
PRIVILEGED MOTION RELATING TO CLOSING TO THE PUBLIC CONFERENCE 
COMMITTEE MEETINGS ON H.R. 5289, RELATING TO NATURAL GAS REGULATION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     124 CONG. REC. 10128, 10133, 10134, 10136, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 417]]

MR. [TONY] MOFFETT [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged 
motion.
The Clerk read the motion as follows:

Mr. Moffett moves, pursuant to rule XXVIII 6(a) of the House rules that 
the conference committee meetings between the House and the Senate on 
H.R. 5289, relating to natural gas regulation, be closed to the public, 
provided however, that any sitting Member of Congress shall have the 
right to attend any closed or open meeting.

THE SPEAKER:(5) The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Moffett) has 
presented a privileged motion, and has control of the time.
The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. MOFFETT: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. . 
. . 
This is not a motion that in any way intends to inhibit or prohibit any 
informal discussions in which no substantive conclusions are reached. 
But, this has clearly become a closed conference in violation of the 
House rules.
Rule XXVIII 6(a) reads:

Each conference committee meeting between the House and Senate shall be 
open to the public except when the House, in open session, has 
determined by a rollcall vote of a majority of those Members voting 
that all or part of the meeting shall be closed to the public.

Mr. Speaker, the conference on energy has met for many, many hours this 
year, members of the conference from both parties. There has been 
approximately 1 hour of discussion that has been open to the public and 
the press. Some Members have been excluded from the meetings. I am not 
one of those Members. I have taken part in some of those closed 
discussions.
Before Easter I told the distinguished chairman of the conference and 
the distinguished and able chairman of the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce, on which I am proud to serve, that I felt I had to 
continue to raise objections to closed meetings, and that I was going 
to take my objections before my colleagues in the House. I think the 
issue here is, are we in violation of the House rules? I think the 
answer is clearly yes. Are we setting a dangerous precedent? The answer 
is clearly yes. . . . 
MR. [THOMAS L.] ASHLEY [of Ohio]: What the gentleman does not seem to 
understand is that this conference has broken down and the conference 
on the national energy plan has not met in some several weeks, nor is 
it meeting these days. What is going on is that there are informal 
discussions among some of the Senate conferees and some of the House 
conferees. Those that represent the House are not a majority of the 
House conferees.
So what I think we are trying to get at or I am trying to get at is the 
distinction between a conference committee meeting and the informal 
discussions that are going on in an effort to reach the kind of 
preliminary possible areas of agreement that could lead us back into 
the sunshine of an open conference session.
MR. [THOMAS J.] DOWNEY [of New York]: Well, the gentleman strikes a 
curious position. How is this to prevent 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 418]]

every conference from meeting informally and then at some final date 
adopting at a pro forma session of the conference what the agreements 
have been? To do what the gentleman is doing today and has been doing 
for several weeks leads us down a very dangerous road where the 
precedents are that there shall be no more open formal conferences.
MR. ASHLEY: If I can respond to that, I think the process that is being 
followed is consistent with the rules of the House . . . . 
Mr. Speaker, let me say that I fully appreciate what the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Carr) has just said. There is a basic and fundamental 
difference as to the interpretation of the rule, namely what 
constitutes a meeting of the conference. It is my absolute conviction 
that the meetings that have been transpiring are not meetings of the 
conference but are informal expressions between Members on both sides 
in an effort to advance-I will concede-in an effort to advance the 
business of the conference, but as I read the rule, as we meet in the 
sessions we have had, we are not meeting in a conference meeting. The 
conference broke down-if the gentleman is interested-the conference 
broke down because one member of the conference, who did not want an 
energy bill, insisted that he have the opportunity to ask 75 questions 
and he proceeded to ask those questions. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Moffett).
Under the rules of the House, this vote must be determined by the yeas 
and nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 6, nays 
371, not voting 57.

Parliamentarian's Note: There are few precedents directly on the point 
of "what is a conference meeting." Jefferson's Manual,  House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 539, 105th Congress, suggests that a conference essentially 
occurs when a majority of managers from each House, assemble to 
negotiate in a parliamentary manner the differences before them. See 
also 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 578, where an allegation that members 
of a committee were conducting closed deliberations and excluding a 
committee member were discussed in the context of the rules governing 
House committee deliberations.

Recommittal of Conference Report To Avoid Point of Order

Sec.    5.13 Where managers on the part of the House had signed a 
conference agreement before their formal appointment by the Speaker, 
the re-


[[Page 419]]

port was, by unanimous consent, recommitted (to the same conference) so 
that a formal, open meeting of the conferees could take place and a new 
report filed.

The adoption of Rule XXVIII clause 6,(6) which requires meetings of a 
conference committee to be open unless formally closed by a vote of the 
House, has narrowed the reach of older precedents which stood for the 
proposition that where a report was signed by a majority of managers, 
the Chair would not look behind the signatures for irregularities in 
the conduct of a conference meeting.(7) In a situation like the one 
discussed here, taken from the proceedings of Mar. 25, 1980,(8) where 
conferees had inadvertently signed the report before their formal 
appointment, a point of order would lie against the report under the 
cited rule.
RECOMMITTAL TO CONFERENCE OF S. 662, INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS 
AUTHORIZATION
MR. [HENRY S.] REUSS [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to recommit the Senate bill, S. 662, to conference.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(9) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, could the gentleman tell me the title of the bill?
MR. REUSS: Yes; this is the bill containing authorization for the 
Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the 
African Development Fund.
MR. BAUMAN: Could the gentleman from Wisconsin explain to me why the 
chairman is asking to recommit this bill?
MR. REUSS: Yes, though not without some embarrassment. Technically, it 
turned out that the conferees had conferred and done their business a 
few minutes before the House conferees were, in fact, appointed. That 
was one of those slips betwixt the cup and the lip which occur because 
of the length of our corridors. So, the report as it comes back to us 
is technically imperfect, and it is to correct that imperfection that I 
ask this unanimous-consent request.
MR. BAUMAN: Further reserving the right to object, I assume what the 
gentleman is saying is that the consideration of the report in 
conference did not comply with rule XXVIII, which requires an open 
conference meeting unless the House votes otherwise?
MR. REUSS: I believe that is the relevant section. In any event, 
whether it is 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 913d (1997).
 7.     See Conferences Between the Houses, House Practice, Sec. 11, p. 
319 (1996).
 8.     126 CONG. REC. 6429, 6430, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9.     John P. Murtha (Pa.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 420]]

rule XXVIII or not, and I do not have it in front of me, it obviously 
was unintentionally improper, and we seek to correct that by doing it 
right.

Waiving Points of Order Where Conferees Never Met

Sec.    5.14 Where a conference report was filed showing signatures by a 
majority of the conferees, but where they had never met, a special 
order was reported from the Committee on Rules and adopted by the House 
waiving points of order against the report and against its 
consideration.

Rule XXVIII clause 6(a),(10) adopted in the 94th Congress, requires 
conference meetings to be open to the public. That requirement was not 
met by the conferees on H.R. 4021, the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 
1986, and House Resolution 569 was reported to protect a point of order 
under that rule. The resolution was adopted without incident.(11) 

MR. [JOHN JOSEPH] MOAKLEY [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 569 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 569
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4021) to 
extend and improve the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 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.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(12) The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] is recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
MR. [JAMES H.] QUILLEN [of Tennessee]: . . . The Rehabilitation Act 
Amendments of 1986 are most important. This measure should be enacted 
into law despite the discrepancy in the procedure involved before it 
came to the Rules Committee. I understand that there was no conference 
meeting of Members held on this measure.
Mr. Speaker, this is most unusual. I do not recall another instance 
where the conferees of the House and the Senate have not gotten 
together and reached an agreement and reported the measure out for our 
consideration. However, the urgency of the adoption of the 
Rehabilitation Act amendments is so urgent that I feel the Rules 
Committee took the right step in reporting it out.

Where Conferees Did Not Meet
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 913d (1997).
11.     See 132 CONG. REC. 28077, 28078, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 2, 
1986.
12.     Richard J. Durbin (Ill.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 421]]

Sec.    5.15 Where conferees had been unable to meet in a formal session 
but reconciled their differences by telephone and then signed the 
report, the House adopted a special order "deeming" the report to have 
been recommitted, waiving all points of order against the consideration 
of any subsequent conference report filed after a valid meeting.

The resolution(13) reported from the Committee on Rules and the 
explanation thereof by Mr. Martin Frost, of Texas, show how adoption of 
the special order could actually expedite the adoption of a  conference 
report on the bill. Failure of the conferees to meet would have made 
the initial report subject to a point of order;(14) by recommitting the 
report and then waiving the three-day layover requirement in Rule 
XXVIII clause 2(a),(15) and the requirement of printing the report in 
the Congressional Record, the report could actually be considered (and 
was so considered) in the House later that same day after a valid 
conference meeting was held and a new report filed.
MR. FROST: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 293 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 293
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the conference 
report on the bill (H.R. 2712) to facilitate the adjustment or change 
of status of Chinese nationals in the United States by waiving the two-
year foreign residence requirement for "J" nonimmigrants shall be 
considered as having been recommitted to conference. All points of 
order against consideration of any subsequent conference report on the 
bill for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 2 of rule 
XXVIII are hereby waived.

THE SPEAKER:(16) The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] is recognized for 
1 hour.
MR. FROST: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon, 
pending which 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     See H. Res. 293 at 135 CONG. REC. 29897, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., 
Nov. 17, 1989.
14.     See 5 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 6458. Rule XXVIII clause 6, House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 913d (1997), adopted by the House in 1975, also 
requires an open conference meeting and would subject a report to a 
point of order where this requirement was ignored.
15.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
16.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------  

[[Page 422]]

I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 293 provides for the recommittal to 
conference of the conference report on H.R. 2712, the Chinese 
Adjustment of Status Facilitation Act of 1989. The resolution also 
waives clause 2 of rule XXVIII against consideration of any subsequent 
conference report on the bill. Clause 2 of rule XXVIII prohibits 
consideration of any conference report until the third calendar day 
after such report and the accompanying statement has been filed in the 
House and the report and statement have been available to Members for 
at least 2 hours prior to such consideration.
Mr. Speaker, the recommittal of the bill to conference is necessary due 
to the inability of the conference committee to formally meet in the 
absence of its chairman, Mr. Brooks. However, informal meetings have 
taken place and the conferees have reached agreement. Due to the 
urgency for action on this measure, Mr. Kastenmeier was named as a 
conferee on Tuesday.
In an attempt to file this conference report during the last days of 
this session, the members of the conference concluded that it would not 
be practical to meet formally. However, under the rules of the House a 
point of order could be raised against the conference report, resulting 
in its rejection. Rather than establish a new conference, the conferees 
have informed the Rules Committee of their intention to meet today and 
formally report the conference report on this bill.
As stated earlier, the rule would allow consideration of the subsequent 
conference report by waiving the 3-day layover and availability 
requirement.

The conference report on H.R. 2712 was adopted on Nov. 19, 1989.(17) 

"Rules" for Conducting Complex Conference

Sec.    5.16 A member of the conference committee on an omnibus budget 
reconciliation act inserted in the Congressional Record a tentative 
list of procedures and "understandings" to be followed by House 
conferees in their deliberations during "subconferences" with the 
Senate.

The complexity of appointing conferees which can touch all the 
jurisdictional bases in a text within the jurisdiction of 17 House 
committees is obvious from the statement of Mr. Leon E. Panetta, of 
California, the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, and by 
the rules established by  the "general conferees" to govern the 
conference deliberations. The Congressional Record extract carried here 
is self-explanatory:(18) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     See 135 CONG. REC. 30101, 30102, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     127 CONG. REC. 16002, 97th Cong. 1st Sess., July 16, 1981.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 423]]

MR. PANETTA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide an update on the 
reconciliation conference. The conferees were appointed yesterday. Some 
17 House Committee jurisdictions are involved. One hundred and eighty-
four Members of the House were appointed, some 72 Members for the other 
body, a total of 256 Members will be participating in this conference 
which is the largest in the history of the Congress. 
Leadership understandings have been developed as well as rules on 
reconciliation and those have been sent out to all conferees. A copy of 
those agreements are included at the conclusion of my remarks. . . . 
At this point I am encouraged that the various committees are moving 
expeditiously toward resolution on reconciliation.

RULES FOR RECONCILIATION CONFERENCE
1. Budget Committee conferees are general conferees. They may attend 
and vote in any of the sub-conferences.
2. Proxies are permissible.
3. Sub-conference members may vote on only those issues within the sub-
conference for which they were appointed.
4. Sub-conferences will be convened by the responsible House committee 
chairmen.
5. The conference agreement should be limited to matters in either the 
Senate or House bills or related thereto.
6. Each sub-conference will prepare its portion of the joint statement 
of the managers and the legislative language to be included in the 
conference report.
7. All provisions agreed upon by the conferees will be priced by the 
Congressional Budget Office. Sub-conferences are therefore urged to 
work closely with CBO from the outset. Scoring will follow the same 
conventions that were used by CBO in the scoring of the House and 
Senate reconciliation bills.
8. Signature sheets and language for the conference substitute and the 
joint statement of managers will be collected by the House and Senate 
Budget Committees' staffs and assembled by those staffs in conjunction 
with the House and Senate Legislative Counsel. 
9. The conference will not be concluded until a majority of the general 
conferees from the House and the Senate sign the conference report in 
their capacity as general conferees.
10. All sub-conferences are requested to notify the appropriate House 
or Senate Budget Committee in advance as to the time and place of 
sub-conference meetings. If possible, notice should be 24 hours prior 
to sub-conference meetings. House and Senate Budget Committees will 
post sub-conference schedules in a prominent place. Information 
regarding subconference meetings should be directed to the House Budget 
Committee staff at 225-7234 or 225-7241 and to the Senate Budget 
Committee staff at 224-1458 or 224-0846.
LEADERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS
1. The Senate will amend the House bill with an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
2. A majority of the conferees appointed for each subconference will be 
members who supported the reconciliation bill on final passage.
3. Sub-conferees will not reopen provisions which are the same in both 
bills and are urged to agree on substantially identical provisions.
4. The leadership of both Houses will make every effort to get 
conference agreements on all issues, as quickly as possible.


[[Page 424]]

5. Assuming that the conference reaches full agreement on a conference 
substitute, the House leadership will support a rule which makes the 
conference report in order and waives all necessary points of order.

Portions of a Conference Transcript Were Published in the Record

Sec.    5.17 A member of the Senate inserted into the Record a portion of 
the transcript of a conference session, held in the previous Congress.

On June 20, 1983,(19) Senator Gary Hart, of Colorado, inserted in the 
Congressional Record the transcript of a conference committee session 
held in the previous Congress. He stated that the proceedings would 
"shed additional light" on the congressional "intent" in formulating 
the provisions of a law enacted in the prior year. The Senator's 
request and his explanation, as well as a portion of the transcript, 
are included here.
URANIUM MILL TAILINGS STANDARDS
MR. HART: Mr. President, there has been quite some discussion recently 
about the final standards issued by the Environmental Protection Agency 
for inactive uranium mill tailings sites and the proposed standards for 
active sites.
Some of this discussion centers on modifications to the Uranium Mill 
Tailings Regulation and Control Act of 1978 that were contained in the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act for fiscal years 1982 
and 1983. In particular, there are questions about the extent to which 
the Congress intended for the EPA, in setting its standards, to 
consider the cost of compliance.
To shed additional light on this question, I ask that the transcript of 
the August 19, 1982, conference on the NRC authorization bill be 
inserted in the Record at this point, along with an April 28, 1982, 
letter from the EPA, referred to in the transcript.
The material follows:
JOINT HOUSE-SENATE CONFERENCE, NRC AUTHORIZATION CONFERENCE, AUGUST 19, 
1982
The joint conference met at 3:10 p.m. room EF-100, the Capitol, Hon. 
Morris K. Udall (chairman of the joint conference) presiding.
Present: Senators Simpson, Domenici and Hart
Representatives Udall, Ottinger, Lujan, Bingham, Seiberling, Marriott 
and Markey.
Representative Udall. The conference will resume its session.
I had hoped that we could have one last session today and wind this 
thing up, but I'm not sure that is in the cards. But it seems to me we 
ought not lose our momentum, to keep going and make some modest 
progress today. And then I hope we can set a date in September for a 
final meeting, what will be a final meeting and then wrap it up.
I think we ought to go first today to the Uranium Imports issue.
At our previous session Senator Simpson circulated to all members a 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     129 CONG. REC. 16356, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 425]]

proposal for handling this, and then I circulated a proposal for which 
differed in some considerable degree.
Those proposals are before the members of the conference, we can 
discuss them today if there is any inclination to do so.

Vote on Motion To Close Conference, Reducing Time

Sec.    5.18 A motion to close a conference meeting must be taken by the 
yeas and nays; and, by unanimous consent, the House has "clustered" 
this vote with others and reduced the time to five minutes.

The Speaker's postponement authority for votes, in Rule I clause 5(b), 
does not include the vote on closing a conference meeting, which must 
be taken by the yeas and nays under Rule XXVIII clause 6. But where 
circumstances and schedule permit, a unanimous-consent request such as 
that carried here, as excerpted from the Congressional Record of Aug. 
1, 1983,(20) can be used to expedite proceedings.
REDUCING TO 5 MINUTES TIME FOR VOTE ON MOTION TO CLOSE PORTIONS OF 
CONFERENCE ON S. 675
MR. [BILL] ALEXANDER [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the yea and nay vote required by clause 6, rule XXVIII, on 
the motion to be offered by the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee to close portions of the conference on the bill, S. 675, be a 
5-minute vote. That motion will immediately follow the yea and nay vote 
on the motion to postpone House Resolution 256 indefinitely.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.

Motion To Dispose of Senate Amendments, En Bloc, Before Stage of 
Disagreement

Sec.    5.19 Example of the use of a special order to permit the House to 
consider one privileged motion to dispose of Senate amendments to a 
House bill, waiving all points of order against the motion and 
specifying that the motion is not subject to a demand for division of 
the question unless demanded by the Majority Leader or his designee.

Before the stage of disagreement is reached on amendments of one House 
to a bill of the other, a special order is often used to dispose of 
such amendments. The formulation of such a rule may be taken 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     129 CONG. REC. 22029, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 426]]

before the amendments are actually before the House, as in the example 
carried here.(1) The Committee on Rules reported the special order on 
Nov. 9, 1995; the Senate did not message its amendments to the House 
until Nov. 10, 1995, following the filing of the anticipatory rule.
The Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations(2) offered the motion 
permitted by the special order later on that same day.(3) The Senate 
amendment numbered 3 proposed to strike a portion of the House bill and 
insert a new provision. This motion to strike out and insert not being 
subject   to a division, Mr. Livingston's amendment proposed to delete 
the Senate's insertion and then to strike the portions of the House 
text-thus removing from the bill all provisions dealing with the use of 
federal subsidies or grants to lobby government officials or agencies.
The rule, the motion, and a portion of the debate on both are carried 
here.

MR. [DAVID] DREIER [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 261 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 261
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to take from the Speaker's 
table the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115) making further continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes, with 
any Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House a motion 
offered by the majority leader or his designee to dispose of all Senate 
amendments. Any Senate amendments and motions shall be considered as 
read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their 
designees. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
motion to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for 
division of the question except any such demand made by the majority 
leader or his designee.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(4) The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
is recognized for 1  hour. 
MR. DREIER: . . . Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration in 
the House, without intervening point of order, of a motion if offered 
by the majority leader or his designee to dispose of Senate amendments 
to House Joint Resolution 115, a continuing resolution 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     See 141 CONG. REC. 32112, 32113, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 10, 
1995.
 2.     Robert Livingston (La.).
 3.     141 CONG. REC. 32135-37, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4.     John D. Hayworth, Jr. (Ariz.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 427]]

making appropriations for fiscal year 1996 through December 1, 1995.
This rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the 
majority leader and the minority leader or their designees, and further 
provides that the previous question is ordered to adoption of the 
motion without intervening motion or demand for a division of the 
question unless the demand is made by the majority leader or his 
designee. . . . 
MR. LIVINGSTON: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 261, I call 
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115), making further continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes, with 
Senate amendments thereto, and I offer a motion.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(5) Pursuant to House Resolution 261, the 
Senate amendments are considered as read.
The text of the Senate amendments is as follows:

Senate amendments:
Page 2, line 20, after "1948," insert: section 313 of the Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 
103-236),
Page 10, line 19, after "resolution." Insert: Included in the 
apportionment for the Federal Payment to the District of Columbia shall 
be an additional $15,000,000 above the amount otherwise made available 
by this joint resolution, for purposes of certain capital construction 
loan repayments pursuant to Public Law 85-451, as amended.
Page 15, strike out line 1 and all that follows over to and including 
line 7 on page 36, and insert:
TITLE III
PROHIBITION ON SUBSIDIZING POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS WITH TAX-PAYER FUNDS
SEC.[dwk1] 301. (a) LIMITATIONS.-(1) Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, any organization receiving Federal grants in an 
amount that, in the aggregate, is greater than $125,000 in the most 
recent Federal fiscal year, shall be subject to the limitations on 
lobbying activity expenditures under section 4911(c) (2)(B) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, except that, if exempt purpose 
expenditures are over $17,000,000 then the organization shall also be 
subject to a limitation on lobbying    of 1 percent of the excess of 
the exempt purpose expenditures over $17,000,-000 unless otherwise 
subject to section 4911(c)(2)(A) based on an election made under 
section 501(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will designate the motion.

The text of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Livingston moves:
(1) That the House concur in the amendment of the Senate numbered 1,
(2) That the House concur in the amendment of the Senate numbered 2,
(3) That the House concur in the amendment of the Senate numbered 3 
with an amendment as follows:
Delete the matter proposed by said amendment, and beginning on page 15, 
line 1 of the House engrossed joint resolution, H.J. Res. 115, strike 
all down to and including line 7, on page 36, and redesignate Title IV 
as Title III, and renumber sections accordingly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     David Dreier (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 428]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to House Resolution 261, the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized 
for 30 minutes. . . . 
MR. LIVINGSTON: . . . Mr. Speaker, I am offering a motion to dispose of 
these amendments. The first two are not controversial and make 
improvements to the CR and my motion is to concur with these 
amendments, for they are fine. The modification to the Simpson-Istook-
McIntosh language unfortunately is technically insufficient and 
therefore, is not acceptable. There is agreement that we can not get an 
acceptable version on this matter agreed to on this CR. Therefore, my 
motion is to delete the Senate proposed modification and to delete the 
underlying Simpson-Istook-McIntosh language, so that it hopefully will 
be addressed at another time.


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
B. CONFERENCE MANAGERS OR CONFEREES
 
Sec.    6. Appointment by the Speaker

The rule giving the Speaker the authority to appoint all select and 
conference committees(6) leaves the number to his discretion. Since the 
93d Congress, the same rule has specified that no less than a majority 
of those named generally support the House position during House 
proceedings on the bill. In 1977, the rule again was amended to direct 
the Speaker to name "Members who are primarily responsible for the 
legislation" and "to the fullest extent feasible" include those Members 
who are the principal proponents of major provisions.(7) 

Discretion of Speaker

Sec.    6.1 The designation of conferees is within the discretion of the 
Speaker; but in making his appointments, he normally consults with the 
chairman of the committee having jurisdiction of the bill.

On Oct. 14, 1966,(8) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, asked unanimous 
consent that the minority conferees on H.R. 13161, a bill to strengthen 
programs of assistance to elementary and secondary schools, be excused 
and that the Speaker be empowered to appoint new minority conferees. 
Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, reserving the right to object asked 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     See Rule X clause 6(f), House Rules and Manual Sec. 701e (1997).
 7.     See Sec. 6.3, infra.
 8.     112 CONG. REC. 26996, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 429]]

whether Mr. Powell was going to submit the names of the new conferees. 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated:

As the gentleman from Michigan knows, the Chair makes the appointment. 
The Chair always seeks the counsel and advice of the chairman, assuming 
that the chairman has in turn conferred with the members of his own 
committee on both sides. The Chair will state that he has four names.
Influence of Committee Chairman
Sec.    6.2 The Speaker stated that in appointing conferees he would be 
willing to accept the suggestions of the chairman of the committee in 
charge of the bill being sent to conference.
On July 17, 1935,(9) John J. McSwain, of South Carolina, the Chairman 
of the Committee on Military Affairs, which reported H.R. 8632 (the 
Tennessee Valley Authority bill), asked unanimous consent to take the 
bill from the Speaker's desk and to agree to a conference requested by 
the Senate. The following discussion then took place concerning the 
selection of conferees:

MR. [MAURY] MAVERICK [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, an agreement was made by certain Members of the Military 
Affairs Committee to have five conferees, with unfriendly people on 
this committee. As one of the friends of the T.V.A., I was not invited, 
and as far as I know Mr. Thomason, of Texas, and Mr. Wilcox, of 
Florida, and Mr. Hill of Alabama, also friends of the T.V.A., were not 
there. I think it is wrong. I think this is a bad precedent to put 
unfriendly men on the conference committee; it may hold things up, and 
it does not appear to me as fair-I will not be a party to any agreement 
unfriendly to the purposes of the great T.V.A. program. . . . 
MR. [WILLIAM D.] MCFARLANE [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right 
to object, to ask this question: I would like to see the personnel of 
the conference committee appointed according to the way the majority of 
the House voted, and the personnel should be so appointed so that a 
majority of the committee will favor the majority position of the 
House.

After this discussion, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, stated:

After all, the Chair appoints the conferees. The Chair is always 
willing to accept the suggestions made by the chairman of the committee 
which has charge of the bill, assuming that the members who are 
appointed will stand for the House measure because they represent the 
House in the conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     79 CONG. REC. 11319, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 430]]

Speaker's Discretion in Appointing Conferees
Sec.    6.3 In determining whether at least a majority of the managers 
which the Speaker has appointed to represent the House at a conference 
have "generally supported the House position"-the guideline established 
by Rule X clause 6(f)-the Speaker is not required to consider the 
conferees' positions on certain items in dispute during the 
consideration of the bill in the House.  
The provision in Rule X dealing with the Speaker's authority to appoint 
Members to select committees was modified at the beginning of the 95th 
Congress with respect to the guidelines for appointing Members to 
conference committees. In the 95th Congress, the pertinent part of the 
rule provided: "In appointing members    to conference committees the 
Speaker shall appoint no less than a majority of members who generally 
supported the House position as determined by the Speaker. The Speaker 
shall name Members who are primarily responsible for the legislation 
and shall, to the fullest extent feasible, include the principal 
proponents of the major provisions of the bill as it passed the 
House."(10) 
The Speaker adhered to the guideline in the second sentence quoted 
above by naming Mr. J. J. (Jake) Pickle, of Texas, as a conferee since 
he had been the proponent of the provision described in the 
appointment. The point of order was not directed to the naming of this 
additional conferee-not a member of the reporting committee-but to the  
question of whether the named managers were generally in support of the 
House position. The conferees, the point of order, and the debate and 
response thereto, are carried here.(11) 

THE SPEAKER:(12) The Chair appoints the following conferees: Messrs. 
Perkins, Dent, Phillip Burton, Gaydos, Clay, Biaggi, Zeferetti, Quie, 
Erlenborn, and Ashbrook; and an additional Member, Mr. Pickle, solely 
for the consideration of section 12 of the House bill and modifications 
thereof committed to conference.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [JOHN N.] ERLENBORN [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Rule X clause 6(f), House Rules and Manual Sec. 701e (1997).
11.     See 123 CONG. REC. 33434, 33435, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 12, 
1977.
12.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 431]]

order against the naming of the conferees as not being in compliance 
with the provisions of section 701(e), rule X of the Rules of the 
House.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn) wish to 
be heard on his point of order?
MR. ERLENBORN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, rule X, section 701(e) provides in part:

In appointing members to conference committees the Speaker shall 
appoint no less than a majority of members who generally supported the 
House position as determined by the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in debate earlier today, the three items 
in contention between this body and the other body are the rate 
structure, the tip credit, and the small business amendment. Every one 
of the majority Members, with the exception of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gaydos), did not support the House position during 
the consideration of the bill on the floor.
I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that all of the Members who were present did 
vote for the passage of the bill. The passage of the bill is not in 
contention. Those items that are in contention between this body and 
the other body are the three items that I have mentioned, and the 
majority of the conferees named by the Speaker are not among those 
Members who supported the majority position in the House.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins) wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
MR. [CARL D.] PERKINS [of Kentucky]: I do, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there were numerous amendments offered to the minimum wage 
bill. Perhaps the major amendment that was adopted was the one 
increasing the exceptions from $250,000 to $500,000 for small 
businesses. The Speaker has taken care of that situation by appointing 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pickle).
If we were to follow the argument of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Erlenborn), as it might apply to a situation in which some 30 or 40 
Members outside the committee had offered amendments, I would think 
that it would set a precedent that this House could not live with.
But notwithstanding that, the Members who have been suggested to the 
Speaker by myself as chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, 
the seven ranking members of the Subcommittee on Labor Standards, 
headed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), voted for the 
majority of the amendments that were offered to the bill on the floor 
of the House. By and large, all the conferees suggested to the Speaker 
generally supported the legislation, and that is the rule.
We must look at this picture as a whole and not pick out one or two 
select amendments that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn) is 
primarily interested in and overlook all the other amendments that the 
other members supported and that the suggested conferees supported.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is my contention that the point of order 
raised by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn) is without merit 
and should be overruled.


[[Page 432]]

THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule.
This is the judgment of the Chair concerning the following language: 
"The Speaker shall appoint no less than a majority of Members who 
generally supported the House position as determined by the Speaker, 
and the Speaker shall name Members who are primarily responsible for 
the legislation and shall, to the fullest extent feasible, include the 
principal proponents of the major provisions of the bill as it passed 
the House."
That language is found in clause 6(e) of rule X of the Rules of the 
House.
In the opinion of the Chair, after looking over the list of conferees, 
and in view of the fact that the Chair has only had one additional 
request to name a conferee-and that is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Pickle), whom the Chair has named as a limited conferee-the Members 
that the Chair has named as conferees meet the qualification of being 
"primarily responsible for the legislation."
The Chair's appointment under the remaining provisions of the rule is 
ultimately a matter within his discretion, which the Chair feels he has 
properly exercised, and there is nothing in the rule requiring the 
Chair to consider the conferees' positions solely on the matter in 
dispute.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Sec.    6.4 Instance where the Speaker declined to name as a conferee a 
Member not of the reporting committee who had successfully sponsored a 
major amendment and offered a successful motion to instruct to preserve 
that amendment in conference.
The Speaker's designation of conferees under the guidelines set forth 
in Rule X clause 6(f)(13) is within his discretion. When H.R. 5840, the 
Export Administration Amendments of 1977, was considered in the House 
on Apr. 20, 1977, the amendment offered by Mr. Stewart B. McKinney, of 
Connecticut, was adopted by a voice vote.(14) Two other amendments were 
adopted, one also sponsored by a noncommittee Member, by voice votes. 
There is no documentation of whether or not Mr. McKinney explicitly 
requested to be named as a conferee.(15) 

MR. [CLEMENT J.] ZABLOCKI [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5840) to amend 
the Export Administration Act of 1969 in order to extend the 
authorities of that act and improve the administration of export 
controls under that act, and to strengthen the antiboycott provisions 
of 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 701e (1997).
14.     123 CONG. REC. 11441, 11449, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
15.     See 123 CONG. REC. 14087, 14088, 14091, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., May 
10, 1977.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 433]]

that act, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendments, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(16) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. McKINNEY
MR. MCKINNEY: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. McKinney moves that the Managers on the part of the House, at the 
Conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill H.R. 
5840, be instructed to insist upon section 110 of the House-passed 
bill.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. McKinney) for 1 hour in support of his motion. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair appoints the following conferees: 
Messrs. Zablocki, Fascell, Rosenthal, Hamilton, Bingham, Ryan, Solarz, 
Broomfield, Buchanan, and Whalen.
Discretion of the Chair (Senate)
Sec.    6.5 The Vice President stated that in the future, he would 
exercise some discretion in the appointment of conferees.
On Apr. 9, 1935, the Vice   President, John Nance Garner, of Texas, 
after appointing Sen-  ate conferees on the District of 
Columbia appropriations bill, stated:(17) 

The Chair would like to make a statement concerning the future policy 
of the present occupant of the chair in the matter of appointing 
conferees.
It has been the custom for a long time for the Senator having charge of 
an important House bill which passes the Senate with amendments, to ask 
for a conference with the House of Representatives and that the Chair 
appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate. He sends to the Chair 
the names of the conferees. So far as the Record shows, the occupant of 
the chair appoints the conferees, whereas, as a matter of fact, he 
exercises no discretion and does not even see the names of the 
conferees until they are sent to the Chair.
Hereafter the present occupant of the chair expects to exercise some 
discretion in the matter of selecting conferees when the Senate 
authorizes him to make the appointments.
The Chair mentions this now so that no Senator in the future may think 
he is slighted or otherwise discriminated against if he asks unanimous 
consent that the Chair appoint conferees and sends up his list, and 
those named on the list are not appointed. The Chair merely desires to 
give notice of his course in the future.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
17.     See 79 CONG. REC. 5296, 5297, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 434]]

After the Vice President's statement, there was some discussion of the 
method of appointing Senate conferees. During the discussion, Senator 
Joseph T. Robinson, of Arkansas, observed:

. . . Without doubt, the Senate has the right to elect all its 
committees; but the practice has arisen, by unanimous consent, of the 
Chair appointing conferees, and those appointments are made on the 
recommendation of the Senator in charge of the bill.
Appointments by Speaker Pro Tempore
Sec.    6.6 Parliamentarian's Note: An appointed or designated Speaker 
Pro Tempore may, by unanimous consent, appoint conferees.
On Dec. 22, 1970,(18) after Mr. Otto E. Passman, of Louisiana, asked 
unanimous consent to agree to the further conference requested by the 
Senate on H.R. 17867, a foreign assistance appropriation bill, Speaker 
Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, stated:

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana? The 
Chair hears none, and, without objection, appoints the following 
conferees: Messrs. Passman, Natcher, Mrs. Hansen of Washington, and 
Messrs. Cohelan, Long of Maryland, McFall, Mahon, Shriver, Conte, Reid 
of Illinois, Riegle, and Bow.(19) 
There was no objection.
Reappointment of Same Conferees for Further Conference
Sec.    6.7 The Speaker may appoint the same conferees who have reported 
back from a previous conference in disagreement.
On July 30, 1963,(20) Representatives Wright Patman, of Texas, Albert 
Rains, of Alabama, Abraham J. Multer, of New York, William A. Barrett, 
of Pennsylvania, Clarence E. Kilburn, of New York, William B. Widnall, 
of New Jersey, and James Harvey, of Michigan-the managers on the part 
of the House at the conference on H.R. 3872 (extending the Export-
Import Bank Act)-reported that they had been unable to reach an 
agreement with their Senate counterparts. After the House agreed to a 
motion offered by Mr. Patman 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     116 CONG. REC. 43398, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
19.     See also 113 CONG. REC. 34135, 34136, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 
29, 1967; 108 CONG. REC. 23032, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 10, 1962; and 
95 CONG. REC. 11583, 11584, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 16, 1949.
20.     109 CONG. REC. 13631, 13636, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 435]]

that the House insist on its disagreement to the amendment of the 
Senate and ask for a further conference, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, appointed the same conferees who had reported back in 
disagreement.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair appoints the following conferees: Messrs. 
Patman, Rains, Multer, Barrett, Kilburn, Widnall, and Harvey of 
Michigan.
Number of Conferees
Sec.    6.8 The number of Members appointed to act as managers on the 
part of the House at a conference is within the discretion of the 
Speaker, and a large number have been appointed where it is necessary 
to reflect divergent views on the legislation.
On Dec. 12, 1969,(1) Mr. Carl    D. Perkins, of Kentucky, asked 
unanimous consent that the House insist on its amendment to S. 3016, 
the Economic Opportunity Act Amendments of 1969, and request a 
conference thereon with the Senate. After the Clerk read the title of 
the bill, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated:

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky? The 
Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees: Mr. Perkins, 
Mrs.  Green of Oregon, Messrs. Pucinski, Brademas, O'Hara, Carey, 
Hawkins, William D. Ford, Hathaway, Meeds, Mrs. Mink, Messrs. Clay, 
Ayres, Quie, Reid of New York, Erlenborn, Scherle, Dellenback, Esch, 
and Steiger of Wisconsin.

Parliamentarian's Note: While only 20 conferees are listed, four 
additional conferees were appointed, by unanimous consent, on 
subsequent days, making a total of 24.
Sec.    6.9 The Speaker may appoint an equal number of majority and 
minority conferees.
On Feb. 16, 1966,(2) the following proceedings occurred:

MR. [JOHN L.] MCMILLAN [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3314) 
to require premarital examinations in the District of Columbia, and for 
other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendments, and request a conference with the Senate.
THE SPEAKER:(3) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     115 CONG. REC. 38877, 38878, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     112 CONG. REC. 3176, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 436]]

The Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees: Messrs. 
Whitener, Williams, Horton, and Roudebush.(4) 
Alternate Conferees
Sec.    6.10 The Speaker may be authorized to appoint alternate managers 
on a conference committee to serve in lieu of managers unavoidably 
absent.
On Aug. 16, 1950,(5) the following proceedings occurred regarding H.R. 
7786, a general appropriation bill:

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Speaker appoint four alternate managers on the part of 
the House at the conference with the Senate on House bill 7786 to serve 
in lieu of managers unavoidably absent.
THE SPEAKER:(6) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none, and appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Bates of Kentucky, Passman, McGrath, and 
Furcolo.
Appointment of Replacement Conferees
Sec.    6.11 Upon the death of a Member who has been appointed to a 
conference committee, the Speaker appoints a replacement.
The Speaker's statement, placed in the Congressional Record on Sept. 
11, 1984,(7) is self-explan-atory.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREE ON S. 38, H.R. 1904, H.R. 5167 AND S. 2496
THE SPEAKER:(8) The Chair appoints the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Hawkins, as a conferee to fill the vacancies caused by the death of 
Representative Perkins of Kentucky on the following conferences:
S. 38, Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act amendments;
H.R. 1904, Child Abuse Amendments of 1984;
H.R. 5167, Department of Defense Authorization Act; and
S. 2496, Adult Education Act Amendments of 1984.
Sec.    6.12 Under the earlier practice (before 1993), the Speaker could 
appoint additional conferees, after the original appointment, only 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     Representatives Whitener and Williams were members of the 
majority party; Representatives Horton and Roudebush were members of 
the minority party.
 5.     96 CONG. REC. 12607, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 7.     130 CONG. REC. 24790, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 437]]

with the permission of the House. 
Conferees had been named to represent the House at the conference with 
the Senate on the bill H.R. 5383, the Age Discrimination in Employment 
Act Amendments of 1977, earlier in the day on Oct. 25, 1977.(9) One 
majority conferee had inadvertently been omitted from the list read by 
the Chair. The request carried here illustrates two points: first, the 
Speaker Pro Tempore can appoint a conferee only by unanimous consent; 
and second, the consent of the House was at that time required for the 
Chair to add (or remove) conferees after the original appointment. 
In adding the name of the additional conferee, the Chair also fixed his 
rank on the conference committee, reflecting the practice of 
recognizing committee seniority in the appointment of managers.

MR. [JOHN] BRADEMAS [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Speaker be authorized to appoint one additional conferee on 
the bill H.R. 5283, to amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 
of 1967 to extend the age group of employees who are protected by the 
provisions of such act, and for other purposes.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
MR. [JOHN H.] ROUSSELOT [of California]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
right to object, could the gentleman from Indiana tell us why this is 
necessary?
MR. BRADEMAS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. ROUSSELOT: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the distinguished 
gentleman.
MR. BRADEMAS: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the gentleman that I am 
advised by the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor that 
inadvertently the name of one of the persons who was to have been named 
a House conferee was omitted. It is for that reason that I make the 
unanimous-consent request.
MR. ROUSSELOT: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana? The Chair hears none and, without objection, 
appoints the gentleman from California (Mr. Hawkins) as an additional 
conferee, to rank immediately after the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Perkins).
There was no objection.
Senate Notification
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     123 CONG. REC. 35029, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. Both the request of 
Mr. Brademas and the insert in the Congressional Record carry an 
incorrect number and year for the bill. The correct number and year are 
shown in the text above. 
10.     Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 438]]

Sec.    6.13 The Speaker directs the Clerk to notify the Senate of the 
appointment of additional House conferees.
On Sept. 20, 1972,(11) the following proceedings occurred:

MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Speaker be authorized to appoint two 
additional conferees on the part of the House at the conference with 
the Senate on the bill S. 976 to promote competition among motor 
vehicle manufacturers in the design and production of safe motor 
vehicles having greater resistance to damage, and for other purposes.
THE SPEAKER:(12) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from West Virginia? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following 
conferees: Messrs. Eckhardt and Ware.
The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the House.
Authority of Speaker Pro Tempore To Appoint Conferees
Sec.    6.14 While a Member designated by the Speaker as Speaker Pro 
Tempore may exercise the authority to appoint conferees, only with the 
unanimous consent of the House, an elected Speaker Pro Tempore can make 
such appointments by virtue of his office.
 Where an objection was raised to the appointment of conferees by a 
designated Speaker Pro Tempore, the House proceeded to elect a Speaker 
Pro Tempore so the managers on the part of the House could be named.
On June 21, 1984,(13) the Majority Leader, James C. Wright, Jr., of 
Texas, was administered the oath as Speaker Pro Tempore to facilitate 
the appointment of conferees on the Department of Defense Authorization 
Act, 1985. The proceedings were as follows:
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 5167, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1985
MR. [MELVIN] PRICE [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5167) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 1985 for the military functions of the 
Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel levels for that 
fiscal year for the Department of Defense, and for other purposes, with 
a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree 
to the conference asked by the Senate.
There was no objection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     118 CONG. REC. 31418, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
12.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
13.     130 CONG. REC. 17707, 17708, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 439]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees--
MR. [DICK] CHENEY [of Wyoming]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to 
object.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman reserves a right to object to 
the Chair's appointment of conferees?
MR. CHENEY: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that one of the individuals to be 
appointed to serve on the conference from the House on the Defense 
authorization bill is not a member of the appropriate committee. I 
wonder if the Chair could clarify that for me.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will tell the gentleman that the 
Members to be appointed are those who were designated by Speaker 
O'Neill, and they are Members designated under the rule, members of the 
committee, and for purposes of specific amendments, as the rules of the 
House provide, when requested by the author of a specific amendment, 
the author of that specific amendment may be appointed to the 
conference expressly and solely for purposes of consideration of that 
amendment.
MR. CHENEY: Further reserving the right to object, it is my 
understanding, to be specific, that the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
AuCoin], who is not a member of the Armed Services Committee, is being 
appointed as a member of the conference specifically with respect to 
the MX.
I wonder if the Chair could confirm that for me.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would simply declare that the 
Speaker's designation of conferees is not for that reason subject to 
challenge, and whomever the Speaker has asked this presiding officer to 
appoint, will be appointed.
MR. CHENEY: Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, it is 
indeed my understanding under rule 10, clause 6, section F, that the 
Speaker does indeed have that authority, but the gentleman in the 
chair, obviously, is currently serving in that capacity but has asked 
for unanimous consent that we proceed with the appointment of the 
conferees.
I am deeply concerned about the precedent of appointing someone to 
serve on a conference committee who is not a member of the authorizing 
committee, and on that basis, I would be constrained to object to the 
appointment of conferees.
ELECTION OF HON. JIM WRIGHT AS SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE DURING THE ABSENCE 
OF THE SPEAKER
MR. [GILLIS W.] LONG of Louisiana: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged 
resolution (H. Res. 531) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 531
Resolved, That the Honorable Jim Wright, a Representative from the 
State of Texas, be, and he is hereby, elected Speaker pro tempore 
during the absence of the Speaker.
Resolved, That the President and the Senate be notified by the Clerk of 
the election of the Honorable Jim Wright as Speaker pro tempore during 
the absence of the Speaker.


[[Page 440]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the resolution.
MR. CHENEY: 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 230, nays 
148, not voting 55, as follows: . . . 
SWEARING IN OF HON. JIM WRIGHT AS SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE DURING ABSENCE OF 
THE SPEAKER
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE (MR. WRIGHT): Will the dean of the House please 
come forward and administer the oath of office?
Mr. Wright assumed the chair and took the oath of office administered 
to him by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten].
ORDER OF BUSINESS
MR. [WILLIAM E.] DANNEMEYER [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dannemeyer] later. At this moment the Chair is 
appointing conferees.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 5167
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair appoints the following conferees on 
H.R. 5167:
From the Committee on Armed Services: Messrs. Price, Bennett, Stratton, 
Nichols, Daniel, Montgomery, Aspin, Dellums, Dickinson, Whitehurst, 
Spence, Mrs. Holt, Mr. Hillis, and Mr. Badham.

Although not on the Committee on Armed Services, Mr. Les AuCoin, of 
Oregon, was appointed as one of the conferees "solely for 
consideration" of certain designated provisions in the House bill and 
the Senate amendment.(14) 
Sec.    6.15 Under a standing rule adopted in the 103d Congress, the 
Speaker may appoint additional conferees   or remove conferees after  
his initial appointment; but when this action is taken by a Speaker Pro 
Tempore, it requires unanimous consent. 
Following the rather intricate appointment of conferees on the Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1994, certain corrections and additions were 
called to the attention of the Speaker before the House met on the next 
day. The additions and corrections were initially announced by a 
designated Speaker Pro Tempore, but when a Member reserved the right to 
object to the unanimous-consent request put by the Chair, and indicated 
a desire for a prolonged discussion, the Speaker resumed the Chair 
which changed the parliamentary situation from one requiring consent to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     130 CONG. REC. 17709, 98th Cong. 2d Sess., June 21, 1984.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 441]]

one which could be exercised under the provision of Rule X clause 6(f).
(15) 
The pertinent proceedings of July 15, 1993,(16) are set out below. 
APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL CONFER-EES ON H.R. 2264, OMNIBUS BUDGET 
RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(17) Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following additional conferees on H.R. 2264, the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993:
As additional conferees from the Committee on Agriculture, for 
consideration of title I and section 9005 (a)-(c) and (f) of the House 
bill, and title I and section 5001, 5002 (a), (b) and (d), and 5003 of 
the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: 
Messrs. de la Garza, Rose, Glickman, Volkmer, Penny, Roberts, Emerson, 
and Gunderson. . . . 
MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
right to object.
THE SPEAKER:(18) The Chair advises the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] that these are the Speaker's additional appointments to the 
conference committee under rule X. Unanimous consent is not required 
under the rule, and consequently reservations of objection are not in 
order.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. WALKER: Just before the Speaker took the chair, the action before 
the House then was without objection that these appointments would be 
made. I understand rule X, but are we going to now revise the procedure 
on the floor, and is the Speaker announcing such?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct.
Sec.    6.16 A Speaker Pro Tempore was by unanimous consent authorized to 
appoint additional conferees on a bill.
On Apr. 29, 1948,(19) the following proceedings occurred in the House:

MR. [PAUL W.] SHAFER [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Speaker pro tempore be authorized to appoint two 
additional conferees on the bill (S. 1641) to establish the Women's 
Army Corps in the Regular Army, to authorize the enlistment and 
appointment of women in the Regular Navy and Marine Corps and the Naval 
and Marine Corps Reserve, and for other purposes.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(20) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan? [After a 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 701e (1997).
16.     139 CONG. REC. 15831, 15832, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     John W. Olver (Mass.).
18.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
19.     94 CONG. REC. 5066, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     Charles A. Halleck (Ind.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 442]]

pause.] The Chair hears none and, without objection, appoints the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Andrews] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Johnson].
There was no objection.
Example of a Delayed Appointment of Conferees
Sec.    6.17 Instance where the Speaker did not announce his appointment 
of conferees until the second session of the Congress, where a 
conference had been requested in the first session, but where the 
number and variety of conferees was in dispute. 
The appointment of conferees was delayed due to controversy over the 
composition of the conference on H.R. 2005, the Social Security 
Minor and Technical Changes Act of 1985. The House had requested a 
conference on Dec. 10, 1985, but achieving jurisdictional "balance" and 
reconciling opposing claims by several House committees delayed a 
decision. The list of conferees carried here(1) illustrates the 
diversity of jurisdictions which were involved in the superfund 
legislation.

THE SPEAKER:(2) Pursuant to the action of the House on December 10, 
1985, the Chair appoints the following Superfund conferees on H.R. 
2005:
From the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for consideration of titles 
I-III of the House amendment to the Senate amendment, and the entire 
Senate amendment, except for title II:
Messrs. Dingell, Florio, Eckart of Ohio, Ralph M. Hall, Tauzin; and
Mr. Swift (solely for sections 102, 103, 105, 111, 113, 115, 117, 120, 
121, 122, 123, 124, and 127 of title I and title III of the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference including section 157 of the Senate amendment); and 

Mr. Wyden (solely for sections 101, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 
114, 116, 118, 119, 125, and 126 of title I and title II of the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference); and
Messrs. Broyhill, Lent, Ritter, and Fields.
From the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, for 
consideration of titles I, II (except for section 205) and IV of the 
House amendment to the Senate amendment, and title I of the Senate 
amendment, except for sections 110, 111, 127, 157, and 160 thereof:

Messrs. Howard, Anderson, Roe, Breaux, Mineta, Edgar, Snyder, 
Hammerschmidt, Stangeland, and Gingrich.
From the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, for 
consideration of title III of the House 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     132 CONG. REC. 1943, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 1986.
 2.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 443]]

amendment to the Senate amendment, and sections 110, 111, 127, and 160 
of title I of the Senate amendment:
Messrs. Anderson, Roe, Edgar, Snyder, and Hammerschmidt.
From the Committee on Ways and Means, for consideration of title V of 
the House amendment to the Senate amendment, and title II of the Senate 
amendment:
Messrs. Rostenkowski, Pickle, Rangel, Stark, Downey of New York, Russo, 
Pease, Duncan, Archer, Vander Jagt, and Frenzel.
From the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, for consideration 
of sections 104, 107, 108, 111, 113, 116, 121, and 122 of title I of 
the House amendment to the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference:
Messrs. Jones of North Carolina, Biaggi, Studds, Young of Alaska, and 
Davis.
From the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, for consideration 
of title IV of the House amendment to the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Jones of North Carolina, Biaggi, and Studds, Ms. Mikulski, and 
Messrs. Lowry of Washington, Tauzin, Young of Alaska, Davis, Lent, and 
Fields.
From the Committee on the Judiciary, for consideration of sections 107, 
113, 117, 119, and 122 of title I and sections 203 and 206 of title II 
of the House amendment to the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference:
Messrs. Rodino, Glickman, Frank, Fish, and Kindness.
From the Committee on Armed Services, for consideration of section 213 
of title II of the House amendment to the Senate amendment, and section 
162 of title I of the Senate amendment:
Mr. McCurdy and Mr. Martin of New York.
Specific Conferees From Another Committee Appointed on Portion of 
Senate Amendment in Nature of Substitute
Sec.    6.18 Instance where the Speaker appointed as sole conferees for 
consideration of a portion of a Senate amendment only members from the 
committee having jurisdiction over that nongermane part, reserving 
until a later day the appointment of managers to cover the       
remainder of the Senate amendment. 
H.R. 1197, the Vessel Tonnage Measurement Simplification Act, had been 
reported by the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. The 
Senate amendment added two sections dealing with strip mining 
regulations, a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs. Mr. Ashley's request (made in his 
capacity as Chairman of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee) 
was 


[[Page 444]]

that the House would disagree to the total Senate amendment, so a valid 
conference could not be commenced until managers were appointed with 
authority to confer on the entirety of the amendment. The conferees 
from the membership of the Merchant Marine Committee were in fact 
appointed by the Speaker on the following day and given sole authority 
to negotiate on the other sections of the Senate amendment.(3) 
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 1197, TONNAGE MEASUREMENT 
SIMPLIFICATION ACT
MR. [THOMAS L.] ASHLEY [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1197) to simplify the 
tonnage measurement of certain vessels, with a Senate amendment 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and request    a conference 
with the Senate thereon. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(4) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
MR. [NICK J.] RAHALL [II, of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
right to object, I would ask the distinguished gentleman from Ohio the 
parliamentary situation. As I understand it, the merchant marine 
jurisdiction will be separated entirely from the Surface Mining Act 
that has amendments that have been tacked on by the other body?
MR. ASHLEY: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. RAHALL: I yield to the gentleman.
MR. ASHLEY: I would say to my friend from West Virginia he described 
the situation with his customary accuracy. That is precisely what is 
going to happen. The conferees from the Merchant Marine and Fisheries 
Committee, being inexpert in the matter relating to the nongermane 
Senate amendment, will not be charged with responsibility of making 
decisions in that matter. Rather, the appropriate committee of 
jurisdiction conferees from the appropriate committee of jurisdiction 
will have that responsibility.
MR. RAHALL: All conferees on the surface mining amendments which were 
passed a second time by the Senate in order to attach it to this 
merchant marine bill, all of the conferees on that part of the 
legislation will be appointed by the House Interior and Insular Affairs 
Committee chairman?
MR. ASHLEY: The gentleman is right. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ashley)? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following 
conferees: Messrs. Udall, Bingham, Seiberling, Eckhardt, Carr, 
Kostmayer, Murphy of Pennsylvania, Rahall, Vento, Howard, Lujan, Young 
of Alaska, Symms, Marriott, and Cheney, with respect to disagreement 
with matters contained in sections 4 and 5 of the Senate amendment and 
modifications committed to conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     126 CONG. REC. 23548, 23549, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 27, 1980.
 4.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 445]]

The Chair states further the Chair will appoint additional conferees on 
sections 1, 2, and 3 on tomorrow.

Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker's appointment of the remaining 
conferees on the next day did not require unanimous consent, since the 
original appointment did not cover all the provisions of the Senate 
amendment committed to conference and the partial appointment left the 
conference committee incomplete.  A motion to instruct the conferees 
remained a viable option until the final managers were named.
Additional Conferees
Sec.    6.19 By unanimous consent, additional conferees may be appointed 
subsequent to the original appointment.(5) 
On July 24, 1972,(6) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [GEORGE P.] MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Speaker be authorized to appoint two additional 
managers on the part of the House to the conference on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses on the bill (H.R. 14108) to authorize 
appropriations for activities of the National Science Foundation, and 
for other purposes.
THE SPEAKER:(7) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair appoints as additional managers on the part of 
the House at the conference on the bill H.R. 14108 the following 
Members: Mr. Symington of Missouri, and Mr. Mosher of Ohio.(8) 
Speaker Sometimes Reserves Right To Appoint Additional Conferees
Sec.    6.20 While ordinarily the Speaker adds new conferees to a list of 
those previously appointed by unanimous consent at the time of the 
subsequent appointment, he can reserve the right to make additional 
appointments and 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     Pursuant to a change in Rule X clause 6(f) in the 93d Congress, 
the Speaker was given the authority to add or remove House managers 
after his original appointment. H. Res. 5, 139 CONG. REC. 49, 103d 
Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1993.
 6.     118 CONG. REC. 24863, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 8.     See, for example, 118 CONG. REC. 19909, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., June 
7, 1972; 117 CONG. REC. 26442, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., July 21, 1971; 113 
CONG. REC. 16199, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 19, 1967; 95 CONG. REC. 
7733, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1949; and 94 CONG. REC. 222, 80th 
Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 15, 1948.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 446]]

delineate portions of the bill for specific conferees at the time of 
the original appointment. 
It is often necessary to allow a conference to begin organizing before 
the final appointment of conferees and specific assignment of 
conference responsibilities. When the request was made on Aug. 7, 1987,
(9) to go to conference on H.R. 3, the Trade and National Economic 
Policy Reform Act of 1987, a core group of conferees from 12 committees 

was appointed, along with the Majority Leader, as an additional 
conferee.

THE SPEAKER:(10) The Chair appoints the following conferees from the 
committees designated and, without objection, reserves the authority to 
make additional appointments of conferees and to specify particular 
portions of the House bill and Senate amendment as the subjects of the 
various appointments.
From the Committee on Ways and Means: Messrs. Rostenkowski, Gibbons, 
and Duncan; 
From the Committee on Agriculture: Messrs. de la Garza, Brown of 
California, and Roberts; . . . 
From the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: Messrs. Roe, 
Walgren, and Lujan; and
As an additional conferee: Mr. Gephardt.
There was no objection.

On Sept. 16, 1987,(11) the Speaker supplemented his original 
appointment, using the authority reserved when he made the initial 
appointment, by naming 156 conferees. 

THE SPEAKER: On August 7, 1987, the Chair appointed conferees on H.R. 
3, the omnibus trade bill. Pursuant to the order of the House of that 
day, the Chair will now supplement that initial appointment.
Accordingly, the Chair appoints the following Members from the 
committees designated, including both the Members initially appointed 
and Members newly appointed, as conferees and specifies particular 
portions of the House bill and Senate amendment as the subjects of the 
various appointments.
Without objection, the appointment will appear at this point in the 
Record.
There was no objection.
The list of conferees is as follows:
CONFEREES ON THE OMNIBUS TRADE BILL (H.R. 3)
From the Committee on Ways and Means, for consideration of titles I, 
II, VIII, and XV and sections 704 and 906 of the House bill, and titles 
I, II, III (except sections 308 and 310), IV (except sections 412 
through 415), V through VIII, IX (except sections 963, 967 through 972, 
974, 975, and 977) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     133 CONG. REC. 23028, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
11.     133 CONG. REC. 24071, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 447]]

of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Rostenkowski, Gibbons, Jenkins, Downey of New York, Pease, 
Russo, Gephardt, Guarini, Matsui, Duncan, Archer, Vander Jagt, Crane, 
and Frenzel.(12) 
Appointment During Adjournment
Sec.    6.21 The House may grant unanimous consent that, not-withstanding 
adjournment of the House, the Clerk be authorized to receive a message 
from the Senate on a House bill, that the House disagree to the 
amendments of the Senate and agree to a conference, and that the 
Speaker appoint managers on the part of the House.
On Sept. 19, 1940,(13) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Robert L. Doughton, of North Carolina, who made the following 
unanimous-consent request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the 
adjournment of the House, the Clerk of the House be authorized to 
receive any message on the bill (H.R. 10413) to provide revenue, and 
for other purposes, that the House disagree to the amendments of the 
Senate to such bill and agree to the conference thereon, and that the 
Speaker appoint managers on the part of the House to attend said 
conference.

No objection to the request was heard.(14) 
Sec.    6.22 Where the Speaker appoints conferees for the House during an 
adjournment pursuant to authority granted him, he so informs the House 
of that fact on the next legislative day so the Record and Journal may 
record that action.
On Sept. 23, 1940,(15) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made the 
following announcement:

Pursuant to the authority granted on Thursday, September 19, 1940,(16) 
the Chair did on Friday, September 20, 1940, appoint as managers on the 
part of the House to attend the conference on H.R. 10413, the excess-
profits-tax bill, the following Members of the House: Mr. Doughton, Mr. 
Cullen, Mr. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker named a total of 156 
conferees on this bill, representing 13 committees of the House. This 
was the largest number of managers ever named to a conference up to 
that time.
13.     86 CONG. REC. 12360, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
14.     See also 84 CONG. REC. 11105, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 4, 1939.
15.     86 CONG. REC. 12461, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
16.     See Sec. 6.21, supra.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 448]] 

McCormack, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Treadway, Mr. Crowther, Mr. Knutson.
Conferees From Several Committees
Sec.    6.23 A conference committee, composed of three members from the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and two members from the 
Committee on the Judiciary, was appointed to consider the House 
amendments to a Senate bill providing for punishment for willful damage 
to aircraft.
On May 17, 1956,(17) the following proceedings occurred:

MR. [J. PERCY] PRIEST [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (S. 2972) to punish 
the willful damaging or destroying of aircraft and attempts to damage 
or destroy aircraft, and for other purposes, with a House amendment 
thereto, insist on the House amendment, and agree to the conference 
asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER:(18) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Tennessee? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none and appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Harris, Williams of Mississippi, Willis, 
Wolverton, and Crumpacker.(19) 
Sec.    6.24 Where a bill which had been reported from the one standing 
committee, but was called up with a substitute text which was the joint 
product of two committees, the Speaker appointed members from both 
committees as conferees. 
H.R. 13565, the Federal Non-nuclear Energy Research and Development Act 
of 1974, was reported from the House Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs. Bills of a similar import had been referred to the Committee 
on Science and Astronautics but not formally reported therefrom. 
When a special order (H. Res. 1325) was reported from the Committee on 
Rules providing for the consideration of H.R. 13565, that committee 
made in order an amendment in the nature of a 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     102 CONG. REC. 8435, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
18.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
19.     Representatives Harris, Williams, and Wolverton were members of 
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, which reported S. 
2972. Representatives Willis and Crum-packer were members of the 
Committee on the Judiciary which reported H.R. 319, the provisions of 
which were inserted as a substitute for S. 2972.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 449]]

substitute for the Interior text, a substitute which was acceptable to 
both committees. It was this mutually agreed upon substitute which was 
in conference with the Senate version of the bill (S. 1283) when the 
Speaker appointed conferees.(20) The conferee ratio was five majority, 
three minority; three of the majority were from the Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs, and two were from the Science Committee.

MR. [JAMES A.] HALEY [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1283) to establish 
a national program for research, development, and demonstration in 
fuels and energy and for the coordination and financial supplementation 
of Federal energy research and development, and for other purposes, 
with a House amendment thereto, and agree to the conference asked by 
the Senate.
THE SPEAKER:(1) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
The Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees: Messrs. 
Udall, Bingham, Seiberling, Teague, McCormack, Ruppe, Dellenback, and 
Mosher.
Sec.    6.25 Where a House bill had been referred to one committee, 
sequentially referred to a second, but had passed the House with the 
text recommended by the first, the Speaker appointed confer-ees from 
both committees, weighted in favor of the committee whose text had 
prevailed on the House floor. 
Both the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Interior and 
Insular Affairs has considered bills dealing with the national 
petroleum reserves. H.R. 49 had been reported first from the Interior 
Committee on Mar. 18, 1975. It was referred sequentially to the 
Committee on Armed Services, which on Apr. 18, 1975, reported to the 
House two bills: H.R. 49 and H.R. 5919. When H.R. 49 was considered in 
the House, pursuant to House Resolution 416, a special order which 
permitted both of the texts recommended by the two committees to 
receive consideration, the version advocated by the Committee on Armed 
Services prevailed. Of the 10 managers named by the Speaker,(2) seven 
were from Interior and Insular Affairs and three were from Armed 
Services-seven rep-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     See 120 CONG. REC. 31745, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 19, 1974.
 1.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 2.     See 121 CONG. REC. 28902, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 17, 1975.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 450]]

resented the majority party and three represented the minority.

MR. [JOHN] MELCHER [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 49) to authorize the 
Secretary of the Interior to establish on certain public lands of the 
United States national petroleum reserves the development of which 
needs to be regulated in a manner consistent with the total energy 
needs of the Nation, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and request a conference 
with the Senate.
THE SPEAKER:(3) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Montana? The Chair hears none and appoints the following conferees: 
Messrs. Melcher, Johnson of California, Phillip Burton, Runnels, Miller 
of California, Price, Bennett, Skubitz, Steiger of Arizona, and 
Dickinson.

Another appointment of conferees on Oct. 25, 1977,(4) where a bill was 
sequentially referred but where the sequential committee was successful 
in having a major amendment reflecting its jurisdictional interest 
adopted in the House, is carried here to illustrate the significance of 
a sequential referral in the Chair's choice of managers at a 
conference.

MR. [CARL D.] PERKINS [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5383) to amend 
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of  [1977] to extend the age 
group of employees who are protected by the provisions of such act, and 
for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the 
Senate amendments, and agree to the conference requested by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER:(5) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees: 
Messrs. Perkins, Dent, Beard of Rhode Island, Michael O. Myers, Le 
Fante, Weiss, Clay, Corrada, Pepper, Quie, Sarasin, Jeffords, Pursell, 
Findley, and as additional conferees solely for the consideration of 
sections 4(c) and 5 of the House bill and modification thereof 
committed to conference: Mrs. Spellman, and Messrs. Heftel and 
Derwinski. 
Sec.    6.26 The Speaker appointed a conference committee consisting of 
members of two standing committees of the House to consider, 
respectively, provisions in a Senate-amended House bill relating to 
airport facilities expansion, and the revenue provisions therein.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 4.     123 CONG. REC. 34987, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 451]]

On Mar. 3, 1970,(6) the following proceedings occurred:

MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
14465) to provide for the expansion and improvement of the Nation's 
airport and airway system, for the imposition of airport and airway 
user charges, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, 
disagree to the Senate amendments and request a conference with the 
Senate thereon.
THE SPEAKER:(7) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following 
conferees: Messrs. Staggers, Friedel, Dingell, Pickle, Springer, Devine 
and Watson.(8) 
As to the tax provision of the Senate amendments, the Chair appoints 
Messrs. Mills, Boggs, Watts, Byrnes of Wisconsin, and Betts.(9) 
Sec.    6.27 When appointing the conferees on a federal-aid highway bill 
(which contained both authorizations and revenue features), the Speaker 
selected members from both committees which had jurisdiction of the 
subject matter-the Committee on Public Works and the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
On June 20, 1961,(10) the following proceedings occurred:

MR. [GEORGE W.] FALLON [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 6713) to amend 
certain laws relating to Federal-aid highways, to make certain 
adjustments in the Federal-aid highway program, and for other purposes, 
with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and 
agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER:(11) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Maryland? The Chair hears none and appoints the following 
conferees: On title I, Messrs. Fallon, Davis of Tennessee, Blatnik, 
Scherer, and Cramer;(12) on title II, Messrs. Mills, King of 
California, O'Brien of Illinois, Mason, and Byrnes of Wisconsin.(13) 
Conferees From Four Committees, With General Negotiating Authority
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     116 CONG. REC. 5713, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 8.     Members of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
 9.     Members of the Committee on Ways and Means.
10.     107 CONG. REC. 10832, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
See also 102 CONG. REC. 9559, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., June 5, 1956.
11.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
12.     Members of the Committee on Public Works.
13.     Members of the Committee on Ways and Means.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 452]]

Sec.    6.28 Pending a unanimous-consent request to send to conference a 
bill reported by four House committees, the Speaker indicated that he 
would exercise his discretion to appoint managers from all four 
committees and permit them to negotiate on all aspects of the bill.
On July 27, 1979,(14) the chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine 
and Fisheries, John M. Murphy, of New York, which had plenary 
jurisdiction under the then-applicable provisions of Rule X(15) over 
the Panama Canal, asked unanimous consent to send the bill H.R. 111, 
the Panama Canal Act of 1979, with the Senate amendments thereto, to 
conference. After the Speaker's response to the parliamentary inquiry, 
there was an objection to the request. On July 30, 1979,(16) a special 
order was called up by a member of the Committee on Rules which on its 
adoption sent the bill to conference. The dispute over the authority of 
the conferees was restated during the debate on that resolution. After 
adoption of the motion to instruct conferees, the Speaker appointed 18 
conferees, representing the Committees on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries, Foreign Affairs, Post Office and Civil Service, and the 
Judiciary. The list of those appointed was not arranged according to 
seniority, nor by committee affiliation, although senior members of the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries were named first. The 
proceedings on the two dates are carried here, with a portion of the 
debate which is relevant to the mandate of the conferees.
MR. [JOHN M.] MURPHY of New York: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 111) to enable the 
United States to maintain American security and interests respecting 
the Panama Canal, for the duration of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977, 
with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and 
request a conference with the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER:(17) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Murphy)?
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, I do so to propound an inquiry to the Chair.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     125 CONG. REC. 20993, 20994, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
15.     Clause 1(n)(8), House Rules and Manual Sec. 683 (1979).
16.     125 CONG. REC. 21298, 21302, 21309, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 453]] 

Under the rule which allows wide discretion to the Speaker to appoint 
conferees on any bill, the Speaker may designate certain conferees to 
deal with only limited portions of the bill.
The bill that is the subject of the request of the gentleman from New 
York, H.R. 111, had a joint referral to four different committees, the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
Service, and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Those first three committees had very 
limited jurisdiction over parts of the bill. If this request is 
granted, is it the intention of the Chair to designate conferees 
limited to the jurisdiction of the committees which they represent, 
rather than to permit all conferees to vote on the entire bill?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will appoint the conferees from all committees 
and they will have authority to negotiate on the entire bill.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I object to the request.
THE SPEAKER: Objection is heard. . . . 
PROVIDING FOR SENDING H.R. 111 TO CONFERENCE
MR. [LEO C.] ZEFERETTI [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 390 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 390
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the bill (H.R. 111) 
to enable the United States to maintain American security and interests 
respecting the Panama Canal, for the duration of the Panama Canal 
Treaty of 1977, with the Senate amendments thereto, is taken from the 
Speaker's table to the end that the House disagrees to the Senate 
amendments and requests a conference with the Senate thereof.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(18) The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Zeferetti) is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. ZEFERETTI: Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman), and, pending that, 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, generally after passage of a House bill which is in 
disagreement with the companion passed bill in the Senate the chairman 
or chairmen of the committee or committees involved will ask the House 
to request a conference. This is usually done by unanimous consent so 
as not to take up the valuable time of the House.
However, last week on a motion to send House Resolution 111 to 
conference an objection was raised by an opponent of the measure. In 
this instance it would require the four committees who have 
jurisdiction over this bill to meet and vote on whether to direct the 
chairmen of these respective committees to offer a motion on the floor 
to request a conference. Unfortunately, such a procedure would require 
a significant amount of time and would have delayed further 
consideration of this bill.
The Rules Committee has been informed by the chairman of the Mer-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 454]]

chant Marine and Fisheries Committee that it is imperative for the 
House and Senate conferees to begin deliberation immediately so as to 
effectively come to agreement at the earliest possible date.
To remedy this situation the Rules Committee has reported out House 
Resolution 390 to effectively allow the legislative process on House 
Resolution 111 to progress without any further delays. . . . 
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland did indeed object 
to sending this bill to conference when the request was made to do so 
on last Friday. . . . 
Under rule 701(d) of the Rules of the House, the Speaker of the House 
has almost unlimited discretion to name conferees on any matter, and 
that discretion cannot be challenged in the House. But he also has the 
discretion to limit the jurisdiction of individual conferees to those 
parts of the bill that deal directly with the jurisdiction of their 
committees.
It is proposed that when later today we finally reach the point of 
naming conferees, at least 18 conferees will be named from four 
different committees of jurisdiction. I can tell the House, and I think 
I have some proper judgment, having dealt with this issue in some 
detail for many months, that the majority of those conferees are not 
necessarily in favor of the House's position. . . . 
Now I certainly do not criticize the Speaker of the House in any way 
for using the powers at his command. That is the way the House is run. 
. . . 
When this bill was first brought before the House, H.R. 111 was the 
product in the most part of the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries, of which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy), is the 
distinguished chairman.
The other three committees had limited jurisdiction over parts of the 
bill and dealt mainly with those parts dealing with Foreign Affairs, 
Post Office and Civil Service, and Judiciary. And when the rule that 
was granted by the Rules Committee was brought before the House, it 
even limited their committee amendments to the areas of their 
jurisdiction.
Now, what is proposed by the Speaker, and, as I say, it is within his 
rights that all of the conferees, is that all 18 conferees vote on all 
parts of the bill. I have no doubt that the other body will name 
conferees opposed to the House bill; and what may well happen is the 
House's position will not be upheld. . . . 
MR. ZEFERETTI: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BAUMAN
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bauman moves that the conferees on the part of the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill H.R. 111, be instructed 
to adhere to the language of sections 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 110 of 
chapter 1; sections 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, and 250 of chapter 5; 
sections 371, 372, 373, and 374 of chapter 9 of H.R. 111 as passed by 
the 


[[Page 455]

House with respect to the matters considered therein. . . . 

So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Murphy of New York, Dingell, Bowen, 
Hubbard, Bonior, Wyatt, Zablocki, Fascell, Hanley, Ms. Holtzman, Mrs. 
Schroeder, Messrs. Harris, McCloskey, Bauman, Carney, Broomfield, 
Derwinski, and Fish.
There was no objection.
Appointing Proponents of Major Amendments
Sec.    6.29 The proponent of a major amendment adopted by the House may 
be named as an additional conferee solely for consideration of that 
provision and modifications thereof committed to conference. 
During consideration in the House of H.R. 6161, the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1977,(19) Mr. John B. Breaux, of Louisiana, a Member not 
of the committee which had brought the bill to the House, offered an 
amendment which was amended by a substitute which was subsequently 
adopted by the House with the support of the author of the original 
amendment. As shown by the appointment below,(20) he was named as a 
conferee on that provision.

MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 6161) 
to amend the Clean Air Act, and for other purposes, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER:(1) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following 
conferees: Messrs. Staggers, Moss, Dingell, Rogers, Satterfield, 
Waxman, Maguire, Devine, Broyhill, and Carter, and an additional 
Member, Mr. Breaux, solely for the consideration of section 108(a) of 
the House bill and modifications thereof committed to conference.

Another instance where the Speaker named as an additional conferee the 
sponsor of an amendment which was amended by a substitute and then 
adopted, is found in the proceedings of Oct. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     H.R. 6161, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, was reported 
from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Mr. Breaux was 
not a member of that committee. 
20.     See 123 CONG. REC. 20132, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., June 21, 1977.
 1.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 456]]

4, 1978,(2) when the Chair appointed managers on the part of the House 
at the conference on the disagreeing votes on H.R. 8309, the Navigation 
Development Act.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(3) The Clerk will report the title of H.R. 
8309.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to House Resolution 1325, H.R. 8309 
is considered as having been taken from the Speaker's table with the 
Senate amendments thereto, Senate amendments numbered 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 
shall be considered as having been disagreed to; Senate amendments 
numbered 2 and 3 shall be considered as having been agreed to; Senate 
amendment No. 8 shall be considered as having been concurred in with an 
amendment inserting in lieu of said Senate amendment the text of H.R. 
13059, as passed by the House, and the House shall be considered as 
having insisted upon disagreement to Senate amendments numbered 1, 4, 
5, 6, and 7, and having insisted upon its amendment to Senate amendment 
No. 8 and having requested a conference with the Senate thereon.
Without objection the Chair appoints the following conferees:
Messrs. Johnson of California, Roberts, Breaux, Ginn, Mineta, Harsha, 
Don H. Clausen, Ullman, Rostenkowski, Burleson of Texas, Waggonner, 
Jones of Oklahoma, Conable, and Frenzel.
As an additional conferee, Mr. Blouin, solely for consideration of 
those portions of section 102 and 103 of the House bill and 
modifications thereof committed to conference.
There was no objection.
A similar House bill (H.R. 13059) was laid on the table.
Appointing Sponsors of Specific Amendments or Provisions
Sec.    6.30 Where a series of amendments offered during House 
consideration of a bill were "accepted" by the manager and agreed to by 
a voice vote, the Speaker still acceded to the request of the Member to 
be named as an additional conferee on those specific amendments and 
modifications committed to conference. 
During consideration in the Committee of the Whole of S. 9, the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1977, Mr. John D. Dingell, 
Jr., of Michigan, offered a series of amendments which went to the 
authority of the Secretary of Energy to administer the Act. The 
Speaker's appointment of conferees is carried here.(4) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     124 CONG. REC. 33568, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     John Brademas (Ind.).
 4.     124 CONG. REC. 7880, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 21, 1978.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 457]]

MR. [JOHN M.] MURPHY of New York: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 9) to establish a 
policy for the management of oil and natural gas in the Outer 
Continental Shelf; to protect the marine and coastal environment; to 
amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; and for other purposes, 
with House amendments thereto, insist on the House amendments, and 
agree to the conference asked for by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER:(5) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees: 
Messrs. Murphy of New York, Udall, Eilberg, Breaux, Studds, Hughes, 
Miller of California, Dodd, Seiberling, Fish, Forsythe, Young of 
Alaska, and Treen.
And as an additional conferee, Mr. Dingell, of Michigan, solely for 
consideration of the provisions contained on page 8, lines 1-8; page 
20, lines 12-14; page 30, lines 5-11; page 156, line 24 through page 
158, line 18; and on page 167, lines 10-17 of the House engrossed 
amendment to the bill S. 9 and modifications thereof committed to 
conference.
Sec.    6.31 Where an amendment was offered "at the direction of the 
committee of jurisdiction" and was adopted on the floor of the House, 
the Speaker named the sponsor of the amendments, who was not a member 
of the reporting committee, as a manager on those parts of the text 
incorporating the amendment. 
S. 914, the National Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1979 
(considered in the House as H.R. 2063) was reported and managed on the 
floor of the House by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation. 
The amendment offered and successfully advocated by Mr. William S. 
Moorhead, of Pennsylvania, was brought to the floor by direction of the 
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, pursuant to a motion 
adopted in that committee, which did not have a referral of the bill. 
The appointment of the managers, including the specific designations by 
section and subject matter assigned to the additional conferee, are 
shown here.(6) 

MR. [BRIAN J.] DONNELLY [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 
914) to extend the Appalachian Regional Development Act and title V of 
the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 and to provide 
for multistate regional development commissions to promote balanced 
development in the regions of the Nation, with
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.      Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
 6.     See 125 CONG. REC. 34873, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 6, 1979.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 458]]

the House amendments thereto, insist on the House amendments, and agree 
to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(7) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts? The Chair hears none and, without 
objection, appoints the following conferees: Messrs. Johnson of 
California, Roe, Oberstar, and Nowak, Mrs. Bouquard, Messrs. Evans of 
Georgia, Harsha, Hammerschmidt, and Clinger.
As an additional conferee for consideration only of the following 
provisions of the House amendment and Senate modifications relating 
thereto committed to conference: In section 103 of the House amendment, 
the following provisions added to title II of the Public Works and 
Economic Act of 1965: Section 202(f); in section 203(a), the 10-year 
limitation on partial payment of interest by the Secretary; in section 
203(c), the 4 per centum minimum rate payable by the Secretary; in 
section 205(4), the provision following the comma in the second 
sentence, exempting the extension of maturity of a loan or guarantee 
from the restrictions on maturities; and section 205(7), paragraphs A 
through E: Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania.
There was no objection.
Appointing Conferee From Second Committee To Reflect Senate's Unrelated 
Amendment
Sec.    6.32 Where a bill reported by one House committee had been 
amended in the Senate by the addition of an unrelated subject, the 
Speaker appointed as a manager at the conference a member of the House 
committee which had reported a bill similar to that which was the 
subject of the Senate amendment. 
H.R. 2440, the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, was the 
product of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation. Aircraft 
noise reduction was a legislative topic which had been sequentially 
referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, which had 
reported a bill (H.R. 3995, dealing with noise reduction) to the House. 
Mr. James J. Florio, of New Jersey, Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation and Commerce, was named by the Speaker to act as a 
manager along with the members of the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, without a specific limitation on his authority as a 
general conferee.(8) 

MR. [HAROLD T.] JOHNSON of California: Mr. Speaker, I move to take from 
the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2440) to repeal the prohibition 
against the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
 8.     See 125 CONG. REC. 32827, 32828, 32831, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., 
Nov. 16, 1979.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 459]]

expenditure of certain discretionary funds under the 
Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, with Senate amendments 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference 
asked by the Senate.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. JOHNSON  OF CALIFORNIA
THE SPEAKER:(9) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Pursuant to rule I of the Rules of the House, Mr. Johnson of California 
moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2440) to repeal 
the prohibition against the expenditure of certain discretionary funds 
under the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, with Senate 
amendments thereto, disagree with the amendments of the Senate thereon, 
and agree to the request for a conference.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from California (Mr. Johnson) is recognized 
for 1 hour. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Johnson of California, Roberts, Anderson 
of California, Levitas, Florio, Young of Missouri, Harsha, and Snyder.
There was no objection.
Sec.    6.33 Conferees are sometimes named to represent the House 
committee having jurisdiction over the subject matter of a Senate 
amendment not within the purview of the committee which reported the 
bill in the House. 
In the 95th Congress, the Committee on Education and Labor reported, 
and the House passed, H.R. 4544, the Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 
1977. The Senate added an amendment placing an excise tax on coal, a 
matter within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Ways and 
Means. The Speaker appointed Members from that committee on the revenue 
provisions added by the Senate.(11) 

MR. [CARL D.] PERKINS [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4544) to amend 
the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act to improve the black lung 
benefits program established under such act, and for other purposes, 
with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and 
request a conference with the Senate thereon.
THE SPEAKER:(12) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Kentucky? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following 
conferees:
Messrs. Perkins, Dent, Phillip Burton, Gaydos, Clay, Biaggi, Zeferetti, 
Michael O. Myers, Murphy of Pennsylvania, Corrada, Simon, Miller of 
Cali-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
10.     Herbert E. Harris II (Va.).
11.     See 123 CONG. REC. 31032, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1977.
12.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 460]]

fornia, Thompson, Andrews of North Carolina, Ullman, Rostenkowski, 
Vanik, Quie, Erlenborn, Ashbrook, Sarasin, Edwards of Oklahoma, 
Jeffords, and Duncan of Tennessee.
Sec.    6.34 Where the Senate amended a House-passed bill on one subject 
by including the provisions of a second House-passed bill on another 
topic, the House then further amended by adding both propositions as 
separate titles, the Speaker then appointed separate groups of 
conferees to consider issues within their respective jurisdictions.
When H.R. 12467, the Comprehensive Rehabilitation Services Amendments 
of 1978, passed the House on May 16, 1978, it was solely the product of 
the Committee on Education and Labor. The Senate then added the 
provisions of the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities 
Construction Act, a matter within the jurisdiction, in the House, of 
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, which had passed the 
House as H.R. 12326 on Sept. 18, 1978. By adding both House-passed 
texts as an amendment to the Senate amendment, the House was able to 
put both matters in conference as reflected in the Speaker Pro 
Tempore's appointment of conferees. Managers representing the two 
committees were exclusive conferees on the provisions within their 
respective jurisdictions.(13) 

MR. [CARL D.] PERKINS [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 12467) to amend 
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to extend certain programs established 
in such act, to establish a community service employment program for 
handicapped individuals, to provide for independent living 
rehabilitation services for the severely handicapped, and for other 
purposes, with House amendments to the Senate amendments thereto, 
insist on the House amendments to the Senate amendments, and to agree 
to the conference requested by the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I might say, this is where we participate jointly with the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce in the conference and we 
only have jurisdiction of titles I, II, III, and V of the House 
amendments to the Senate amendments, and that titles I, II, and IV of 
the Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(14) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
The Chair hears none and, without objection appoints the following 
confer-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     See 124 CONG. REC. 32899, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 2, 1978.
14.     John Brademas (Ind.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 461]]

ees only for considering titles I through IV of the House amendments to 
the Senate amendments and on modifications thereto committed to 
conference: Messrs. Perkins, Brademas, Beard of Rhode Island, Miller of 
California, Kildee, Heftel, Hawkins, Biaggi, Quie, Jeffords, and 
Erlenborn.
Without objection, the Chair appoints the following conferees only for 
consideration of title V of the House amendments to the Senate 
amendments and modifications thereto committed to conference: Messrs. 
Staggers, Rogers, Satterfield, Preyer, Scheuer, Waxman, Florio, Carter, 
Broyhill, and Madigan.
There was no objection.
Delineating Conferees' Authority; Specific Conferees Named on "Matters 
Which May Come Within That Committee's Jurisdiction"
Sec.    6.35 Where there are no textual references in a bill being sent 
to conference to a subject matter over which a committee has 
jurisdiction, the Speaker may nevertheless appoint managers from that 
committee to participate "where matters within its jurisdiction" are 
under discussion in conference. 
In the 96th Congress,(15) H.R. 4040, the Defense Department 
authorization bill, had not been given a sequential referral to the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence when it was reported by the 
Committee on Armed Services. There were no discernible textual 
references to intelligence activities, although some were undoubtedly 
inherent in programs authorized in the bill. The Speaker's appointment 
of six members of the permanent select committee, to confer "only when 
differences regarding intelligence-related activities are under 
consideration" was not opposed by the Committee on Armed Services and 
was not unique to this particular measure.

MR. [MELVIN] PRICE [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the House insist on its amendments to the Senate bill (S. 428) to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1980 for procurement of 
aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, tracked combat vehicles, torpedoes, 
and other weapons, and for research, development, test, and evaluation 
for the Armed Forces, to prescribe the authorized personnel strength 
for each active duty component and the Selected Reserve of each Reserve 
component of the Armed Forces and for civilian personnel of the 
Department of Defense, to authorize the military training student 
loads, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1980 for civil 
defense, and for other purposes, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     125 CONG. REC. 24554, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 14, 1979.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 462]]

and request a conference with the Senate thereon.
THE SPEAKER:(16) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Illinois? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following 
conferees: Messrs. Price, Bennett, Stratton, Ichord, Nedzi, Charles H. 
Wilson of California, White, Nichols, Bob Wilson, Dickinson, 
Whitehurst, Spence, and Beard of Tennessee, and, as additional 
conferees, Messrs. Burlison, Zablocki, Mineta, Boland, Robinson, and 
Whitehurst from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence only 
when differences regarding intelligence-related activities are under 
consideration.
Assignment of Specified Chapters of Bill Among Several Conferees
Sec.    6.36 The Speaker appointed a set of conferees for each chapter of 
a general appropriation bill and appointed four Members to sit on all 
chapters.
On Aug. 7, 1950,(17) after Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, asked 
unanimous consent to take H.R. 7786, the 1951 general appropriation 
bill, with Senate amendments thereto, from the Speaker's desk, disagree 
to the Senate amendments, and ask for  a conference with the Senate, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated:

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri? 
[After a pause.] The Chair hears none and appoints the following 
conferees:
Managers on the part of the House:
Messrs. Cannon, Rabaut, Norrell, Taber, and on Chap. I, Messrs. Bates 
of Kentucky, Yates, Furcolo, Stockman, and Wilson of Indiana; on Chap. 
II, Messrs. McGrath, Kirwan, Andrews, Canfield, and Scrivner; on Chap. 
III, Messrs. Rooney, Flood, Preston, Stefan, and Clevenger; on Chap. 
IV, Messrs. Gary, Fernandez, Passman, Canfield, and Coudert; on Chap. 
V, Messrs. Fogarty, Hedrick, McGrath, Scrivner, and Andersen; on Chap. 
VI, Messrs. Whitten, Stigler, Kruse, Andersen, and Horan; on Chap. VII, 
Messrs. Kirwan, Jackson of Washington, Gore, Jensen, and Fenton; on 
Chap. VIII, Messrs. Thomas, Gore, Andrews, Case of South Dakota, and 
Phillips of California; on Chap. IX, Messrs. Kerr, Gore, Hedrick, 
Wigglesworth, and Stefan; on Chap. X, Messrs. Mahon, Sheppard, Sikes, 
Plumley, and Wigglesworth; on Chap. X-A, Messrs. Gore, Hedrick, 
Passman, Wigglesworth, and Stefan; on Chap. X-B, Messrs. Gary, Rooney, 
Bates of Kentucky, Wigglesworth, and Stefan; on Chap. XI, Messrs. Gore, 
Hedrick, Passman, Wigglesworth, and Stefan.
After the appointment of the conferees, Mr. Cannon and Mr. Francis H. 
Case, of South Dakota, discussed how the conferees would 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
17.     96 CONG. REC. 11894, 11895, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 463]]

operate under the above arrangement:

MR. CANNON: Mr. Speaker, we expect to go to conference tomorrow morning 
at 10 o'clock. The bill will be taken up by chapters seriatim. As a 
chapter is reached the entire subcommittee which wrote that particular 
chapter, and which therefore is more familiar with it than anyone else 
on the committee, along with the other managers on the part of the 
House, will take up the chapter with the Senate conferees.
MR. CASE of South Dakota: This means, then, that the four Members who 
were first named will sit through the entire conference?
MR. CANNON: They are the ranking members on the central subcommittee 
which reported the bill to the House and will sit with the respective 
subcommittees throughout the conference.
MR. CASE of South Dakota: And the Members who are assigned to a 
particular chapter will receive notification as their particular 
chapter is approached?
MR. CANNON: When a chapter is taken up, the conferees on the next 
succeeding chapter will be notified. We hope to proceed with as little 
delay as possible, subject always to the approval of the managers on 
the part of the Senate.(18) 
Speaker May Qualify Authority of Conferees
Sec.    6.37 When appointing conferees on a multijurisdiction al bill, 
where some managers are named to consider very specific provisions, and 
where there will be many subconferences on specific issues, the Speaker 
sometimes appoints a core group of general conferees with the authority 
to report in total disagreement.
On June 10, 1988,(19) in appointing the managers on the part of the 
House to the conference on H.R. 4264, the Department of Defense 
Authorization Act for 1988, the Speaker named conferees from six 
committees. In the event one of the issues not within the jurisdiction 
of Armed Services were to block a total agreement, the Speaker deemed 
it advisable to have a small group of conferees (less than a majority 
of the total named) with specific authority to  report in disagreement.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4264, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989
THE SPEAKER:(20) The Chair appoints the following conferees on the bill 
(H.R. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     See also 101 CONG. REC. 11686, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1955.
19.     134 CONG. REC. 14077, 14078, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 464]]

4264) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1989 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military 
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, 
to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
Forces and for other purposes:
From the Committee on Armed Services, for consideration of the entire 
House bill (except sections 4101 through 4110), and the entire Senate 
amendment (except sections 938 and 949), and as exclusive conferees 
with respect to any proposal to report in total disagreement: Messrs. 
Aspin, Bennett [and 32 more Members were appointed and listed].
As exclusive conferees from the Committee on Armed Services, solely for 
consideration of sections 209, 212, 935, and 936 of the House bill, and 
section 223 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference: Messrs. Aspin, Bennett [and 14 more Members were appointed 
and listed].
As additional conferees from the Committee on Education and Labor, 
solely for consideration of sections 4101 through 4110 of the House 
bill, and modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Hawkins, Ford 
of Michigan [and 7 more Members were appointed and listed].
As additional conferees from the Committee on Armed Services, solely 
for consideration of sections 4101 through 4110 of the House bill, and 
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Aspin, McCloskey, and 
Dickinson.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
Service, for consideration of section 917 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Ford of Michigan, Clay, 
Ackerman, Taylor, and Gilman.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Rules, for consideration 
of section 921 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference: Messrs. Pepper, Moakley [and 5 more Members were appointed 
and listed]. . . . 
As additional conferees from the Committee on Ways and Means, for 
consideration of sections 938 and 949 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Rostenkowski, Gibbons 
[and 4 more Members were appointed and listed].
Assignment of Portions of Amendment to Members From Different 
Subcommittees
Sec.    6.38 When appointing conferees on a continuing appropriation 
bill, the Speaker named Members from different subcommittees of the 
full committee.
H.R. 3019 was a "long-term" continuing appropriation bill. As of March 
21, 1996, the government was being funded under a "short-term" 
continuing resolution, which carried funding through Apr. 3, 1996.(1) 
The motion to instruct 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     H.J. Res. 165, passed by both the House and the Senate on Mar. 
21, 1996, carried the funding for those 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 465]]

carried here was offered by the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations but was defeated on a roll call vote of 
194-207.
One of the major impediments to wrapping up the general appropriation 
bill for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare was 
an amendment offered by Mr. Ernest J. Istook, Jr., of Oklahoma, 
relating to family planning. Because of the special interest 
surrounding this bill, the Speaker appointed the subcommittee chairs 
and ranking members on all parts of the bill except for the Istook 
amendment, where only managers from the Labor, HHS subcommittee were 
named. The pertinent proceedings of Mar. 21, 1996,(2) are carried 
below.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 3019, BALANCED BUDGET DOWN-PAYMENT 
ACT, II
MR. [ROBERT] LIVINGSTON [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3019) making 
appropriations for fiscal year 1996 to make a further downpayment 
toward a balanced budget, and for other purposes, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(3) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. OBEY
MR. [DAVID R.] OBEY [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
instruct.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference of the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment 
of the Senate to the bill, H.R. 3019, be instructed to:
(a) agree to the position in the Senate amendment increasing funding 
above the levels in the House bill for programs of the Department of 
Education;
(b) agree to the position in the Senate amendment increasing funding 
above the levels in the House bill for programs of the Environmental 
Protection Agency;
(c) agree to the position in the Senate amendment that provides a 
minimum of $975,000,000 from within the $1,903,000,000 provided for 
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants within the Department of Justice for 
the Public Safety and Community Policing grants pursuant 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriation accounts not yet enacted into law until Apr. 3, 1996. 
This was the seventh in a series of nine joint resolutions passed by 
the House continuing appropriations for fiscal 1996. 
 2.     142 CONG. REC. 6028, 6030, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     Joel Hefley (Colo.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 466]]

to title I of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 
(COPS on the beat program);
(d) agree to the position in the Senate amendment increasing funding 
above the levels in the House bill for job training and worker 
protection programs of the Department of Labor;
(e) agree to the position in the Senate amendment deleting Title V of 
the House bill placing onerous new red tape requirements on Federal 
grantees; and
(f) agree to the position in the Senate amendment specifying a maximum 
grant award of $2500 under the Pell Grant Program; and
(g) agree to the position in the Senate amendment providing fiscal year 
1997 funding of $1,000,000,000 for the Low-Income Energy Assistance 
Program of the Department of Health and Human Services. . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees:
For consideration of the House bill (except for section 101(c)) and the 
Senate amendment (except for section 101(d)), and modifications 
committed to conference:
Messrs. Livingston, Myers of Indiana, Young of Florida, Regula, Lewis 
of California, Porter, Rogers, Skeen, and Wolf, Mrs. Vucanovich, and 
Messrs. Lightfoot, Callahan, Walsh, Obey, Yates, Stokes, Bevill, 
Murtha, Wilson, Dixon, Hefner, and Mollohan.
For consideration of section 101(c) of the House bill, and section 101
(d) of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Porter, Young of Florida, Bonilla, Istook, Miller of Florida, 
Dickey, Riggs, Wicker, Livingston, Obey, Stokes, and Hoyer, Ms. Pelosi, 
and Mrs. Lowey.
There was no objection.
Delineation of Subconferences
Sec.    6.39 The Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means inserted in 
the Congressional Record his interpretation of issue clusters 
(subconferences) resulting from the Speaker's appointment of conferees 
on the Omnibus Trade Act of 1987.
This rather unusual insertion(4) by Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, of 
Illinois, demonstrates one of several ways of illustrating the 
responsibilities of conferees where various provisions of a House bill 
and corresponding portions of a Senate amendment must be considered and 
reconciled by a nucleus of conferees. There were 17 subconferences 
which resulted from the manner in which conferees were appointed on 
this bill. The method of describing the subject matter for one of these 
subconferences is carried below:

(Mr. Rostenkowski asked and was given permission to extend his remarks 
at this point in the Record and to include extraneous matter.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     See 133 CONG. REC. 26027, 26028, 100th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 1, 
1987.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 467]]

MR. ROSTENKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the conference on H.R. 
3, the Omnibus Trade Act of 1987, is one of the largest in history. In 
an effort to provide some guidelines to both the members of the 
conference and to the public, the following summaries of the subject 
matter within the purview of the various subconferences have been 
prepared.
The documents list those committees which are the lead committees for 
each subconference and the additional conferees within each 
subconference. In using these documents, it can be easily determined 
which set of conferees have been appointed to consider each provision 
of both the House bill and the Senate amendment.
I hope that the information provided here is of use in expediting the 
work of the conference.

SUBCONFERENCE SECTION RESPONSIBILITY . . . 
H.R. 3 TRADE SUBCONFERENCES
SUBCONFERENCE NO. 1-TRADE AND TARIFF LAWS; TRADE AGREEMENTS
House Conferees
Lead House Committee: Committee on Ways and Means

House bill:
Title I (Secs. 101-199)-Trade Law Amendments, except: Sec. 186
Title II (Secs. 201-212)-Inter-national Trade in Telecommunications 
Products and Services
Title VI, Subtitle G (Secs. 691, 692)-Trade Policy Formulation and 
Implementation
Sec. 704-Entry processing for textiles and apparel
Title VIII (Secs. 800-894)-Tariff and Customs Provisions
Sec. 906-Unreasonable practices
Sec. 908-Investigations of certain barriers pertaining to trade and 
services
Sec. 909-Effect imports on crude oil production and refining capacity 
in the United States
Title XV (Sec. 1501)-Most-Favored-Nation Treatment to Products of 
Romania

Senate amendment:
Title I (Secs. 101-111)-Authority to Negotiate Trade Agreements
Title II (Secs. 201-221)-Enhancing Competitiveness
Title III (Secs. 301-341)-Unfair International Trade Practices
Sec. 401-Remedies under the Tariff Act of 1930
Methods of Delineating Conferees' Authority
Sec.    6.40 Conference committee composition and representation on a 
budget reconciliation bill is often complex and requires section by 
section assignments to satisfy committee and subcommittee concerns. 

On July 14, 1993,(5) in naming conferees on the Omnibus Recon-
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
5.      139 CONG. REC. 15670-72, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 468]]

ciliation Act of 1994, the Speaker included representation from 13 
House committees, and delineated many subgroups from the various 
standing committees, including 14 different permutations of members of 
the Committee on the Budget.

THE SPEAKER:(6) The Chair appoints the following conferees:
From the Committee on the Budget, for consideration of the House bill, 
and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: 
Messrs. Sabo, Gephardt, and Kasich.
As additional conferees from the Committee on the Budget, for 
consideration of title I of the House bill, and title I of the Senate 
amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Stenholm, 
Pomeroy, Kildee, Smith of Texas, and Allard.
As additional conferees from the Committee on the Budget, for 
consideration of title II and section 12009 of the House bill, and 
title II and section 13003 of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference: Ms. Slaughter, Messrs. Mollohan, Gordon, and 
Shays, and Ms. Snowe.

After listing 13 more additional assignments for Budget Committee 
members, the Speaker named 19 other panels representing the 12 other 
committees involved jurisdictionally in the conference. Several 
committees had more than one panel-Ways and Means, e.g., had four.

Sec.    6.41 Where an amendment in disagreement in conference fell within 
the jurisdiction of two committees of the House, the Speaker named 
members from both those committees as managers and specified the 
respective areas on which they were to confer.
On Nov. 30, 1971,(7) the following proceedings occurred:

MR. [WAYNE L.] HAYS [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the House insist on its amendment to the Senate bill (S. 382) to 
promote fair practices in the conduct of election campaigns for Federal 
political offices, and for other purposes, and request a conference 
with the Senate thereon.
THE SPEAKER:(8) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio? The Chair hears none and appoints the following conferees on all 
titles of the foregoing amendment except for titles I and II:
Messrs. Hays, Abbitt, Gray, Harvey and Dickinson.(9) 
And appointed the following Members as managers on the part of the 
House on titles I and II:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
 7.     117 CONG. REC. 43422, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 8.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 9.     Members of the Committee on House Administration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 469]]

Messrs. Staggers, MacDonald of Massachusetts, Van Deerlin, Springer and 
Devine.(10) 
Sec.    6.42 Where a House bill consisting of two distinct jurisdictional 
titles was sent to conference with a Senate amendment in the nature of 
a substitute which involved only one of the two committee 
jurisdictions, the Speaker appointed members from the two House 
committees involved as managers for their respective portions of the 
House text and "modifi-cations thereof committed to conference." 
In many instances where the Speaker appoints conferees from two or more 
committees, the disagreeing votes of the two Houses may be clearly 
distinguishable along jurisdictional lines. The managers can be 
appointed to confer with Senate counterparts on specific text, 
delineated in the appointment by title or section numbers. Where the 
House and Senate versions are textually dissimilar (as in this case 
where the House bill had two distinct titles and the Senate one, not 
two, subjects), the Speaker's appointment(11) may describe the area in 
which the managers are to confer by subject matter, not by specific 
page and line assignments.

MR. [CARL D.] PERKINS [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2) to provide 
for pension reform, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the 
Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

THE SPEAKER:(12) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Kentucky? The Chair hears none, and the Chair appoints as managers 
on the part of the House the following Members: On title I of the House 
bill, and modifications thereof which have been committed to 
conference: Messrs. Perkins, Thompson of New Jersey, Dent, Burton, 
Quie, Erlenborn, and Sarasin; and on title II of the House bill, and 
modifications thereof which have been committed to conference: Messrs. 
Ullman, Burke of Massachusetts, Mrs. Griffiths, Messrs. Rostenkowski, 
Schneebeli, Collier, and Broyhill of Virginia.

Sec.    6.43 Where a bill was considered and reported by only one 
committee of the House, but where the text reflected the views of a 
second committee with which there had 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Members of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
11.     See 120 CONG. REC. 9286, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 2, 1974.
12.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 470]]

been consultations (but from which there had been no request for a 
sequential), the Speaker named conferees from the secondary committee 
only for those matters concurrently within its jurisdiction.
H.R. 7171, the Agricultural Act of 1977, had been reported from the 
Committee on Agriculture on May 16, 1977. During markup in the 
committee, there had been consultations with the Committee on 
International Relations concerning those aspects of the bill impinging 
on foreign agricultural aid, international research and international 
food reserves, matters not explicitly within its jurisdiction under 
Rule X but which the committee had addressed in legislation and through 
exercise of its oversight responsibilities.
When the Senate messaged to the House a similar bill, S. 275, the 
House, on July 28, 1977, amended the Senate bill with the text of the 
House-passed measure, H.R. 7171, and requested a conference. The 
Speaker Pro Tempore appointed 16 managers from the Committee on 
Agriculture and three from the Committee on International Relations.
(13) 

MR. [THOMAS S.] FOLEY [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the House insist on its amendment to the Senate bill (S. 
275) to provide price and income protection for farmers and assure 
consumers of an abundance of food and fiber at reasonable prices, and 
for other purposes, and request a conference with the Senate thereon. 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(14) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington? The Chair hears none, and, without 
objection, appoints the following conferees: Messrs. Foley, Poage, de 
la Garza, Jones of North Carolina, Jones of Tennessee, Mathis, Bowen, 
Rose, Richmond, Nolan, Weaver, Wampler, Sebelius, Findley, Thone and 
Symms; and, in addition, on issues involving Public Law 480-Title XI, 
International Research-Title XIII, and provisions of S. 275 on 
international reserves: Messrs. Zablocki, Pease, and Broomfield.
There was no objection.

Specific Conferees on Portions of Senate Bill Not Contained in House 
Amendment
Sec.    6.44 Where a Senate bill, much more comprehensive in subject 
matter than a House substitute amendment there-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     See 123 CONG. REC. 25561, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
14.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 471]]

for, is sent to conference, the Speaker has appointed House managers 
from appropriate House committees which would have jurisdiction over 
the Senate provisions, even though the House amendment has no text 
corresponding to those portions of the Senate bill text. 
The Intelligence Authorization Act, 1981, S. 2597, had not been 
referred to committees in the House. A companion measure, H.R. 7152, 
the Intelligence au-thorization for fiscal year 1981, had been reported 
in the House first from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
then referred to and reported by the Committee on Armed Services. The 
Senate text amended the Hughes-Ryan Act, a part of the Foreign 
Assistance Act dealing with funding of overseas intelligence 
activities. There was no comparable House provision dealing with this 
subject matter.
The proceedings of July 28, 1980,(15) wherein a conference on S. 2597 
was requested and conferees appointed, are set out below.

MR. [EDWARD P.] BOLAND [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the House insist on its amendments to the Senate bill, S. 
2597, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(16) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts? The Chair hears none and, without 
objection, appoints the following conferees: Messrs. Boland, Burlison, 
Zablocki, Mineta, Robinson, and Whitehurst; and as additional conferees 
for such matters as fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Armed Services under clause 1(c) of rule X of the rules of the House, 
Messrs. Price, Ichord, and Bob Wilson of California; and as additional 
conferees solely for consideration of such provisions of sections 408 
and 409 of S. 2597, and modifications thereof committed to conference 
as fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
under clause 1(h) of rule X of the rules of the House, Messrs. 
Hamilton, Fascell, Broomfield, and Derwinski.
There was no objection.

Parliamentarian's Note: Where conferees are named by the Speaker to 
confer on a portion of Senate text, there being no comparable provision 
in the House version of the matter placed in conference, the 
appointment is made in the form shown here-e.g., as "solely for 
consideration of sections ____ of the Senate text and modifi-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     126 CONG. REC. 19875, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
16.     Joseph G. Minish (N.J.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 472]]

cations thereof committed to conference" which fall within the 
jurisdiction of a particular House committee. The House position in 
conference, in simplistic terms, may be considered as the "existing 
law" which is changed by the Senate provision.
Speaker's Appointment of "Exclusive" Conferees on Specific Provisions

Sec.    6.45 Where a House-passed bill was amended in the Senate by two 
numbered amendments, the Speaker appointed separate groups of conferees 
from two committees for exclusive consideration of each of the numbered 
amendments that fell with-  in their respective jurisdictions.  
The bill sent to conference, H.R. 3167, extending the emergency 
unemployment compensation program, was within the exclusive 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means in the House. One of 
the two Senate amendments involved a reduction in levels of full-time 
positions in the civil service, a matter within the competence of the 
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. 
The appointment of conferees on Nov. 4, 1993,(17) are carried below.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(18) Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following Members to the conference committee:
From the Committee on Ways and Means, for consideration of the House 
bill, and Senate amendment No. 2, and modifications committed to 
conference: Messrs. Rostenkowski, Ford of Tennessee, and Archer.
From the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, for consideration 
of Senate amendment No. 1, and modi- fications committed to conference: 
Messrs. Clay, McCloskey, and Myers of Indiana.
There was no objection.

Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate amendments did not strike out the 
House text; both were "add-ons," adding new provisions not contained in 
the House bill. Therefore, the House text was not in conference, since 
not in disagreement. The managers appointed by the Speaker Pro 
Tempore from the membership of the Committee on Ways and Means were not 
in this instance authorized to confer on the House bill; their 
appointment was overly broad, and had the House text been changed, the 
conference 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     139 CONG. REC. 27367, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Cleo Fields (La.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 473]]

report would have been subject to a point of order.
Conferees From Different Subcommittees and Full Committees
Sec.    6.46 In exercising his authority to appoint conferees, under Rule 
X clause 6(f),(19) the Speaker may name different "panels" from the 
primary committee to confer on portions of the bill where they have a 
particular expertise or subcommittee experience. 
In his appointment of the conferees on the bill H.R. 3474, the 
Regulatory Reform Act of 1993, the Speaker appointed three panels and 
in one instance substituted one Member for another on a panel, to 
reflect the desires of the chairman of the Committee on Banking, 
Finance and Urban Affairs to allow those Members most knowledgeable of 
the subject matter to be involved in the conference. The same authority 
was used in naming two panels to the  conference from the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce. 
The form used in the appointment of the conferees on Apr. 21, 1994,(20) 
is illustrative of the manner in which the Speaker can use his 
appointment authority. 
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 3474, REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 1993
MR. [HENRY B.] GONZALEZ [of Texas]: Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3474) to reduce 
administrative requirements for insured depository institutions to the 
extent consistent with safe and sound banking practices, to facilitate 
the establishment of community development financial institutions, and 
for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the 
Senate amendment, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(1) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas? The Chair hears none, and without objection, 
appoints the following conferees:
From the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, consideration 
of the House bill, and the Senate amendment (except titles II and V), 
and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Gonzalez, Neal of North Carolina, LaFalce, Vento, Schumer, 
Frank of Massachusetts, Kanjorski, Kennedy, Flake, and Mfume, Ms. 
Waters, Messrs. LaRocco, Orton, Bacchus of Florida, Leach, and 
McCollum, Mrs. Roukema, and Messrs. Bereuter, Ridge, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 701e (1997).
20.     140 CONG. REC. 8202, 8203, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
 1.     Jolene Unsoeld (Wash.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 474]]

Roth, McCandless, Baker of Louisiana, and Nussle.
Provided, that for consideration of section 348(b) of the Senate 
amendment, Mr. Klein is appointed in lieu of Mr. LaFalce.
From the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, for 
consideration of title II of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference:
Messrs. Gonzalez, Neal of North Carolina, LaFalce, Vento, Schumer, 
Frank of Massachusetts, Kanjorski, Kennedy, Flake, and Mfume, Ms. 
Waters, Mr. Orton, Mr. Klein, Ms. Velï¿½zquez, Mr. Leach, Mr. McCollum, 
Mrs. Roukema, and Messrs. Bereuter, Ridge, Roth, McCandless, Baker of 
Louisiana, and Nussle.
From the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, for 
consideration of title V of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference:
Messrs. Gonzalez, Neal of North Carolina, LaFalce, Schumer, Frank of 
Massachusetts, Leach, Bereuter and McCollum.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for 
consideration of sections 201-05, 207, 320 and 347 of the Senate 
amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Dingell, Markey, Sharp, and Swift, Mrs. Collins of Illinois, 
Messrs. Boucher, Manton, and Lehman, Ms. Schenk, Ms. Margolies-
Mezvinsky, and Messrs. Synar, Wyden, Richardson, Bryant, Moorhead, 
Fields of Texas, Bliley, Oxley, Schaefer, Barton of Texas, McMillan, 
Hastert, and Gillmor.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for 
consideration of sections 503-05, 507 and 706 of the Senate amendment, 
and modifications committed to conference: 
Mr. Dingell, Mr. Markey, Mrs. Collins of Illinois, and Messrs. Towns, 
Lehman, Moorhead, Stearns, and McMillan. . . . 
As additional conferees from the Committee on Ways and Means, for 
consideration of sections 210 and 502-04 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Rostenkowski, Gibbons, Pickle, Rangel, Stark, Archer, Crane, 
and Thomas of California.
There was no objection.
Describing Specific Text on Which Conferees May Confer
Sec.    6.47 In appointing conferees, the Speaker may designate the 
subject matter on which they are authorized to confer by section 
numbers in the text of the bill or the amendment committed to 
conference, or by descriptive text where their appointment is to confer 
only on a portion of a section.
In the House, the Committees on Government Operations, Armed Services, 
Education and Labor, the Judiciary, Public Works and Transportation, 
and Small Business are among those which 


[[Page 475]]

have had some jurisdictional claim over the broad subject matter of 
government procurement and contracting for services. The appointment of 
conferees as excerpted from the Record of Aug. 4, 1994,(2) and carried 
here shows how the text of the matters in disagreement may have to be 
explicitly described to reflect jurisdictional concerns.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON S. 1587, FEDERAL ACQUISITION STREAM-LINING 
ACT OF 1994
MR. [JOHN] CONYERS [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1587) to 
revise and streamline the acquisition laws of the Federal Government, 
and for other purposes, with a House amendment thereto, insist on the 
House amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(3) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
The Chair hears none and, without objection, appoints the following 
conferees:
Conferees from the Committee on Government Operations, for 
consideration of the Senate bill, and the House amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Conyers, Synar, Neal of North Carolina, Lantos, Owens, Towns, 
Spratt, and Rush, Mrs. Maloney, Ms. Margolies-Mezvinsky, and Messrs. 
Clinger, McCandless, Hastert, Kyl, Shays, and Schiff.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Armed Services, for 
consideration of the Senate bill, and the House amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Dellums, Sisisky, Evans, Bilbray, and Edwards of Texas, Ms. 
Furse, and Messrs. Spence, Kasich, Bateman, and Weldon.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Education and Labor, for 
consideration of sections 4024(d), 4101(b), 4101(c), 6101-02, 8005(c)
(2), and 11001-04 of the Senate bill, and section 4105 of the House 
amendment and modifications committed to conference.
Messrs. Ford of Michigan, Murphy, and Fawell.
As additional conferees from the Committee on the Judiciary, for 
consideration of sections 1421-22, 1437, 2451, 2551-53, 2555, that 
portion of section 4011 that adds a new section 29(b)(2) to the Federal 
Procurement Policy Act, sections 4024 (a), (b), (c), and (f), 4101 (b) 
and (c), 6001-04, 6053, and 6005 (c)(3) and (c)(4) of the Senate bill; 
and that portion of section 4011 that adds a new section 4B(c) to the 
Federal Procurement Policy Act, that portion of section 4031 that adds 
a new subsection (c)(9) to section 23012a of title 10, United States 
Code, that portion of section 4041 that adds a new subsection (c)(2) to 
section 302A of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
1949, sections 4051, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     140 CONG. REC. 19605, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     Esteban Edward Torres (Calif.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 476]]

5003, that portion of section 7106 that adds a new section 2285(a)(12)
to title 10, United States Code, that portion of section 7205 that 
adds a new section 314D(a)(4) to the Federal Property and 
Administrative Services Act of 1949, and section 7301(b) of the House 
amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Brooks, Bryant, and Fish.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, for consideration of sections 1056 and 1067 of the 
Senate bill and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Mineta, Traficant, and Shuster.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Small Business, for 
consideration of sections 1055(b)(2), 2554, 4102-05, that portion of 
section 4011 that adds a new section 29(b)(1) to the Office of Federal 
Procurement Policy Act, sections 4012, 4014(d), 4015(d), and 4074 of 
the Senate bill, and sections 4104 and 8002 of the House amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference:
Mr. LaFalce, Mr. Smith of Iowa, and Mrs. Meyers of Kansas.
There was no objection.
"General" and "Limited" Conferees
Sec.    6.48 Where a jointly referred bill had been reported by only one 
of the two committees, the Speaker appointed general conferees to 
confer on the entire bill from the committee which had reported and 
limited conferees from the other. 
In the 96th Congress,(4) the House considered and passed H.R. 4011, the 
Small Business Act and Small Business Investment Act authorizations. 
After passage, a similar Senate bill, S. 918, was passed in lieu of the 
House measure and the House bill laid on the table. The House version 
had been referred to both the Small Business and the Agriculture 
Committees. Only the first of the committees reported the bill to the 
House; the second (Agriculture) chose not to mark up and report the 
bill with the understanding that they would have conference 
representation.

Similar House bills, H.R. 4011 and H.R. 90, were laid on the table.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON S. 918
MR. [NEAL] SMITH of Iowa: I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 918) to amend the Small Business 
Act and Small Business Investment Act of 1958 and for other purposes, 
with a House amendment thereto, insist on the House amendment, and 
request a conference with the Senate thereon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     125 CONG. REC. 12097, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., May 22, 1979.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 477]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(5) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa? The Chair hears none and, without objection, 
appoints the following conferees: Messrs. Smith of Iowa, St Germain, 
Nolan, Ichord, Evans of Georgia, Barnard, Leach of Louisiana, Hall of 
Ohio, McDade, Carter, Quayle, and Conte.
Also, additional conferees solely for consideration of subsections (c), 
(d), and (e) of section 113 of the House amendment and modifications 
thereof committed to conference: Messrs. Foley, Jones of Tennessee, 
Harkin, Huckaby, Glickman, Hance, Brown of California, Richmond, 
Wampler, Madigan, Kelly, and Coleman.
There was no objection.
"Leadership" Conferees Not From Committee of Jurisdiction
Sec.    6.49 On rare occasions, the Speaker has named a "leadership" 
representative to a conference committee, where the party has taken a 
policy position on the measure.
In the 101st Congress, the House version of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, H.R. 2273, had been referred to and reported by four 
House committees. An equal number of conferees were named from each of 
the four, all as general conferees with authority to negotiate on the 
entire Senate bill (S. 933) and House amendment in conference. The 
majority caucus Chairman, Steny H. Hoyer, of Maryland, was appointed as 
an additional conferee on the entire bill and another Member, Jim 
Chapman, of Texas, was named on a particular section since he had been 
the proponent of a successful floor amendment relating thereto. The 
pertinent proceedings from the Record of May 24, 1990,(6) are carried 
below.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON S. 933, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 
1990
MR. HOYER: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 933) to establish a clear and 
comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability, 
with a House amendment thereto, insist on the House amendment, and 
request a conference with the Senate thereon.
THE SPEAKER:(7) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
There was no objection. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair appoints the following conferees:
From the Committee on Education and Labor, for consideration of the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     John Brademas (Ind.).
 6.     136 CONG. REC. 12226, 12227, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 478]]

Senate bill, and the House amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference: Messrs. Hawkins, Owens of New York, Martinez, Bartlett, and 
Fawell. 
From the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for consideration of the 
Senate bill, and the House amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference: Messrs. Dingell, Markey, Thomas A. Luken, Lent, and 
Whittaker.
Except that: For consideration of title IV of the Senate bill, and 
title IV of the House amendment, Mr. Rinaldo is appointed in lieu of 
Mr. Whittaker.
From the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, for 
consideration of the Senate bill, and the House amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Anderson, Roe, Mineta, 
Hammerschmidt, and Shuster.
From the Committee on the Judiciary, for consideration of the Senate 
bill, and the House amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference: Messrs. Brooks, Edwards of California, Kastenmeier, Fish, 
and Sensenbrenner.
As an additional conferee, on the Senate bill, and the House amendment, 
and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Hoyer.
As an additional conferee, on consideration of section 103(d) of the 
House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. 
Chapman.
Without objection, the Chair reserves the right to appoint additional 
conferees.
There was no objection.
Conferee Appointments and Future Committee Jurisdictional Claims
Sec.    6.50 Conference committees are in fact "select committees" and 
dissolve when their report is acted on, and the Speaker reminded 
Members that the appointment of conferees from more than one standing 
committee should not be considered a permanent jurisdictional precedent 
that binds him with respect to all future referrals of introduced bills 
or the appointment of conferees. 
On June 3, 1992,(8) Speaker Thomas S. Foley, of Washington, amplified a 
statement he had made on opening day of the 102d Congress, in which he 
expressed a desire to simplify the process of appointing conferees. The 
statement reflected his concern that naming a conferee from other than 
the lead or dominant committee was being interpreted by some committees 
as a precedent for the referral of bills on introduction. 
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 3489, OMNIBUS EXPORT AMENDMENTS ACT OF 
1991
MR. [SAM] GEJDENSON [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3489) to 
reauthorize 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     138 CONG. REC. 13288, 13289, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 479]]

the Export Administration Act of 1979, and for other purposes, with a 
Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree 
to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Connecticut? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees 
and, without objection, reserves the authority to make additional 
appointments of conferees and to specify particular portions of the 
House bill and Senate amendment as the subject of the various 
appointments.
Before the Chair reports the conferees, the Chair wishes to make an 
additional statement.
On opening day of the 102d Congress, the Chair announced that 
"consistent with clause 6 of rule X, the Chair intends to develop and 
implement a policy that would enable him to the fullest extent feasible 
to simplify the appointment of conferees."
As the Chair is about to announce an appointment of conferees from more 
than one committee in the second session, and based upon the Chair's 
additional experience with complicated conference appointments in the 
first session notwithstanding his opening day announcement, the Chair 
will remind Members that conference committees are after all select 
committees in the sense that they go out of existence when their report 
is filed. The appointment by the Chair of various groups of conferees 
in the context of the particular House and Senate provisions sent to 
conference should not be construed as precedent binding the Speaker to 
subsequent joint referrals of all bills amending the work product of 
that particular conference.
The conferees are as follows:
From the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for consideration of the House 
bill, and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference: Messrs. Fascell, Gejdenson, Wolpe, Johnston of Florida, 
Engel, Murphy, Orton, Broomfield, Roth, Bereuter, and Miller of 
Washington.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Armed Services, for 
consideration of sections 120 and 303 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Mavroules, Hertel, 
Pickett, Hunter, and Kyl.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Banking, Finance and 
Urban Affairs, for consideration of sections 201(c), 205, and 207-10 of 
the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Ms. 
Oakar and Messrs. Neal of North Carolina, LaFalce, Leach, and 
McCandless.
As additional conferees from the Committee on the Judiciary, for 
consideration of sections 120, 123 and 502 of the House bill, and 
sections 121, 124, 302, 305 and 306 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Brooks, Schumer, Hughes, 
Sensenbrenner, and Gekas.
There was no objection.
Resolution Under Suspension of the Rules Authorizing Appointment
Sec.    6.51 The House may suspend the rules and adopt a resolu-


[[Page 480]]

tion providing that the House insist upon its amend-ment to a Senate 
bill, request a conference with the Senate, and that the Speaker 
immediately appoint conferees.
On June 18, 1948,(9) Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, made the 
following motion for the disposal of S. 2655, the Selective Service Act 
of 1948:

MR. ANDREWS of New York: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the resolution, House Resolution 690, which I send to the desk.
THE SPEAKER:(10) The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That the House insist upon its amendment to S. 2655, ask a 
conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes, and that the 
Speaker immediately appoint conferees. . . . 

THE SPEAKER: The question is, Shall the rules be suspended and the 
resolution passed?
The question was taken and, two-thirds having voted in favor thereof, 
the motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair appoints the following conferees: Messrs. 
Andrews of New York, Short, Cole of New York, Bates of Massachusetts, 
Vinson, Brooks, and Kilday.
Resolutions Precluding Motion To Instruct
Sec.    6.52 A resolution may provide that an appropriation bill, with 
Senate amendments thereto, be taken from the Speaker's table, to the 
end that all Senate amendments be disagreed to, that a conference be 
requested, and that the Speaker shall immediately appoint conferees on 
the part of the House without intervening motion.
On May 23, 1939,(11) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, directed 
the Clerk to report a resolution offered by Mr. Edward E. Cox, of 
Georgia.

The Clerk read as follows:
H. RES. 201
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill (H.R. 5269) making appropriations for the Department of 
Agriculture and for the Farm Credit Administration for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1940, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments 
thereto, be, and the same hereby is, taken from the Speaker's table, to 
the end that all Senate amendments be, and the same are, disagreed to 
and a conference is requested with the Senate upon the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses, and the Speaker 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     94 CONG. REC. 8829, 8830, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
10.     Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
11.     84 CONG. REC. 6000, 6001, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 481]]

shall immediately appoint conferees on the part of the House without 
intervening motion.

The House agreed to the resolution and the Speaker appointed conferees.
Parliamentarian's Note: The adoption of such a resolution (or motion) 
directing the Speaker to appoint conferees without intervening motion 
precludes a motion to instruct these conferees prior to their 
appointment.


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
B. CONFERENCE MANAGERS OR CONFEREES
 
Sec.    7. Power and Discretion of Conferees

The authority of the managers at a conference is limited by several 
restrictions.(12) Their report is subject to a point of order if they 
agree to a provision that is beyond any of the limits of their 
authority.(13) First, conferees may consider only matters in 
disagreement between the two Houses.(14) This restriction now applies 
in situations where one House has stricken all after the enacting or 
resolving clause of a bill or resolution of the other and inserted in 
its place an entirely new bill (a substitute).(15) 
The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970(16) amended Rule XXVIII 
clause 3, to restrict the discretion of the conferees by prohibiting 
them from introducing in a conference substitute any additional topic, 
question, issue, or proposition, not committed to conference by either 
House, and by proscribing any modification in a conference substitute 
which would be beyond the scope of such specific topic, question, 
issue, or proposition as so committed to the conference committee by 
either or both Houses.(17) This represents a departure from the 
traditional custom of the House whereby conferees had extremely wide 
latitude when considering a bill or resolution and a substitute 
therefor. In the past in such cases conferees were free to discard 
language which occurred in both the original legislation and the 
substi-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     See generally Sec. 19, infra.
13.     See Sec. 19.1, infra.
14.     See Sec.Sec. 7.1-7.7, 19.5, 19.6, infra; and House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 546 (1997).
15.     Rule XXVIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(a) (1997). 
See Sec. 7.2, infra.
16.     84 Stat. 1140, Pub. L. No. 91-510, Sec. 125(b)(3) (Oct. 26, 
1970), which was adopted as part of the rules of the House pursuant to 
H. Res. 5, 117 CONG. REC. 114, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 1971.
17.     See Sec.Sec. 19.5, 19.6, infra.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 482]]

tute,(18) could report out any germane amendment,(19) and could 
even report from conference an entirely new bill germane to the subject 
matter before them.(20) 
Second, since the beginning of the 92d Congress, conferees have been 
required to take cognizance of the rule on germaneness.(1) Prior to 
this time, there was no procedure whereby the House could address 
itself specifically to the issue of nongermane Senate material 
contained either in conference reports or in amendments between the 
Houses.(2) The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970(3) added a 
provision to the rules of the House which required conferees to obtain 
specific prior authority from the House before they could agree to any 
Senate amendment which would be held nongermane if offered in the 
House.(4) The rules were amended again late in the 92d Congress(5) to 
delete this requirement of specific prior authority and to provide a 
method whereby separate votes could be taken during consideration of a 
conference report on nongermane matter contained therein. The rejection 
of any such Senate amendment results in the rejection of the entire 
conference report.(6) 
Third, conferees may not agree to any Senate amendment to a general 
appropriation bill 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     See 86 CONG. REC. 10146, 10174-77, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 12,
1940; and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3266.
19.     See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 3248, 3263, 3265.
20.     See 93 CONG. REC. 6361-82, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., June 4, 1947; 91 
CONG. REC. 2838-40, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 27, 1945; 8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec.Sec. 3248, 3263; and 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 6421, 
6423, 6424.
 1.     Rule XVI clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec.Sec. 794-800 
(1997). See generally Ch. 28, supra.
 2.     See 113 CONG. REC. 34032-34, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 28, 1967, 
especially the remarks of Messrs. Comer, Jones, and Celler regarding 
the Senate practice of adding nongermane amendments to House proposals.
 3.     84 Stat. 1140, Pub. L. No. 91-510, Sec. 126(b) (Oct. 26, 1970), 
which was adopted as part of the rules of the House pursuant to H. Res. 
5, 117 CONG. REC. 114, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 1971.
 4.     See annotation to Rule XX clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 
829 (1997).
 5.     H. Res. 1153, the provisions of which took effect immediately 
prior to the beginning of the 93d Congress.
 6.     Rule XXVIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(b) (1997).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[Page 483]]

which provides for an expenditure not previously 
authorized by law, and which would therefore violate Rule XXI clause 2,
(7) or any Senate amendment providing for an appropriation on any bill 
other than a general appropriation bill, unless prior specific 
authority to do so is granted by the House by a separate vote on each 
such amendment.(8) This general restriction on the authority of the 
managers does not apply when they consider a House amendment to a 
Senate bill.(9) Several additional specific exceptions to this 
restriction regarding consideration of Senate amendments should be 
noted. When a legislative item remains in an appropriation bill as 
passed by the House and a Senate amendment increases the amount of 
money being authorized, the conferees may agree to this without prior 
authority from the House.(10) Also when an appropriation bill is 
considered and passed in the House under a special rule which waives 
points of order against items therein unauthorized by law, the 
conferees may agree to these provisions although they remain 
unauthorized.(11) On one occasion conferees presented a conference 
report on a general appropriation bill which allocated to several 
projects specific funds which had not been authorized, and the Speaker 
overruled a point of order noting that these specifically allocated 
appropriations were contained within a lump-sum appropriation which was 
limited by the language of the bill to projects authorized by law.(12) 
Conferees need not obtain authority from the House to eliminate an 
appropriation contained in a Senate amendment to a legislative bill.
(13) 
On occasion, the conferees may recommend in their report that the House 
agree to an amendment in the third degree.(14) Although the report is 
subject to a point of order on that ground, the infraction may be 
ignored or waived.(15) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1997).
 8.     Rule XX clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997). See 
Sec.Sec. 7.19-7.22, 19.15, 19.16, infra.
 9.     Sec. 7.30, infra.
10.     Sec. 7.27, infra.
11.     Sec.Sec. 7.28, 7.29, infra.
12.     Sec. 19.22, infra.
13.     Sec. 19.21, infra.
14.     See Ch. 32, Sec.Sec. 6.3, 6.4, supra.
15.     See the proceedings concerning Senate amendment No. 47 to H.R. 
5389, 77 CONG. REC. 5975-6015, 6098-130, 6145-54, 6165, 6166, 73d Cong. 
1st Sess., June 14 and 15, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 484]]

Matters in Disagreement Between the Houses
Sec.    7.1 Where a Senate housing bill authorized a sum of money for 
education grants, and the House struck out this provision, the 
conferees remained within the scope of conference by retaining the 
provision but reducing the amount of the authorization.
On June 23, 1959,(16) the House was considering the conference report 
on S. 57, the Housing Act of 1959. Mr. Graham A. Barden, of North 
Carolina, rose with a point of order:

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the provisions of the 
conference report, and I do so realizing that I probably will be 
overruled on account of the fact that the rule seems to refer to 
amendments of the Senate. However, I think it is of sufficient 
importance at this time that a point of order should be discussed 
because in section 812 of the conference report it is stated:

There is hereby authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $300,000 
for a 3-year period commencing on July 1, 1959, to be used by the 
Housing and Home Finance Administrator for the purpose of providing 
scholarships and fellowships in public and private nonprofit 
institutions of higher education for the graduate training of 
professional city planning and housing technicians and specialists. 
Persons shall be selected for such scholarships and fellowships solely 
on the basis of ability.

Certainly that would have been subject to a point of order had this 
matter been brought to the House in a bill pending on the floor of the 
House. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(17) The Chair is ready to rule. The only question before 
the Chair is whether or not this provision was within the scope of the 
conferees. The Senate adopted this provision in toto, and it provided 
$500,000 for 3 years.(18) The conferees agreed upon $300,000 for 3 
years. The Chair cannot see how we can stretch it to the point where 
this matter would be subject to a point of order and states again that 
he believes it was definitely within the scope of the conferees and 
therefore overrules the point of order.
Scope of Discretion Between Dates
Sec.    7.2 Where one House strikes all after the enacting clause of a 
bill of the other, and inserts a new text, the conferees have a wide 
range of discretion in writing new language; but they continue to 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1933; and H. Jour. 431, 432, 73d Cong. 1st Sess. (1933).
16.     105 CONG. REC. 11599, 11600, 11615, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
18.     Parliamentarian's Note: The House had totally eliminated this 
scholarship provision when it passed S. 57.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 485]]

be bound by the differences submitted to them, and where dates are 
concerned, they cannot go beyond the latter or within the shorter.
On Dec. 11, 1967,(19) Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New York, the Chairman of 
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 7977, the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary 
Act of 1967. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, rose with a point of order:

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the conference report on 
the grounds that the House managers exceeded their authority and did 
not confine themselves to the differences committed to them, in 
violation of the rules and precedents of the House of Representatives.
The House bill, in section 107(a) provided a minimum charge of 3.8 
cents for bulk third-class mail effective January 7, 1968. Section 107
(a) of the Senate amendment provided a two-step minimum charge-the 
first of 3.6 cents effective January 7, 1968, and a second 4-cent rate 
effective January 1, 1969.
The differences committed to the conferees with respect to this postage 
rate and the effective dates for this rate were: A rate range between 
3.6 cents and 4 cents; a January 7, 1968, effective date for a one-rate 
charge with no further rate provided; and January 7, 1968, and January 
1, 1969, effective dates for any two-rate charges.
The conference report contains a two-rate charge-the first, 3.6 cents, 
effective January 7, 1968; the second, 4 cents effective July 1, 1969.

The July 1, 1969, effective date for a second rate goes beyond the 
disagreements confided to the conferees. By agreeing to any effective 
date for a second rate beyond January 1, 1969, the House managers have 
clearly exceeded their authority.
Mr. Speaker, the precedents of the House, Cannon's Precedents, volume 
VIII, section 3264, have established that where two Houses fix 
different periods of time the conferees have latitude only between the 
two, but may not go beyond the longer nor within the shorter. . . . 
Rule 28 clause 3 of the Rules of the House [as it existed in the 90th 
Congress] reads:

Whenever a disagreement to an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
has been committed to a conference committee it shall be in order for 
the Managers on the part of the House to propose a substitute which is 
a germane modification of the matter in disagreement, but their report 
shall not include matter not committed to the conference committee by 
either House.

The Senate bill was an amendment-in the nature of a substitute for the 
House bill. The conference report is an additional substitute on the 
same subject. However, the conference report distinctly includes matter 
not committed to the conferees by either House, and I make the point of 
order on that basis. . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     113 CONG. REC. 35811, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 486]]

THE SPEAKER:(20) Does the gentleman from New York desire to be heard on 
the point of order?
MR. DULSKI: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair sustains the point of order.
Sec.    7.3 Parliamentarian's Note: The report of the managers must not 
include matter not committed to the conference committee by either 
House, nor may their report include a modification of any specific 
topic, question, issue, or proposition committed to the conference 
committee by either or both Houses if that modification is beyond the 
scope thereof as so committed to the conference committee.(1) 
Multiple Points of Order Against Conference Report
Sec.    7.4 Instance where the Speaker entertained multiple points of 
order against a conference report and then overruled them all, finding  
that the conferees had stayed within the scope of the matters committed 
to them, even though they had-in some instances-added words and phrases 
not in either the Senate bill or the House amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
A rather protracted parliamentary battle over consideration of the 
Outer Continental Shelf Amendments of 1976 was concluded on Sept. 28, 
1976,(2) when actual debate on the conference report began. The Speaker 
first disposed of seven arguments that the conferees had gone beyond 
the confines set by Rule XXVIII clause 3, in reaching their compromise. 
Both Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, who pressed the various 
points of order, and Mr. John M. Murphy, of New York, who argued in 
defense of the conference agreement, made extensive arguments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 1.     The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 modified the rules of 
the House to place this restriction on the authority of the conferees 
when considering a bill and its substitute in conference. 84 Stat. 
1140, Pub. L. No. 91-510, Sec. 125(b)(3), (Oct. 26, 1970). Rule XXVIII 
clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(a) (1997); and Deschler's 
Procedure (93d Cong.), Ch. 33 Sec. 6.2, supra.
 2.     122 CONG. REC. 33020, 33021, 33023, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 487]]

MR. FISH: Mr. Speaker, prior to 1971, managers considering a bill and 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute were free to exercise wide 
discretion in discarding language appearing in both versions and in 
making germane amendments, even beyond the scope of the various issues 
in disagreement. All this was changed by the Legislative Reorganization 
Act of 1970. Section 125(B) of that act revised clause 3 of rule 28, so 
that each specific topic, question, issue, or proposition must now be 
looked at individually, as if linear amendments had been made by one 
House to the bill of the other. Under this rule the conferees cannot 
report new matter not committed by either House. Also, where the two 
Houses propose different language on a particular issue, the two 
versions set the boundaries for conference consideration of that issue. 
Amendments outside those boundaries may not be reported, even if 
germane. Where one House is silent on an issue proposed by the other, 
the silent House is deemed to be incorporating current law, if any, on 
the subject into its version. If both versions contain matter on a 
given issue, that issue must be reported by the conference, in 
disagreement if necessary. Finally, since the substitute is being 
handled as if it were several linear amendments, it is not in order for 
the managers to modify or fail to report language which is identical in 
both versions.
Mr. Speaker, the most glaring violation of rule 28, clause 3, is found 
at the bottom of page 27 of the printed version of the conference 
report in proposed subsection 22(e). In both the Senate bill and the 
House amendment a positive duty is put on designated officials to 
consider allegations of safety violations. Specifically, the Senate 
lists the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the department 
in which the Coast Guard is operating. The House lists the same two 
officials and adds the Secretary of Labor as well. With respect to this 
particular issue, therefore, the only matter in disagreement is whether 
or not to include the Secretary of Labor on the list. . . . 
Finally, proposed section 20(b)(1)(A) of the Senate bill and section 21
(c)(1) of the House amendment required Federal officials to, and I 
quote identical language from both versions, "promul-gate a complete 
set of safety regulations." The conference report gratuitously added 
the word "new" in the middle of the quoted language. Since both 
versions were identical, this should have been handled in the statement 
of the managers. It is not in order to consider such a modification of 
identical language, pursuant to rule 28, clause 3, and the conference 
report should be ruled out of order. I thank the Chair.
MR. MURPHY of New York: Mr. Speaker, before reviewing as the specific 
points of order, I must review the rules and procedures of the House. 
Rule 28, paragraph three, indicates whenever a disagreement to a bill 
through an amendment in the nature of a substitute has been committed 
to a conference committee, the conference may report a total substitute 
so long as no additional topic, question, issue, or proposition is 
included and so long as any modification suggested by the conference is 
not beyond the scope of the 


[[Page 488]]

topics, questions, issues, or propositions sent to such conference.

After hearing all of the argument, the Speaker ruled.

THE SPEAKER:(3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Fish) argues in his first point of 
order under clause 3, rule XXVIII, that the conferees have exceeded the 
scope of the matter committed to conference by removing from the 
Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating 
concurrent responsibility for considering allegations of violations of 
safety regulations. It is the Chair's opinion that the portions of the 
conference report dealing with safety regulations and enforcement must 
be read as a whole. The House and Senate versions had differing 
provisions on the various aspects of that subject and gave regulatory 
and enforcement responsibility to differing officials. The conference 
report compromise gives the authority to the Interior and Labor 
Departments and makes the conforming change in the provision dealing 
with consideration of allegations of violations. For the reasons stated 
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) the Chair overrules the 
point of order.
The gentleman's second point of order on scope deals with the findings 
at the beginning of the conference report, wherein the conferees agreed 
to language finding adverse impacts on the various States. It appears 
to the Chair that the language is between the Senate language, 
addressing the coastal zones of the various States, and the House 
language, addressing the various coastal States and other States. The 
conference language is no broader than the House language and the Chair 
overrules the point of order.
In his third point of order on scope, the gentleman from New York only 
points to language in the statement of managers and argues that a 
statement of intent by the conferees exceeds the scope of conference. 
Such a point of order must lie against language in the conference 
report itself and not in the joint statement and the Chair overrules 
the point of order.
The gentleman's fourth point of order on scope deals with the section 
of the conference report relating to judicial review of the Secretary 
of the Interior's determination whether to override State and regional 
recommendations as to development on the shelf. It appears to the Chair 
that the gentleman singles out one provision which must be read in 
conjunction with the other provisions in both bills on judicial review. 
Both bills provide for judicial review of shelf activities in other 
sections than the one pointed out. The conference language clarifies 
the fact that the limitation on judicial review of the Secretary's 
determination does not inhibit seeking judicial review of the 
underlying activities on the Outer Continental Shelf and does not 
exceed the scope of the matter committed to conference.
The gentleman makes several additional points of order on scope. The 
conference report exempted from the requirement of submission of 
development plans two regions, the Gulf of Mexico and Santa Barbara. 
The House 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 489]]

version had exempted areas where there had been development prior to 
January 1, 1975. The intent of the conferees, as expressed in the joint 
statement, was to name the areas on which there had been such 
development, rather than retain the broader and categorical language of 
the House amendment.
The gentleman also argues that the conferees have modified the 
requirement as to production rate by eliminating the word "efficient." 
As the manager of the conference report has pointed out, the word 
efficient appeared in differing phrases in the House and Senate bill. 
The Senate bill and the House amendment did not have identical tests 
and did not have identical purposes, as the Senate bill required 
submission of a plan and the House amendment required regulations. The 
modification of the language is clearly within the scope.
The last argument of the gentleman from New York is that the conferees 
have added the word "new" in a provision that did not contain that word 
in either the Senate bill or the House amendment. A careful reading of 
the Senate bill demonstrates that the two provisions were not 
identical, as the Senate bill contained the word "repromulgate," not 
contained in the House amendment. Therefore, the issue whether the 
regulations were to be new regulations or could be existing regulations 
was a matter before the conferees.
For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules all the points of order.
Conference Provision Not Au-thorized by Law
Sec.    7.5 Where the House provision in an appropriation bill provided 
$454.5 million for military assistance, including $54.6 million for the 
Republic of China and $50 million for Korea, and the Senate reduced the 
overall figure to $350 million and struck out the funds and the 
earmarking language for China, the conferees did not exceed their 
authority when they agreed to an overall figure of $404.5 million and 
included specific allocations for both countries carried in the House 
bill.
On Dec. 20, 1969,(4) Mr. Otto E. Passman, of Louisiana, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 15149, the foreign assistance appropriations 
bill for fiscal 1970. The House had passed H.R. 15149 under a special 
rule waiving points of order, and by so doing was able to send to the 
Senate a bill which appropriated $454.5 million for military assistance 
with $54.5 million earmarked for the Republic of China, despite the 
fact that 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     115 CONG. REC. 40447, 40448, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 490]]

the foreign assistance authorization bill, H.R. 14580, carried no 
earmarking language and authorized only $350 million for all military 
assistance. Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, raised a point of order 
against the conference report, contending that in restoring the 
earmarked $54.5 million for the Republic of China, the conferees agreed 
to a provision that was not authorized by law. Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded:

The gentleman from Illinois has raised a point of order against the 
conference report on the bill H.R. 15149.
. . . As pointed out in the debate on this point of order, the 
conference report now before the House does carry an amount for 
military assistance that is $54,500,000 above the figure which would be 
authorized by H.R. 14580, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1969.
However, the Chair recalls that when this appropriation bill passed the 
House, it was considered under a rule waiving points of order. The 
House agreed to a total figure for military assistance of $454,500,000. 
The Senate reduced this figure to $350 million. The conferees have 
reached an agreement between these two amounts, as they had the 
authority to do.
The Chair holds that the conferees have not exceeded their authority 
and overrules the point of order.
Conferees' Discretion Between a Named Sum and a Formula
Sec.    7.6 Where a Senate bill au-thorized appropriations for the 
federal payment to the District of Columbia in an amount equal to 40 
percent of revenues estimated un- der existing revenue-raising 
authority to be available for each fiscal year, and a House amendment 
in the nature of a substitute provided an annual authorization of $250 
million for each fiscal year, House conferees did not exceed their 
authority under Rule XXVIII clause 3 by recommending amounts which, 
though higher than those contained in the House amendment, were lower 
than the revenue estimates for those years and were based upon the 
revenue-raising au-thority conferred upon the District under existing 
law.
On Dec. 17, 1973,(5) the House was considering the conference report on 
S. 1435, the District of Columbia home rule bill. Mr. Earl F. 
Landgrebe, of Indiana, raised a point of order:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     119 CONG. REC. 42035, 42036, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 491]]

I raise a point of order against the conference report in reporting 
section 502-Authorization of Appropriations.
The conferees have clearly exceeded any authority in projecting a 
Federal payment of $300 million for fiscal year 1978.
The original Senate version of the bill called for a percentage of 
general fund revenues as the Federal payment. That percentage was 40 
percent by fiscal year 1978.
The House version called for a lump-sum payment not to exceed $250 
million.
The limits of disagreement are either a lump sum of $250 million or a 
percentage-40 percent-of whatever the general fund revenues are, not 
will be, in 1978. The conferees could have chosen either method. 
Instead, they chose to mix apples and oranges and come up with an 
authorization which not only exceeds the amounts stated in either 
version of the bill, but is an amount which greatly exceeds any figure, 
any statistic or any information presented for either committee's 
consideration.

Charles C. Diggs, Jr., of Michigan, Chairman of the Committee on the 
District of Columbia, responded to the point of order:

MR. DIGGS: . . . Mr. Speaker, the amounts in the conference report 
reflect the compromise between the House bill, as authorized and the 
amounts that would have been generated under the Senate provisions as 
estimated by the Executive Office of the Budget, and these amounts are 
not based on any subsequent authority which the Mayor and Council might 
need to raise revenue, but rather are firmly grounded in the basic 
revenue authority which is in the report. . . . 
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I think that the point of order raised by 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Landgrebe) should not be sustained.
THE SPEAKER:(6) The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from Indiana makes the point of order that the conferees 
have exceeded their authority under clause 3, rule XXVIII by including 
in section 502 of the conference report an authorization above the 
amounts contained in either the Senate bill or in the House amendment 
in the nature of a substitute. The Senate bill in section 201, provided 
that the authorization for the Federal payment for fiscal 1975 and each 
year thereafter shall be an amount equal to 40 per centum of such fees, 
charges, receipts, and revenues so estimated for such fiscal year. The 
House amendment, in section 502, provided for an annual authorization 
of $250,000,000 for fiscal 1975 and each year thereafter. During their 
deliberations, the conferees were provided by the District of Columbia 
government an estimate of general fund revenues for fiscal years 1975 
through 1978. . . . Based upon calculations of 40 percent of those 
estimated revenues the conferees have recommended authorization figures 
for fiscal years 1975 through 1978 which though higher than the 
authorizations for fiscal 1976, 1977, and 1978 in the House amendment 
are lower than the 40 percent of estimated revenue figures for those 
years submit-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 492]]

ted by the District of Columbia government to the conferees during 
their deliberations.
In the opinion of the Chair, the House conferees have remained within 
their scope of authority under clause 3, rule XXVIII and the point of 
order is overruled.
Increasing Entitlement Beyond Figure in Either Bill
Sec.    7.7 Where portions of a conference report on veterans' benefits 
contained higher entitlements for vocational rehabilitation assistance 
per month than those contained in either the House bill or  the Senate 
amendment, the Speaker held that the conferees had exceeded the scope 
permitted them by Rule XXVIII clause 3 and sustained a point of order 
against the report. 
On Aug. 22, 1974,(7) when the conference report on the Vietnam-Era 
Veterans' Readjustment Act was called up for consideration, a point of 
order was lodged against the report on the ground that the conferees 
had exceeded the scope of differences committed to them. After argument 
by the Member pressing the point of order, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, 
and the rebuttal by the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
Mr. William Jennings Bryan Dorn, of South Carolina, the Chair sustained 
the point of order. 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 12628, VIETNAM ERA VETERANS READJUSTMENT 
ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1974
MR. DORN: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill 
(H.R. 12628) to amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the 
rates of vocational rehabilitation, educational assistance, and special 
training allowances paid to eligible veterans and other persons; to 
make improvements in the educational assistance programs; 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:(8) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
POINT OF ORDER
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I ask to be recognized at the proper time to 
make a point of order against the conference report.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman can be recognized prior to the reading of 
the statement of the managers on the conference report.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     120 CONG. REC. 30050-52, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 8.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 493]]

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Iowa is recognized.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against the conference 
report on H.R. 12628, the Veterans Education and Rehabilitation 
Amendments of 1974. The conference report violates clause 3 of rule 
XXVIII in that the conferees exceeded the scope of the conference.
Clause 3 of rule XXVIII states, in part, that the report of conferees:

Shall not include matter not committed to the conference committee by 
either House, nor shall their report include a modification of any 
specific topic, question, issue, or proposition committed to the 
conference committee by either or both Houses if that modification is 
beyond the scope of that specific topic, question, issue, or 
proposition as so committed to the conference committee. (emphasis 
added)

H.R. 12628, as approved by this House on February 19, authorized a 13.6 
percent increase in monthly subsistence allowances for veterans 
participating in vocational rehabilitation training and veterans 
educational programs. The Senate, on June 19, adopted an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute that authorized an 18.2-percent increase in 
monthly payments under this legislation. The House subsequently 
disagreed with the Senate amendment and a conference was held.
Sections 2 and 5 of the House-passed bill provided for an increase in 
benefits of 13.6 percent for specific categories of eligible veterans 
and dependents. The corresponding provisions passed by the Senate, 
sections 101 and 213, authorize an increase of 18.2 percent in those 
benefits. The conference report, in sections 101 and 104, clearly 
authorize an increase of 22.7 percent in monthly allowances for those 
same categories of trainees. This modification is beyond the scope of 
the specific disagreement committed to the conference committee and is 
a clear violation of clause 3 of rule XXVIII. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, sections 101 and 104 of the conference report exceed the 
scope of the conference. And I ask that the point of order be 
sustained.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from South Carolina desire to be heard 
on the point of order?
MR. DORN: I do, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to explain the background of the 
particular provisions of the conference-reported bill which appear to 
be the basis for the gentleman's raising of a point of order.
To simplify my explanation, may I take the example of a single veteran 
who is attending full-time college training. Under the existing law he 
receives an educational allowance of $220 per month. This allowance is 
paid to him directly to assist in bearing his tuition, subsistence, and 
other educational expenses. As passed by the House, H.R. 12628 proposed 
to increase this allowance to $250, representing an increase of 13.6 
percent over the current rate. Following extended hearings and 
deliberations on the part of the Senate in which there was considerable 
support for an added or supplemental partial tuition allowance, which 
would also be payable directly to the veteran, the Senate returned our 
bill with an amendment in the nature of a complete substitute. Probably 
the most significant aspect of the Senate substitute 


[[Page 494]]

was to provide a new rate "package" consisting of an 18-percent 
increase in the basic monthly allowance to $260 for a single veteran, 
coupled with an additional "partial tuition assistance allowance" under 
a formula which would result, in the typical case, a maximum of $720 
per school year. Accordingly the total assistance package proposed by 
the Senate potentially available for a single veteran, including the 
partial tuition assistance allowance, would approximate $290 per month. 
. . . 
I think it is also significant to point out that the net fiscal effect 
of adoption of the conferees' recommendations will result in an annual 
savings to the Government of almost a half billion dollars per year 
over the Senate version.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, considered in the context of the overall 
rate structure package which was considered by the conferees, it is our 
strong conviction that the agreement on the single educational 
allowance rate contained in the conference bill does not violate either 
the letter or the spirit of rule XXVIII of the House of 
Representatives.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard very briefly further?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Iowa is recognized on his point of 
order.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that the gentleman has 
offered his resistance to the point of order based upon section 102 of 
the bill. My point of order goes to sections 101 and 104 of the 
conference report.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct.
Does the gentleman from South Carolina desire to be heard on the 
specific point of order made by the gentleman from Iowa? As the Chair 
understood it, the gentleman's argument related primarily to a point of 
order that might have been made on a different section.
MR. DORN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment further to the 
distinguished gentleman from Iowa.
The decision of the conferees to drop the partial tuition assistance 
and establish a single basic allowance of $270 for chapter 34 trainees 
encompassed 98 percent of all trainees involved. Since both the House 
and Senate bills set the same percentage increase for trainees under 
Chapter 34, which may be 98 percent of all trainees, and disabled 
veterans training under chapter 31 to make up 2 percent of the 
trainees, the conferees decided to remain consistent to the positions 
of both the House and Senate, and therefore extended the 23 percent 
increase to all classes of veterans.
THE SPEAKER: Is the gentleman arguing correctly to the point of order, 
or is the gentleman, in effect, conceding?
The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Iowa makes a point of order against the conference 
report on H.R. 12628, the Veterans Education and Rehabilitation Act 
Amendments of 1974, on the ground that the conferees have exceeded the 
scope of their authority.
Specifically, it is alleged that the conference report provides a 
greater amount of vocational rehabilitation assistance per month and a 
greater apprenticeship or on-the-job training assistance, per month 
than either the House or Senate versions.
The Chair has examined section 101 of the conference report, which 
amends 


[[Page 495]]

a table in title 38, United States Code, section 1504(b) to provide 
$209 a month in vocational assistance for a veteran with no dependents 
enrolled full time at an educational institution. Section 2 of the 
House bill amends the payment figure to provide $193 a month. Section 
101 of the Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute amends the 
same figure to provide only $201 a month.
The conference amendment clearly exceeds the dollar amount of either 
the House or Senate version.
Similarly, section 104 of the conference report amends a table in title 
38, United States Code, section 1787(b) to provide $196 a month 
assistance during the first 6 months for an individual with no 
dependents, for apprenticeship or on-the-job training.
The House bill provides, in section 5, $182 for that purpose, and the 
Senate amendment provides, in section 213, $189 for that purpose.
The conference report exceeds the dollar amount contained in both the 
House bill and the Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute.
As the conferees have exceeded their authority under clause 3, rule 
XXVIII, the Chair therefore sustains the point of order against the 
conference report.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. DORN
MR. DORN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recede from its 
disagreement to the Senate amendment to the text of the bill and agree 
to the same with the following amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Dorn moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
Senate amendment to the text of the bill and agree to the same with the 
following amendment: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by 
the Senate amendment to the text of the bill, insert the following:
That this Act may be cited as the "Vietnam-Era Veterans' Readjustment 
Assistance Act of 1974".
Application of the Scope of Conference Rule; Compromise Between No 
Discretion and Broad Discretion
Sec.    7.8 Where a bill of one House permits an unlimited delegation of 
authority from a federal official to the states, and the version of the 
other House precludes any such delegation, the conferees may recommend 
a curtailed delegation without introducing a "new topic" and violating 
the "scope" rule.
When the conference report on the U.S. Grain Standards Act of 1976 was 
laid before the House as unfinished business on Oct. 1, 1976,(9) a 
point of order was raised as shown herein.

THE SPEAKER:(10) The unfinished business is the further consideration 
of the conference report on the bill (H.R. 12572) to amend the U.S. 
Grain Standards Act to improve the grain inspec-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     122 CONG. REC. 35102, 35103, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
10.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 496]]

tion and weighing system, and for other purposes, which the Clerk will 
report by title.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER: Pursuant to the order of the House on Thursday, September 
30, 1976, the conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement see proceedings of the House of 
September 29, 1976.)
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [W. HENSON] MOORE [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I renew the point of 
order I reserved at the conclusion of business on this conference 
report last evening.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, the point of order I make is that the 
conference report on page 5, section 8, subsection (5)(2) violates 
clause 3 of rule XXVIII of the Rules of the House. Clause 3 of rule 
XXVIII says, and I quote:

Whenever a disagreement to an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
has been committed to a conference committee it shall be in order for 
the Managers on the part of the House to propose a substitute which is 
a germane modification of the matter in disagreement, but the 
introduction of any language in that substitute presenting a specific 
additional topic, question, issue, or proposition not committed to the 
conference committee by either House shall not constitute a germane 
modification of the matter in disagreement. Moreover, their report 
shall not include matter not committed to the conference committee by 
either House, nor shall their report include a modification of any 
specific topic, question, issue, or proposition committed to the 
conference committee by either or both Houses if that modification is 
beyond the scope of that specific topic, question, issue, or 
proposition as so committed to the conference committee.

Mr. Speaker, I point out that in the House-passed bill, H.R. 12572, 
section 7(e) there is the proposal that the Secretary of Agriculture 
can determine a State agency that is qualified to perform official 
inspections, and can so designate it or delegate it under this section 
of the House bill.
Mr. Speaker, I point out that this section, section 7(e) of the House 
bill says that any State agency, past, present, or one that may come 
into being in the future, could be designated or could be delegated the 
authority to do inspections and weighing by the Secretary, if found to 
be qualified. . . . 
So what we have in the Senate bill is that no State agency or private 
agency is able to do any inspections. What we have under the House 
section is that any State agency existing now, in the past, or possibly 
in the future, could be delegated the authority to do inspections.
Then the conference report comes back, Mr. Speaker, and herein lies the 
point of order. The conference report comes back. Page 5, section 8, 
subsection (5)(1) amends (e)(2) of the existing act and says:

If the Administrator determines pursuant to paragraph (3) of this 
subsection that a State agency which was performing official inspection 
at an export port location under this Act on July 1, 1976, is qualified 
to perform official inspection and meets the criteria in subsection 
. . .


[[Page 497]]

And then goes on through.
The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that under clause 3 of 
rule XXVIII the insertion of this date sets up a new question, a new 
topic, a new issue, a new proposition for determining who is going to 
do inspections that was not in either the Senate bill which called for 
all Federal, or in the House bill which called for the availability of 
all States being able to do it.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that in the committee report from the 
House committee on this bill there are 17 States-17 States, Mr. 
Speaker-which have export ports: Alabama, California, Illinois, 
Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, 
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, 
Washington, and Wisconsin.
Under the Senate bill none of these 17 export States could have had a 
State grain inspection agency. Under the House bill any or all of these 
could be, depending upon the discretion of the qualifications by the 
Secretary of Agriculture.
But under the conference report, Mr. Speaker, nine States can by law, 
eight States cannot by law by the insertion of this new issue, this new 
topic of a grandfathering clause of July 1, 1976. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Washington desire to be heard on 
the point of order?
MR. [THOMAS S.] FOLEY [of Washington]: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the question has been raised on the point of order by the 
gentleman from Louisiana whether the provision in the conference report 
that authorizes the Secretary to designate certain agencies for 
inspection, if they were performing inspections on July 1, 1976, is 
beyond the scope of the conference, or not germane to the conference.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill, as the gentleman from Louisiana points 
out, requires exclusive Federal inspections at all export ports. The 
House bill authorized the Secretary at his discretion to delegate to 
State agencies that opportunity to perform inspections. The whole focus 
of the House debate in permitting State agencies to be delegated was to 
preserve the rights of those States who were carrying on inspections at 
the time that the particular bill was passed by the House and carried 
it on properly.
The discretion given to the Secretary was to determine whether they 
were carrying it on properly.
The conference determined that they would fix a time where States that 
were carrying on inspections properly would be eligible for further 
export inspection at the said Secretary's discretion.
The decision, I think, is germane to both the Senate bill and the House 
bill, but particularly to the House bill, that had focused on the 
opportunity for States that were carrying on inspections to do so.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I believe the point of order should be 
overruled. . . . 
MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. FOLEY: I yield for debate only. . . .  
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Louisiana is not speaking to the point 
of order. The gentleman is speaking to the merits and the gentlemen 
cannot 


[[Page 498]]

yield to each other on the point of order, the Chair controls argument 
on the point of order.
The Chair is prepared to rule.
From the joint statement, the Chair finds on pages 32 and 33, a 
discussion of who is to perform official inspection of export 
locations. The House bill and the Senate amendment amend section 7 of 
the act and provide that all grain required or authorized to be 
inspected under the act, at export port locations and export elevators 
in the case of the Senate amendment, and of U.S. grain in Canadian 
ports, be performed by authorized Federal employees.
The House bill, however, gives the [Secretary] the power to delegate 
his authority to a State inspection agency if he determines the State 
agency to be qualified, although the responsibility for such official 
inspection shall remain his; and he may revoke the delegation at any 
time without a hearing.
The Chair feels that the language clearly indicates that a broad 
authority to delegate to the States is given by the House to the 
Secretary, and that there is a limitation of that authority in the 
conference report. Therefore, the conference report represents a 
compromise between the total Federal inspection authority in the Senate 
amendment and the unlimited discretionary delegation of authority to 
the States in the House bill, which does not introduce a new topic 
which goes beyond the scope of the two versions.
The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.
Determining Questions of Scope; Changing Permissive to Mandatory 
Authority
Sec.    7.9 Where a Senate bill amended existing law to require that 
certain funds be utilized for the continuation of a research project, 
and not toward its cancellation, and House language authorized a sum 
for continuation, the conferees were held to have exceeded their 
authority by agreeing to a provision specifying a site for the project 
conditioned on considerations of health and safety, thus exceeding the 
"scope of differences" in conference; a point of order was sustained 
because of the inclusion of new matter not included in either version.
On Oct. 14, 1977,(11) a point of order was raised against a conference 
report on the Energy Research and Development Administration Act of 
1978 (S. 1811). The point of order was targeted at conference language 
contained in section 106(d)(3) of the agreement on the ground that the 
conference language specified a site of a proj-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     123 CONG. REC. 33770-72, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 499]]

ect which was funded in different manners by the Senate bill and House 
amendment. A portion of the disputed section of the conference report, 
the point of order and the arguments that followed are carried below. 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1811, ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOP-MENT 
ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1978
MR. [OLIN E.] TEAGUE [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference 
report on the Senate bill (S. 1811) 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, as amended, 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:(12) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
There was no objection. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [MORRIS K.] UDALL [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. UDALL: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a point of order against the 
conference report. Is this the appropriate time?
THE SPEAKER: It is.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. UDALL: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the conference 
report. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order. Section 106(d)(3), adopted by the 
conference committee on the bill now before the House, exceeds the 
authority of the conference committee in that it inserts new 
substantive provisions in the legislation which were not included in 
the bill, either as passed by the House or passed by the Senate.
I would like to be heard briefly on the point of order.

The portion of the conference text targeted by Mr. Udall was as 
follows:

"(d) The Congress declares that any funds appropriated pursuant to an 
authorization to design, construct, and operate a specified project or 
conduct a specified program are intended to be used only for the 
design, construction, and operation of that project or the conduct of 
that program, in accordance with such authorization. Accordingly- . . . 
"(3) such Project (notwithstanding any other provision of law or the 
structure, pace, and timing of the liquid metal fast breeder reactor 
program) shall be located at the existing Clinch Riversite, unless that 
site is determined to be unsuitable from the standpoint of radiological 
health and safety, and to the maximum extent  possible shall be 
designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the existing 
project arrangements, objectives, and schedules: Provided, That site 
preparation and 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 500]]

also those construction activities for which a construction permit is 
required shall not commence during the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1978, but the foregoing limitation on commencement of site preparation 
activities shall not be deemed to prohibit or in any way limit the 
grant of a limited work authorization for those activities during any 
fiscal year: Provided further, That the Secretary and all other 
appropriate Federal agencies are directed to undertake all such efforts 
as are necessary to assure that the earliest possible decisions on a 
limited work authorization and a construction permit are obtained: And 
provided further, That nothing in this Act shall be deemed to 
authorize, approve, or constitute a commitment to commercialization of 
LMFBR technology; and . . . 

Debate continued on Mr. Udall's point of order:

MR. UDALL: The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is based on the conference 
report violation of rule 28, which requires that the report shall not 
include matter not committed to the conference committee by either 
House. The offending provision of the conference report is section 106. 
It amends section 103 of Public Law 91-273 as amended, and impose new 
requirements on the Clinch River breeder project.
Specifically, section 106 would require that the project be located at 
the existing Clinch River site unless that site is determined to be 
unsuitable from the standpoint of radiological health and safety; that 
the "maximum extent possible" the project shall be designed, 
constructed and operated in accordance with existing arrangements, 
objectives and schedules; and the Secretary and "all other appropriate 
Federal agencies" (assumably the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) are 
directed "to undertake all such efforts as are necessary to assure the 
earliest possible decisions on a limited work authorization and a 
construction permit." . . . 
Mr. Speaker it cannot be argued that anything in the Senate bill or 
House amendment justifies this conference report's treatment of 
licensing issues. That both the House and the Senate conferees may have 
concluded that the project be built at Clinch River has nothing to do 
with the fact that under existing law the project must be licensed by 
the Commission at that site or another location. Under section 182(a) 
of the Atomic Energy Act "the place of the use" of the facility must 
"be in accord with the common defense and security" of the United 
States. By excluding the defense and security consideration, the 
Conference report directly modifies licensing requirements and nothing 
in either the House or Senate version addresses this issue.
The other provisions I mentioned are also modifications of existing 
licensing law and like the siting provisions, these modifications have 
no relation to the authorizations of the House and Senate bills. . . . 
The point of order should be sustained. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Teague) is recognized.
MR. TEAGUE: Mr. Speaker, this report has been adopted by the other 
body. During the debate on the floor, Senator Hart of Colorado asked 
Senator Church, the chairman of the subcommittee in the other body, 
about the same point the gentleman from Arizona 


[[Page 501]]

raises here. I would like to read Senator Church's answer because I 
think it is the best way to be stated.
Senator Hart said to Senator Church:

*** I am concerned with one provision of the conference report which 
deals with the Clinch River breeder reactor project, and that language 
is contained in section 106(d)(3). *** I want to make sure that the 
record is absolutely clear that this section does not modify in any way 
the licensing and regulatory authority of the discretion of the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission under the Atomic Energy Act. *** I would greatly 
appreciate it if the Senator from Idaho would give me his assurances to 
that effect.
Senator CHURCH. *** The provision in the report to which he refers in 
no way limits the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
protect public health and safety or the common defense and security.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's authority to protect the 
environment of the Clinch River site is not limited. ***
There are no alternative sites before the Commission. The language of 
the report in no way interferes with the discretionary authority or the 
power of the Commission to proceed as it normally would to a conclusion 
of this proceeding.

THE SPEAKER: Do any other Members desire to speak on the point of 
order? . . . 
MR. [WALTER] FLOWERS [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be in 
order very briefly to review the facts of the matter.
First of all, the House passed the 1978 authorization bill for the 
project in the amount of $150 million, which contemplated construction 
at the site. The project was first authorized in Public Law 91-273.
The Senate-passed bill contains language which incorporates a heading 
entitled "The Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project."
Furthermore, the Senate incorporates by reference a letter from Dr. 
Robert Fri, Acting Administrator of ERDA, and a letter from the 
Comptroller General, Mr. Elmer Staats, both of which talk about the 
Clinch River breeder reactor project at the site, Clinch River.
We have not in the conference report done anything except specify the 
site. What has not been done is anything that would affect the 
licensing for the facility. . . . 
The conference committee has tried to bring together a fair compromise 
of the House and Senate positions. Both contemplate construction at the 
Clinch River, Tenn., site. That is what we are talking about, the Cinch 
River site.
What we tried to do in the conference report is to clearly focus our 
attention on that point so the issue is drawn.
Mr. Speaker, that is all we are trying to do, and I do not think that 
the point of order should be sustained. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: Do any other Members desire to be heard on the point of 
order?
MR. [JAMES M.] JEFFORDS [of Vermont]: I do, Mr. Speaker. I desire to be 
heard on the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Jeffords) on the point of order.
MR. JEFFORDS: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the critical question 
here is simply this: If neither the House nor the other body, in their 
provisions, amended a provision of the law, in this 


[[Page 502]]

case section 106 of Public Law 91-273, can the mere fact that one of 
the bodies, in their action, references a document-in this case it is, 
I believe, the Comptroller General's report-which mentions the law, 
they broaden the scope as they then did in conference so as to amend 
the law? . . . 
THE SPEAKER: Do any other Members desire to be heard on the point of 
order. 
If not, the Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of order against the 
conference report on S. 1811 on the ground that the conferees have 
included in their report new matter not committed to conference, in 
violation of clause 3 of rule XXVIII.
Section 106 of the conference report amends existing law to require 
that the Clinch River breeder reactor project be located at a certain 
site, unless determined unsuitable from the standpoint of radiological 
health and safety, to prohibit certain construction activities on such 
project in fiscal year 1978, and to assure expedited decisions on work 
authorizations and construction permits. Section 101 of the House 
amendment authorized a sum for the liquid metal fast breeder reactor 
project, and earmarked a certain portion of that sum for certain 
development and testing. Section 103 of the Senate bill S. 1811 amended 
existing law to require that funds appropriated for the Clinch River 
breeder reactor project, pursuant to the authorization in existing law, 
be applied towards the continuation of that project, and not towards 
its cancellation or termination.
Section 103 of the Senate bill S. 1811 amended existing law to state 
the intent of Congress and to require that funds appropriated for the 
Clinch River breeder reactor project, pursuant to the authorization in 
existing law, be applied towards that project, and not towards its 
cancellation or termination; the Senate bill also endorsed an opinion 
of the Comptroller General relating to the continuation of the project. 
Insofar as section 106 of the conference report requires that funds 
shall not be used to terminate the Clinch River project and requires 
that funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization for a specific 
project shall only be used to proceed with that project, the report 
constitutes a proper modification of the issues which were contained in 
section 103 of the Senate bill.
But the mandate of the new subsection 106(d)(3) added to Public Law 91-
273 as amended, by section 106 of the conference report, which requires 
that the project be located as a certain physical location, was not 
included in the Senate bill. Although the Senate bill did endorse on 
behalf of Congress an opinion of the Comptroller General which 
discusses the necessity of constructing the project at a certain site, 
the Senate bill did not absolutely require that result as does the 
conference report. Moreover, the report would allow altering that 
designated site in the case of unsuitability from the radiological 
health and safety standpoint. While it may be desirable as a matter of 
policy to include that exception, neither the House amendment nor the 
Senate bill addresses that policy. The remainder of subsection (d)(3) 
added by the report specifies a certain construction 


[[Page 503]]

schedule as a matter of law, which the gentlemen from Texas and 
Washington have characterized as a compromise between the full level of 
funding adopted by the House and the lesser authorization adopted by 
the Senate.
The Chair appreciates the difficulty of the conferees in fashioning a 
recommendation incorporating the concerns of the House and Senate in 
this complex area. It appears to the Chair, however, that the Senate 
bill and the House amendment, as well as the hearings, reports and 
debates in both Houses addressed a variety of conceptual issues but did 
not commit to conference language which allowed the conferees to enact 
those issues into affirmative and mandatory provisions of law.
The Chair feels that a precedent relevant to the present situation 
occurred on December 20, 1974, as cited in Deschler's Precedents, 
chapter 33, section 6.9.(13) On that instance, Speaker Albert ruled 
that the inclusion of a new provision in a conference report, relating 
to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, was in violation of clause 
3 of rule XXVIII, since that specific topic had not been addressed in 
either the House bill or the Senate amendment thereto. The argument was 
made on that occasion that the Senate amendment if enacted would have 
required, under existing law, the result mandated by the new provision 
in the conference report. The Chair ruled as follows in response to 
that argument: "If what the gentleman says is true, the addition of 
this language in the conference report would have been redundant. To 
have put it in the conference report would have been unnecessary; the 
Chair must conclude that a new issue has been injected which was not 
contained in the Senate amendment."
For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. TEAGUE
MR. TEAGUE: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Teague moves that the House insist on its amendment to the Senate 
bill S. 1811 and request a further conference with the Senate thereon.

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Teague).
The motion was agreed to.
Determining Scope of Conference Where One House Silent on Issue
Sec.    7.10 While the scope of differences committed to conference, 
where one House has amended an existing law and the other House has 
implicitly taken the position of existing law by remaining silent on 
the subject, may properly be measured between those issues presented in 
the amending language and comparable provisions of existing law, the 
inclusion in a conference report of new 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     See Sec. 7.10, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 504]]

matter not specifically contained in the amending version and not 
demonstrably repetitive of existing law may be ruled out as an 
additional issue not committed to conference in violation of Rule 
XXVIII clause 3.
On Dec. 17, 1974, House conferees exceeded their authority by filing a 
report which included a matter not in either the Senate amendment or 
existing law. The Senate amendment to the House bill had amended the 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to establish a thirteenth region 
for Natives not residents of Alaska and to create a Thirteenth Regional 
Corporation to receive and distribute benefits under the Act to new 
enrollees. The original House bill contained no comparable provision, 
so the House position was the existing law. By including in their 
report a provision for cancellation of stock previously issued by 
Native Corporations to Natives who enroll in the thirteenth region, a 
matter not contained either in the Senate amendment or specifically 
provided in existing law,(14) the House conferees exceeded their 
authority under Rule XXVIII clause 3.(15) 

MR. [LLOYD] MEEDS [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 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, 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:(16) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Washington?
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [DONALD E.] YOUNG of Alaska: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. YOUNG of Alaska: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that section 
5(e) of the conference report introduces language presenting a specific 
topic or question that was not committed to the conference committee by 
either House and is not a germane modification of the matters in 
disagreement. The insertion of section 5(e) is a violation of clause 3 
of rule XXVIII of the rules of the House.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Washington wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
MR. MEEDS: I do, Mr. Speaker.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 85 Stat. 692, 693.
15.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 913a (1997). See ruling at 120 CONG. 
REC. 41849, 41850, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 20, 1974.
16.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 505]]

Mr. Speaker, both the conference report and the Senate bill give 
authority for the distribution of certain funds and provides that the 
13th region, which would be created or provided by the conference bill, 
would be payable to these people as though the 13th region had been 
created in December of 1973.
Now, while the Senate bill did not mention the question of stock, that 
if the Senate bill had been passed it would have been necessary to do 
precisely what we have done in the conference report.
Therefore, the intended power of the Senate bill is covered in the 
language of the conference report and the conference reported bill. It 
is clearly within the scope, because it would absolutely be necessary 
to do this to carry out the Senate bill as it was enacted and it was in 
conference.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair has examined the Senate amendment and finds that there was 
absolutely no reference in the Senate amendment that the Chair finds to 
a cancellation of stock previously issued by Native corporations to 
Natives who are enrolled in the 13th region. Therefore the conference 
report is in violation of clause 3, rule XXVIII.
The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.
MR. MEEDS: Mr. Speaker, could I be heard?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman may be heard, but will the gentleman 
indicate that there is new language in the conference report not 
contained in the Senate amendment.
MR. MEEDS: Mr. Speaker, I agree there is not language in the Senate 
bill which does this, but if the Senate bill were carried out after it 
were passed, what is set forth in the conference report would have to 
be done. It is a mechanical thing that would necessarily follow.
When the 13th region was not created, certain stock was issued to 
individuals who would have been members of that 13th region in other 
corporations. When the 13th region is created, as it is by the Senate 
bill and by conference, it would then be necessary to redistribute and 
refund that fund, so it is a necessary concomitant of either bill that 
this procedure be carried out, and it is simply set out in the 
conference reported bill.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will read clause 3, rule XXVIII:

Whenever a disagreement to an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
has been committed to a conference committee it shall be in order for 
the Managers on the part of the House to propose a substitute which is 
a germane modification of the matter in disagreement, but the 
introduction of any language in that substitute presenting a specific 
additional topic, question, issue, or proposition not committed to the 
conference committee by either House shall not constitute a germane 
modification of the matter in disagreement.

If what the gentleman says is true, the addition of this language in 
the conference report would have been redundant. To have put it in the 
conference report would have been unnecessary; the Chair must conclude 
that a new issue has been injected which was not contained in the 
Senate amendment.


[[Page 506]]

The Chair, much as he dislikes to do so, must sustain the point of 
order.

The provision in the conference report toward which the point of order 
was directed was as follows:(17) 
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 93-1620)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendments of the Senate to 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, having met, 
after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do 
recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
Senate with an amendment as follows:
That there shall be in the Department of the Interior, in addition to 
the Assistant Secretaries now provided for by law, one additional 
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs, who shall be 
appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the 
Senate, who shall be responsible for such duties as the Secretary of 
the Interior shall prescribe with respect to the conduct of Indian 
Affairs, and who shall receive compensation at the rate now or 
hereafter prescribed by law for Assistant Secretaries of the 
Interior.  . . . 
SEC. 5. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688) is 
hereby further amended by inserting at the end thereof a new section 28 
as follows: . . . 
"(e) Any stock issued by a corporation under subsection (g) of section 
7 of this Act to any Native who is enrolled in the thirteenth region 
pursuant to this section shall, upon enrollment of that Native, be 
canceled by the issuing corporation without liability to it or the 
Native whose stock is so canceled.
Sec.    7.11 In determining whether a provision in a conference report 
goes beyond the bounds set by the differences committed to conference, 
where one House is silent on the subject, the Speaker must: (1) analyze 
the Senate language; (2) determine the boundaries set by existing law 
(the position of the silent House); (3) weigh the arguments for and 
against the point of order; and (4) finally make a determination as to 
the propriety of the conference provision. 
On occasion, the duty of the Chair to make a decision on whether an 
item is within the scope of conference is made difficult by the 
ambiguity of the language against which the point of order is directed. 
On Feb. 28, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     120 CONG. REC. 40541, 40542, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 17, 1974.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 507]]

1978,(18) when the conference report on the Federal Trade Commission 
Amendments of 1978(19) was before the House, the Chair had to determine 
whether 25 employees of the FTC, in positions established in the Senate 
amendment, were or were not civil service employees or were, to the 
contrary, personnel paid at civil service rates but independent of the 
reach of all the protections afforded in the underlying civil service 
law. 
The conference provision, the arguments by the Member making the point 
of order, the response of the manager of the conference, and the 
Speaker's ruling are carried here.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3816, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AMEND-MENTS OF 
1978
Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference 
report on the bill (H.R. 3816) to amend the Federal Trade Commission 
Act to expedite the enforcement of Federal Trade Commission cease and 
desist orders and compulsory process orders; to increase the 
independence of the Federal Trade Commission in legislative, budgetary, 
and personnel matters; and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [EDWARD J.] DERWINSKI [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point 
of order against the conference report.
THE SPEAKER:(20) The gentleman will state it.
MR. DERWINSKI: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against the 
conference report on H.R. 3816 on the ground that the conferees 
exceeded the bounds of conference in violation of House Rule XXVIII, 
clause 3.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate-approved bill, in section 107, contained 
language authorizing the appointment of 25 super-grade (GS-16, -17, and 
-18) positions for attorneys, economists, special experts, and outside 
counsels. Further, in that same section, the Senate bill provided that 
"Any appointment or removal of an employee of the Commission to or from 
any position in the categories GS-16, -17, and -18 may be made by the 
Commission without regard to any provision of title 5, United States 
Code, other than section 3324 thereof where applicable, governing 
appointments to, and removals from, positions in the competitive 
service ***"
Section 3324 of title 5, United States Code, requires that an 
appointment to a position in GS-16, -17, or -18, may be made only on 
approval of the qualifications of the proposed appointee by the Civil 
Service Commission. There are only four exceptions to that requirement 
in section 3324 of title 5, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     124 CONG. REC. 5009, 5010, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
19.     Conf. Rept. on H.R. 3816, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 508]]

none of which apply to the positions described in section 107 of H.R. 3816.
The House bill, being silent on the appointment of additional 
supergrade positions, contained no exception to section 3324 of 
supergrade positions in the FTC, and therefore continued the 
application of this section.
Mr. Speaker, therefore both the House and Senate bills would apply 
section 3324 of title 5, United States Code, to the 25 newly created 
supergrade positions.
The conference report in section 2(b) authorizes the appointment of 25 
supergrade positions without regard to the provisions of title 5, 
United States Code, thereby exempting these positions from the 
provisions of section 3324 of title 5.
Mr. Speaker, my point is that the Senate bill explicitly and the House 
bill implicitly provided for the application of section 3324 of title 
5, United States Code, to supergrade positions in the FTC. Therefore, 
an exemption from the application of this provision of law was not in 
conference, and by providing an exemption, the conferees exceeded the 
scope of conference.
Mr. Speaker, as precedent, I cite Deschler's Procedure, chapter 33, 
section 15.4:

Where one House strikes out of a bill of the other House all after the 
enacting clause and inserts a new text, House conferees, under clause 3 
of Rule XXVIII, may not include in their report a modification of a 
proposition which is beyond the scope of that proposition as committed 
to conference. 117 Cong. Rec. 46596-602, 46779, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., 
Dec. 13, 14, 1971 [conference report on S. 2891], holding that where a 
Senate bill included a provision authorizing a 5.5% pay comparability 
adjustment for federal employees compensated under "statutory" pay 
systems, and the House amendment contained no comparable provision, 
House conferees exceeded their authority by including in their report 
language which broadened the scope of the Senate provision, by deleting 
the term "statutory", so as to include federal employees covered under 
other pay systems.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, having cited this precedent, I make my point of 
order.
Mr. Speaker, I insist upon my point of order.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) desire to be 
heard upon the point of order?
MR. ECKHARDT: I do, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the gentleman is reading 
from a document referring to H.R. 3816 and an amendment of the Senate 
of the United States, on page 16, where there is indeed reference to 
section 3324. We did not take that section. The section that was taken 
by the House and became a part of the conference is found on page 16, 
and it is under (c) and contains no reference to that title. The 
persons involved are not supergrades. They are not GS-16's but they 
were called upon to be paid at that rate. Therefore there is nothing 
that was done in the conference that was not within the scope of the 
provisions of the Senate originally. Essentially we did what is always 
done in a conference, we arrived at a compromise agreement between the 
positions of the 


[[Page 509]]

Senate and the House within the scope of the two bills.
THE SPEAKER: Does the Chair understand that these 25 employees in the 
conference report and in the Senate amendment are not civil service 
classified employees?
MR. ECKHARDT: That is right.
MR. DERWINSKI: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Illinois is recognized.
MR. DERWINSKI: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the provision of the 
original Senate bill that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) has 
just referred to, I call the attention of the Chair to paragraph (c) 
which authorizes the Commission to assign the duties and to fix the 
compensation for not more than 25 attorneys. But then I call the 
attention of the Speaker to the following paragraph, paragraph (d), in 
which it states that:

Any appointment or removal of an employee of the Commission to or from 
any position . . . may be made by the Commission without regard to any 
provision of title 5, United States Code. . . .

Paragraph (d) as I read it supersedes the language of the Senate in 
paragraph (c), and therefore the conferees went beyond the scope of the 
conference.
MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Speaker, I would add that paragraph (d) does not 
relate to the same employees as paragraph (c) does.
(c) refers to persons who are not supergrades and who are not GS-16's.

(d) says:

Any appointment or removal of an employee of the Commission to or from 
any position in categories GS-16, GS-17, and GS-18, may be made by the 
Commission without regard to any provision of title 5, ***

But these persons are not from any positions in categories GS-16, GS-
17, and GS-18. The persons covered by paragraph (c) are no more than 25 
attorneys, economists, or specialists, who are treated at a rate at the 
level of GS-16 but they are not and never have been GS-16's nor are 
they supergrades.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule.
The question is whether the 25 professionals referred to in the Senate 
amendment are considered FTC employees in the positions of categories 
GS-16, -17, or -18, or whether they are merely paid at those rates 
without being in these positions. In other words, whether the employees 
referred to (c) on page 16 and (d) on page 16 of the Senate amendment 
are the same employees or are different employees.
In the opinion of the Chair the conferees have stayed within the scope 
of the differences committed to conference with respect to the 25 
professionals dealt with in section 2(b) of the conference report.
The Senate amendment and the conference report treat those 25 
professionals in an identical way as employees of the FTC who are paid 
at rates of pay not in excess of rates applicable to GS-18, but who are 
not FTC employees in any classified position in categories GS-16, -17, 
or -18, to whom section 


[[page 510]]

3324 of title V would certainly apply under both House and Senate versions.
In the opinion of the Chair, the point of order is not well taken.
Where Dates Are in Issue
Sec.    7.12 Where the Senate has amended a House-passed bill to change 
the effective date therein, the authority of the conferees on the bill 
is limited to the difference between the dates in each version, and 
where the dates contained in both bills have since passed, the 
conferees must report the Senate amendment back in technical 
disagreement so that the effective date can be considered separately.
On Mar. 11, 1970,(1) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, to submit the 
conference report on H.R. 6543, the Public Health Cigarette-Smoking 
Act, with amendment No. 13, still in disagreement. The report stated in 
part:
Amendment numbered 13
This amendment is reported in technical disagreement. The amendment 
struck out the effective date in the House bill which was July 1, 1969, 
and inserted in lieu thereof an effective date (with respect to all but 
section 5 of the Act) of January 1, 1970. Both dates have, of course, 
passed and technically the matter could not be resolved in the 
conference. The new warning on cigarette packages required by the 
conference agreement necessitates a transition period to permit 
cigarette packages to be imprinted with the warning. Accordingly the 
managers on the part of the House will offer an amendment in the House 
to recede and concur in Senate amendment numbered 13 with an amendment 
as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, 
insert the following:
"Sec. 3. Section 5 of the amendment made by this Act shall take effect 
as of July 1, 1969. Section 4 of the amendment made by this Act shall 
take effect on the first day of the seventh calendar month which begins 
after the date of the enactment of this Act. All other provisions of 
the amendment made by this Act except where otherwise specified shall 
take effect on January 1, 1970."

Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate, which acted first on the conference 
report, was precluded from receding from its amendment with an 
amendment.(2) However, the House could have kept the papers following 
the conference 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     116 CONG. REC. 6793-95, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     House Rules and Manual, Jefferson's Manual Sec. 526 (1997).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 511]]

and acted first on the amendment in disagreement by receding and 
concurring in the Senate amendment with an amendment. The Senate could 
then have concurred in the House amendment. Or the conferees could have 
agreed to either the House or Senate version and then, following the 
adoption of the conference report in both Houses, could have considered 
by unanimous consent a concurrent resolution directing the Clerk of the 
House, in the enrollment of the bill, to insert a new date in lieu of 
that carried in the conference version.
Question Raised Against Validity of Report; Report Properly Signed by 
Majority of Conferees
Sec.    7.13 The Speaker overruled a point of order that a conference 
report failed to include a provision allegedly agreed upon in 
conference where a majority of the conferees of both Houses had signed 
the report and where the House conferees had the authority, under Rule 
XXVIII clause 3, to omit that provision.
On Dec. 17, 1973,(3) after the conference report on S. 1435, the 
District of Columbia Self-Govern-ment and Government Reorganization 
Act, was called up by Mr. Charles C. Diggs, Jr., of Michigan, Mr. Earl 
F. Landgrebe, of Indiana, rose:

MR. LANDGREBE: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point of order concerning 
section 738 of conference report No. 93-703, "Advisory Neighborhood 
Councils" for the reason that it fails to provide as the conferees 
stated and intended during the conference held on this legislation.
In conference, the requirement was Neighborhood Councils must first be 
approved by the electors in the same public referendum required for the 
approval of the charter. Nowhere in section 738 does that requirement 
appear.
If the legislation were approved, the councils would be created by 
operation of law, not by the affirmation of the electors as provided 
for by the conferees. This section is contrary to the intent of the 
conferees and this report must not be considered. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(4) The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
Indiana makes a point of order that the conference report violates the 
rules and precedents of the House. Since the conference report on the 
bill S. 1435 was filed on December 6, 1973, the Chair has carefully 
scrutinized the agree-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     119 CONG. REC. 42034, 42035, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 4.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 512]]

ments that were reached in conference to be sure that the managers have 
not violated the rules of the House with respect to conference reports. 
Obviously where, as here, there is a Senate bill and a House amendment 
in the nature of a substitute therefor and both are extensive and 
comprehensive legislative proposals the task of writing a conference 
compromise is a difficult and painstaking task. . . . 
The gentleman from Indiana has made the further point of order that the 
conference report is not properly before the House because a subsection 
of the report, allegedly agreed to in conference is not contained in 
the report submitted to the two Houses.
The Chair, of course, has no knowledge of how this agreement was 
reached. The only information the Chair has on what was agreed to in 
conference is derived from the conference report. The Chair does note 
that the subsection allegedly omitted was not contained in the Senate 
bill and thus the managers had the authority, under clause 3, rule 
XXVIII to eliminate that provision if they so desired.
Volume 5 of Hinds' Precedents section 6497, states that "A conference 
report is received if signed by a majority of the managers of each 
House." The Chair has examined the report and the papers and finds that 
it is signed by 6 of the 10 managers on the part of the House and by 
all 7 managers on the part of the Senate. The Chair can only observe 
that the report is here in a legal manner.
The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.
Authorization To Consider Inadvertently Omitted Matters
Sec.    7.14 By concurrent resolution, managers of a conference were 
authorized to consider, in addition to certain Senate amendments to a 
House bill pending before them, proposals by the Senate to strike other 
provisions of the House bill.
On July 20, 1956,(5) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Clair Engle, of California, who made the following request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of 
the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 86) authorizing the conferees 
on H.R. 1774, abolishing the Verendrye National Monument, N. Dak., to 
consider certain additional Senate amendments that were inadvertently 
omitted from the official papers. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the Senate concurrent resolution (S. 
Con. Res. 86).
The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That 
the conferees on H.R. 1774, in addition to the Senate amendments 
already pending before them, be 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     102 CONG. REC. 13724, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 513]]

authorized to consider the following amendments:
"(3) Page 1, line 6, strike out all after 'permits' down to and 
including 'site' in line 8.
"(4) Page 1, strike out all after line 8 over to and including line 5 
on page 2.
"(5) Page 2, strike out lines 6 to 20, inclusive."

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
There was no objection.
The Senate concurrent resolution was agreed to.
Enlarging Matter in Scope of Conference
Sec.    7.15 By adoption of a con-current resolution in both Houses, 
providing that a new section be inserted in the  engrossment of the 
Senate amendment to a House bill, conferees may be authorized to 
consider a matter not originally committed to them in the House bill or 
the Senate amendment thereto.
When H.R. 10612, the Tax Reform Act of 1976, was in conference, it 
became necessary to consider a topic not before the conferees since the 
matter was in neither the House text or the Senate amendment. The 
Senate concurrent resolution in this instance was called up in the 
House by unanimous consent.(6) 

MR. [OMAR T.] BURLESON of Texas: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman), who as we all know is now occupied 
in conference on the tax bill, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the Senate Concurrent Resolution (S. Con. Res. 137) to 
correct the engrossment of the Senate amendments to H.R. 10612, and 
consider the Senate concurrent resolution in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution.
THE SPEAKER:(7) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution as follows:
S. CON. RES. 137
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That 
the following language be inserted in the engrossment of the Senate 
amendments to H.R. 10612 and be considered as being in conference:
"SEC. 1510. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN LIFE INSURANCE CONTRACTS GUARANTEED 
RENEWABLE.
"(a) IN GENERAL.-Paragraph (d)(5) of section 809 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1954 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
following sentence: 'For purposes of this paragraph, the period for 
which any contract is issued or renewed in-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     122 CONG. REC. 28969, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 2, 1976.
 7.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 514]]

cludes the period for which such contract is guaranteed renewable.'.
"(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1957.".

The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Application of Germaneness Rule
Sec.    7.16 A House amendment to a Senate amendment, reported from 
conference in disagreement, must be germane to the Senate amendment.
On Dec. 16, 1944,(8) the House was considering Senate amendment No. 17 
to H.R. 5587, the first defense appropriation bill for 1945, which had 
been reported back from conference in disagreement. A motion by Mr. 
Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, to recede and concur in this amendment 
was divided on demand by Mr. Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, who then 
offered a preferential motion to concur with an amendment. Mr. Cannon 
raised a point of order against this motion, explaining:

The pending proposition is tied up with and incident to titles II and 
III of the act of October 14, 1940, which is an act providing solely 
for activities in connection with the prosecution of the war. The 
proposition the gentleman suggests has no relation to the war; it deals 
solely with an act of God and is entirely new matter not contemplated 
by the act of October 14, 1940, and appears in neither the House nor 
Senate bills. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(9) The Chair under the statement of the gentleman from 
Missouri and in a way supported by the gentleman from Illinois cannot 
see anything in the amendment or the proposal of the gentleman from 
South Dakota [Mr. Case] except an act of God; therefore the Chair 
thinks that the amendment is not germane and sustains the point of 
order.
MR. CASE: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. CASE: Mr. Speaker, is it not true that in ruling upon questions of 
this sort where they involve securing an agreement between the two 
bodies of the Congress considerable latitude is allowed for the purpose 
of reaching an agreement in the interest of comity and that the 
ordinary rules of germaneness do not apply strictly?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair would differ with the gentleman on that. The 
Chair does not think that conferees on the part of the House and the 
Senate could set aside the rule of germaneness.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     90 CONG. REC. 9611, 9612, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 515]]

Test of Germaneness Where Senate Amendment Strikes House Text
Sec.    7.17 Where a Senate amendment proposes to strike out language in 
a House bill, the test of germaneness of a motion to recede and concur 
with an amendment is the relationship between the language in the 
motion and that proposed to be stricken in the House text. 
On Dec. 12, 1974,(10) following the adoption of the conference report 
on the bill H.R. 16901, the agricultural, environmental, and consumer 
appropriations for fiscal 1975, amendments reported in disagreement 
were under consideration. 
The manager of the bill, Mr. Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi, offered 
a motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment 
which was a substitute for the Senate text in amendment numbered 8. 
The Senate amendment was a restriction on use of funds in the bill to 
administer any tax on parking facilities. The compromise language was 
also a restriction on funds in the bill but addressed a larger category 
of projects. 
The amendments, the point of order, and the Chair's ruling are carried 
here.

THE SPEAKER:(11) The Clerk will report the next amendment in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 8: Page 52, line 20, strike: "SEC. 510. No part of 
any funds appropriated under this Act may be used by the Environmental 
Protection Agency to administer any program to tax, limit, or otherwise 
regulate parking facilities."
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. WHITTEN
MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 8 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows:
"SEC. 510. No part of any funds appropriated under this Act may be used 
by the Environmental Protection Agency to implement or enforce any 
provision of a state implementation plan promulgated or approved 
pursuant to Section 110 of the Clean Air Act that requires the review 
of indirect sources, as defined in 40 CFR 52.22(b)(1), pending 
completion of judicial review, pursuant to Section 307(b) of the Clean 
Air Act, or the indirect source regulations set forth in 40 CFR 52.22, 
or any other such regulation relating to indirect sources." . . .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     120 CONG. REC. 39272, 39273, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 516]]

MR. [PAUL G.] ROGERS [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
against the amendment as read.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order on the ground of 
nongermaneness.
The House provision provided only for parking, and the Senate struck 
completely the House provision.
This language is not germane in that it goes far beyond parking. The 
amendment would cover airports, it would cover highways, it would cover 
shopping centers, and it would cover sports arenas, regardless of 
whether any parking facilities are attached or associated.
There is no question but what this is not germane. It is far beyond 
what the House had stated, and I think it is not appropriate to be in 
an appropriation bill at all. Therefore I ask that it be stricken in 
accordance with the arguments used against the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Mississippi desire to be heard on 
the point of order?
MR. WHITTEN: I do, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation to which the gentleman from Florida has 
referred has had the effect of stopping employment in the cities of 
this country. It has done this because they have to have a permit from 
the Environmental Protection Agency for parking. It has prevented new 
buildings in universities, hospitals, shopping centers-and this at a 
time of great unemployment in the United States. . . . 
In the Senate it was felt that since there are lawsuits pending 
throughout the United States, I think in at least four instances, that 
this legislation covering parking was the key, that that part which had 
parking in it should be included in the conference and the conferees 
felt that in the interest of the Nation that those related matters 
which are a part and parcel of the provisions to which we were trying 
to direct our attention, should be accepted, and it was accepted by the 
conferees. . . . 
MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, may I 
just say that these regulations insofar as the contracts for airports, 
highways, shopping centers and sporting arenas are not even effective 
until next year, the parking which the House acted on was covered, so 
that they are not germane.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule.
There is only one issue involved here and that is whether the amendment 
included in the motion of the gentleman from Mississippi is germane. It 
obviously is far more comprehensive than the House provision, and is 
not germane thereto. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

MOTION OFFERED BY MR. WHITTEN
MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Whitten moves that the House insist on its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate.

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten).


[[Page 517]]

Selective Waivers of Points of Order Against Conference Report
Sec.    7.18 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,(12) 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 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 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     120 CONG. REC. 4397, 4407, 4408, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 518]]

considered as ordered on agreeing to the conference report.

THE SPEAKER:(13) 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 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 519]]

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."

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.
Appropriation on Legislative Bill
Sec.    7.19 Conferees of the House may not in conference agree to a 
Senate amendment providing for an appropriation upon any other than a 
general appropriation bill without first having secured specific 
authority from the House to do so.
On May 22, 1936,(14) Mr. James M. Mead, of New York, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 9496, a bill to protect the federal 
government against losses sustained in mail delivery of checks 
containing veterans' benefits. Mr. James P. Buchanan, of Texas, raised 
a point of order against the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     80 CONG. REC. 7790-92, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 520]]

conference report. The Speaker, Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, 
responded:

The gentleman from New York [Mr. Mead], chairman of the Committee on 
the Post Office and Post Roads, presents a conference report signed by 
the conferees on the part of the Senate and the House. The gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Buchanan] makes the point of order that the conference 
report is out of order because the conferees on the part of the House 
in conference agreed to an amendment of the Senate providing an 
appropriation contrary to the rules of the House.
Senate amendment no. 1 contains the following language:

The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to advance, from time to 
time, to the Postmaster General, from the appropriation contained in 
the Supplemental Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1936, approved February 
11, 1936, for "administrative expenses, adjusted-compensation payment 
act, 1936, Treasury Department, 1936 and 1937", such sums as are 
certified by the Postmaster General to be required for the expenses of 
the Post Office Department in connection with the handling of the bonds 
issued hereunder. Such bonds--

This amendment also contains the following language:

The Secretary of the Treasury shall reimburse the Postmaster General, 
from the aforesaid appropriation contained in said supplemental 
appropriation act, for such postage and registry fees as may be 
required in connection with such transmittal.

Rule XX, clause 2, of the rules of the House of Representatives(15) 
reads as follows:

No amendment of the Senate to a general appropriation bill which would 
be in violation of the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI, if said 
amendment had originated in the House, nor any amendment of the Senate 
providing for an appropriation upon any bill other than a general 
appropriation bill, shall be agreed to by the managers on the part of 
the House unless specific authority to agree to such amendment shall be 
first given by the House by a separate vote on every such amendment.

It is clear to the Chair that the managers on the part of the House in 
agreeing in conference to Senate amendment no. 1 violated the 
provisions of rule XX, inasmuch as the amendment provides an 
appropriation.
The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
Sec.    7.20 Where a Senate amendment carrying an appropriation was 
attached to a legislative bill originating in the House and such bill 
and amendment are referred to a conference committee, the managers on 
the part of the House may not agree in conference to such amendment but 
must bring it back to the House for a separate vote.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 521]]

On July 29, 1935,(16) Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, made the following 
parliamentary inquiry:

When an amendment carries an appropriation, such amendment being 
attached by the Senate to a legislative bill originating in the House, 
is it necessary that it be brought back for a separate vote on that 
particular amendment?
THE SPEAKER:(17) The Chair thinks so, under the rules.
The rule,(18) with which the gentleman is familiar, reads:

No amendment of the Senate to a general appropriation bill which would 
be in violation of the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI, if said 
amendment had originated in the House, nor any amendment of the Senate 
providing for an appropriation upon any bill other than a general 
appropriation bill, shall be agreed to by the managers on the part of 
the House unless specific authority to agree to such amendment shall be 
first given by the House by a separate vote on every such amendment.

The Chair thinks it is very clear, therefore, that the amendment would 
have to be brought back to the House for a separate vote.
Sec.    7.21 Where conferees agreed to a Senate amendment with an 
amendment providing that "benefits shall be paid from the civil service 
retirement and disability fund," such agreement constituted a violation 
of Rule XX clause 2, and was ruled out on a point of order.
On Oct. 4, 1962,(19) Mr. Tom Murray, of Tennessee, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 7927, the Postal Rate and Pay Act of 1962. 
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a point of order:

Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the conference report on 
the ground that it violates clause 2 of rule XX of the House rules.(20) 
. . . 
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7927 as passed with the amendment of the Senate 
provides in section 1104, page 110, the following:

Sec. 1104. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the benefits 
made payable under the Civil Service Retirement Act by reason of the 
enactment of this part shall be paid from the civil service retirement 
and disability fund.

The words "shall be paid from the civil service retirement and 
disability fund" constitute an appropriation within the meaning of 
clause 2 of rule XX. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, since the pending conference report includes the language 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     79 CONG. REC. 12004, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
18.     Rule XX clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
19.     108 CONG. REC. 22332, 22333, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 522]]

making an appropriation it is, I submit, out of order under clause 2 of 
rule XX. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(1) The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] makes a 
point of order that the language contained on page 110, section 104, 
line 12, "shall be paid from the civil service retirement and 
disability fund" is in violation of clause 2, rule XX.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Appropriations in Legislative Bills, Restriction on Managers Authority
Sec.    7.22 A conference report on a House bill authorizing funds for 
environmental research was ruled out on a point of order where the 
managers had agreed to a Senate amendment which diverted previously 
appropriated funds for a new purpose, thus violating Rule XX clause 2. 
When the conference report on H.R. 2676, the Environmental Protection 
Agency research authorization for fiscal year 1980, was called up by 
the manager on Nov. 29, 1979,(2) a point of order was made against it 
on the ground that the managers on the part of the House had agreed to 
a Senate amendment constituting an appropriation in violation of the 
cited rule. An appropriation, previously agreed to, had provided 
funding for research and development to  be allocated at the discretion 
of  the Administrator. The conference language attempted to mandate 
that allocation to certain projects. 
The point of order, and the offending language which is cited   
therein, are carried as well as the subsequent motion offered by the 
manager, Mr. Don Fuqua, of Florida, which "encouraged" but did not 
"mandate" the use of the previously appropriated funds.

MR. FUQUA: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill 
(H.R. 2676) to authorize appropriations for environmental research, 
development, and demonstrations for the fiscal year 1980, and for other 
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(3) Pursuant to the rule the conference report 
is considered as having been read. . . . 
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua) will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 2.     125 CONG. REC. 34113-15, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3.     Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 523]]

POINT OF ORDER
MR. [EDWARD P.] BOLAND [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
of order against the conference report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Massachusetts will state 
the point of order.
MR. BOLAND: Mr. Speaker, clause 5 of rule XXI prohibits committees 
without proper jurisdiction from reporting measures carrying 
appropriations. Interpretation of the rule has held that language 
reappropriating, making available, or diverting an appropriation 
already made for one purpose to another is not in order. This has been 
sustained numerous times, but it is very clearly stated in a ruling on 
August 11, 1921, and is a precedent that is nearly identical to the 
issue that is before us now.
In the paragraph authorizing appropriations for the health and 
ecological effects activity of the water quality research and 
development program House conferees on H.R. 2676 agreed to retain in 
the bill the following provision added by the Senate:

Provided, That of the funds appropriated pursuant to this paragraph 
$900,000 shall be obligated and expended on the Cold Climate Research 
program through the Environmental Protection Agency's Corvallis 
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.

The 1980 Environmental Protection Agency budget request did not include 
any funding for cold climate research. The 1980 appropriation of EPA's 
research and development programs also did not include any funding for 
cold climate research.
The proviso amounts to a diversion of funds previously appropriated and 
violates clause 5, rule XXI.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that the point of order be sustained.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua) 
wish to speak on the point of order?
MR. FUQUA: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The point of order is conceded and sustained.

So the conference report was ruled out on the point of order.
AMENDMENTS IN DISAGREEMENT
The Clerk will designate the first amendment in disagreement.
Senate amendment No. 1 reads as follows:

Senate amendment No. 1: Page 1, strike out all after line 6 over to and 
including line 10 on page 7 and insert:
SEC. 2. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Environmental Protection Agency for environmental research, 
development, and demonstration activities for the fiscal year 1980 for 
the following activities:
(1) $95,999,500 for water quality activities authorized under the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of which-
(A) $23,124,000 is for Health and Ecological Effects programs: 
Provided, That of the funds appropriated pursuant to this paragraph, 
$900,000 shall be obligated and expended on the Cold Climate Research 
program through the Environmental Protection Agency's Corvallis 
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon. . . .


[[page 524]]

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

Mr. Fuqua moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 1 and agree to the same with an 
amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by 
the Senate amendment, insert the following:
SEC. 2. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Environmental Protection Agency for environmental research, 
development, and demonstration activities for the fiscal year 1980 for 
the following activities:
(1) $66,659,000 for water quality activities authorized under the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of which-
(A) $25,224,000 is for the Health and Ecological Effects program:
Provided, That the Agency is encouraged to obligate and to expend 
$900,000 of these funds on the Cold Climate Research program through 
the Agency's Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, 
Oregon. . . .

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua).
The motion was agreed to.

The remaining amendments in disagreement were subsequently considered 
en bloc and disposed of by a single motion to recede and concur.
Restrictions on Conferees Agreeing to Legislative Provisions in 
Appropriation Conference
Sec.    7.23 A House rule prohibits the inclusion in a confer- ence 
report on a general appropriation bill of Senate amendments containing 
legislation; but where such amendments are reported from conference in 
disagreement and called up for disposition by separate motion, they are 
not subject to points of order under Rule XX.
On Dec. 4, 1975, the House had under consideration the conference 
report on a general appropriation bill.(4) When the Speaker laid before 
the House an amendment in disagreement, a Member made a point of order 
against the amendment on the ground that it contained legislation in 
violation of Rule XXI clauses 2(b) and (c).(5) Rule XX was also cited. 
The Speaker(6) overruled the point of order, as shown.(7) 

THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     H.R. 8069, Labor-HEW appropriations for fiscal 1976.
 5.     House Rules and Manual Sec.Sec. 834b, 834c (1997).
 6.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 7.     121 CONG. REC. 38714, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 4, 1975.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 525]]

Senate amendment No. 72: Page 47, line 4, insert:
"SEC. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
require, directly or indirectly, the transportation of any student to a 
school other than the school which is nearest the student's home, and 
which offers the courses of study pursued by such student, in order to 
comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point 
of order on the amendment. This is legislation on an appropriation 
bill, and I would like to be heard on the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Massachusetts may be heard on his point 
of order.
MR. CONTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a point of order against 
Senate amendment No. 72 to the Labor-HEW Appropriations Act of 1976.
At this point, I should like to direct the Chair to rule 21, section 2 
of the House regarding the prohibition of legislation in an 
appropriations bill. The pertinent language states:

Nor shall any provisions in any such bill or amendment thereto changing 
existing law be in order. . . .

While the Senate amendment No. 72 might appear to only act as a 
limitation on spending, it will actually change basic law as I will now 
set out.
Section 215(a), title II of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 
1974 provides the following language, which limits the specific 
distance a student may be transported in a schoolbusing program:

No court, department or agency of the United States shall, pursuant to 
section 214, order the implementation of a plan that would require the 
transportation of any student to a school other than the school closest 
to his place of residence which provides the appropriate grade level 
and type of education for such student. (Emphasis added.)

Notice that the distance a student can be transported is limited to the 
"school closest or next closest to his place of residence." I should 
now address myself to the language of the Senate amendment here in 
question:

None of the funds contained in this act shall be used to require, 
directly or indirectly, the transportation of any student to a school 
other than the school which is nearest the student's home, and which 
offers the courses of study pursued by such student, in order to comply 
with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Emphasis added.)

As is readily apparent, where the Equal Educational Opportunities Act 
of 1974 (Public Law 93-380) limits busing to either the student's 
immediate or adjacent school district, the Senate amendment further 
limits the transportation to the student's immediate district. I am 
sure the Chair can see this apparent attempt to change the effect of 
section 215(a) of Public Law 93-380.
I should like to note that while this is a Senate amendment and may be 
consistent with the rules of that House-it is not controlling. It is 
clear that since this is an appropriations bill and naturally 
originates in the House, it is the House rules which are controlling 
and I cite rule 20 on this point:


[[Page 526]]

Any amendment of the Senate to any House bill shall be subject to the 
point of order that it shall first be considered in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union, if, originating in the 
House, it would be subject to that point.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I contend that this amendment carries 
the standard of a simple limitation in an appropriations bill, but in 
reality is a prima facie case of legislation in an appropriations bill, 
which on its face changes existing law.
Therefore, I urge that this point of order be sustained.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair overrules the point of order raised by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) because when that stage is reached that an 
amendment is in disagreement between the two Houses, the rule-clause 1 
of rule XX-cited by the gentleman from Massachusetts no longer applies 
and the amendment may be disposed of in the House. The Senate amendment 
is reported back in disagreement and not as part of the conference 
report, therefore clause 2 of rule XX is not applicable and the Senate 
amendment may be considered by the House.
House Authorization To Include Legislation in Appropriation Measure
Sec.    7.24 The House may by unanimous consent send an appropriation 
bill to con-ference and authorize the House conferees to agree to 
Senate legislative amendments notwithstanding the restrictions 
contained in Rule XX clause 2.
On June 3, 1936,(8) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, recognized 
Mr. James P. Buchanan, of Texas, to make the following request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 
the bill H.R. 12624, the first deficiency appropriation bill, together 
with the Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, 
and agree to the conference requested by the Senate; also that the 
managers on the part of the House, notwithstanding the provisions of 
clause 2, rule XX, be authorized to agree to any Senate amendment with 
or without amendment, except the Senate amendment having to do with the 
Florida ship canal and the Senate amendment providing $300,000,000 for 
public-works projects.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas? . . . 
There was no objection.
Appropriation Unauthorized by Law
Sec.    7.25 A point of order against a conference report, made on the 
theory that the managers 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     80 CONG. REC. 8822, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Pagee 527]]

on the part of the House had agreed to a Senate amendment to an 
appropriation bill which provided for an appropriation which was not 
authorized by law (and thus in violation of Rule XXI clause 2), was 
overruled.
On the legislative day of Sept. 25, 1961,(9) after the Clerk read the 
conference report on H.R. 9169, supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
1962, the following occurred:

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
against the conference report, and I refer especially to the paragraph 
on page 30, under the title of "Pres-ervation of Ancient Nubian 
Monuments-Special Foreign Currency Program":

For purchase of Egyptian pounds which accrue under title I of the 
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended 
(7 U.S.C. 1704), for the purposes authorized by section 104(k) of that 
Act, $4,000,000 to remain available until expended.

Mr. Speaker, to my mind that appropriation is not covered by the 
statute on which it is based. . . . 
To my mind, this authorization was not covered by the language of 
section 104(k). In my opinion, it does not include the sort of 
operation that is mentioned here. It does not have proper authority for 
an appropriation of this character. It does not authorize purchase of currency. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The Chair is prepared to rule. . . . 
The Chair has carefully studied the provisions of section 104(k), the 
organic law, which includes among other things:

To promote and support programs of medical and scientific research, 
cultural and educational development, health, nutrition, and 
sanitation: Provided, That foreign currencies shall be available for 
the purpose of this subsection (in addition to funds otherwise made 
available for such purposes) only in such amounts as may be specified 
from time to time in appropriation acts. . . .

Continuing what the Chair has said, it is the opinion of the Chair that 
section 104(k) justifies the language contained in the conference 
report, and the Chair overrules the point of order.
Expansion of Exception to Restrictions on Executive Power
Sec.    7.26 When a Senate amendment to a House bill contained a 
prohibition against impoundment of appropriations authorized in the 
bill, as well as an exception to this prohibition, the language agreed 
upon by the conferees which broadened this exception was held to be 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     107 CONG. REC. 21521, 21522, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 528]]

a further restriction and not to exceed the authority of the conferees.
On July 7, 1943,(11) the House was preparing to consider the conference 
report on H.R. 2798, the roads bill, when Mr. John Taber, of New York, 
raised a point of order:

Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the conference report is 
not within the range of the conference in that section 9 of the bill as 
proposed in the conference report is not an item that was in the bill 
as it passed the House or the Senate.

After hearing Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, on the point of order, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, gave the following ruling:

The Chair is prepared to rule.
Section 9 of the Senate amendment reads as follows:

No part of any appropriation authorized in this act shall be impounded 
or withheld from obligation or expenditure by any agency or official 
other than the Commissioner of Public Roads.

Section 9 is purely a limitation and it is a limitation on everyone 
except the Commissioner of Public Roads.
The language agreed upon in conference is more restrictive than the 
language of the original section 9 in the opinion of the Chair because 
it strikes out the words "other than the Commissioner of Public Roads" 
and inserts "unless the War Production Board shall certify that the use 
of critical material for additional highway construction would impede 
the conduct of the war."
It seems to the Chair, section 9 dealing with limitations, that this is 
simply a further restriction and limitation and the Chair would be 
compelled to overrule the point of order raised by the gentleman from 
New York.
The point of order is overruled.
Amendment to Legislative Item Left in Appropriation Bill
Sec.    7.27 Where an item in an appropriation bill legislative in nature 
passes the House without a point of order being made against it and the 
Senate merely increases the amount of money provided therefor, a 
conference report may not be ruled out of order on the ground that the 
conferees exceeded their authority by not bringing the matter back to 
the House for a separate vote.
On May 11, 1945,(12) Mr. Louis C. Rabaut, of Michigan, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 2603, making appropriations for fiscal 1946 
for the Departments of 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     89 CONG. REC. 7385, 7386, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     91 CONG. REC. 4466, 4468, 4469, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 529]]

State, Justice, Commerce, the Judiciary, and federal loan agencies. Mr. 
Robert F. Jones, of Ohio, made a point of order against the report on 
the ground that it made appropriations for activities not previously 
authorized by law-conducting an industrial census. Speaker Sam Rayburn, 
of Texas, responded:

The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair has listened to the statement of the gentleman from Ohio in 
support of the point of order he raises against the conference report. 
The paragraph starting on page 54, beginning at line 7 and ending on 
line 7, page 55, was in the bill when it passed the House. Even though 
the paragraph might have been subject to a point of order then, it was 
not made, and the paragraph remained in the bill. The Chair is of the 
opinion this is only a question of amount of money. The House put in 
appropriation of $4,757,000 under the heading of compiling census 
reports, and so forth. If in the House an amendment had been made 
changing the sum of $4,757,000 to $5,318,000, or any other amount, it 
would certainly have been in order.
MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further on the point of order?
THE SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, when the original bill was in the House, there 
was a point of order made against the following language, which I think 
was an authorization for this item which had been left in the bill. The 
language is as follows:

And for sample surveys throughout the United States for the purpose of 
estimating the size and characteristics of the Nation's labor force and 
population, including personal services, at the seat of government.

That clause was left out of the bill. This, as I understand, Mr. 
Speaker, is for a sample survey of industrial statistics.
THE SPEAKER: But the Chair goes back to the original proposition that 
the paragraph remained in the bill. . . . 
. . . The paragraph was not stricken out in the House on a point of 
order. The only question involved being a question of amount, the Chair 
overrules the point of order. 
Waiver of Points of Order Against Appropriation Bill; Waiver Carries 
Over to Conference Report
Sec.    7.28 Where a special rule in the House waives points of order 
against portions of an appropriation bill which are unauthorized by 
law, and the bill passes the House with those provisions included 
therein and goes to conference, the conferees may report back their 
agreement to those provisions even though they remain unauthorized, 
since waiver of points of order under Rule XXI clause 


[[Page 530]]

2,(13) carries over to the consideration of the same provisions when 
the conference report is before the House.
On Dec. 20, 1969,(14) Mr. Otto E. Passman, of Louisiana, submitted and 
called up the conference report on H.R. 15149, foreign assistance 
appropriations for fiscal 1970. Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, 
raised a point of order against the report on the ground that it 
contained appropriations that had not yet been authorized by law. Mr. 
Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, defended the conference report, explaining 
an earlier assertion by Mr. Passman that the provisions alleged to be 
objectionable by Mr. Yates were in the appropriations bill as it passed 
the House.

MR. GERALD R. FORD: . . . Mr. Speak-er, we do as a matter of practice 
appropriate money from time to time that is not specifically authorized 
as a matter of law. Furthermore, in this particular case when the 
foreign aid appropriation bill came to the floor of the House, a 
specific rule was granted waiving points of order.
It would be my argument that the benefit of that rule would still be 
applicable in the consideration of the conference report.
MR. [CLEMENT J.] ZABLOCKI [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(15) The Chair will hear the gentleman further.
MR. ZABLOCKI: Mr. Speaker, does the rule waiving points of order under 
which the House appropriation bill was considered by the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union continue through conference 
report consideration? Would not the rule apply only for consideration 
of the appropriation bill waiving points of order during the time it 
was considered by the Committee of the Whole? Certainly the rule should 
not carry over to the conference report? If it does the Members of the 
House abrogate their legislative prerogatives. . . . 
My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is: Does the rule under which 
the appropriation bill came to the House carry over and continue into 
the conference report?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that will have a bearing on the point 
of order that is raised at the present time. . . . 
. . . [T]he Chair recalls that when this appropriation bill passed the 
House, it was considered under a rule waiving points of order. The 
House agreed to a total figure for military assistance of $454,500,000. 
The Senate reduced this figure to $350 million. The conferees have 
reached an agreement between these two amounts, as they had the 
authority to do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1997).
14.     115 CONG. REC. 40445-48, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
15.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 531]]

The Chair holds that the conferees have not exceeded their authority 
and overrules the point of order.
Sec.    7.29 Where an appropriation bill is considered in the House under 
a rule waiving points of order against a provision therein which is 
unauthorized by law, and the Senate then amends the unauthorized 
provision, reducing the sum of money involved and striking out a 
portion of the language, conferees may (without violating the 
provisions of Rule XX clause 2)(16) agree to a sum between the two and 
restore the House language.
On Dec. 20, 1969,(17) Mr. Otto E. Passman, of Louisiana, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 15149, foreign assistance appropriations for 
fiscal 1970. Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, raised a point of order 
against this conference report on the ground that it contained 
provisions unauthorized by law. He stated that the conference 
compromise on H.R. 14590, the foreign assistance authorization bill, 
provided for a total amount of $350 million for military assistance 
without specifying amounts for any particular country. The House 
version of the appropriations bill contained the following provisions 
that were deleted in conference on the authorization bill: a total 
amount for military assistance of $454.5 million with $50 million 
earmarked for Korea and $54.5 million for the Republic of China. Mr. 
Yates then alluded to the conference report on H.R. 15149:

MR. YATES: . . . It is stated on page 7 of the conference report with 
respect to amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25, and 26, under the heading 
"Military Assistance":

Insert appropriate section numbers; appropriate $404,500,000 instead of 
$454,500,000 as proposed by the House and $350,000,000 as proposed by 
the Senate;-

Then there is this language, Mr. Speaker:

and restore language deleted by the Senate earmarking $54,500,000 for 
the Republic of China.

Mr. Clement J. Zablocki, of Wisconsin, was then recognized by Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the point of order and to express my 
strong opposition to the conference report on foreign aid 
appropriations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
17.     115 CONG. REC. 40445-48, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 532]]

This report contains a line item for foreign military assistance of 
$404.5 million. That amount is $54.5 million more than the amount which 
the House authorized yesterday by approving the conference report on 
the foreign aid authorization bill.
For that reason, I believe that this conference report is completely 
and flagrantly out of order. Let me cite to this body rule XXI, part 2, 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives. It states:

No appropriation shall be reported in any general appropriations bill, 
or be in order as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure not 
previously authorized by law.

Mr. Passman then explained the particular relationship between the 
foreign-aid authorization and appropriations bills.

MR. PASSMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further on the point of order?
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the lateness of the so-called 
authorization bill, which does not exist in fact, as yet, and the very 
fact that the majority leader of the other body said there would be no 
authorization bill, and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee 
said there would be no authorization bill, made it necessary for us to 
move this bill through the Appropriations Committee, the Rules 
Committee, and the Rules Committee gave us a rule waiving points of 
order. We have moved the bill, as I understand it, according to the 
rules of the House, and this appropriation bill became an authorization 
bill also, in the absence of any authorization act. Even at this late 
hour we still do not have an authorization bill because the conference 
report on the authorization bill was only adopted yesterday by both 
Houses and has not yet reached the President for his signature.

Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, added:

. . . [I]n this particular case when the foreign aid appropriation bill 
came to the floor of the House, a specific rule was granted waiving 
points of order.
It would be my argument that the benefit of that rule would still be 
applicable in the consideration of the conference report.
MR. ZABLOCKI: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear the gentleman further.
MR. ZABLOCKI: Mr. Speaker, does the rule waiving points of order under 
which the House appropriation bill was considered by the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union continue through conference 
report consideration? . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that will have a bearing on the point 
of order that is raised at the present time. . . . 
The Chair is aware of the fact pointed out by the gentleman from 
Illinois-that the authorization bill for fiscal 1970, while passed by 
both Houses, has not yet become law. As pointed out in the debate on 
this point of order, the conference report now before the House does 
carry an amount for military assistance that is $54,500,000 above the 
figure which 


[[Page 533]]

would be authorized by H.R. 14580, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1969.
However, the Chair recalls that when this appropriation bill passed the 
House, it was considered under a rule waiving points of order. The 
House agreed to a total figure for military assistance of $454,500,000. 
The Senate reduced this figure to $350 million. The conferees have 
reached an agreement between these two amounts, as they had the 
authority to do.
The Chair holds that the conferees have not exceeded their authority 
and overrules the point of order.
Appropriations in Amendments to Senate Bills
Sec.    7.30 Although the managers on the part of the House may not 
without the prior consent of the House agree to a Senate amendment 
providing for an appropriation not authorized by law or an 
appropriation upon any bill other than a general appropriation bill, 
this restriction does not apply where a Senate bill with House 
amendments is committed to conference.
On Jan. 25, 1972,(18) Mr. Thomas E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, called up 
the conference report on S. 2189, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1971, 
and obtained the consent of the House that the statement of the 
managers be read in lieu of the report. At this point, Mr. H. R. Gross, 
of Iowa, raised a point of order against the conference report on the 
grounds that it contained matter that was beyond the range of 
disagreement submitted to the conferees, and which was not germane to 
the Senate bill or House amendment. Mr. Morgan responded to the point 
of order:

. . . Last November the House sent to conference two foreign aid bills, 
one economic and one military, which passed the Senate. At that time 
the House struck out all after the enacting clauses of both bills and 
inserted in lieu thereof the complete text of H.R. 9910, which had 
passed the House last August.
All the provisions of both the House and Senate bills that were in 
disagreement were considered in conference. The House having adopted a 
rule to send these two Senate bills to conference therefore the 
amendments to which the gentleman from Iowa has objected automatically 
became House amendments and the provisions from the Senate bill are no 
longer subject to a point of order.
THE SPEAKER:(19) The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from Iowa has raised a point of order against the 
conference report on the ground that the House 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     118 CONG. REC. 1076, 1077, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
19.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 534]]

conferees have exceeded their authority by including in the conference 
report provisions not germane or not in either the Senate bill or the 
House amendment and agreed to an appropriation in violation of clause 
2, rule XX.(20) That rule provides in relevant part:

No amendment of the Senate . . . providing for an appropriation upon 
any bill other than a general appropriation bill, shall be agreed to by 
the managers on the part of the House.

The Chair would point out that it was a Senate bill which was sent to 
conference, with a House amendment thereto. The rule is restricted in 
its application to Senate amendments, and thus is not applicable in the 
present situation.
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.(1) 
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.      


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
B. CONFERENCE MANAGERS OR CONFEREES
 
Sec.    8. Changing Conferees; Resignations

Conference committees are in the nature of a "select committee" and as 
such are appointed by the Speaker.(2) Once appointed, they are in a 
sense agents of the House and must have permission of that body to 
resign or be excused.
Once they have received this permission, the Speaker can fill the 
vacancy thus created.
In the 103d Congress, the Speaker was given the authority to add or 
remove conferees after his initial appointment.(3) 
A conference committee is terminated when either House acts on its 
report or when discharged by action of the House.(4) 

Removal of Conferees
Sec.    8.1 Where several conferees could not attend an urgent conference 
meeting, the manager of the bill asked unanimous consent that they be 
removed as managers on the part of the House and that the Speaker 
appoint replacements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
 1.     Id. at Sec. 913(a) (1997).
 2.     Rule X clause 6(f), House Rules and Manual Sec. 701e (1997).
 3.     Rule X clause 6(f), House Rules and Manual Sec. 701e (1997); 139 
CONG. REC. 49, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1993 (H. Res. 5).
 4.     Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 535]]

Rule X clause 6(f)(5) now gives the Speaker the authority to remove 
conferees after their original appointment or to appoint additional 
conferees. This authority was added in the 103d Congress.(6) The 
request carried below from the proceedings of Dec. 15, 1980,(7) was 
made under the earlier practice, where the removal of a conferee was 
with the consent of the House.
  
MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the 
existing continuing resolution expires at midnight tonight, it is 
absolutely necessary for the Congress to act today on the further 
continuing resolution to provide financing for many departments and 
agencies. Inasmuch as several of the House conferees are not 
immediately available, I ask unanimous consent that Messrs. Smith of 
Iowa, Addabbo, and Conte, be removed as conferees on the remaining 
amendment to House Joint Resolution 637, and the Speaker be authorized 
to appoint substitute conferees.
THE SPEAKER:(8) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Mississippi?
MR. [JOHN] ROUSSELOT [of California]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, could the gentleman give us the names of the three Members 
who are removed from the conference?
MR. WHITTEN: . . . Excuse me, that is a matter for the Speaker. . . . 
This is the Speaker's prerogative. I was out of order on the question 
of appointing new conferees.
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Many of us are periodically.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Mississippi? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following 
conferees: Messrs. Murtha, Dicks, and McEwen.
Excusing Manager From Service
Sec.    8.2 House managers at a conference are excused from service on 
the committee of conference only by action of the House.
On Oct. 23, 1969,(9) the following proceedings occurred in regard to S. 
1857, a National Science Foundation appropriation bill:

MR. [GEORGE P.] MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. Bell), one of the 
members on the part of the House on the conference on the bill S. 1857, 
be excused. The 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 701e (1997).
 6.     See H. Res. 5, 139 CONG. REC. 50, Jan. 5, 1993. 
 7.     126 CONG. REC. 34177, 34178, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
 9.     115 CONG. REC. 31198, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 536]]

gentleman was called to California this morning.
THE SPEAKER:(10) Without objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair appoints the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Winn) as 
a manager on the part of the House at the conference on the bill S. 
1857, to fill the vacancy resulting from the resignation of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bell).
The Clerk will notify the Senate of the change in conferees.(11) 

Replacements
Sec.    8.3 When the resignation of a conferee is by unanimous consent 
accepted by the House, the Speaker then appoints a successor.
On Aug. 9, 1972,(12) the following proceedings occurred in regard to 
H.R. 15692, a bill authorizing the Small Business Administration to 
reduce the interest rate on certain disaster loans:

The Speaker(13) laid before the House the following resignation as a 
conferee:

AUGUST 9, 1972.
The SPEAKER,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I hereby resign as a conferee in connection with the 
conference between the Senate and the House of Representatives on the 
bill, H.R. 15692.
Sincerely,
THOMAS L. ASHLEY.

THE SPEAKER: Without objection, the resignation is accepted.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair appoints the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Moorhead) as a conferee on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 
the amendments of the Senate to the bill H.R. 15692, to fill the 
existing vacancy.(14) 
Request To Be Excused as Conferee Made by a Colleague
Sec.    8.4 By unanimous consent, a Member was excused from further 
service as a House conferee (at the request of another Member) and the 
Speaker appointed another Member to fill the vacancy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
11.     See, for example, 102 CONG. REC. 8198, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., May 
15, 1956; 97 CONG. REC. 10141, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 16, 1951; and 
95 CONG. REC. 3233, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 25, 1949.
12.     118 CONG. REC. 27520, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
13.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
14.     See, for example, 118 CONG. REC. 8480, 8481, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., 
Mar. 15, 1972; 117 CONG. REC. 34348, 34349, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 
30, 1971; and 116 CONG. REC. 32745, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 21, 1970.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 537]]

On Dec. 2, 1971,(15) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. 
John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, to make this request concerning 
H.R. 11341, the District of Columbia Revenue Act:

MR. MCMILLAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Abernethy) may be excused as a manager on the 
part of the House at the conference on the bill H.R. 11341, and that 
the Speaker be authorized to appoint another Member to fill the vacancy.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair appoints as a manager on the part of the House 
at the conference on the bill (H.R. 11341) the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Stuckey) to fill the existing vacancy thereon.(16) 
Sec.    8.5 By unanimous consent, a Member was excused from service as a 
conferee upon request of another Member, and the Speaker thereupon 
appointed a successor to fill the vacancy.
On Dec. 10, 1973,(17) the following proceedings occurred in regard to 
H.R. 11324, the Daylight Savings Time Act:

MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Stuckey) be 
excused from further service as a conferee on the bill H.R. 11324, and 
that the Speaker be authorized to appoint a Member to fill the vacancy.
THE SPEAKER:(18) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) 
to fill the vacancy, and the Senate will be notified of the action of 
the House.
Sec.    8.6 One of the House managers at a conference with the Senate 
was, at the request of the senior House manager and by unanimous 
consent, excused from further service as a conferee and the Speaker 
then appointed a successor.
On Oct. 23, 1969,(19) the following proceedings occurred in regard 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     117 CONG. REC. 44258, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
16.     See also 113 CONG. REC. 35134, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 6, 
1967; and 112 CONG. REC. 5358, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 9, 1966.
17.     119 CONG. REC. 40500, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
19.     115 CONG. REC. 31198, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 538]]

to S. 1857, the National Science Foundation appropriation bill:

MR. [GEORGE P.] MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. Bell), one of the 
members on the part of the House on the conference on the bill S. 1857, 
be excused. The gentleman was called to California this morning.
THE SPEAKER:(20) Without objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair appoints the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Winn) as 
a manager on the part of the House at the conference on the bill S. 
1857, to fill the vacancy resulting from the resignation of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bell).
The Clerk will notify the Senate of the change in conferees.(1) 
Letters of Resignation
Sec.    8.7 Where a Member resigns from a committee of conference to 
which he has been appointed, the consent of the House is required, and 
the letter of resignation is laid before the House and accepted. 
While a Speaker may remove a conferee, under the authority granted to 
the Speaker in the 103d Congress (by the amendment to Rule X clause 6
(f)),(2) the unilateral resignation of a manager still requires the 
concurrence of the House. 
Once a resignation is accepted, the Speaker (or a Speaker Pro Tempore, 
by unanimous consent) then can appoint a new conferee or realign the 
assignment of conferees, under the authority of the new rule. The 
proceedings of July 20, 1993,(3) are illustrative.
RESIGNATION AS CONFEREE AND AP-POINTMENT OF CONFEREE ON H.R. 2264, 
OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993
The Speaker pro tempore laid before the House the following resignation 
as a conferee:

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, DC, July 20, 1993.
Hon. THOMAS S. FOLEY,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I have been named as a conferee to the Budget 
Reconciliation bill, H.R. 2264, due to my position on the House Natural 
Resources Committee. Due to unexpected time constraints in my other 
positions, Armed Services and Intelligence, I respectfully request that 
I be allowed to withdraw as a conferee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 1.     See also 118 CONG. REC. 24864, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., July 24, 1972.
 2.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 701e (1997).
 3.     139 CONG. REC. 16260, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 539]]

Thank you for your attention to this matter and if you have any 
question please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
JAMES V. HANSEN,
Member of Congress.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(4) Without objection, the resignation is 
accepted.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the gentleman from Wyoming 
[Mr. Thomas] is appointed to replace the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen] as a member of the Committee of Conference on the bill (H.R. 
2264) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 7 of the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1994.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will notify the Senate of the change 
in conferees.
MODIFICATIONS IN APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2264, OMNIBUS BUDGET 
RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the Chair announces the 
following modifications in the appointment of conferees on H.R. 2264: 
. . . 
In the panel appointed from the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, Mr. Borski is appointed in lieu of Mr. de Lugo.
Vacancy by Death
Sec.    8.8 The Speaker may appoint a conferee to fill the vacancy caused 
by the death of another Member.
On Apr. 8, 1948,(5) the following proceedings occurred:

MR. [ALBERT L.] REEVES [Jr., of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Speaker be authorized to appoint a conferee on the 
part of the House on the bill (H.R. 2389) for the relief of Harriet 
Townsend Bottomley to fill the vacancy caused by the death of our 
former colleague from Indiana, Mr. Springer.
THE SPEAKER:(6) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none, and appoints the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Case] as a conferee. The Clerk will 
notify the Senate of the action of the House.(7) 
Where Member Declines To Serve
Sec.    8.9 Where a Member declines to serve on a conference committee, 
the question is put to the House to excuse him and then the Speaker 
immediately appoints another Member.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).
 5.     94 CONG. REC. 4255, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
 7.     See also 119 CONG. REC. 36222, 36223, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 
7, 1973.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 540]]

On Aug. 13, 1937,(8) the following proceedings occurred:

 MR. [SAM D.] MCREYNOLDS [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the resolution (H.J. Res. 437) 
relative to determination and payment of certain claims against the 
Government of Mexico, with Senate amendments, disagree to the Senate 
amendments, and ask for a conference. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(9) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Tennessee? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none, and appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. McReynolds, Bloom, and Fish.
MR. [HAMILTON] FISH [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully 
decline to accept the appointment as conferee on this bill.
THE SPEAKER: Without objection, the gentleman from New York is relieved 
of responsibility as a conferee.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair appoints the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Martin] conferee in the place of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Fish].
Resignation of Conferee; State-ment on Floor
Sec.    8.10 The resignation of a conferee is "accepted" by the House, 
usually by unanimous consent; and where a manager on the part of the 
House resigned after a dispute about the scope of his involvement in a 
conference on a bill that had been jointly referred in the House to two 
committees and which had conference representation from both, he made a 
statement for the Record setting forth his reasons. 
Where the Speaker appoints conferees from two House committees, without 
delineating the portions of the matter in conference that is within 
either committee's jurisdiction, the managers can participate fully in 
all conference deliberations. 
During the conference on the bill H.R. 3474,(10) the Energy Research 
and Development Administration authorization for fiscal 1976, a motion 
was adopted in conference to limit the managers participation between 
those representing the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and those 
appointed from the Committee on Science and Technology. The resignation 
and the statement by the resigning conferee are self-explanatory. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 8.     81 CONG. REC. 8847, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
10.     121 CONG. REC. 35980, 35981, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 11, 1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 541]]

The Speaker laid before the House the following resignation as a 
manager of H.R. 3474:

WASHINGTON, D.C.,
November 11, 1975.

HON. CARL ALBERT,
The Speaker,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Please accept this as my resignation from your 
designation as a manager of H.R. 3474.
I shall set forth my reasons for resigning in a statement on the floor 
of the House today.
Respectfully,
TENO RONCALIO,
Congressman for Wyoming.
THE SPEAKER:(11) Without objection, the resignation will be accepted.
There was no objection. . . . 
MR. RONCALIO: Mr. Speaker, I was appointed by you on September 5, 1975, 
to serve as a manager on the part of the House for the conference 
committee considering the Energy Research and Development 
Administration authorization for fiscal year 1976.
Today, the conferees met for the first time and elected a chairman for 
the conference, Mr. Teague. The conferees then agreed to a motion by 
Mr. McCormack to separate the conferees into nuclear and nonnuclear 
groups each considering these respective parts of the bill. I was in 
opposition to this motion.
Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this legislation is not divided by 
title into nuclear and nonnuclear matters. It provides funding for all 
ERDA energy programs. Nor were we named specifically by you to act as 
managers and conferees on specific titles or subject areas of the 
legislation. There were no restrictions at the time of appointment.
Mr. Speaker, I have spent the last 3 years in the House almost totally 
absorbed in energy matters, both nuclear and nonnuclear. The entire 
bill has matters in it of great importance to the people of my State 
and to me as their Representative. I could not agree with the McCormack 
motion which would have prohibited me from voting on coal and other 
fossil fuel R. & D. funding and other items of vital interest to my 
State. I, therefore, have no alternative but to respectfully resign 
this conference.
Authority of Speaker Pro Tempore
Sec.    8.11 By unanimous consent the House accepted the resignation of a 
conferee and authorized the Speaker Pro Tempore to appoint another 
Member in his place.
On Sept. 20, 1961,(12) Speaker Pro Tempore John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. John L. McMillan, of South Carolina:

MR. MCMILLAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Mississippi [Mr. Abernethy] be 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
12.     107 CONG. REC. 20491, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 542]]

excused as a conferee on the bill H.R. 5968, and that another Member be 
designated as a conferee in his place.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair appoints to the committee of 
conference the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Huddleston] vice the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Abernethy].
The Clerk will notify the Senate of the appointment by the Speaker pro 
tempore.
Resignation of Conferee Following Conviction
Sec.    8.12 The House accepted the resignation of a conferee who had 
been convicted of a felony in a federal criminal trial, where the 
Member resigning did so to comply with a resolution adopted earlier in 
that Congress expressing the sense of the House that persons in such a 
situation should refrain from participating in committee business.
On Sept. 24, 1974,(13) the Speaker laid before the House a letter of 
resignation of a conferee. The resignation was prompted by a House 
policy regarding a Member's participation in committee deliberations 
after conviction of a felony.
House Resolution 128 had been adopted(14) by the House in the preceding 
year and provided as follows:
H. RES. 128
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that any 
Member of, Delegate to, or Resident Commissioner in, the House of 
Representatives who has been convicted by a court of record for the 
commission of a crime for which a sentence of two or more years' 
imprisonment may be imposed should refrain from participation in the 
business of each committee of which he is then a member and should 
refrain from voting on any question at a meeting of the House, or of 
the Committee of the Whole House, unless or until judicial or executive 
proceedings result in reinstatement of the presumption of his innocence 
or until he is reelected to the House after the date of such 
conviction. This resolution shall not affect any other authority of the 
House with respect to the behavior and conduct of its Members. 

The provisions of this resolution were later made part of Rule XLIII, 
the Code of Official Con-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     120 CONG. REC. 32420, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
14.     119 CONG. REC. 36943, 36944, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 14, 1973.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 543]]

duct, and are carried today as clause 10 of that rule.(15) 
The letter of resignation and the action of the House thereon are 
included. 
RESIGNATION OF CONFEREE AND AP-POINTMENT OF CONFEREE ON S. 386 AND H.R. 
11221
The Speaker laid before the House the following communication:

WASHINGTON, D.C.,
September 19, 1974.
Hon. CARL ALBERT,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER: In view of my present circumstances, and because of 
the provisions of House Resolution 128, I hereby tender my resignation 
as a member of the conference committee on S. 386 and H.R. 11221.
With warmest personal regards, I am,
Sincerely yours,
FRANK J. BRASCO.

THE SPEAKER:(16) Without objection, the resignation will be accepted.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair appoints the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Stark) as a conferee on the bill S. 386 to fill the vacancy resulting 
from the resignation of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Brasco), and 
the Chair appoints the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Moorhead) as a 
conferee on the bill H.R. 11221 to fill the vacancy resulting from the 
resignation of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Brasco).
The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the House.
Resignation of Conferee Accepted by House
Sec.    8.13 The House may accept the resignation of a conferee after the 
Speaker lays before it a letter from the resigning Member.
On July 13, 1954,(17) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
laid before the House the following letter from Mr. Graham A. Barden, 
of North Carolina:

JULY 13, 1954.
Hon. JOSEPH MARTIN,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I hereby tender my resignation as a conferee on H.R. 
7434, H.R. 7601, H.R. 9040, and S. 2759.
Very truly yours,
GRAHAM A. BARDEN.

THE SPEAKER: Without objection, the resignation is accepted.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair appoints the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Kelley, to serve on the conference committee on the bill H.R. 7434, on 
the bill H.R. 7061, and on the bill H.R. 9040, and the Senate will be 
notified accordingly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 939 (1997). 
16.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
17.     100 CONG. REC. 10426, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 544]]

The Chair appoints the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Bailey, to 
serve on the conference committee on the bill S. 2759, and the Senate 
will be notified accordingly.(18) 
Sec.    8.14 When a conferee submits a letter of resignation to the 
Speaker, it is not effective until laid before the House and accepted 
by that body. 
A conference committee is a select committee, and while the Speaker has 
the appointment authority under Rule X clause 6(f),(19) the House must 
accept a resignation, as demonstrated by the proceedings of Nov. 14, 
1989.(20) 
RESIGNATION AS CONFEREE AND AP-POINTMENT AS CONFEREE ON H.R. 2712, 
EMERGENCY CHINESE ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS FACILITATION ACT OF 1989
The Speaker pro tempore laid before the House the following resignation 
as a conferee:

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
 Washington, DC, November 10, 1989.

Hon. THOMAS S. FOLEY,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
DEAR MR. SPEAKER: As you know, on October 4, 1989, I was appointed as a 
House conferee on the bill, H.R. 2712, the Emergency Chinese Adjustment 
of Status Facilitation Act of 1989. As passed by the House on July 31 
of this year, H.R. 2712 responds to the Chinese government's repression 
of the pro-democracy movement and actions against pro-democracy 
students by granting those students a waiver from the requirement that 
they return to China for two years before being eligible to change 
their immigrant status.
It now appears that the House may be concluding the business of the 
First Session within the next few days. I would not want my absence 
from the Congress for medical reasons to impede the enactment of this 
critically needed piece of legislation, leaving thousands of Chinese 
students in doubt as to their immigration status. Accordingly, in order 
to expedite resolution of this matter, I am submitting my resignation 
as a conferee on this bill.
With every good wish, I am
Sincerely,
JACK BROOKS,
Chairman.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(1) Without objection, the resignation is 
accepted.
Resignations Submitted by Telegram
Sec.    8.15 The House accepted the resignation of a Member from a 
conference committee which was submitted by tele-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     See also 90 CONG. REC. 5265, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 3, 1944; 
and 84 CONG. REC. 10732, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 1, 1939.
19.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 701e (1997).
20.     135 CONG. REC. 28834, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     James H. Bilbray (Nev.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 545]]

gram, and the Speaker then appointed another conferee.
On June 22, 1944,(2) the following proceedings occurred in regard to 
H.R. 4292, the 1945 Department of Agriculture appropriation bill:

THE SPEAKER:(3) The Chair has a telegram from the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Plumley] resigning as a conferee on the agricultural 
appropriation bill.
Without objection, the resignation is accepted, and the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Taber] is appointed in his stead.
There was no objection.(4) 
Notification to Senate
Sec.    8.16 The Speaker directs the Clerk to notify the Senate of any 
change in House conferees.
On Sept. 30, 1971,(5) the following proceedings occurred:

The Speaker(6) laid before the House the following resignation as a 
conferee:

WASHINGTON, D.C.
September 29, 1971.

Hon. CARL ALBERT,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER: On September 23, 1971, you appointed me one of the 
conferees on H.R. 9844, the fiscal year 1972 Military Construction 
Authorization bill.
Due to my schedule I will be unable to serve in this capacity, and 
hereby tender my resignation.
    Sincerely,
CHARLES S. GUBSER.

THE SPEAKER: Without objection, the resignation is accepted.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair appoints the gentleman from New York, Mr. King, 
as a manager on the part of the House at the conference on the bill 
H.R. 9844, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation.
The Clerk will notify the Senate of the appointment by the Speaker.(7) 
House Notified of Senate Changes
Sec.    8.17 The House is informed by message of a change in Senate 
conferees.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     90 CONG. REC. 6510, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 4.     See also 90 CONG. REC. 7378, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 29, 1944; 
and 86 CONG. REC. 9289, 9290, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., July 8, 1940.
 5.     117 CONG. REC. 34348, 34349, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 6.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 7.     See also 111 CONG. REC. 26967, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 14, 
1965; 110 CONG. REC. 3170, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 19, 1964; and 104 
CONG. REC. 15436, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., July 29, 1958.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 546]]

On Oct. 20, 1965,(8) the Record contained the following reference to a 
message from the Senate:

The message also announced that Mr. Prouty be appointed a conferee on 
the bill (S. 2118) entitled "An act to amend sections 9 and 37 of the 
Shipping Act, 1916, and subsection O of the Ship Mortgage Act, 1920" in 
place of Mr. Dominick, excused.(9) 
Rescinding Appointments
Sec.    8.18 The House agreed to a Senate concurrent resolution 
rescinding the action of the two Houses in appointing conferees and 
returning the bill to the Senate for further amendment.
On May 20, 1940,(10) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
recognized Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, who made the following request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 47.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That 
the action of the two Houses, respectively, with reference to the 
appointment of conferees on the bill (H.R. 8438) making appropriations 
for the Navy Department and the naval service for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1941, and for other purposes, be, and it is hereby, 
rescinded; and that the bill, with the accompanying papers, be returned 
to the Senate.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Rayburn]? . . . 
There was no objection.
The Senate concurrent resolution was agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     111 CONG. REC. 27648, 27649, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9.     See also 107 CONG. REC. 16844, 16845, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 
23, 1961.
10.     86 CONG. REC. 6463, 6464, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 547]]


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
C. INSTRUCTIONS TO CONFEREES; MOTIONS TO INSTRUCT
 
Sec.    9. In General

Motions to instruct House managers at a conference of the two Houses 
are in order at three stages of the legislative process. First, one 
such motion is in order after a conference has been requested or agreed 
to and before conferees have been appointed.(1) Although only one 
motion to instruct is in order at this stage, it is subject to germane 
amendment if the previous question has not been ordered on the motion.
(2) 
Additional motions to instruct conferees are in order and are of the 
highest privilege under a House rule when the conferees have failed to 
file a report within 20 calendar days after their appointment or within 
36 hours thereafter during the last six days of any session.(3) And, 
whereas only one valid motion to instruct conferees is in order prior 
to their appointment, this limitation does not apply to motions 
authorized by this rule.(4) 
Finally, the House may instruct its conferees after they have filed 
their report by adopting a motion to recommit the conference report 
with instructions.(5) The disqualification of a motion to instruct does 
not preclude the offering of a proper motion at the same stage in the 
proceedings.(6) When one House adopts a conference report, the 
conferees are thereby discharged and the other House no longer has the 
opportunity to recommit.
Motions to instruct are debatable under the hour rule,(7) although a 
motion to recommit a conference report with instructions to the 
conferees is not subject to debate.(8) The right of recogni-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Sec. 9.1, infra. See Sec.Sec. 9.2, 10.1-10.4, infra.
 2.     Sec.Sec. 9.2, 9.3, infra. See Sec. 9.2, infra, for a discussion 
of the test of germaneness in this situation.
 3.     Rule XXVIII clause 1(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997). 
See generally Sec. 14, infra.
 4.     Sec.Sec.14.14-14.17, infra.
 5.     See, generally, Sec. 32, infra.
 6.     8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3235.
 7.     Sec. 11.4, infra.
 8.     Parliamentarian's Note: On Nov. 15, 1973, Speaker Carl Albert 
(Okla.), ruled that the debate on motions to recommit with instructions 
authorized by Rule XVI clause 4, applied only to such motions affecting 
bills and joint resolutions, and not, in that instance, to a motion to 
recommit a simple resolution with instructions. This ruling also 
precludes debate on the motion to recommit a conference report with 
instructions to the conferees. See 119 CONG. REC. 37141, 37142, 37149-
51, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 548]]

tion to offer the motion belongs to the minority,(9) and the Member 
offering the motion initiates and has the right to close the debate.
(10) 
Under a rule adopted in the 101st Congress, the debate time on such a 
motion is divided between the majority and minority parties.(11) The 
proponent may yield time to another Member(12) although he loses the 
floor if he yields for an amendment.(13) 
Since instructions to managers on the part of the House cannot bind the 
managers on the part of the Senate(14) such instructions are advisory 
in nature,(15) and a conference report may not be ruled out on a point 
of order on the ground that the conferees have violated their 
instructions.(16) 
While a motion to instruct conferees may extend their power by 
authorizing agreement to Senate amendments which would otherwise be out 
of order in the House,(17) it may not instruct them to do what they 
might not do otherwise.(18) 
The motion may be precluded by a resolution which provides for the 
appointment of conferees without intervening motion.(19) 
The motion may be laid on the table(20) without carrying the bill to 
the table with it.(1)
Instructions to conferees expire when their report is filed and have no 
effect if a further conference is held.(2) Therefore, when amendments 
are reported from conference in disagreement and a further conference 
is requested or agreed to, a motion to instruct is again in order 
before the appointment of conferees for this further conference.(3)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     Sec.Sec. 11.1, 11.2, infra.
10.     Sec. 11.12, infra.
11.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a 
(1997). See also Sec. 11.9, infra, for modern practice permitting a 
three-way division of the debate time.
12.     Sec.Sec. 11.6, 11.7, infra.
13.     Sec. 11.13, infra.
14.     Sec. 12.1, infra.
15.     Sec.Sec. 12.2, 12.3, infra.
16.     Sec. 12.6, infra.
17.     Rule XX clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997). See 
Sec. 12.19, infra.
18.     Sec. 12.12, infra.
19.     7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 774; 8 Cannons' Precedents Sec. 3394. 
See Sec. 2.29, supra.
20.     Sec.Sec. 9.8-9.13, infra.
 1.     8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2658.
 2.     Id. at Sec. 3240.
 3.     Id.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 549]]

Number of Motions
Sec.    9.1 Only one motion to instruct conferees is in order before they 
are appointed.
On May 29, 1968,(4) Mr. Richard H. Poff, of Virginia, asked whether a 
motion to instruct House conferees would be in order after the House 
adopted a motion to send to conference H.R. 5037, the Law Enforcement 
and Criminal Justice Assistance Act of 1967. Speaker John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, replied that a motion to instruct conferees would be 
in order before the appointment of the conferees. Mr. Poff then made a 
further parliamentary inquiry.

Am I correct in assuming that only one such motion to instruct would at 
this time be in order?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman's assumption is correct.
Amendments in Order
Sec.    9.2 Prior to the appointment of conferees, only one motion to 
instruct is in order, but before the previous question is ordered on 
this motion it is subject to an amendment, an amendment to this 
amendment, a substitute for the original amendment, and an amendment to 
the substitute; and any such amendment need only be germane to the 
subject matter of either the House or Senate measure as committed to 
conference, and need not be germane to the original motion to instruct.
(5)
On Oct. 31, 1939,(6) the House adopted a resolution sending House Joint 
Resolution 306, the Neutrality Act of 1939, to conference. Mr. James A. 
Shanley, of Connecticut, offered a motion to instruct the House Members 
who would then be appointed conferees. After the Clerk reported this 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     114 CONG. REC. 15499, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5.     Parliamentarian's Note: This more permissive test of germaneness 
is used when amending instructions to conferees, since such 
instructions are advisory in nature, are not binding on the conferees 
and therefore exert only an indirect effect on the matter in 
conference. The more proscriptive test of germaneness, which requires 
an amendment to be germane to the particular measure it proposes to 
amend, is employed in most other cases where the adoption of such an 
amendment has a more direct effect on that particular measure. See Ch. 
32, Sec. 11.26, supra, and generally, Ch. 28, supra.
 6.     85 CONG. REC. 1104, 1105, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 550]]

motion, Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, initiated a series of 
parliamentary inquiries:

MR. MAPES: Mr. Speaker, the question has been frequently asked whether 
subsequent motions to instruct the conferees shall take the form of 
amendments to the pending motion or whether, if this motion should be 
either voted up or voted down, separate motions may be made to instruct 
the conferees on other provisions of the legislation.
THE SPEAKER:(7) In answer to the parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman 
from Michigan, the Chair will state that under the rules of the House 
only one motion to instruct the conferees is permissible, but that 
motion is subject to amendment.
MR. MAPES: So the answer of the Speaker is that other Members who 
desire to have the conferees instructed in other respects must present 
their motions in the form of amendments to the pending motion?
THE SPEAKER: Or in the form of a substitute to the original amendment. . . . 
MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]: How much time for debate do we 
have on this motion, and how is the time to be controlled?
THE SPEAKER: Under the present situation in the House, the gentleman 
from Connecticut is entitled to 1 hour. . . . 
MR. MAPES: There seems to be an idea in the minds of some that the 
amendments that can be offered to this motion are limited to four in 
number. I do not know where that idea comes from. My own thought is 
that, of course, the number that can be pending at any one time is 
limited, but as one amendment is disposed of, further amendments can be 
presented indefinitely. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will read into the Record, in answer to the 
inquiry, Rule XIX of the Rules of the House, "Of Amendments":

When a motion or proposition is under consideration a motion to amend 
and a motion to amend that amendment shall be in order, and it shall 
also be in order to offer a further amendment by way of substitute, to 
which one amendment may be offered, but which shall not be voted on 
until the original matter is perfected, but either may be withdrawn 
before amendment or decision is had thereon. Amendments to the title of 
a bill or resolution shall not be in order until after its passage and 
shall be decided without debate. . . . 

MR. [JOSEPH W.] MARTIN [Jr.] of Massachusetts: For the information of 
the House, is it correct that an amendment to the motion to instruct 
conferees offered by the gentleman from Connecticut is in order at any 
time until the previous question is ordered?
THE SPEAKER: If a Member gets recognition to offer an amendment and it 
is germane to the subject matter of either the House or Senate bill.
The Chair thinks it important in construing the rules, for the 
information of all Members of the House, to state that it must always 
be remembered that an amendment must be germane to the subject matter 
under consideration. In 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 551]]

this instance it means the amendment must be germane to some provision 
in the Senate amendment to the House joint resolution or in the House 
joint resolution itself.
The Chair may state, in order to fully clarify this matter so there may 
be no misunderstanding or confusion about the rights of Members-and 
there is no legitimate ground for confusion on this question-that now 
that a motion has been offered by the gentleman from Connecticut to 
instruct the conferees, an amendment to that motion will be in order if 
germane, and to that amendment an amendment may be offered if germane. 
To the original amendment to the motion a substitute may be offered and 
an amendment to the substitute may be offered, as declared by the rule 
which the Chair has just read, and all five of those propositions may 
be pending at the same time. The rule provides, however, the method in 
which they shall be called for disposition.(8)
Sec.    9.3 If the previous question is voted down on a motion to 
instruct conferees, the motion is subject to germane amendment.
On Oct. 19, 1971,(9) Mr. F. Edward Hï¿½bert, of Louisiana, sought 
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 8687 (military 
procurement authorizations, fiscal 1972) with Senate amendments 
thereto, disagree to those amendments and agree to a conference 
requested by the Senate. The Speaker, Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, then 
recognized Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois:

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I only do so to 
propound a parliamentary inquiry--
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: Assuming the 
gentleman from Illinois proposes to offer a motion to instruct the 
conferees, and assuming that that motion does not contain the so-called 
Mansfield amendment, when the previous question is requested on that 
motion is it in order that if the previous question is voted down to 
offer an amendment to that motion to instruct the conferees?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Illinois in 
response to his parliamentary inquiry that if the previous question on 
the motion to instruct is voted down any germane amendment would be in 
order.(10)
Precedence of Motion To Instruct
Sec.    9.4 Where two Members sought recognition at the same moment, one 
to call up a conference report and the other to instruct conferees 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     See also 85 CONG. REC. 1204-10, 76th Cong. 2d Sess., Nov. 1, 
1939.
 9.     117 CONG. REC. 36832-35, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     See also 114 CONG. REC. 15499-512, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., May 29, 
1968.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 552]]

on another bill which had been in conference for over 20 days, the 
Chair recognized the Member offering the motion to instruct, which, 
under Rule XXVIII clause 1(c),(11) is given "the highest privilege."

On Oct. 22, 1990,(12) when two Members sought recognition, the Chair 
decided to recognize a Member offering a motion to instruct conferees 
instead of another who wanted to call up a conference report. No 
challenge was made to this order of recognition. The proceedings are 
carried as an example of the Chair's use of his power of recognition.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 5400, CAMPAIGN COST REDUCTION AND 
REFORM ACT OF 1990
MR. [WILLIAM M.] THOMAS of California: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
privileged motion to instruct conferees on the bill (H.R. 5400) to 
amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and certain related 
laws to clarify such provisions with respect to Federal elections to 
reduce costs in House of Representatives elections, and for other 
purposes.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(13) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Thomas of California moves that the managers on the part of the 
House, at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 
the bill H.R. 5400 be instructed to agree to Section 105 of the House 
passed bill.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Swift] will be recognized for 30 minutes.

After disposition of the motion to instruct, the House proceeded to the 
consideration of the conference report.

MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 517, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 5268) 
making appropriations for Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related 
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1991, and 
for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to House Resolution 517, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
Sec.    9.5 The Speaker may at his discretion recognize for a motion to 
suspend the rules, instead of recognizing for a motion to instruct 
conferees, since the "highest privilege" accorded the motion to 
instruct is, in effect, temporar-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
12.     136 CONG. REC. 31942, 31949, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
13.     Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 553]]

ily waived when the Speaker uses his authority to recognize for a 
motion which suspends all rules which would inhibit consideration of 
the measure called up under suspension.
On Mar. 1, 1988,(14) a "sus-pension day," the Speaker had recognized a 
Member to move to suspend the rules and pass a bill. After a second was 
ordered,(15) Mr. William E. Dannemeyer, of California, attempted to 
offer his privileged motion to instruct under Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), 
the "20-day" rule. The Speaker's ruling that under the circumstances, 
the motion to suspend the rules could be considered and the inquiries 
which followed are carried here.

MR. [BRUCE F.] VENTO [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the 
rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 90) to establish the Big Cypress 
National Preserve Addition in the State of Florida, and for other 
purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 90
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
(a) SHORT TITLE.-This Act may be cited as the "Big Cypress National 
Preserve Addition Act". . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(16) Is a second demanded?
MR. [ROBERT J.] LAGOMARSINO [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
second.
ATTEMPT TO OFFER MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 5, SCHOOL 
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1987
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged motion at the desk.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Dannemeyer moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on H.R. 5 and the Senate amendment thereto be instructed to 
agree to section 703 of the Senate amendment.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will have to examine to see whether 
or not the present motion just read is a privileged motion, if the 
gentleman will bear with the Chair for a moment.
The Chair would state to the distinguished gentleman from California 
that this is a highly privileged motion under rule XXVIII but it is not 
more privileged than a motion to suspend the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     134 CONG. REC. 2748-51, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. Seconds on motions to suspend the rules were required until the 
102d Congress, when the procedure was eliminated by the adoption of H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39.    
16.     Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 554]]

rules. Therefore, the Chair could entertain it later today.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. DANNEMEYER: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House provide that after 
the appointment of conferees any Member may file a motion to instruct 
conferees after 20 calendar days have elapsed; is that correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct.
But there was a motion pending at the time the gentleman offered his 
motion and therefore the Chair has ruled that the motion to suspend the 
rules has the same privilege as the gentleman's motion and the Chair is 
in the process of recognizing two Members for 20 minutes each to debate 
the pending bill.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Then I take it, Mr. Speaker, from the ruling of the 
Chair that this Member would be at liberty to renew this motion after 
the conclusion of the motion that was pending at the time the motion 
was made?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct. When no other higher 
motion is pending then the motion the gentleman is offering would be in 
order at that time. . . . 
ATTEMPT TO OFFER MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 5, SCHOOL 
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1987
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged motion at the desk.
MR. [MERVYN M.] DYMALLY [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend 
the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1447).
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, when I made the motion to instruct 
conferees before, there was then pending in the House a procedure to 
take up a specific bill under suspension of the rules and the Chair 
ruled that since that motion had preceded my motion to instruct 
conferees they were of equal dignity and the pending motion would 
proceed. Now I have achieved recognition before the motion to take up 
another bill on suspension, and now it would appear to this Member from 
California that from a parliamentary standpoint I should be recognized 
at this point to go forward on my motion, should I not?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will state to the distinguished 
gentleman from California that the Chair has the power of recognition 
and the Chair stated to the gentleman that today motions to suspend the 
rules have equal privilege with the gentleman's motion. Therefore, the 
Chair is going to dispose of the two suspensions as matters of equal 
privilege, and then the gentleman from California could be recognized 
for the purpose he seeks recognition.


[[page 555]]

Precedence of Previous Question Relative to an Amendment to Motion To 
Instruct
Sec.    9.6 The motion for the previous question takes precedence over an 
amendment to a motion to instruct conferees.
On July 24, 1973,(17) Mr. Robert D. Price, of Texas, offered a 
preferential motion to instruct the House conferees on S. 1888, the 
Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973. After Mr. Price moved 
the previous question on his motion, the following proceedings 
occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(18) The question is on ordering the previous question.
MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I have an 
amendment to the preferential motion.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that ordering the previous question 
is the business before the House at this time.
Effect of Amendment to Motion To Instruct
Sec.    9.7 Whether or not an amendment to a motion to instruct conferees 
replaces or leaves intact the original instructions depends on the form 
of the amendment.
On Nov. 15, 1983,(19) the previous question was rejected on an initial 
motion to instruct conferees on the appropriation bill for the 
Department of Defense, fiscal year 1984. The motion, made before the 
Speaker's appointment of conferees, was offered by a minority Member 
from the Committee on Appropriations.
An amendment to the motion was then offered by another minority Member. 
Because of the manner in which the amendment was drafted, it added 
further instructions to, and did not replace, those initially offered.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4185, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
APPROPRIATIONS, 1984
MR. [JOSEPH P.] ADDABBO [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4185) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1984, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference 
requested by the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     119 CONG. REC. 25539-41, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
19.     129 CONG. REC. 32685, 32686, 32688, 32689, 32693, 98th Cong. 1st 
Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 556]]

THE SPEAKER:(20) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New York?
There was no objection.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. YOUNG OF FLORIDA
MR. [C. W. (BILL)] YOUNG of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Young of Florida moves that the managers on the part of the House, 
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
bill H.R. 4185, be instructed to insist on the House position on Senate 
amendments numbered 188 and 191.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is recognized for 1 
hour.
MR. YOUNG of Florida: I would be happy to yield to the gentleman, but I 
would prefer to yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) 
because she had asked first. For the purpose of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey.
MRS. [MARGE] ROUKEMA [of New Jersey]: First a parliamentary inquiry, 
then debate, Mr. Speaker.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MRS. ROUKEMA: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(1) The gentlewoman will state it.
MRS. ROUKEMA: Mr. Speaker, what is the precise nature of the debate 
time?
The gentleman from Florida now controls the time. If the motion to 
instruct is defeated, will there then be time for debate controlled by 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter)?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: There is only one motion to instruct on which 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is proceeding. That is why he 
controls the time.
If the previous question is voted down, an amendment may be offered to 
the motion and would be debatable for 1 hour.
MRS. ROUKEMA: I thank the Chair. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [JAMES] WEAVER [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. WEAVER: Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is voted down and an 
amendment is then offered, the motion offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) would remain intact, would it not, if the amendment 
dealt with binary nerve gas?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It would depend on the amendment offered at 
the time, if there were such an amendment offered of any sort.
The question is on ordering the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
MR. YOUNG of Florida: 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
 1.     Dennis M. Hertel (Mich.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 557]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: 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 164, nays 
256, not voting 14, as follows: . . . 
So the previous question was not ordered. . . . 
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. PORTER TO THE MOTION OFFERED BY MR. YOUNG OF 
FLORIDA
MR. [JOHN EDWARD] PORTER [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
amendment to the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Porter to the motion offered by Mr. Young of 
Florida: At the end of the motion before the period on the last line 
add: "and to insist on disagreement to that part of the Senate 
amendment numbered 73 to 'Procurement of Ammunition, Army' which 
provides $124,400,000 for production facilities for and procurement of 
chemical munitions, and the accompanying provision."

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) to the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. PORTER: 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 PRO TEMPORE: 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 
166, not voting 10, as follows:
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to instruct, as 
amended, offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
The motion to instruct, as amended, was agreed to. 
Tabling Motion To Instruct
Sec.    9.8 A motion to lay on the table a motion to instruct House 
managers is in order.
On Feb. 28, 1950,(2) after the House adopted a motion to agree to the 
further conference requested by the Senate on S. 1008, a bill to define 
the application of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act 
to certain pricing practices, the following proceedings occurred:

MR. [JOHN A.] CARROLL [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Carroll moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference of the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill S. 
1008 be instructed to insist upon the House amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     96 CONG. REC. 2501-16, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 558]]

MR. [FRANCIS E.] WALTER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
motion to instruct conferees be laid on the table.
THE SPEAKER:(3) The question is on the motion of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania to lay on the table the motion to instruct conferees.

The motion to lay on the table the motion to instruct the House 
conferees was agreed to.
Sec.    9.9 A motion to instruct conferees is subject to the motion to 
table, which must be submitted in writing if any Member so demands.
The effort to respond to the Senate's request for a conference on S. 
21, the California Desert Protection Act of 1994, resulted in 
protracted proceedings in the House. Nine electronic votes, 17 motions, 
and several points of order intervened between the time the chairman of 
the Natural Resources Committee, George Miller, of California, was 
recognized to offer the motion to go to conference under Rule XX clause 
1,(4) and the Speaker's appointment of conferees some six hours later. 
The final steps in this long process are noted here.(5) 
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON S. 21, CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT 
OF 1994
MR. [JERRY] LEWIS of California: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Lewis of California moves to instruct the House conferees on the 
Senate 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, to insist on the following 
amendments of the House:
Section 102(l)-Argus Range Wilderness (Bill Thomas Amendment).
Section 112-Law Enforcement Access.
Section 113-Fish and Wildlife Management.
Section 208-Death Valley National Park Advisory Commission.
Section 308-Joshua Tree National Park Advisory Commission.
Title IV-Mojave National Preserve.
Section 416-Mojave National Preserve Advisory Commission.
Section 417-No Adverse Affect on Land Until Acquired.
Section 606-Native American Uses-Timbisha Shoshone Land Study.
Section 702-Authorization of Appropriations.
Section 703-Land Appraisal-Endangered Species Amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 4.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1997).
 5.     See 140 CONG. REC. 27655-57, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 4, 1994. 
For other proceedings relating to this conference, see also Sec.Sec. 
2.2-2.4, 2.12, supra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 559]]

Section 901-Buy American Act.

MR. LEWIS of California (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in 
the Record.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
MR. [GEORGE] MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read. . . . 
MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MR. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA
MR. MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the 
motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis].
 THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
moves to table the motion to instruct.
MR. LEWIS of California: Mr. Speaker, is it in writing?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis] that the motion to table is a preferential 
motion.
MR. LEWIS of California: Mr. Speaker, is the motion in writing?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The motion is in writing.
The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows: 

Mr. Miller of California moves to lay the motion to instruct on the 
table.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] to lay on the table the motion 
to instruct offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. LEWIS of California: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 274, noes 
147, not voting 13. . . . 
MR. MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the motion 
to table the motion to instruct.
MR. [BRUCE F.] VENTO [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the 
table the motion to reconsider.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] to lay on the table the motion to 
reconsider.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. [RANDY (DUKE)] CUNNINGHAM [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 271, noes 
142, not voting 21. . . . 
So the motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider was agreed 
to. . . . 
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     William J. Hughes (N.J.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 560]]

Sec.    9.10 When a motion to instruct House managers at a conference is
pending, a motion to lay that motion on the table is in order; if the 
motion to table is voted down, the question next occurs on ordering the 
previous question on the motion to instruct.
On Aug. 3, 1961,(7) Mr. James E. Van Zandt, of Pennsylvania, offered a 
motion to instruct the House conferees on H.R. 7576, authorizing 
appropriations for the Atomic Energy Commission. Af- ter debate had 
been completed thereon, Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, moved to lay 
that motion on the table. Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, then 
rose.

Mr. HALLECK: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(8) The gentleman will state it.
MR. HALLECK: Under the rules of the House, is this motion to table in 
order?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The motion is in order.
MR. HALLECK: If the motion to table is voted down, will the vote then 
come on the motion itself?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: On ordering the previous question on the 
motion.
Sec.    9.11 The House adopted a preferential motion to lay on the table 
a motion to instruct House conferees to agree to  a Senate amendment to 
a House bill.
On July 27, 1971,(9) the following proceedings occurred in regard to 
H.R. 9272, the 1972 appropriations bill for the Departments of State, 
Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies.

MR. [DON] EDWARDS of California: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Edwards of California moves that the managers on the part of the 
House in the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 
the bill (H.R. 9272) be instructed to agree to the amendment of the 
Senate numbered 35. . . .

MR. [JOHN J.] ROONEY of New York: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential 
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Rooney of New York moves to lay on the table the motion of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards).

THE SPEAKER:(10) The question is on the preferential motion offered by 
the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     107 CONG. REC. 14957-59, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 9.     117 CONG. REC. 27305-12, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 561]]

gentleman from New York (Mr. Rooney).

The motion to table was agreed to.(11) 
Sec.    9.12 The House rejected a preferential motion to lay on the table 
a motion to instruct the House managers at a conference, and then 
proceeded to agree to the motion to instruct.
On Dec. 18, 1969,(12) the House had just agreed to a request by Mr. 
Daniel J. Flood, of Pennsylvania, to agree to the conference requested 
by the Senate on H.R. 13111, appropriations for fiscal 1970 for the 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Department of Labor, 
and other related agencies. Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, then 
made the following motion:

Mr. Conte moves that the Managers on the part of the House, at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, H.R. 
13111, be instructed to agree to the amendments of the Senate numbered 
87 and 88.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Flood moves to lay on the table the motion of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).

THE SPEAKER:(13) The question is on the preferential motion. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 181, nays 216, not voting 
36. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
The motion was agreed to.

Sec.    9.13 The House rejected a preferential motion to lay on the table 
a motion to instruct House conferees, and then agreed to the motion to 
instruct its conference managers to insist on a provision in the House-
passed bill.
On July 9, 1970,(14) the House gave its consent to a request of Mr. 
Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New York, to disagree to the Senate amendments 
to H.R. 17070, the Postal Reform Act of 1970, and to request a 
conference with the Senate thereon. Mr. David N. Henderson, of North 
Carolina, then offered the following motion:

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Henderson moves that the managers on the part of the House at 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     See also 116 CONG. REC. 40271-89, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 8, 
1970.
12.     115 CONG. REC. 39826-30, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
13.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
14.     116 CONG. REC. 23525-28, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 562]]

the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, 
H.R. 17070, be instructed to insist on the provision beginning on page 
32, line 6, which reads as follows:
"(b) Each employee of the Postal Service has the right, freely and 
without fear of penalty or reprisal, to form, join, and assist a labor 
organization or to refrain from any such activity, and each employee 
shall be protected in the exercise of this right."

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

Mr. Dulski moves to lay on the table the motion offered by Mr. Henderson.

THE SPEAKER:(15) The question is on the motion to table offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Dulski). . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 154, nays 229, not voting 
48. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Henderson) is 
recognized.

After a brief discussion of his motion, Mr. Henderson moved the 
previous question thereon.

MR. HENDERSON: 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 North Carolina (Mr. Henderson). . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 228, nays 158, not voting 
45. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to.
Withdrawal of Motion To Instruct
Sec.    9.14 A motion to instruct the House managers at a conference 
was, after debate thereon, withdrawn.
On Dec. 11, 1969,(16) Mr. Charles A. Vanik, of Ohio, offered the 
following motion to instruct the House conferees on H.R. 13270, the Tax 
Reform Act of 1969:

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

Mr. Vanik moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill H.R. 
13270 be instructed to insist on the House provisions relating to the 
oil and gas depletion allowance and to provide tax relief by way of 
increased dependency exemptions.
 
After debate on the motion, it was withdrawn by Mr. Vanik:

MR. VANIK: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished chairman.(17) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
16.     115 CONG. REC. 38543-45, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Referring to Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.), Chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, who was a conferee on H.R. 13270. During the debate on 
Mr. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 563]]

The conferees and managers on the part of the House have our best 
wishes, and I ask that they speak for the average taxpayers of America 
who need to get some relief out of this tax program which will be 
before the conference.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my motion.
THE SPEAKER:(18) The gentleman from Ohio withdraws his preferential 
motion.
Example of Several Instructions Regarding Portions of Senate Substitute
Sec.    9.15 Where the Senate had amended a continuing appropriation bill 
with the text of five general bills not yet enacted, the House, when 
appointing conferees, entertained a motion to instruct its managers to 
agree to certain described Senate positions on specific issues 
addressed in the Senate substitute. 

H.R. 3019 was a "long-term" continuing appropriation bill. As of March 
21, 1996, the government was being funded under a "short-term" 
continuing resolution, which carried funding through Apr. 3, 1996.(19) 
The motion to instruct carried here was offered by the ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations but was defeated on a roll 
call vote of 194-207.
One of the major impediments to wrapping up the general appropriation 
bill for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare was 
an amendment offered by Mr. Ernest J. Istook, Jr., of Oklahoma, 
relating to family planning. Because of the special interest 
surrounding this bill, the Speaker appointed the subcommittee chairs 
and ranking members on all parts of the bill except for the Istook 
amendment, where only managers from the Labor, HHS subcommittee were 
named. The pertinent proceedings of Mar. 21, 1996,(20) are carried 
below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vanik's motion, Mr. Mills indicated that at the conference he 
intended to insist on those items referred to in the motion.
18.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
19.     H.J. Res. 165, passed by both the House and the Senate on Mar. 
21, 1996, carried the funding for those appropriation accounts not yet 
enacted into law until Apr. 3, 1996. This was the seventh in a series 
of nine joint resolutions passed by the House continuing appropriations 
for fiscal 1996. 
20.     142 CONG. REC. 6028, 6030, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 564]]

APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 3019, BALANCED BUDGET DOWN- PAYMENT 
ACT, II
MR. [ROBERT] LIVINGSTON [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3019) making 
appropriations for fiscal year 1996 to make a further downpayment 
toward a balanced budget, and for other purposes, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(1) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. OBEY
MR. [DAVID R.] OBEY [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
instruct.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference of the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment 
of the Senate to the bill, H.R. 3019, be instructed to:
(a) agree to the position in the Senate amendment increasing funding 
above the levels in the House bill for programs of the Department of 
Education;
(b) agree to the position in the Senate amendment increasing funding 
above the levels in the House bill for programs of the Environmental 
Protection Agency;
(c) agree to the position in the Senate amendment that provides a 
minimum of $975,000,000 from within the $1,903,000,000 provided for 
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants within the Department of Justice for 
the Public Safety and Community Policing grants pursuant to title I of 
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (COPS on the 
beat program);
(d) agree to the position in the Senate amendment increasing funding 
above the levels in the House bill for job training and worker 
protection programs of the Department of Labor;
(e) agree to the position in the Senate amendment deleting Title V of 
the House bill placing onerous new red tape requirements on Federal 
grantees; and
(f) agree to the position in the Senate amendment specifying a maximum 
grant award of $2500 under the Pell Grant Program; and
(g) agree to the position in the Senate amendment providing fiscal year 
1997 funding of $1,000,000,000 for the Low-Income Energy Assistance 
Program of the Department of Health and Human Services. . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees:
For consideration of the House bill (except for section 101(c)) and the 
Senate amendment (except for section 101(d)), and modifications 
committed to conference:
Messrs. Livingston, Myers of Indiana, Young of Florida, Regula, Lewis 
of California, Porter, Rogers, Skeen, and Wolf, Mrs. Vucanovich, and 
Messrs. Lightfoot, Callahan, Walsh, Obey, Yates, Stokes, Bevill, 
Murtha, Wilson, Dixon, Hefner, and Mollohan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Joel Hefley (Colo.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 565]]

For consideration of section 101(c) of the House bill, and section 101
(d) of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Porter, Young of Florida, Bonilla, Istook, Miller of Florida, 
Dickey, Riggs, Wicker, Livingston, Obey, Stokes, and Hoyer, Ms. Pelosi, 
and Mrs. Lowey.

There was no objection.
Example of a General Motion To Instruct Conferees
Sec.    9.16 Instructions to conferees may be specific or general; and 
managers on the part of the House have been urged, by a motion offered 
under the 20-day rule, "to meet with" the Senate conferees where no 
conference meeting had been scheduled.
Where the managers on the part of the House on the urgent supplemental 
appropriation bill for the Department of Agriculture, 1984, had been 
appointed for over 20 days without having a meeting with their Senate 
counterparts, a motion to instruct was offered under Rule XXVIII clause 
1(c).
The motion, made on May 2, 1984,(2) although not adopted by the House, 
is carried as an example of a "general" instruction to conferees.

MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(3) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Conte moves that the managers on the part of the House be 
instructed to meet with the managers on the part of the Senate on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on House Joint Resolution 492.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. CONTE: . . . I now give notice that whenever I yield during 
consideration of this motion, I yield for purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I have offered a motion which so far as I know is unique 
in the history of the House of Representatives; namely, to instruct 
conferees simply to go to conference.
Under clause B of rule 28 of the House, after conferees have been 
appointed for 20 calendar days, and have failed to make a report, it is 
highly privileged to move to instruct conferees, or to discharge and 
appoint new conferees.
This clause of rule 28 was intended to be used to break a deadlock 
between House and the Senate conferees.
The current situation, and the motion, are unique because we do not 
have a deadlock. We have not even had a conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     130 CONG. REC. 10732, 10733, 10735, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 566]]

On March 6, the House passed House Joint Resolution 492, which 
appropriated $150 million for food assistance for Africa through title 
II of Public Law 480, and made available another $90 million in 
commodities from the stocks of the Commodity Credit Corporation, for 
barter or sale on a competitive bid basis.
On April 5, the Senate passed that bill with 36 amendments, appointed 
conferees, and requested a conference with the House.
On April 11, I asked my chairman, in a letter and in a statement on the 
floor, to appoint conferees and to go to conference with the Senate 
before the Easter recess. Later that day we did appoint conferees, 6 
days after the Senate had passed the bill.
Three weeks later we have not gone to conference. . . .  
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the preferential motion.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the preferential motion 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Conte) there 
were-ayes 13, noes 10.
MR. [HAROLD L.] VOLKMER [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the 
vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of 
order that a quorum is not present.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: 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 159, nays 
245, not voting 29, as follows: . . .

Parliamentarian's Note: General motions to instruct are rare and have 
been viewed with some scepticism. A ruling by Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, 
of Tennessee, on Aug. 1, 1935,(4) held in order a motion to instruct 
conferees under the 20-day rule to hold a conference under "fair 
conditions."

"General" Motions To Instruct Conferees
Sec.    9.17 Motions to instruct House conferees are sometimes phrased as 
"general" instructions, not addressing specific provisions in the bill 
and amendment committed to conference but urging conferees to work 
toward the achievement of broad purposes. 
Any motion to instruct must urge action which is "within the scope of 
conference."
In this instance,(5) a prior example of a motion urging conferees to 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     79 CONG. REC. 12272, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5.     131 CONG. REC. 27366, 27367, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 11, 1985.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 567]]

"promptly report" had not been noted in recent precedents.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MICHEL
MR. [ROBERT H.] MICHEL [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Michel moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes on the two Houses on the joint 
resolution, H.J. Res. 372, be instructed to promptly report amendments 
to the Budget Control and Impoundment Act which provide mechanisms for 
deficit reductions, including specific and mandatory budget goals for 
achieving a balanced budget within the next 6 years.

THE SPEAKER:(6) The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel] is recognized 
for 1 hour.
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I would not expect to use the complete hour.
THE SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield a half hour to the Democratic 
side?
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 15 minutes for the 
moment and 15 minutes for our side and let us see where we go.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman want to ask unanimous consent that the 
debate be 30 minutes instead of 1 hour?
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to do anything that is going to 
upset some Members here, but if we can put a little bit of restraint--
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman intend to yield equal time to the 
opponents of the motion, if there is opposition?
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly intend that the time be 
equally divided.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel] is recognized for 
30 minutes and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski] is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mack].

Parliamentarian's Note: Another example of a "general" motion to 
instruct was offered to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, at the time the 
Speaker appointed conferees, on July 16, 1986.(7) That motion is 
carried here as an additional example of a nonspecific motion.

MR. [JOHN J.] DUNCAN [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Duncan moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing vote of the two houses on the bill, H.R. 
3838, be instructed to insist that the conference report result in:
1. A fair tax burden for all taxpayers, both corporate and individual, 
coupled with marginal tax rates no higher than the Senate bill.
2. Fair treatment of families in the lower and middle income groups, 
which requires a full $2,000 personal exemption for both itemizers and 
nonitemizers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
 7.     132 CONG. REC. 16703, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 568]]

3. Preservation of the House position with respect to individual 
retirement accounts to the extent consistent with preserving retirement 
and savings incentives for low and middle income taxpayers.
4. No net increase in Federal taxes.
Nature of Instructions to Conferees
Sec.    9.18 An initial motion to instruct conferees, before their 
appointment, has been targeted at the conference agenda, stating 
priorities with respect to the issues to be addressed.
The motion to instruct, which was not challenged as to its form or 
content, is carried as an example of a general motion.(8) 

MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2072) making 
dire emergency supplemental appropriations and transfers, urgent 
supplementals, and correcting enrollment errors for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1989, and for other purposes, with Senate 
amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER:(9) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Mississippi?
There was no objection.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. CONTE
MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Conte moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill H.R. 
2072 be instructed not to meet with the managers on the part of the 
Senate on other issues until resolution of supplemental funding for 
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
Whitten] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
Forms of Motion To Instruct on Budget Resolutions
Sec.    9.19 Form of a motion to recommit a conference report with 
instructions general in scope: to agree to a financing mechanism 
"within the scope of the conference" and which will permit early 
enactment of the bill into law.
On Aug. 3, 1989, the House ordered the previous question on H.R. 1278, 
when a motion to recommit was offered by the Major-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     135 CONG. REC. 11572, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1989.
 9.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 569]]

ity Leader. The form of the motion offered is carried below:(10) 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(11) Without objection, the previous question 
is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. MICHEL
MR. [ROBERT H.] MICHEL [of Illi-nois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
MR. MICHEL: Under the rule, I am obliged to say that I am, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Michel of Illinois moves to recommit the Conference Report to 
accompany the bill, H.R. 1278, to the committee of conference with 
instructions that the Managers on the part of the House agree to a 
financing mechanism which is properly within the scope of the 
conference and which will allow the bill to be signed into law as 
quickly as possible.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
MR. MICHEL: 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:(12) Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule XV, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote, by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the 
question of agreeing to the conference report.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 170, nays 
250, answered "present" 3, not voting 8. . . . 
Sec.    9.20 Where a motion to instruct conferees on a budget resolution 
called for a reduction in budget authority and outlays and at the same 
time called on the conferees to insist on the "highest level of 
funding" for defense, it protected the motion from a possible point-of-
order challenge by including the phrase that the levels had to be 
"within the scope of conference."
The construction of motions to instruct conferees on budget resolutions 
has become something of an art form. Some such motions are necessarily 
obtuse; others are specific. The inclusion of such a 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     See 135 CONG. REC. 18590, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
11.     John P. Murtha, Jr. (Pa.).
12.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 570]]

prophylactic phrase sometimes avoids an argument that the instruction 
cannot be effected without exceeding scope.(13) 
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H. CON. RES. 218, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON
THE BUDGET-FISCAL YEAR 1995
MR. [MARTIN OLAV] SABO [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (H. 
Con. Res. 218) setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. 
Government for the fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, with 
a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree 
to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(14) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. KASICH
Mr. Kasich moves that the managers on the part of the House to the 
conference on the disagreeing votes on H. Con. Res. 218, be instructed 
to agree to the Senate amendment reflecting a $26 billion reduction in 
the deficit over five years by agreeing to reduce the total spending 
levels specified in section 2(2) and 2(3) of the House-passed 
resolution as follows:
Fiscal year 1995-$4.4 billion in budget authority and $1.6 billion in 
outlays;
Fiscal year 1996-$4.9 billion in budget authority and $1.5 billion in 
outlays;
Fiscal year 1997-$5.8 billion in budget authority and $4 billion in 
outlays;
Fiscal year 1998-$9.9 billion in budget authority and $7 billion in 
outlays; and
Fiscal year 1999-$21.8 billion in budget authority and $9.9 billion in 
outlays.
Provided further, That conferees be instructed to agree to that portion 
of section 50 of the Senate amendment which provides that "If the 
President's defense budget request is approved, since 1985 real defense 
spending will have been reduced by 45 percent by 1999; and President 
Clinton, during his State of the Union Address on January 25, 1994, 
promised no further cuts in defense spending" and therefore insist that 
no further cuts be made in defense by agreeing to the highest possible 
level of funding for defense (within the scope of the conference).

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
Senate Motion To Instruct Conferees Regarding Meeting Location
Sec.    9.21 The Senate agreed to a motion to instruct conferees to call 
upon the managers to meet in certain designated rooms in the Capitol, 
to hold the meetings at times when the Senate was in session, and that 
the conference be open to the public and the press.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     See 140 CONG. REC. 7460, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 14, 1994.
14.     Walter R. Tucker III (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 571]]

The motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 3355, amending the Omnibus 
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, is carried here as an 
example of a motion direct-ed toward conference procedure rather than 
to resolving the matters in disagreement.(15) 
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES
MR. [JOSEPH R.] BIDEN [Jr., of Delaware]: I have a unanimous-consent 
agreement that has to be made before 4 o'clock. It will only take 30 
seconds. It relates to an agreement I made with my Republican colleague 
on a motion to instruct that I agreed to accept. But I am told it was 
never sent to the desk. It must be done by 4 o'clock.
I send a motion to instruct the conferees, a motion to instruct, 
submitted by Senators Hatch, Simpson, Dole, and Biden, and I ask for 
its immediate consideration.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there objection to setting aside the 
preceding motions?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion to instruct conferees is as follows:

Mr. Hatch, Mr. Simpson, and Mr. Dole move that the conferees on the 
part of the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
bill H.R. 3355 be instructed to insist that the committee of 
conference-
(1) hold all meetings in one of the following rooms:
(A) SR 325;
(B) SH 216; or
(C) SD 106;
(2) ensure that all of the meetings of the committee are open to the 
public and the print and electronic media; and
(3) hold all meetings during reasonable hours at times when the Senate 
is in session.

MR. BIDEN: Madam President, is the motion adopted? I urge the adoption 
of the motion. I ask unanimous consent that the motion be agreed to.
Form of "General" Motion To Instruct Conferees
Sec.    9.22 Illustration of a general motion to instruct conferees on an 
emergency supplemental appropriation bill to form a conference report 
which does not add to the national deficit.
Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to instruct carried below(16) is an 
example of a motion designed to give general policy direction to the 
conferees.
The motion to instruct is illustrative of a very general motion but one 
which could be adhered to by the conferees while remaining within the 
differences committed to the conference.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 889, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL 
APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     See 140 CONG. REC. 11181, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., May 19, 1994.
16.     See 141 CONG. REC. 9509, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 28, 1995.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 572]

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
MR. [ROBERT] LIVINGSTON [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 889) making 
emergency supplemental appropriations and rescissions to preserve and 
enhance the military readiness of the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, with 
Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree 
to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(17) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. OBEY
MR. [DAVID R.] OBEY [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, H.R. 
889, be instructed to form a conference agreement that does not add to 
the national deficit in the current fiscal year and cumulatively 
through fiscal year 1999.
Example of Instructions to Conferees To Take Specified Actions but 
"Remain Within Scope of Differences"
Sec.    9.23 Form of a general motion to instruct conferees to resolve 
differences on health insurance programs, referring to a program not 
covered in either version of the bill in conference, but protected 
against a Rule XXVIII clause 3 point of order by including in the 
motion the prophylactic mandate to "re-main within scope."
After the House had agreed to   a unanimous-consent request to send the 
bill H.R. 483 to conference, a motion to instruct the managers was 
offered as described above. The motion and some of the debate which 
illustrates the collateral uses of a motion to instruct are carried 
here.(18) 
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 483, MEDICARE SELECT EXPANSION
MR. [THOMAS J.] BLILEY [Jr., of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 483) to amend 
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit medicare select 
policies to be offered in all States, and for other purposes, with a 
Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and request 
a conference with the Senate thereon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     Frank D. Riggs (Calif.).
18.     141 CONG. REC. 14413-15, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., May 25, 1995.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 573]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(19) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. DOGGETT
MR. [LLOYD] DOGGETT [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Doggett 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 House bill, H.R. 483, be instructed to resolve the 
difference between the House's 81/2-year program and the Senate's 5-
year program of medicare select policies, within the scope of the 
conference, in light of the changes in Medicare-the program that 
medicare select policies supplement-to increase beneficiary cost-
sharing and to limit choice of provider as contemplated in this year's 
budget process.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes. . . . 
MR. [WILLIAM M.] THOMAS [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding time to me.
. . . What is in front of us is a motion to instruct conferees. The 
House passed 408 to 14 a measure to extend Medicare Select. Medicare 
Select is a so-called MediGap. It is one of those insurance policies 
available to folk to create a whole package around part A and part B 
Medicare. There are currently 10 MediGap insurance type policies that 
have been approved by the Department of Health and Human Services. 
Medicare select is simply an 11th offering.
. . . It is simply the 11th, the addition to 10 other small programs.
What the minority is trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is argue the entire 
Medicare issue on their motion to instruct. What a bizarre motion to 
instruct. It says that "will be instructed to resolve the differences 
between the House 81/2-year extension and the Senate 5-year extension 
of Medicare Select policies." Eight and one-half years, 5 years? The 
House bill that was passed said extend it for 5 years. The Senate bill 
that was passed said extend it for 18 months. Extension in the 
unabridged dictionary right over here says "An additional period of 
time from the current time;" adding time, an extension. Where in the 
world the Democrats got 81/2 years and 5 years as extensions is beyond 
me. . . . 
In addition, to make this motion germane, they say the scope of the 
conference, but what they really want to do is talk about the large 
program of Medicare.


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
C. INSTRUCTIONS TO CONFEREES; MOTIONS TO INSTRUCT
 
Sec.    10. When Instructions Are in Order After Agreeing to Conference

Sec.    10.1 A motion to instruct the House managers at a conference is 
in order after the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     Henry Bonilla (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 574]]

House has agreed to a conference and before the appointment of the 
conferees.
On July 24, 1973,(20) Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, offered a motion 
to take from the Speaker's table S. 1888, to amend and extend the 
Agricultural Act of 1970, with a House amendment thereto, insist on the 
House amendment and agree to a conference requested by the Senate.

THE SPEAKER:(1) The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Poage).
The motion was agreed to.
MR. [ROBERT D.] PRICE of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential 
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Price of Texas moves that the managers on the part of the House, at 
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill S. 1888, be 
instructed to insist on the provisions of paragraph (26) of section 1 
of the House amendment at page 38, lines 1 through 8 which read as 
follows:
"(B) by adding a new section 703 as follows:
".'Sec. 703. Title IV of such Act as amended by adding at the end 
thereof the following:
".'Sec. 411. No agricultural commodities shall be sold under title I or 
title III or donated under title II of this Act of North Vietnam, 
unless by an Act of Congress enacted subsequent to July 1, 1973, 
assistance to North Vietnam is specifically authorized.'." . . . 

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Price) to instruct conferees. . . . 
The vote was taken by electronic device; and there were-yeas 371, nays 
35, not voting 27. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to.(2) 
Proper Time To Offer Motion To Instruct
Sec.    10.2 A motion to instruct conferees is in order after the request 
to go to conference has been agreed to and before the Speaker appoints 
the conferees. 
Only one motion to instruct the House managers at a conference is in 
order at the time a bill is sent to conference. Recognition to offer 
this motion is the right of a member of the minority party; and the 
remedy of a Member denied recognition to offer a particular motion is 
to vote down the previous question on whatever motion is offered by 
another. The scenario played 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     119 CONG. REC. 25539-41, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 2.     See also 117 CONG. REC. 22406-30, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., June 28, 
1971; 115 CONG. REC. 38543-45, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 11, 1969; and 
113 CONG. REC. 34128-36, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 29, 1967.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 575]]

out on Dec. 16, 1974,(3) demonstrates the timing and use of a motion to 
instruct.

MR. [HAROLD T.] JOHNSON of California: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the House insist on its amendment to the Senate bill (S. 
3934) just passed, and request a conference with the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(4) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Johnson)?
MR. [EDWARD J.] KOCH [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the 
desk.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman object to the request of 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Johnson)?
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. KOCH: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. KOCH: The motion that I have at the desk is one to instruct the 
managers on the part of the House--
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New York reserves the right
to object. For what purpose now does the gentleman request the opinion 
of the Chair?
MR. KOCH: I would appreciate the Chair advising me whether this is the 
appropriate time to move to instruct the House conferees with respect 
to this bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would advise the gentleman that 
until the unanimous-consent request to send the bill to conference is 
granted, a motion to instruct would be premature; but if the gentleman 
would withdraw his reservation and if the request is granted, then a 
motion to instruct conferees would be in order.
MR. KOCH: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. HARSHA
MR. [WILLIAM H.] HARSHA [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The Clerk read as follows:

Motion offered by Mr. Harsha: Mr. Harsha moves that the managers on the 
part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses on the bill S. 3934, be instructed to insist upon paragraph (6) 
of section 102 and to insist upon section 110 of the House amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha) is 
recognized for 1 hour in support of his motion.
MR. HARSHA: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly not take 1 hour. This is a 
motion to instruct the conferees on the Highway Act of 1974, simply to 
instruct the conferees to insist upon the House provision on the so-
called rural highway provision on the off-system roads.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     120 CONG. REC. 40174, 40175, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     John J. McFall (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 576]]

MR. KOCH: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a brief statement?
MR. HARSHA: I will yield for the purposes of debate only.
MR. KOCH: Yes. As the gentleman knows, because he and I participated a 
few moments ago in the debate on suspension of the rules, I advised the 
body that what I wanted to do was to make certain that the House did 
not accept the Senate provision in the Senate bill with respect to 
increasing the weight of trucks. I said that the scenario we would see 
played out on this floor would be a preemption of my motion to instruct 
by a member of the committee, so as to make it impossible for me to do 
that. My only opportunity would then be to ask the House to vote down 
the previous question when the gentleman from Ohio or someone on that 
committee would make, as the gentleman did frame, in some innocuous 
way, a motion to instruct.
The scenario which I suggested, I think the gentleman would agree, has 
in fact occurred. I will ask the House  at the conclusion of the 
debate-hopefully, we will not go through the charade and agony for an 
hour-to vote down the previous question, so that then I will have an 
opportunity to move to instruct the House conferees to not accede to 
the Senate provision which would increase the weight of trucks from the 
existing 73,000 pounds to 80,000. . . . 
MR. HARSHA: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha).
MR. KOCH: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were refused.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha).
The motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Wright, Kluczynski, Johnson of California, 
Harsha, and Cleveland.
There was no objection.
Before Appointment of Conferees
Sec.    10.3 If a motion to request a conference under Rule XX clause 1 
is agreed to, a motion to instruct the managers on the part of the 
House is in order before the Speaker appoints the conferees.
On May 29, 1968,(5) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, sought unanimous 
consent to request a conference with the Senate on H.R. 5037, the Law 
Enforcement and Criminal Justice Assistance Act of 1967. Speaker John 
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, indicated that if an objection 
was heard, a duly-authorized motion to request this conference would be 
in order. Mr. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     114 CONG. REC. 15499, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 577]]

Richard H. Poff, of Virginia, then posed this parliamentary inquiry:

. . . [I]f that motion is made on the floor and is adopted on the 
floor, will it then be in order to make a motion to instruct the House 
conferees?
THE SPEAKER: Before the appointment of the conferees such a motion 
would be in order.
Sec.    10.4 A motion to instruct conferees on a bill being sent to 
conference is after the House agrees to send the bill to conference and 
before the Speaker appoints the conferees.
The proceedings associated with sending the International Financial 
Institutions Authorization Act (H.R. 5262) to conference on June 16, 
1977,(6) were as indicated.

MR. [HENRY S.] REUSS [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5262) to 
provide for increased participation by the United States in the 
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the 
International Development Association, the International Finance 
Corporation, the Asian Development Bank and the Asian Development Fund, 
and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the 
Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(7) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin? Hearing none, the Chair appoints the following conferees.
PRIVILEGED MOTION OFFERED BY MR. ROUSSELOT
MR. [JOHN H.] ROUSSELOT [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
privileged motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Rousselot of California moves that the Managers on the part of the 
House, at the Conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 
the bill H.R. 5262 be instructed to insist on the language of the House 
as follows:
SEC. 602. (a) The Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury 
shall initiate a wide consultation, beginning with the industrialized 
democracies, designed to develop a viable standard for the meeting of 
basic human needs and the protection of human rights, and a mechanism 
for acting together to insure that the rewards of international 
economic cooperation are especially available to those who subscribe to 
such standards and are seen to be moving toward making them effective 
in their own systems of governance.
(b) No later than one year from the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to 
the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives on the progress made in carrying out this section.

MR. REUSS: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     123 CONG. REC. 19414, 19415, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 578]]

THE SPEAKER: Under the rules the gentleman from California is entitled 
to 1 hour.
The gentleman from Wisconsin will state his point of order.
MR. REUSS: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the motion comes 
prematurely. I do not believe I heard the Speaker complete his listing 
of the conferees.
THE SPEAKER: The motion in the opinion of the Chair is in order. The 
conferees have not been named so the motion is in order. The point of 
order is not well taken.
The gentleman from California is entitled to 1 hour. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rousselot). The gentleman from California is entitled to 1 hour.
In view of the procedures we have been following, the Chair would 
entertain a unanimous-consent request to put this matter over until 
tomorrow. . . . 
Without objection, the gentleman's motion will be the unfinished 
business tomorrow.
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, will it be the first order of business tomorrow?
THE SPEAKER: That is right.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection?
There was no objection. 
Motion for Conference Disposed of Before Instructions Are Considered
Sec.    10.5 A motion to instruct conferees on the part of the House is 
not in order until the House has voted to go to conference.
On Mar. 3, 1970,(8) Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of Pennsylvania, offered a 
motion to agree to the conference requested by the Senate on H.R. 
15931, the 1970 appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor and 
Health, Education, and Welfare. Before the House could consider Mr. 
Flood's motion, Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, made a point of order 
that a quorum was not present. A call of the House was then ordered 
pursuant to a motion by Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma.
After this quorum call, the following occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(9) The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. CONTE: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk, and as I was about 
to offer the motion the gentleman from Missouri raised the point of 
order that a quorum was not present, and that 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     116 CONG. REC. 5722, 5723, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 9.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 579]]

was the status of the House at the time that the quorum was called.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard? My reason for addressing the 
Chair was--
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will ask the gentleman from Massachusetts: Does 
he make a point of order that a quorum is not present?
MR. CONTE: No. The gentleman from Massachusetts states he was on his 
feet seeking recognition as the Clerk read the motion of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Hall) raised the point of order that a quorum was not present. We are 
standing in this position at this time.
THE SPEAKER: If the gentleman has a point of order, he can state it 
now.
MR. CONTE: I have a motion at the desk to instruct the conferees.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that is not in order at this 
particular moment. It will be in order later, after the motion of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) is acted on.
MR. CONTE: I want to thank the Chair.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) is recognized 
for 1 hour.
Requests To Move To Instruct at Future Time
Sec.    10.6 The House granted unanimous consent that on a future day it 
would be in order to make two motions to instruct the managers on the 
part of the House who had been appointed two weeks earlier.
On Sept. 13, 1944,(10) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [ROBERT L.] DOUGHTON [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that it may be in order on Monday next(11) for me to 
make two motions to instruct the managers on the part of the House at 
the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill 
(S. 2051) entitled "An act to amend the Social Security Act, as 
amended, to provide a national program for war mobilization and 
reconversion, and for other purposes." . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(12) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from North Carolina?
There was no objection.

Parliamentarian's Note: In this case there appeared to be a deadlock in 
conference just before an adjournment to a day certain. In order to 
expedite the matter, the above request was made, the two motions (to 
instruct the conferees to insist on their disagreement to two 
amendments of the Senate to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
of the House for the Senate bill) were later agreed 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     90 CONG. REC. 7731, 7732, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. 
11.     Sept. 18, 1944.
12.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 580]]

to,(13) the Senate conferees abided by the action of the House,(14) and 
the bill was finally adopted.
Since the conferees had been appointed on Aug. 31,(15) it was necessary 
to obtain unanimous consent to offer any motion to instruct the 
conferees at this time, because such motions to instruct subsequent to 
the appointment of conferees, made pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), 
would not be in order until Sept. 20.
Resolution Requesting Conference as Precluding Motion To Instruct
Sec.    10.7 The adoption of a resolution asking for a conference does 
not preclude a motion to instruct the House managers.
On Oct. 31, 1939,(16) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
recognized Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois.

MR. SABATH: Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 320, which I send 
to the desk and ask to have read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. RES. 320
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, the 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 306), the Neutrality Act of 1939, with 
Senate amendments thereto, be, and the same is hereby, taken from the 
Speaker's table to the end that the amendments of the Senate be, and 
the same are hereby, disagreed to and a conference is requested with 
the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.

MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Illinois yield for a parliamentary 
inquiry?
MR. SABATH: Yes.
MR. RANKIN: To ask whether or not the resolution will shut off the 
right to offer a motion to instruct the conferees?
THE SPEAKER: It will not. The resolution now pending makes it in order 
to consider such matters as that propounded by the gentleman from 
Mississippi. If the resolution is adopted, it will in no way prohibit 
subsequent proceedings, or offering a motion to instruct the conferees, 
or amendments thereto.

Unanimous Consent To Agree to Conference Does Not Preclude Motion To 
Instruct
Sec.    10.8 The granting of a unanimous-consent request 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     90 CONG. REC. 7822, 7829, 7830, 7840, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 
18, 1944.
14.     See the statement of the House managers at 90 CONG. REC. 8016, 
78th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 20, 1944.
15.     Id. at p. 7473.
16.     85 CONG. REC. 1092, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 581]]

to disagree to the Senate amendments to a House bill and agree to a 
conference with the Senate does not preclude a later motion to instruct 
the managers on the part of the House to insist on disagreement to a 
particular Senate amendment.
On Oct. 9, 1969,(17) the House granted unanimous consent to take H.R. 
11612, the 1970 appropriations bill for the Department of Agriculture 
and related agencies, from the Speaker's table, with Senate amendments 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference 
asked by the Senate. After Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, 
offered a motion to instruct the House conferees to insist on its 
disagreement to a particular Senate amendment, Mr. Jamie L. Whitten, of 
Mississippi, rose with a point of order.

THE SPEAKER:(18) The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. WHITTEN: The bill itself will show that the so-called Conte 
amendment was stricken out by the Senate on page 23 of the bill as 
printed by the Senate. It is identified as amendment 37 of the Senate.
I would call the attention of the Speaker to the fact that the 
unanimous-consent request I asked for, and which was accepted, called 
on the conferees to disagree to the amendments of the Senate. So we 
have, by unanimous consent, just instructed the conferees to disagree 
to the Senate amendments, of which amendment 37 is one, so any further 
instruction would be superfluous and would be out of order, because we 
have by unanimous consent agreed that the conferees would disagree to 
the Senate amendments, of which the Conte amendment repeal is one.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Massachusetts desire to be heard 
on the point of order?
MR. CONTE: I believe the point of order is out of order, Mr. Speaker. 
Certainly the gentleman is putting the cart before the horse.
The House has a right to work its will here and to instruct the 
conferees in any manner it pleases. The only thing we have before us 
now is the unanimous consent to go to conference and to appoint 
conferees. At this point any Member can get up to ask for instruction 
of conferees to go to conference and sustain and substantiate the will 
of the House in regard to this particular amendment.
Therefore, I feel the Chair should overrule the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule.
This question has been passed upon on a number of occasions, and the 
Chair calls attention to previous rulings made on this same question to 
be found in Cannon's Procedure, page 126:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     115 CONG. REC. 29315, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 582]]

Adoption of a motion to disagree or to insist on disagreement to a 
Senate amendment does not preclude consideration of subsequent motions 
instructing conferees to take other action on such amendments or parts 
thereof, and the question as to whether a motion to instruct is 
inconsistent with action previously taken is a question for the House, 
and not the Chair. (Cannon Precedents VIII 3237-9, 3230)

The Chair overrules the point of order.
Naming Conferees but Preserving a Motion To Instruct
Sec.    10.9 By unanimous consent, the House reserved to the minority the 
right to make an initial motion to instruct conferees on a date certain 
a week following the Speaker's appointment of the conferees.
The purpose of this request was to accommodate the minority who had 
indicated a desire to instruct the managers on one portion of the 
measure being sent to conference.(19) 

MR. [DAVID R.] OBEY [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that notwithstanding the Speaker's appointment of conferees on 
H.R. 5, that one motion to instruct conferees be in order on Wednesday, 
February 17, 1988.
THE SPEAKER:(20) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
C. INSTRUCTIONS TO CONFEREES; MOTIONS TO INSTRUCT
 
Sec.    11. Recognition To Offer; Debate 

Minority Prerogative
Sec.    11.1 Recognition to offer a motion to instruct House conferees is 
the prerogative of the minority, and the Speaker recognizes the ranking 
minority member of the committee reporting the bill when that member 
seeks recognition to offer the motion.
On Oct. 19, 1971,(1) after the House agreed to a motion to send H.R. 
8687, the military procurement authorization bill, fiscal 1972, to 
conference, Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. Leslie C. 
Arends, a Republican from Illinois.(2) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     See 134 CONG. REC. 1199, 100th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 8, 1988.
20.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
 1.     117 CONG. REC. 36832-35, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     See also 85 CONG. REC. 1104, 76th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 31, 1939.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 583]]

MR. ARENDS: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
MS. [BELLA] ABZUG [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Chair, according to the precedents 
as I read them, on 784,(3) the minority have no special privileges as 
to asking for instructions as to the conferees. I want to know what the 
point of order is in recognizing the minority on this motion.
THE SPEAKER: This is under the precedents of the House, I will ad-   
vise the gentlewoman, starting with Speaker Cannon and consistently so 
held since then.
The Clerk will report the motion offered by the gentleman from 
llinois.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Arends moves that the managers on the part of the House, at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill H.R. 
8687, are hereby instructed not to agree to any portions of the text of 
the Senate amendment that is not germane to the House bill, H.R. 8687.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 1 hour.
Recognition for Motions To Instruct
Sec.    11.2 While recognition to offer an "initial" motion to instruct 
House conferees is the prerogative of the minority party, if two 
minority members of a committee having jurisdiction over a matter seek 
recognition to offer motions to instruct, the Speaker recognizes the 
more senior member of that committee. 
The Speaker had appointed conferees on H.R. 5, the School Improvement 
Act, several days previously, pursuant to a special order granted by 
the House.(4) A motion to instruct was therefore anticipated on this 
day, but the Speaker had hoped to defer recognition until after the 
one-minute period. 
On an earlier occasion, when Speaker O'Neill was confronted with a 
conflict between a Member who wished to offer a question of privilege 
during the "one-minute period," he had continued to entertain one-
minute requests, on the theory that even privileged motions could be 
delayed as long as the House granted unanimous consent for a 
nonprivileged speech.(5) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     Referring to 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6525, p. 784, does not 
support Ms. Abzug's contention, as it relates only to recognition to 
ask for conferences, not to recognition for motions to instruct 
conferees.
 4.     See 134 CONG. REC. 1224, 100th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 9, 1988.
 5.     See the proceedings of July 10, 1985, where Speaker Thomas P. 
O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that un-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 584]]

The proceedings, as excerpted from the Congressional Record of Feb. 17, 
1988,(6) and carried here, illustrate not only the Speaker's power of 
recognition, but how it is exercised and when a Member actually is 
recognized and entitled to the floor. 
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 5, SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1987
THE SPEAKER:(7) For what purpose does the gentleman from California 
seek recognition?
MR. [WILLIAM E.] DANNEMEYER [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
motion at the desk to instruct conferees.
THE SPEAKER: For what purpose does the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Madigan] rise?
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
MR. [EDWARD R.] MADIGAN [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that before any 
consideration would be given to a motion to instruct conferees that the 
Speaker was going to conclude the 1-minute speeches.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair would like to accommodate Members seeking to be 
heard on the 1-minute rule but under the rule a motion such as would be 
proposed, as the Chair understands it, to instruct conferees would take 
precedence if a Member sought to press that matter at this time and 
under the rule would be more privileged.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, that is my request.
MR. MADIGAN: Further pursuing my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, 
does the Chair then as a matter of custom in the House recognize people 
on the basis of seniority with regard to committee assignments on 
matters such as this?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct. If two or more Members seek 
recognition for motions of equal privilege, it would be the custom of 
the Chair to recognize the Member most senior on the committee of 
jurisdiction.
MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Speaker, the Speaker has just described my situation. 
I am the senior member and pursuant to a previous order of the House I 
have a motion at the desk.
MR. DANNEMEYER: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Since the Speaker previously recognized this Member and 
this Member responded that I have a motion at the desk to instruct 
conferees and I choose to go forward with it at this time pursuant to a 
unanimous-consent request of last week, does that 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
der his power of recognition in Rule XIV clause 2, he could continue to 
entertain unanimous consent requests pending recognition for a question 
of privilege, since unanimous-consent requests, if granted, can waive 
standing rules unless Members lodge an objection. 
 6.     134 CONG. REC. 1583, 1584, 1589, 1590, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 585]]

not give this Member since I was recognized for that purpose priority 
to proceed at this time?
THE SPEAKER: Well, the gentleman is correct, the gentleman did seek 
recognition for the purpose of making a motion and then the gentleman 
from Illinois rose with a parliamentary inquiry and the Chair 
recognized the gentleman from Illinois for that purpose. And it is the 
Chair's understanding that each of the two gentlemen standing desires 
to offer a motion to instruct conferees. Is that correct?
MR. DANNEMEYER: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
MR. MADIGAN: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Well, the Chair, under those circumstances, following the 
general precedents of the House would recognize the more senior 
minority member of the two minority members on the committee of 
jurisdiction.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry. I 
appreciate that the Speaker is hesitating a little with respect to his 
tentative decision, but this Member actually was recognized before my 
colleague from Illinois was recognized and I would think on that basis 
that this Member should have priority for making this motion.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman's motion had not been placed before the 
House. The gentleman had sought recognition and the Chair had said, 
"For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?" The gentleman 
from California had said, "For the purpose of offering a motion to 
instruct conferees."
MR. DANNEMEYER: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: And the Chair was about to ask the Clerk to report the 
motion when the gentleman from Illinois stood and sought recognition. 
The Chair said to the gentleman from Illinois, "For what purpose does 
the gentleman rise?"
MR. DANNEMEYER: If I may further be heard on my inquiry, if I 
understand the gentleman from Illinois correctly, he achieved 
recognition on the basis of a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MADIGAN
MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to a previous order of the House, I 
offer a motion.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Madigan moves that the managers on the part of the House appointed 
for consideration of section 7003 of the Senate amendment to H.R. 5 be 
instructed to agree to language that offers a solution to the dial-a-
porn problem.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, when a motion to instruct conferees is 
pending, as is the situation with the gentleman from California having 
made such a motion, is it in order for the House to then consider 
another motion to instruct conferees?


[[Page 586]]

THE SPEAKER: Is the gentleman asking would it be in order for him to 
offer an amendment to the motion?
MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is advised that the gentleman from California 
could offer an amendment to the motion of the gentleman from Illinois 
but only if the previous question were voted down. If the previous 
question on the motion of the gentleman from Illinois should be 
ordered, then his motion would have to be voted upon without 
intervening motion.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, if I might be heard further on my 
parliamentary inquiry, I do not quite see how we could get to the point 
where we could consider the motion offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois to instruct conferees when, at the time the gentleman from 
Illinois is making his motion, there is already a motion by this 
gentleman from California to instruct conferees pending at the desk. 
And I have not withdrawn that motion.
THE SPEAKER: The motion of the gentleman from California had not been 
stated and was not pending before the House. The gentleman had sought 
recognition for the purpose of offering a motion to instruct conferees. 
The gentleman from Illinois asked, on a parliamentary inquiry, in a 
situation involving two minority Members, each seeking recognition for 
the purpose of offering a motion to instruct conferees, as to which of 
the two Members under the precedents would be recognized. The Chair 
replied that the senior of the two on the Committee of Jurisdiction, 
under the precedents, would be recognized, and the gentleman from 
Illinois offered a motion, he being the senior of those seeking 
recognition for the purpose of offering a motion. 
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the indulgence of 
the House for the purpose of having the record read back for the 
purpose of determining whether this gentleman from California was 
recognized for the purpose of making a motion to instruct conferees.
MR. DINGELL: I would have an objection, Mr. Speaker. I would have to 
observe that I think that is a unanimous-consent request, and it is 
taking a great amount of the time of the House at a time when we have 
other business pending. I would have to object.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Illinois, and 
the gentleman's motion has been read and is now pending before the 
House. The gentleman is entitled to 1 hour on the motion.
MR. DANNEMEYER: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
What happened to my motion?
MR. MADIGAN: It was never read.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Yes, it was.
MR. [GERALD B. H.] SOLOMON [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, he was 
recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment, and the record 
will show that.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state again the situation.
The gentleman from California sought recognition. The Chair asked the 
purpose of his seeking recognition, and he said he sought recognition 
for the purpose of offering a motion to instruct conferees. The motion 
was not made prior to the rising of the gentle-


[[Page 587]]

man from Illinois to ask by unanimous consent if it were proper to 
entertain such a motion before the completion of the 1-minute 
unanimous-consent requests. The Chair replied that the Chair would 
prefer to accommodate Members seeking to be heard under the 1-minute 
rule first and then entertain the motion, but that the motion really 
does have priority under the rules to a unanimous-consent request to be 
heard for 1 minute, and that if the gentleman insists upon offering the 
motion at that time, the Chair would entertain the motion.
Then the gentleman from Illinois asked if two Members, each desiring to 
offer such a motion, were simultaneously to seek recognition, which of 
two Members should be recognized under the precedents of the House, and 
the Chair replied: The senior of the two on the Committee of 
Jurisdiction.
MR. DANNEMEYER: At that point, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the Chair's 
own analysis, with all due respect, when I stood for recognition, there 
was not someone else asking for recognition. It was not done 
simultaneously.
MR. DINGELL: Mr. Speaker, may I call for the regular order?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is trying to preserve the regular order and 
thinks that the Members are entitled to understand exactly what is 
going on and are entitled to ask questions and to be accommodated to 
the extent of the Chair's ability to accommodate them.
The fact is that two Members sought recognition for the same kind of 
motion, for a motion to instruct conferees. The motions having equal 
precedence and priority, the question arose as to which of the two 
Members should be recognized for the purpose of making a motion. The 
Chair replied that the precedents hold that the senior of the two or 
more Members seeking recognition is entitled to be recognized. The 
gentleman from Illinois asked then to be recognized for the purpose of 
offering that motion. The Chair recognized the gentleman from Illinois. 
The motion has been read. The motion offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois to instruct conferees on H.R. 5 is the pending order of 
business.
The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Madigan] is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. . 
. . 
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on my motion to instruct.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on ordering the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
MR. DANNEMEYER: 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 200, nays 
179, not voting 54, as follows: . . . 
So the previous question was ordered. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(8) The question is on the motion to instruct 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 588]]

offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Madigan].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. MADIGAN: 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 382, nays 
0, not voting 51, as follows: . . . 
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
Sec.    11.3 Where two members of the committee having jurisdiction over 
a bill seek recognition for a motion to instruct conferees, the Speaker 
gives recognition to the member of the minority.
On Oct. 31, 1939,(9) after the House agreed to a resolution to send 
House Joint Resolution 306, the Neutrality Act of 1939, to conference, 
the following proceedings occurred:

Mr. Shanley and Mr. Fish rose.(10) 
MR. SHANLEY: Mr. Speaker, I send to the Clerk's desk a motion to 
instruct the conferees.
THE SPEAKER:(11) The gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] is entitled to 
be recognized if he so desires.
MR. FISH: Mr. Speaker, I gladly yield to the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shanley] because he has a similar motion. I yield to him to offer 
the motion to instruct the conferees.
Hour Rule Applies on Debate on Motion To Instruct
Sec.    11.4 A motion to instruct the managers on the part of the House 
at a conference is debatable under the hour rule.
On July 2, 1946,(12) after the House granted unanimous consent to agree 
to the conference requested by the Senate on H.R. 6777, the 1947 
government corporations appropriation bill, Mr. Robert F. Rich, of 
Pennsylvania, offered a motion to instruct the House conferees. Mr. 
Harold D. Cooley, of North Carolina, was then recognized for the 
purpose of propounding a parliamentary inquiry.

MR. COOLEY: Do the rules of the House permit a discussion of the motion 
just made?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     85 CONG. REC. 1092, 1104, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
10.     Mr. James A. Shanley, a Democrat from Connecticut, and Mr. 
Hamilton Fish, Jr., a Republican from New York, were both members of 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
11.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
12.     92 CONG. REC. 8181-92, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 589]]

THE SPEAKER:(13) It is debatable under the 1-hour rule.(14) 

Controlling Debate Time on Motion To Instruct (Practice Prior to 1989)
Sec.    11.5 Prior to 1989, a Member recognized to offer a motion to 
instruct House conferees controls one hour of debate on the motion.
On July 9, 1970,(15) after Mr. Donald W. Riegle, of Michigan, offered a 
motion to instruct House conferees on H.R. 15628, the Foreign Military 
Sales Act of 1970, the following proceedings occurred:

MR. [WAYNE L.] HAYS [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(16) The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. HAYS: Mr. Speaker, in the event a motion to table the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Riegle) is not made, and 
there is an hour's debate on the motion, who will control the time?

THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Riegle) will control the time.(17) 

Parliamentarian's Note: In 1989, the House amended Rule XXVIII clause 1
(b) to provide for a division of time between minority and majority 
parties.(18) 
Yielding Debate Time (Precedents Before 1989)
Sec.    11.6 A Member making a motion to instruct House conferees is 
recognized for one hour, and may yield a portion of that time to 
another Member.
On Dec. 8, 1970,(19) after the House granted unanimous consent to agree 
to the conference requested by the Senate on H.R. 17755, the 1971 
appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation and related 
agencies, the following occurred:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
14.     See also 95 CONG. REC. 11139-43, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 9, 
1949.
15.     116 CONG. REC. 23524, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
16.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
17.     See also 118 CONG. REC. 7540, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 8, 1972; 
117 CONG. REC. 36832-35, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 1971; and 109 
CONG. REC. 12294-96, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., July 9, 1963.
18.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a (1997); for modern practice, 
see Sec. 11.8.
19.     116 CONG. REC. 40271, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 590]]

MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Yates moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill H.R. 
17755 be instructed to agree to Senate amendment No. 4.

THE SPEAKER:(20) The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) is recognized 
for 1 hour.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to my good friend, the very 
able gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.(1) 
Sec.    11.7 A Member who offered the motion and controlled the one hour 
of debate on a motion to instruct conferees yielded one half of his 
time to the opposition.
On Aug. 29, 1962,(2) Mr. James E. Van Zandt, a Republican from 
Pennsylvania, offered a motion to instruct the House managers at the 
conference on H.R. 11974, authorizing appropriations relating to the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

THE SPEAKER:(3) The gentleman from  Pennsylvania is recognized for 1 
hour.
MR. VAN ZANDT: Mr. Speaker, I will yield half my time, 30 minutes, to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Holifield],(4) the distinguished 
chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.
Controlling Debate Time on Motion To Instruct (Modern Practice)
Sec.    11.8 Where a motion to instruct conferees is being debated, with 
time divided between the majority and minority parties as provided by 
the rule, neither a motion for the previous question or the more 
preferential motion to lay on the table can be used in derogation of 
the Members' control of the time. 
While a motion to table a motion to instruct can be offered immediately 
after the motion is reported, once debate has commenced, the parties 
allocated time under Rule XXVIII clause 1(b)(5) are entitled to use 
their time. The proceedings of Mar. 18, 1992,(6) are illustrative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 1.     See also 95 CONG. REC. 11139-45, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 9, 
1949.
 2.     108 CONG. REC. 18029, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 4.     Mr. Holifield was a Democrat.
 5.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a (1997).
 6.     138 CONG. REC. 6018, 6022-24, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 591]]

APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4210, TAX FAIRNESS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 
ACCELERATION ACT OF 1992
MR. [DAN] ROSTENKOWSKI [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4210) to amend 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for increased 
economic growth and to provide tax relief for families, with Senate 
amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(7) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. ARCHER
MR. [BILL] ARCHER [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Archer moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate 
amendments to the bill H.R. 4210 be instructed not to agree to either 
those provisions in section 3001 of the Senate amendments which would 
impose a new tax rate of 36 percent on individuals, or those provisions 
in sections 3001 and 3002 of the House bill which would impose a new 
tax rate of 35 percent on individuals and increase the alternative 
minimum tax rate for individuals, as those provisions are committed to 
conference.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] will be recognized 
for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].
MR. ARCHER: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. . . 
. 
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. WALKER
MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
privileged motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Walker moves to lay on the table the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is a preferential motion, but it is not 
in order until debate has been concluded.
Who yields time?
MR. ARCHER: Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further requests for 
time, and I move the previous question.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I renew my privileged motion.
MR. ROSTENKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] yields 
back the balance of his time.
MR. ROSTENKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, how much time does this gentleman from 
Illinois have?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rosten-     
kowski] has 21 minutes remaining.
MR. ARCHER: Mr. Speaker, I did not yield back the balance of my time. I 
said I have no further requests for time and I move the previous 
question.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman cannot move the previous 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 592]]

question while the gentleman from Illinois still has time.
MR. ARCHER: In that event, then, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] reserves 
the balance of his time, which happens to be 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski]. . . . 
MR. ARCHER: Mr. Speaker, may I ask if the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Rostenkowski] has further requests for time?
MR. ROSTENKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
MR. ARCHER: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. . . 
. 
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
MR. ROSTENKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I, too, yield back the balance of my 
time.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I renew my preferential motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Walker moves to lay on the table the motion to instruct offered by 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] to lay on the table the motion 
to instruct offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer]. . . . 
So the motion to table the motion to instruct was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Three-way Allocation of Debate Time on Motion To Instruct
Sec.    11.9 Where both the manager of the bill and the proponent of a 
motion to instruct conferees are in favor of the motion, the Chair 
allocates the time equally between three persons, the proponent of the 
motion, the Member handling the bill in the other party, and a Member 
who rises in opposition to the motion; and it is the proponent who has 
the right to close the debate. 
Rule XXVIII clause 1(b)(8) dictates the division of time to be applied 
to debate on a motion to instruct conferees. This was the allocation 
applied on Aug. 1, 1994,(9) when a motion to instruct was offered to 
H.R. 4506, the energy and water appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1995.

MR. [JOHN T.] MYERS of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a (1997).
 9.     140 CONG. REC. 18860, 18866, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 593]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Myers of Indiana moves that the managers on the part of the House 
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 4506 be instructed to insist upon 
the provisions contained in the House bill under the heading "General 
Science and Research Activities" that provide $279,399,000 for high 
energy physics facility operating expenses.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Sharp] rise?
MR. [PHILIP R.] SHARP [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition 
to the motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] in 
opposition to the motion?
MR. [TOM] BEVILL [of Alabama]: No, Mr. Speaker, I am supportive of the 
motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will divide the time in thirds, each 
Member receiving 20 minutes, one-third of the time.
The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] is recognized for 20 minutes.
MR. MYERS of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I am going to use the 4 minutes I have remaining in order 
to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(11) The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] has 
the right to close.
MR. SHARP: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut].
MR. [ERIC D.] FINGERHUT [of Ohio]: I thank the gentleman for yielding 
this time to me. . . . 
Right To Close Debate, Motion To Instruct
Sec.    11.10 The proponent of a motion to instruct conferees has the 
right to close debate thereon where debate is divided between the 
parties as provided in Rule XXVIII clause 1(b).
The pertinent clause in Rule XXVIII(12) was adopted in the 101st 
Congress.(13) Before this amendment was included in the rule, debate on 
a motion to instruct was under the hour rule, controlled by the 
proponent.(14) 
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES TO HOUSE AMENDMENTS TO SENATE AMENDMENT TO 
H.R. 3355
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Benjamin L. Cardin (Md.).
11.     Alcee L. Hastings (Fla.).
12.     Clause 1(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a (1997).
13.     See H. Res. 5 at 135 CONG. REC. 72, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 
3, 1989.
14.     See the proceedings at 140 CONG. REC. 8197, 8199, 103d Cong. 2d 
Sess., Apr. 21, 1994.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 594]]

MR. [JACK] BROOKS [of Texas]: Madam Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 401, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Brooks moves that the House insist on its amendments to the Senate 
amendment to the bill H.R. 3355 and request a conference with the 
Senate thereon.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(15) The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
The motion was agreed to.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES
MR. [BILL] MCCOLLUM [of Florida]: Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to 
instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. McCollum moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3355 be instructed 
to insist on the provision of the House amendment that authorizes $10.5 
billion for grants for State prison construction and operation and 
agree to the provisions of the Senate that requires States to change 
their laws to require that defendants serve at least 85 percent of the 
sentence ordered.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
MR. MCCOLLUM: Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. MCCOLLUM: Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. MCCOLLUM: Madam Speaker, do I as the proponent of this motion have 
the right to close debate?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct.
Debate on Motions To Instruct; Right To Close
Sec.    11.11 Where debate on a motion to instruct conferees is equally 
divided between the majority and the minority parties, the proponent of 
the motion has the right to close.
When a motion to instruct conferees is offered in the House, the 
division of time is governed by Rule XXVIII clause 1(b).(16) While the 
rule does not address which Member has the right to close, the standard 
practice in the House is that the proponent of the motion has that 
right, as indicated by the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     Barbara B. Kennelly (Conn.).
16.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 595]]

proceedings of Nov. 21, 1991,(17) shown in the following excerpt: 
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES OFFERED BY MR. SENSENBRENNER
MR. [F. JAMES] SENSENBRENNER [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Sensenbrenner moves that the managers on the part of the House at 
the conference on the disagreeing vote of the two Houses on the bill 
H.R. 3371, be instructed to accept the Senate position on certain 
firearms provisions in the Senate-passed crime bill, S. 1241, namely 
sections 207 and 1213 of that bill.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(18) The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Edwards] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
MR. SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, am I correct that I have the right to close?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Wisconsin does have the 
right to close.
Sec.    11.12 The proponent of a motion to instruct conferees has the 
right to close the debate on the motion. 
On July 28, 1994,(19) immediately after the request to go to conference 
was agreed to, a motion to instruct the conferees to insist on a 
certain House provision submitted to conference was offered by a 
minority Member.(20) After the Chair(1) had announced the division of 
time between the proponent of the motion and the chairman of the House 
Subcommittee on District of Columbia Appropriations,(2) Mr. Walsh 
inquired of the Chair about the right to close the debate. Proceedings 
were as follows:
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4649, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995; AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUPPLEMENTAL 
APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT, 1994
MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4649) making appropriations for the 
government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable 
in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, with 
Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     137 CONG. REC. 33344, 33346, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
19.     See 140 CONG. REC. 18405, 103d Cong. 2d Sess. (H.R. 4649).
20.     James T. Walsh (N.Y.).
 1.     Ted Strickland (Ohio).
 2.     Julian C. Dixon (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 596]]

amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. WALSH
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Walsh of New York moves that the managers on the part of the House 
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
bill H.R. 4649, be instructed to insist on the House position on 
amendment numbered 16, reducing the D.C. budget by $150 million.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dixon] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, do we have the right to close debate?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The proponents of the motion will have the 
right to close the debate.
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Yielding for Amendment
Sec.    11.13 A Member  controlling the time for debate on his motion to 
instruct House managers at a conference loses the floor if he yields 
for an amendment.
On Feb. 8, 1965,(3) the following occurred after Mr. Robert H. Michel, 
of Illinois, offered a motion to instruct the House conferees on House 
Joint Resolution 234, which made supplemental appropriations for the 
Department of Agriculture:

MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to another member of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Langen].
THE SPEAKER:(4) The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
MR. [ODIN] LANGEN: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Illinois yield to the gentleman 
from Minnesota for the purpose of offering an amendment?
MR. MICHEL: If that is his desire, yes.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the gentleman from Illinois will 
lose the floor when he yields for that purpose.
MR. MICHEL: Then, I do not yield to the gentleman for that purpose.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Illinois declines to yield to the 
gentleman from Minnesota for the purpose of offering an amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     111 CONG. REC. 2092-99, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 597]]

Effect of Defeat of Previous Question
Sec.    11.14 If the previous question is voted down on a motion to 
instruct the managers on the part of the House, the motion is open to 
amendment and the Speaker may recognize a Member opposed to ordering 
the previous question to control the time and offer an amendment.
On May 29, 1968,(5) Mr. James A. Burke, of Massachusetts, offered a 
motion to instruct the House conferees on H.R. 15414, the Revenue and 
Expenditure Act of 1968. After the previous question had been ordered 
on this motion, Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, raised this 
parliamentary inquiry:

MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, should the previous question be voted down 
would the motion be open to a preferential motion to amend and would of 
necessity the time be controlled by those in opposition to the previous 
question?
THE SPEAKER:(6) The previous question has already been ordered. If it 
had not been ordered and voted down, the answer to the parliamentary 
inquiry of the gentleman from Louisiana would be in the affirmative.
Control of Debate on Amendment to Motion To Instruct
Sec.    11.15 Although the control of time for debate on a motion to 
instruct conferees is divided pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 1(b),(7) 
if the previous question is not ordered at the conclusion of that 
debate, another Member may be recognized to offer an amendment to the 
original motion and is entitled to control and to allocate time for  an 
undivided hour.
Pending the appointment of conferees on H.R. 4210, the Economic Growth 
Acceleration Act, a measure reported from the Committee on Ways and 
Means, a motion to instruct was offered by Mr. Bill Archer, of Texas, a 
member of the committee. After debate, a motion to lay the instruction 
on the table was rejected.
The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, who had controlled 30 
minutes of debate time on the original motion to instruct, then offered 
an amend-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     114 CONG. REC. 15499, 15511, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 7.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 598]]

ment. The relevant proceedings of Mar. 18, 1992,(8) are shown below.

So the motion to table the motion to instruct was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ROSTENKOWSKI TO THE MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED 
BY MR.  ARCHER
MR. [DAN] ROSTENKOWSKI [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment 
to the motion to instruct.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment by Mr. Rostenkowski to the motion to instruct offered by Mr. 
Archer: In the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas strike all 
after "be instructed" and insert in lieu thereof "to include in the 
conference report, within the scope of conference, provisions to 
provide significant middle-class tax relief."

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(9) The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Rostenkowski] is recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. ARCHER: 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 206, nays 
200, not voting 28, as follows: . . . 
So the amendment to the motion to instruct was agreed to. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to instruct, as 
amended, offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].
The motion to instruct, as amended, was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
THE SPEAKER:(10) The Chair appoints the following conferees, and, 
without objection, reserves the authority to make additional 
appointments of conferees and to specify particular portions of the 
House bill and Senate amendment as the subject of various appointments: 
. . . 
Conferees on H.R. 4210-Tax Fairness and Economic Growth Act: Messrs. 
Rostenkowski, Gibbons, Pickle, Rangel, Stark, Archer, Vander Jagt, and 
Crane.
There was no objection.
Debate Time on Amendment to Motion To Instruct
Sec.    11.16 The division of time for debate on a motion to instruct 
conferees (Rule XXVIII clause 1(b)) does not extend to debate on an 
amendment to such motion offered after the rejection of the previous 
question; for the proponent of the amendment to the motion is entitled 
to an hour under Rule XIV clause 2, the general hour rule of the House. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     138 CONG. REC. 6024, 6025, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
 9.     Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).
10.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 599]]

The proceedings of Oct. 3, 1989,(11) show the control of debate on a 
motion to instruct and on an amendment to that motion.

MR. [JULIAN C.] DIXON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3026) making 
appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other 
activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said 
District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990, and for other 
purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(12) Is there objections to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. GREEN
MR. [S. WILLIAM] GREEN [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
instruct.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Green moves that the managers on the part of the House, at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill H.R. 
3026, be instructed to agree to the amendment of the Senate numbered 3.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Green] is 
recognized for 30 minutes in support of his motion. . . . 
MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to 
instruct. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it. . . . 
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 193, nays 
222, not voting 17. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I understand now that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dannemeyer] intends to offer an amendment to the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Green].
My question is: Under the offering will I receive part of the time?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would state to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon] that 1 hour would be allotted to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dannemeyer]. He would have to yield time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].
MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, if I understand, it all goes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dannemeyer], and he can yield opponents time. . . . 
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer to the motion to instruct: At the 
end of the pending motion, strike the period, insert a semicolon, and 
add the following language: "; Provided further that the conferees be
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     135 CONG. REC. 22859, 22862, 22863, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     William J. Hughes (N.J.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 600]]

instructed to agree to the provisions contained in Senate amendment 
numbered 22."

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. [WILLIAM E.] DANNEMEYER [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I yield one-
half of the time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], for 
purposes of debate only.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, if this motion to instruct now pending 
before the House is adopted, would it have the effect of amending the 
previous motion to instruct that was being considered and offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Green] so that, if this motion offered 
by the gentleman from California at this time is adopted, the House 
would then be voting on the contents of the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Green]?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer] 
is correct. The vote would then be on the motion to instruct offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Green], as amended.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, on that I reserve the balance of my time, 
and I ask for an aye vote on my amendment to the motion to instruct.
Sec.    11.17 Although control of time for debate on a motion to instruct 
conferees is divided equally between majority and minority parties 
pursuant to Rule XXVIII, where the previous question is not ordered on 
the motion to instruct, an ensuing hour is under the undivided control 
of a Member recognized by the Chair as leading the opposition to 
ordering the previous question, and that Member may then offer an 
amendment to the original motion to instruct.
The original motion to instruct conferees on the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1994 was offered by the ranking member of the 
Budget Committee, Mr. John R. Kasich, of Ohio. When the previous 
question on that motion failed to gain a majority, the following 
proceedings ensued, as shown in the Record of July 14, 1993.(13) 

So the previous question was not ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
MR. KASICH: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     139 CONG. REC. 15668-70, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 601]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(14) The gentleman will state it.
MR. KASICH: Mr. Speaker, since the motion on the previous question was 
defeated, then the gentleman would be allocated how much time and would 
I be able to receive part of that time, since he is amending my motion?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman would be entitled to 1 hour and 
the yielding of time would be at his discretion. The gentleman from 
Ohio would not automatically be entitled to time.
MR. [MARTIN O.] SABO [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the 
gentleman from Ohio more time than we take.
MR. KASICH: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Minnesota yield me an 
equal amount of time in order to present the case against his amending 
my motion?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is not a parliamentary inquiry.
MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
arliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, in the case of the previous debate just 
completed, the 1 hour of time, how was the time allocated?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It was allocated 30 minutes on each side.
MR. WALKER: Was that done by virtue of the amendment?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It was done pursuant to the rules of the 
House. Under clause 1(b) of rule XXVIII, the time for debate on the 
original motion was equally divided. Recognition after the rejection of 
the motion for the previous question, however, is under the hour rule, 
and the Member recognized for that hour may yield time at his 
discretion.
MR. WALKER: So it would have to be a matter of courtesy to this side 
for him to give us an equal amount of time; is that correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair has stated what the rules are.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SABO AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE MOTION TO 
INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. KASICH
MR. SABO: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the 
motion to instruct.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Sabo as a substitute for the motion to 
instruct offered by Mr. Kasich:
In lieu of the instructions in the motion offered by Representative 
Kasich, insert the following:
"I move 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 H.R. 
2264 be instructed to accept the higher thresholds on the treatment of 
Social Security benefits in section 8215 of the Senate amendment."

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] is 
recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 602]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to hear in the House 
right now. Do I understand the substance of the amendment before us is 
to strike the language of Kasich and then replace half the language of 
Kasich by amendment?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The motion was just reported to the House.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, it was very difficult to hear it.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
motion.
The Clerk reread the motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will not further characterize it.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, so the effect of the amendment is to strike 
the spending increase portions of the Kasich budget?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will not further characterize the 
motion.
The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] is recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
MR. SABO: Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the 
previous question on the amendment and on the motion to instruct.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] as a substitute for the motion 
to instruct offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. . . . 
So the amendment offered as a substitute for the motion to instruct was 
agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], as amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 415, noes 
0, not voting 19. . . . 
Effect of Rejecting Previous Question on Motion To Instruct
Sec.    11.18 After rejection of a motion for the previous question on a 
motion to instruct conferees, the Member who led the opposition to the 
ordering of the previous question, as determined by the Speaker, is 
recognized for a full hour.
The original motion to instruct conferees had been to insist on certain 
House provisions under the heading "General Science and Research 
Activities." Mr. Philip R. Sharp, of Indiana, had argued for a motion 
to instruct which preserved another House provision which terminated 
funding for certain projects-the Advanced 


[[Page 603]]

Liquid Metal Reactor Program-among others. His amendment to the 
original motion did not eliminate the Myers' instruction but added 
further instructions at the end thereof. Proceedings showing the 
recognition which followed rejection of the previous question are 
carried here.(15) 

MR. [JOHN T.] MYERS of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance 
of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion to instruct. 
. . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(16) The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it. . . . 
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 171, nays 
209, not voting 54. . . . 
So the previous question was not ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SHARP TO THE MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. 
MYERS OF INDIANA
MR. SHARP: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the motion to instruct.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Sharp to the motion to instruct offered by Mr. 
Myers of Indiana: Insert before the period at the end of the following: 
and to insist upon the provisions contained in the House bill that 
provide funds for the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor, the Integral Fast 
Reactor, and the Actinide Recycle Program only for purposes of program 
termination.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Sharp] is 
recognized.
MR. SHARP: Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for Members of the House, we do 
not plan to take any more time on the debate of the issue. We had an 
hour debate on this. The distinguished chairman of the committee and 
the ranking minority member agrees that we will not further debate the 
issue this evening, but proceed to the vote.
Mr. Speaker, this is the motion to instruct that the House stay with 
its position to terminate the advanced liquid metal reactor that it 
adopted in the regular order of business.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the amendment and on the motion to instruct.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Sharp] to the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. SHARP: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: All those in favor of taking the vote by the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     See 140 CONG. REC. 18868, 18869, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 1, 1994.
16.     Alcee L. Hastings (Fla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 604]]

yeas and nays will rise and remain standing.
MR. SHARP: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my demand for the yeas and nays.
The amendment was agreed to.


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
C. INSTRUCTIONS TO CONFEREES; MOTIONS TO INSTRUCT
 
Sec.    12. Binding Effect and Scope of Instructions; Violation of 
Instructions

Application to Senate Conferees
Sec.    12.1 Instructions of the House apply only to the conferees on the 
part of the House and do not apply to the conferees of the Senate.
On July 12, 1946,(17) Mr. Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, made a 
point of order in regard to the conference report on H.R. 6777, the 
1947 government corporations appropriation bill.

MR. CASE of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, it is my recollection that at 
the time this conference report was before the House previously a 
motion was made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Rich] 
instructing the conferees to disagree to the Senate amendment and 
insist upon our position. I have been told inferentially that at the 
conference no attempt was made to have the other body vote upon the 
disagreement. At least I have found no record of a vote by the other 
body. Under the precedents of the House, when one body proposes an 
amendment and it subsequently is taken to the other body and there is 
disagreed to, in comity the body proposing the matter should at least 
take a vote upon the proposition or recede from its position. It seems 
reasonable that the other body would do so, if the conferees were to 
follow the instructions given them. Consequently, I make the point of 
order that the conferees have disregarded their instructions and 
exceeded their authority in bringing the matter back to the House for a 
vote before it has been considered by the other body.
THE SPEAKER:(18) Of course, the instructions of the House could apply 
only to the conferees on the part of the House. They could not apply to 
the conferees on the part of the Senate. The Chair overrules the point 
of order.(19) 
Advisory Nature of Instructions
Sec.    12.2 Motions to instruct conferees are in the nature of advisory 
instructions to the managers on the part of the House; they are not 
binding  in a strict sense, since the House, by independent action, 
cannot compel specific 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     92 CONG. REC. 8809, 8810, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
18.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
19.     See also 79 CONG. REC. 12272, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 1, 1935.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 605]]

performance on the part of Senate conferees.
On May 29, 1968,(20) after Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, asked 
unanimous consent to send H.R. 5037, the Law Enforcement and Criminal 
Justice Assistance Act of 1967, to conference, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Richard H. Poff, of 
Virginia, for the purpose of posing a parliamentary inquiry.

MR. POFF: If the motion to instruct the conferees is adopted, is that 
instruction binding upon the House conferees, or is it in the nature of 
an advisory instruction only?
THE SPEAKER: The construction is that it is in the nature of an 
advisory instruction, because the House cannot instruct the managers on 
the part of the Senate.
Motion To Instruct Conferees Is "Advisory"
Sec.    12.3 The motion to instruct conferees is advisory only, and 
failure of the House managers at the conference to adhere to 
instructions of the House does not render the report subject to a point 
of order; and the Chair does not respond to a parliamentary inquiry 
whether a hypothetical motion would be "within the scope of 
conference."
After conferees had been appointed for more than 20 calendar days of 
the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1982, a motion to 
instruct was offered under Rule XXVIII clause 1(c).(1) A motion to 
table having been defeated, several parliamentary inquiries were 
directed to Speaker Pro Tempore James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas.(2) 

MRS. [PATRICIA] SCHROEDER [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
privileged motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mrs. Schroeder moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House 
amendments to the bill S. 815 be instructed to agree to the provisions 
contained in section 922 of the Senate bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     114 CONG. REC. 15499, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
 2.     127 CONG. REC. 26046, 26049, 97th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 29, 1981.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 606]]

MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MR. DICKINSON
MR. [WILLIAM L.] DICKINSON [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
to table.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Dickinson moves to lay on the table the motion of the gentlewoman 
from Colorado.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The motion is not debatable.
The question is on the motion to table offered by the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Dickinson).
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Dickinson) 
there were-yeas 28, nays 18.
MRS. SCHROEDER: 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 PRO TEMPORE: Evidently a quorum is not present. . . . 
So the motion to table was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Schroeder) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
MRS. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if my understanding of 
the parliamentary procedure is correct.
The gentlewoman from Colorado has succeeded against the motion to 
table, in which case she has a privileged motion now pending. It is my 
understanding she will have 1 hour to debate the motion now pending, 
and is in control of that entire time. Is this correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman stated the issue correctly. . . 
. 
MR. [SAMUEL S.] STRATTON [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, the motion offered 
by Mrs. Schroeder was that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference of the disagreeing votes of the two Houses to the bill S. 
815 be instructed to agree to the provisions contained in section 922 
of the Senate bill.
My inquiry is to what extent does that motion allow the House conferees 
to deviate in any way from the specific provisions of section 922 of 
the Senate bill?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair advises the gentleman that no point 
of order would lie against the conference report if the House conferees 
do not follow the instructions of the House, should the House agree to 
the motion of the gentlewoman from Colorado.
MR. STRATTON: In other words, we could accept a provision on limiting 
cost growth that does not follow the precise wording of section 922 of 
the Senate bill?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is not going to rule on what will be 
in the scope of the conference. The 


[[Page 607]]

Chair is advising only as to the effect of the motion.
MR. STRATTON: Does this mean, Mr. Speaker, that if the gentleman from 
Alabama and I, who have been working on a substitute for the Nunn 
amendment, come up with something that does not have one or two of the 
provisions of the Nunn amendment in it, we are not in violation of the 
motion offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would restate the parliamentary 
situation; that no point of order would lie for the reason that the 
conferees have not followed the instructions should the House adopt the 
motion of the gentlewoman from Colorado.
The motion to instruct is advisory.
Sec.    12.4 Instructions by the House to its conferees are advisory in 
nature and are not binding as a limitation on their authority, and 
there is no rule of the House requiring conferees to seek further 
instructions if they are unable to comply with instructions suggested 
to them.
On June 8, 1972,(3) Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, made a 
point of order against the conference report on S. 659, the Education 
Amendments of 1972.
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, this point of order is quite simple. On two 
occasions the House of Representatives has by overwhelming votes 
instructed and given a mandate to the conferees from the House of 
Representatives on this particular legislation. I submit without any 
further explanation that they have violated the instructions of the 
House of Representatives, and therefore have violated, Mr. Speaker, the 
rules of the House of Representatives.
MR. [DURWARD G.] HALL [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
yield?
MR. WAGGONNER: I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
MR. HALL: Is it not the fact that it is stated in Jefferson's Manual 
when the rules of instructions are exceeded by the managers on the part 
of this body that the remedy lies in returning to the body for 
instruction, and thus another violation, as clearly set forth in the 
report, has been approved?
MR. WAGGONNER: The gentleman is exactly right.
THE SPEAKER:(4) The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Waggonner) makes a point of order 
against the conference report on the bill S. 659 on the ground that the 
managers on the part of the House have not adhered to the instructions 
imposed upon them by the House on March 8, 1972, and again on May 11, 
1972.
The Chair has examined the precedents on this question and they 
consistently indicate, although conferees dis-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     118 CONG. REC. 20282, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 608]]

regard the instructions of the House, the Speaker cannot for that
reason rule the conference report out of order. The Chair would suggest 
that the gentleman examine Hinds' Precedents, volume V, 6395 and 
Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, 3246.
For this reason, the Chair overrules the point of order. . . . 
MR. WAGGONNER: Do not the rules of the House of Representatives provide 
that when the House has given instructions to its conferees on any 
legislative proposal, if they cannot comply with those instructions, 
they are required to come back to the House of Representatives for 
further instruction?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair knows of no rule that makes such provision.
Instructions Neither Binding Nor Restrictive on Conferees
Sec.    12.5 Instructions in a motion to recommit a conference report are 
not binding, nor do they limit the issues which can be revisited in the 
conference: therefore all matters committed to conference are open to 
further negotiation when the conferees of the House and Senate meet 
pursuant to the recommittal motion.
On Apr. 21, 1988,(5) the motion to recommit, offered by Mr. Robert H. 
Michel, of Illinois, pursuant to the rule adopted earlier that day, 
evoked the following parliamentary inquiry by Mr. William D. Ford, of 
Michigan, with respect to the authority of the conferees if the motion 
were to be agreed to.

MR. [DAN] ROSTENKOWSKI [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
question on the conference report.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. MICHEL
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I offer a motion to 
recommit with instructions.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Michel moves to recommit the conference report to accompany the 
bill, H.R. 3, to the Committee of Conference with instructions that the 
managers on the part of the House promptly report the conference report 
back to the House without the provisions of subtitle E of title VI 
(sec. 6401-6410) entitled Advance Notification of Plant Closings and 
Mass Layoffs.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
MR. MICHEL: I am, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to House Resolution 430, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel] will be recognized for 10 minutes 
and the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     134 CONG. REC. 8198, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     John P. Murtha (Pa.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 609]]

gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford], a Member opposed, will be 
recognized for 10 minutes. 
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel].
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. FORD of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. FORD of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a parliamentary 
inquiry. I would like to understand, because in my 24 years in the 
House I have never seen a motion to recommit a conference report with 
instructions to pass.
So I am trying to grasp what the rules provide.
Am I correct, Mr. Speaker, that our parliamentary situation is that if 
a motion with any instructions is passed, that the instruction is a 
nonbinding suggestion, not to this body, not to this House or to the 
chairman of the committee of original jurisdiction, Mr. Rostenkowski, 
but to the conference of the House and Senate and that would then 
automatically commit the entire bill to the conference between the 
House and the Senate which could either disregard or adopt the 
conference instruction or indeed consider any other matter that would 
then be before that conference to change the conference report as it 
comes to us now.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The whole matter would go back to conference.
MR. FORD of Michigan: I thank the Speaker.
Conference Reports in Violation of Instructions
Sec.    12.6 The Speaker may not rule out of order a conference report as 
in contravention of instructions imposed on House conferees, as it is 
for the House to determine by its vote on the report whether its 
managers have disregarded their instructions.
On June 8, 1972,(7) the following occurred in regard to the conference 
report on S. 659, the education amendments of 1972:

MR. [JOE D.] WAGGONNER [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, this point of 
order is quite simple. On two occasions the House of Representatives 
has by overwhelming votes instructed and given a mandate to the 
conferees from the House of Representatives on this particular 
legislation. I submit without any further explanation that they have 
violated the instructions of the House of Representatives, and 
therefore have violated, Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House of 
Representatives. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(8) The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Waggonner) makes a point of order 
against the conference report on the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     118 CONG. REC. 20282, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 8.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 610]]

bill S. 659 on the ground that the managers on the part of the House 
have not adhered to the instructions imposed upon them by the House on 
March 8, 1972, and again on May 11, 1972.
The Chair has examined the precedents on this question and they 
consistently indicate, although conferees disregard the instructions of 
the House, the Speaker cannot for that reason rule the conference 
report out of order. The Chair would suggest that the gentleman examine 
Hinds' Precedents, volume V, 6395 and Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, 
3246.
For this reason, the Chair overrules the point of order.
Difference Between "Free" and "Instructed" Conferees
Sec.    12.7 While "instructed" conferees are not "free," they are not 
bound by a vote of the House to instruct and a point of order against a 
report which does not follow the instructions does not lie. 
The discussion which occurred on June 17, 1977,(9) following debate on 
a motion to instruct conferees is carried here.

MR. [JOHN H.] ROUSSELOT [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
previous question on the motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The Chair is going to make a further 
comment with regard to the parliamentary inquiry that was directed to 
the Chair by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin). If the gentleman 
from California will withhold the motion for the previous question, the 
Chair wishes to clarify one apparent misconception.
Subsequent to the Chair's reply to the gentleman from Iowa, the 
gentleman made reference to the conferees as being free conferees. The 
Chair would point out there is, indeed, a distinction between free 
conferees and instructed conferees. If the motion to instruct should 
prevail, the conferees would not be in the purest sense free conferees. 
They would be instructed conferees. But notwithstanding the fact that 
were such conferees, as conferees have in the past, to report back a 
conference report not completely in conformity with those instructions, 
the conferees' report would not, for that reason, be subject to a point 
of order.
MR. [TOM] HARKIN [of Iowa]: If I understand correctly, the Chair is 
saying that, if the motion carries, that the conferees, while not being 
free, while they are instructed, still if they reach language which is 
different than that contained in the motion offered by the gentleman 
from California and bring this back as part of the conference report to 
the floor of the House, that a point of order cannot be sustained 
against that because the language is different.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is correct. The Chair is simply saying 
that there is a distinction between free con-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     123 CONG. REC. 19697, 19698, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 611]]

ferees and instructed conferees. The Chair is further saying that, 
under the precedents, the conference committee report would not be 
subject to a point of order and to be ruled out of order simply on the 
ground that it had varied from the instructions given. The House, under 
such circumstances, could perhaps recommit or reject a conference 
report.
MR. HARKIN: Under other circumstances, if I might inquire further of 
the Chair; if, in fact, this motion carries and it contains an 
instruction to the conferees to insist on this language, that it does 
not in any way clamp them in irons. I wish to make this distinction.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would not desire to respond in the 
sense of interpreting or monitoring the individual consciences of 
individual conferees, nor their individual concepts of their 
responsibilities to carry out instructions given by the House. That is 
beyond the purview of the Chair.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [J. WILLIAM] STANTON [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry in regard to the ruling or observations the Chair just made. 
I want to make it clear to the gentleman from Iowa, sometimes I get the 
impression we want to back the motion and do not want to back the 
motion to lock the conferees.
MR. ROUSSELOT: That is not a parliamentary inquiry.
MR. STANTON: I am asking it now, if the gentleman will wait just a 
minute.
I want to know, Mr. Speaker, under the ruling the Chair just made, 
whether or not the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) was not right 
that in his experience in the House that more or less, on a motion to 
instruct given the conferees, there is a strong moral obligation to 
stick with it word for word. I mean, it may be a personal opinion, but 
the few times that this has ever come up in the past, you definitely 
tie one hand behind you.
MR. ROUSSELOT: That is not a parliamentary inquiry. There are no hands 
tied behind your back.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will respond. It is not the 
prerogative of the Chair to interpret the moral responsibilities of 
Members of Congress. They would have their individual responsibilities. 
They would be instructed conferees, provided instructions by a vote of 
the House, and would be under some obligation to consider that 
instruction.
The Chair simply responded to the question propounded by the gentleman 
from Iowa to the effect that a conference report, though it might vary 
from those instructions, would not for that reason alone be subject to 
a point of order.
MR. HARKIN: I thank the Chair.
MR. ROUSSELOT: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to instruct.
Instructions Dealing With Specific Paragraphs of Amendment
Sec.    12.8 The House may instruct its conferees to insist upon a 
portion of a House amend-


[[Page 612]]

ment to a Senate bill sent to conference.
On July 24, 1973,(11) after the House agreed to a motion to send S. 
1888, the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973, to 
conference, Mr. Robert D. Price, of Texas, offered a motion to instruct 
the House conferees.

MR. PRICE of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Price of Texas moves that the managers on the part of the House, at 
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill S. 1888, be 
instructed to insist on the provisions of paragraph (26) of section 1 
of the House amendment at page 38, lines 1 through 8 which read as 
follows:
"(B) by adding a new section 703 as follows:
"Sec. 703. Title IV of such Act as amended by adding at the end thereof 
the following:
".'Sec. 411. No agricultural commodities shall be sold under title I or 
title III or donated under title II of this Act of North Vietnam, 
unless by an Act of Congress enacted subsequent to July 1, 1973, 
assistance to North Vietnam is specifically au-thorized.'." . . . 

THE SPEAKER:(12) The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Price) to instruct conferees. . . . 
The vote was taken by electronic device; and there were-yeas 371, nays 
35, not voting 27. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to.
Motion To Instruct Conferees To Retreat From House Position
Sec.    12.9 Form of motion to instruct conferees under Rule XXVIII 
clause 1(c) to retreat from a House position submitted to conference.
H.R. 3355, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1994 had 
been "in conference" since May 19, 1994,(13) the date the Senate 
disagreed to the House amendments to a Senate amendment and agreed to 
the House's request for a conference. Mr. McCollum's motion to instruct 
under the "20-day rule" was thus timely.(14) 
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 3355, VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND 
LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994
MR. [BILL] MCCOLLUM [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, as I announced 
yesterday, I offer a privileged motion to instruct conferees on the 
bill (H.R. 3355) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     119 CONG. REC. 25539-41, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
13.     See 140 CONG. REC. 11102, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
14.     See 140 CONG. REC. 13208, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., June 16, 1994.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 613]]

Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow grants to increase police presence, 
to expand and improve cooperative efforts between law enforcement 
agencies and members of the community to address crime and disorder 
problems, and otherwise to enhance public safety.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(15) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. McCollum moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3355 be instructed 
not to agree to Title IX, relating to racially discriminatory 
sentencing, of the House amendment or to any similar provision.
Form of Motion To Instruct Regarding Specific Numbered Instructions 
Regarding Amendments to General Appropriation Bill
Sec.    12.10 An example of a motion to instruct conferees on a general 
appropriation bill to: (1) insist on disagreement to any Senate 
amendment adding new or increased rates of user fees to the bill; and 
(2) to insist on three specified Senate amendments.
On Aug. 16, 1994,(16) H.R. 4539, the Treasury and Post Office 
appropriations bill for fiscal 1995, had been "blue-slipped" when the 
House first received the Senate amendments and its request for 
conference. The Senate had modified one of its amendments and again 
insisted and asked a conference. Certain of the remaining Senate 
amendments were argued by some to violate the Constitutional 
prerogative of the House to originate revenue measures. As to several 
of the amendments, the  Committee on Ways and Means saw no problem. 
Rather than invoking the constitutional prerogative a second time, the 
House opted to send the measure to conference, voicing its opposition 
to the offending amendments by the motion to instruct conferees.
The motion to instruct and a portion of debate on the motion are 
carried here.

MR. [STENY H.] HOYER [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4539) making 
appropriations for the Treasury Department, the U.S. Postal Service, 
the Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent 
Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other   
purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     Robert E. Wise, Jr. (W. Va.).
16.     140 CONG. REC. 22565, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 614]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(17) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. LIGHTFOOT
MR. [JIM] LIGHTFOOT [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
instruct.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Lightfoot moves that the managers on the part of the House, at the 
conference of the disagreeing votes on the bill, H.R. 4539, be 
instructed to insist on disagreement to provisions contained in any 
Senate amendment regarding the imposition of new or increased user 
fees, collections or taxes which may be established by the Secretary of 
the Treasury and which are authorized by law, to insist on disagreement 
to the amendment to the last proviso set forth in Senate amendment 
numbered 16, to insist on disagreement to the Senate amendment numbered 
26, and to insist on disagreement to the Senate amendment numbered 29. . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].
MR. LIGHTFOOT: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have a motion to instruct conferees on items which have 
been considered by the subcommittee, the full Committee on 
Appropriations, and the House. I think the motion is very 
straightforward. It instructs conferees to reject new user fees 
proposed by the Treasury Department. Our subcommittee chose to reject 
the proposed user fees, totaling some $258 million. They include: a $20 
fee for tax filers entering into an installment agreement with IRS to 
pay taxes owed over time; a $12 fee charged to those persons who 
request photocopies of tax returns from the IRS; an $8 fee imposed to 
transmitters of electronic returns; and an increase in the merchandise 
processing fee and the special occupational tax assessed by the Customs 
Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Frankly, many of us feel more user fees are not the answer-they are, 
quite simply, a roundabout way to increase taxes.
The Senate, however, has included language permitting Treasury to 
retain the proposed user fees if they are increased. While the language 
doesn't authorize any new fees, it gives the IRS clear incentive to 
raise and implement fees on taxpayers.
Instructions Permitting Closed Sessions
Sec.    12.11 A motion to instruct the managers on the part of the House 
under Rule XXVIII clause 1(c) may include instructions to insist upon 
holding conference in executive session if so desired.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     Ronald D. Coleman (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 615]]

On Aug. 1, 1935,(18) Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, offered a 
motion to instruct the House conferees on S. 2796, the Public Utilities 
Act of 1935.

MR. HUDDLESTON: Mr. Speaker, I offer the following motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Motion to instruct conferees by Mr. Huddleston: Moved that managers on 
the part of the House appointed upon request of the Senate for a 
conference upon the disagreeing votes of the House and the Senate on 
the amendment adopted by the House to S. 2796 be, and they are hereby, 
instructed as follows:
That it is the will of the House that its managers insist upon a 
conference being held under just and fair conditions, such as will 
insure careful, calm, and deliberate consideration and will tend to 
promote an agreement by the conference, and that in the performance of 
their duties as such managers it is and shall remain the right and 
privilege of the managers on the part of the House, if in their 
judgment it is desirable in promoting the aforesaid ends, that such 
conference be held without the presence thereat of any person not a 
manager upon the part of either House or Senate.

MR. [THOMAS L.] BLANTON [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of 
order that the resolution is out of order; that any resolution that 
would impugn the motives of the Senate conferees as being unfair is out 
of order. . . . 
MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make the further 
point of order that the House is authorized to instruct conferees only 
on the matters in disagreement between the two bodies, and this is an 
attempt to go beyond that and regulate the conduct of the conferees on 
the part of the Senate. For that reason it is not in order and not 
privileged. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(19) The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Huddleston] has offered a motion to instruct the conferees on the 
part of the House at the conference on the bill S. 2796, which has been 
read at the desk. To that motion the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Blanton] 
and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] raised points of order. 
The question as to whether the conferees shall be instructed in the 
manner proposed is a matter which must appeal to each individual Member 
of the House. The conferees are the agents of the House, and under this 
rule, as the Chair construes it, they are subject to its authority 
after 20 days have elapsed, so far as the matter of instruction or a 
motion to discharge and appoint new conferees are concerned. There is 
nothing in this motion, as the Chair reads it, which refers to the 
Senate conferees. Of course, this House has nothing to do with the 
Senate conferees, and this motion does not seek to interfere with their 
method or with what they do. It simply applies to the agents of the 
House, those who have been appointed managers on the part of the House 
to represent the House in the deliberations in the conference on the 
bill S. 2796. The Chair calls attention of the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     79 CONG. REC. 12272, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
19.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 616]]

House to the fact that the motion is drawn so as to provide that in the 
performance of their duties as managers-

It is and shall remain the right and privilege of the managers on the 
part of the House, if in their judgment it is desirable in promoting 
the aforesaid ends, that such conference be held without the presence 
thereat of any person not a manager on the part of either House or 
Senate.

The Chair is not called upon, and it is not within the province of the 
Chair to pass upon the question of whether a motion of this kind should 
be adopted at this time. The Chair does hold that this House has a 
right to dictate to its own managers their method of procedure in the 
conference, which is to be subsequently held. The Chair, therefore, 
overrules the point of order.(20) 
Limitations on Scope of Instructions
Sec.    12.12 Instructions to managers of a conference may not direct 
them to do that which they might not otherwise do.
On May 9, 1955,(1) after Mr. Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, called up 
the conference report on S. 1, the Postal Field Service Compensation 
Act of 1955, the following occurred:

MR. [EDWARD H.] REES of Kansas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER:(2) Is the gentleman opposed to the conference report?
MR. REES of Kansas: I am, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman qualifies. The Clerk will report the motion 
to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Rees of Kansas moves to recommit the bill S. 1 as amended to the 
committee of conference with instructions to report back an agreement 
which would include the provisions of H.R. 4644 as reported by the 
House Post Office and Civil Service Committee, with the additional 
provision that the 6-percent increase be retroactive to March 1, 1955.

MR. MURRAY of Tennessee: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against 
the motion to recommit. As I understand, the motion instructs the 
conferees to do something less than the House voted. We are bound to 
follow the instructions of the House in the conference. That matter is 
not even in conference. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair thinks that this 
question has been passed upon many times in the past. An exactly 
similar question was raised on September 15, 1922, when a very 
distinguished gentleman by the name of John N. Garner made a similar 
motion to recommit with instructions to the conferees to lower the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     Rule XXVIII clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 913d (1997), 
now addresses the method of closing a conference.
 1.     101 CONG. REC. 5846, 5871, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 617]]

rates contained in either the bill or in the amendment. Mr. Edward 
Taylor, of the State of Colorado, made the point of order. Speaker 
Gillette sustained the point of order, and that decision may be found 
in Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, section 3244. It is exactly on all 
fours with this. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.
Motion To Instruct To Add Provisions Not in Conference
Sec.    12.13 A motion to instruct conferees is subject to a point of 
order if the instructions call for agreement to matter not committed to 
conference; and the Speaker sustained a point of order against a motion 
instructing the conferees to insist on positions not before the 
conferees on the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1979.
On Feb. 28, 1980,(3) where conferees on H.R. 3919, the Crude Oil 
Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1979 had been appointed for more than 20 
legislative days without filing a report, a motion to instruct was 
offered by Mr. Joseph L. Fisher, of Virginia. The motion directed the 
House conferees to insist on a mandatory allocation of the revenues 
from the crude oil profit tax for specified purposes, some of which 
were not committed to conference by the Senate amendment. The point of 
order, a portion of the argument and the Speaker's ruling are carried 
here. 
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES REGARDING NET REVENUES ON SENATE 
AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 3919, CRUDE OIL WINDFALL PROFIT ACT OF 1979
MR. FISHER: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(4) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Fisher moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the State 
amendments to the bill H.R. 3919 be instructed to insist that-

As a matter of policy:
(1) 50 percent of the net revenues from the windfall profits tax shall 
be made available for energy research, development, production, or 
conservation and for transit programs, and
(2) 25 percent of the net revenues from the windfall profits tax shall 
be made available for energy assistance to low-income individuals, and
(3) 25 percent of the net revenues from the windfall profits tax shall 
be available for any purpose.

MR. [SAM M.] GIBBONS [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of 
order against the motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Fisher).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     126 CONG. REC. 4304, 4305, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 618]]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Florida will state his 
point of order.
MR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the motion offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia is an improper motion and is not in order. The motion would 
instruct the conferees to make a specific distribution of windfall tax 
receipts on a percentage basis for designate purposes. Neither the 
House language nor the Senate language specifically addresses the 
distribution of these tax receipts. Thus, the instruction is clearly 
beyond the scope of the conference and not a proper instruction under 
the rules of the House.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Fisher) 
desire to be heard on the point of order?
MR. FISHER: I do, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
MR. FISHER: Mr. Speaker, I will argue that the point of order should 
not be sustained, and these are my reasons: The House bill calls for an 
energy trust fund, which would include all windfall tax proceeds to be 
used as determined by subsequent legislation.
I would argue that my motion is within and less than the House bill 
provision. It simply indicates how, as a matter of policy, a portion of 
the total tax proceeds should be used.
The relevant House rule, I believe, is 28, at section 913a. My motion 
does not present an "additional topic, question, issue, or proposition 
not committed to the conference committee by either House," and, 
therefore, would be germane and within the scope.
It is not, I argue, an additional topic. We are still dealing with the 
proceeds of the tax and how to use it, which is spelled out in general 
terms within the House bill.
Nor is my amendment, quoting from the rule-

A modification of any specific topic * * * committed to the conference 
committee by either House-

Such that the-

modification is beyond the scope of that specific question.

Mr. Speaker, again I rest on the point that the topic is the use of the 
funds, and that is dealt with in great and ample scope in the House 
bill.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill contains numerous provisions 
for specific stimulation of energy production, conservation, and so on, 
and for energy payments to lower income persons.
The Senate bill is loaded with various provisions related to the use of 
the funds. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) 
desire to be heard on the point of order?
MR. [BARBER B.] CONABLE [Jr., of New York]: I do, Mr. Speaker. . . . 
I call the Speaker's attention also to the fact that this motion to 
instruct proposed by the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Fisher) includes references to transit programs among the expenditures 
that would be permitted.
There is nothing about transit programs in the Senate version of the 
bill, although there is something to do with railroads. I think that 
also illustrates an example where this motion to in-


[[Page 619]]

struct goes beyond the scope of the conference.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Gibbons).
MR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat neither the House language 
nor the Senate language specifically addressed the distribution of 
these tax receipts.
The Senate bill has some tax credits in it, but those are not tax 
receipts. Those are never receipts to the Federal Government. So the 
gentleman's motion is clearly outside the scope of the conference. . . 
. 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Florida has made a point of order against the motion 
of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Fisher) to instruct the conferees 
on H.R. 3919, the oil windfall profit tax bill, on the grounds that the 
motion seeks to direct the conferees to accomplish that which they are 
prohibited from doing under the rules.
Clause 3 of rule XXVIII prohibits conferees from including in their 
report any new topic, issue, or proposition not committed to the 
conference committee by the House.
The motion directs the conferees to make certain distributions of the 
windfall tax revenues in certain percentages for designated purposes.
In section 3 of the House bill, an energy trust fund was created to 
consist of amounts equivalent to the revenues from the oil windfall 
tax; subsection 3(d) did not designate any of the purposes for which 
the fund would be available simply stating that-

Amounts in the trust fund shall be available, as provided by 
appropriation acts, for making expenditures for such purposes as may 
hereafter be specified by law.

Section 102(a) of the Senate amendment provided that $1 billion of the 
tax receipts be reserved for improvements in the Nation's freight and 
passenger railroad systems, with allocations of not less than certain 
amounts for three designated aspects of such railroad improvements.
Section 103 of the Senate amendment also provided for the deposit in a 
taxpayer trust fund of amounts equivalent to increases in income tax 
revenues as a result of oil decontrol.
Subsection 103(d) provided that amounts in such trust fund be available 
as thereafter provided by law for relief from increased social security 
taxes effective in 1981.
Neither the House nor the Senate provision mandate expenditures from 
the trust funds for any purpose. And neither version mentions use of 
the tax receipts for energy research, development, and conservation or 
for energy assistance to low-income individuals.
The Chair cannot consider any distributions the conferees may have 
considered in their deliberations and is restricted to reviewing the 
text of the House bill and Senate amendment in determining whether this 
motion directs the conferees to include matters beyond the scope of 
their authority.
Clearly, the House and Senate versions left to future legislation the 
appropriate distribution of tax receipts and the specific purpose is 
suggested, but not required in the Senate amendment, which do not 
relate to all the 


[[Page 620]]

programs addressed in the motion of the gentleman from Virginia.
Accordingly, the Chair disagrees with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Fisher), and the Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman 
from Florida.
Motion To Instruct Outside Scope
Sec.    12.14 A motion to instruct conferees may not direct the managers 
to include a provision or concept which would be beyond the issues 
committed to conference, and for this reason a motion to instruct the 
conferees on a general appropriation bill to include a new funding 
limitation which was not contained in the House bill or any Senate 
amendment was ruled out as a violation of Rule XXVIII clause 3.
On Sept. 13, 1994, a motion to instruct was offered which called upon 
conferees to report a funding limitation not carried in the House 
appropriation bill or the Senate amendments.(5) After the Chair ruled 
the motion out of order, a second motion was in order and was offered 
by a minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. That motion 
was agreed to.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4650, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995
MR. [JOHN P.] MURTHA [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4650) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference 
asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. WALKER
MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Walker moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, H.R. 
4650, be instructed to agree to the following language:
No funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to deploy United 
States Armed Forces to Haiti or otherwise support United States Armed 
Forces in Haiti for purposes of removing the de facto regime or for 
subsequent peacekeeping by United States Armed Forces without first
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     See 140 CONG. REC. 24401, 24402, 103d Cong. 2d Sess. (H.R. 4650).
 6.     Michael A. Andrews (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 621]]

obtaining the prior approval of the Congress.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. MURTHA: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to 
instruct conferees. The motion instructs conferees to include matter 
outside the scope of the conferees' authority and is in violation of 
clause 3, rule XXVIII. 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] wish to be heard on the point of order?
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I do wish to be heard on my motion and on the 
point of order.
Mr. Speaker, my dear friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Murtha], raises the point that the instruction that I have proposed 
falls outside the scope of the legislation that we have before us.
Mr. Speaker, the problem with the gentleman's point is the fact that we 
are about to engage, according to media reports and according to 
announcements from the administration, in an action in Haiti. This is 
not an action that was contemplated at the time the bills were being 
drafted either in the House or the Senate. . . . 
This instruction, while it does not meet the strict interpretation of 
scope, is certainly within the scope of the moneys that are going to be 
utilized in the bill that is before us. There is no doubt that if this 
invasion takes place, the moneys that are going to be appropriated 
under this bill will be used in Haiti. . . . 
So I think this is a necessary action to take and conferees would then 
be authorized to place this language into the bills that come back for 
final action in the House. I would hope that the Chair would rule in 
favor of this as an entirely appropriate way for the House to engage in 
the issue of Haiti and assure that the Members of this House have had 
at least a vote on whether or not to engage in a combatant action in 
the nation of Haiti.
MR. MURTHA: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ruling.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The motion offered by the gentleman includes matter not within the 
scope of differences on any of the Senate amendments being sent to 
conference. The motion is, therefore, out of order under clause 3 of 
rule XXVIII.
On page 715 of the Manual it is stated that a point of order may be 
sustained against a motion to instruct House conferees to address a 
matter beyond the scope of differences being committed to conference by 
the 215 Senate amendments. . . . 
The Chair sustains the point of order.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. McDADE
MR. [JOSEPH M.] MCDADE [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. McDade moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill H.R. 
4650, as they resolve Senate amendment numbered 214, relating to fiscal 
year 1994 funding for Rwanda, be instructed to agree to the 


[[Page 622]]

following provisos contained in Senate amendment 214:
"Provided further, That no funds are available for United States 
participation in operations in or around Rwanda after October 7, 1994"; 
and 
"Provided further, That any change in the mission from one of strict 
refugee relief to security, peace-enforcing, nation-building or any 
other substantive role, shall not be implemented without the further 
approval of the Congress".
Sec.    12.15 Conferees may not include in a conference report a new 
topic or issue not committed to conference; and a motion which directs 
conferees to adopt a new provision expanding definitions beyond those 
in either the House or the Senate version is ruled out as in violation 
of this principle.
On Sept. 29, 1994,(7) the House had under consideration the conference 
report on the bill S. 349, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1994. A 
motion to recommit with instructions was offered by Mr. George W. 
Gekas, of Pennsylvania. After the reading of the rather lengthy motion 
was dispensed with by unanimous consent, a point of order was made by 
Mr. John Bryant, of Texas, who was managing the conference report on 
the floor.
The motion, the point of order, and the Chair's ruling are included 
here.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(8) Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. GEKAS
MR. GEKAS: Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit. 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
MR. GEKAS: In its present form, I am, Madam Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Gekas moves to recommit the conference report on the bill (S. 349)
 to the committee of conference with instructions for the managers on 
the part of the House to carry out the following:
(1) In the proposed section 103-
(A) strike out paragraph (8),
(B) strike out the second sentence of paragraph (9)(A), and
(C) strike out subparagraph (B) of paragraph (9),
(2) Strike out paragraph (5) of section 104(b).
(3) Strike out paragraph (6) of section 105(b).
(4) In the proposed section 103(10)(B)(xviii), strike out the material 
following subclause (II).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     140 CONG. REC. 26780, 26781, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
 8.     Nancy Pelosi (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 623]]

(5) In the proposed section 103, insert before the period at the end of 
paragraph (12) the following: "or a person who spends more than 
$100,000 in a 6 month period to influence decisionmaking in the 
executive and legislative branch.".
(6) In the proposed section 106(c), strike paragraph (2).
(7) In the proposed Rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate 
strike out subparagraphs (a) and (c) of paragraph 2 and in clause 4 of 
Rule XLIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives strike out 
paragraphs (b) and (d) of clause 4. . . .

SEC. 112. LEGISLATIVE SERVICE OR-GANIZATIONS.
(a) COVERAGE.-Any entity affiliated with a legislative service 
organization shall be considered a lobbyist subject to-
(1) the registration, reporting, and disclosure requirements of 
sections 104 and 105,
(2) the prohibition of section 106, and
(3) the amendments to the Standing Rules of the Senate and the Rules of 
the House of Representatives made by title II.
(b) OTHER REQUIREMENTS.-Each entity affiliated with a legislative 
service organization shall report to the Office of Lobbying 
Registration and Public Disclosure-
(1) the names and salaries of its staff,
(2) arrangements made with others to share staff and costs,
(3) relationships with other organizations in connection with lobbying 
activities, and
(4) any contributions, gifts, or reimbursements received. . . . 
(e) DEFINITIONS.-For purposes of this section:
(1) The term "contribution" means a gift, subscription, loan, advance, 
or deposit of money or anything of value and includes a contract, 
promise, or agreement, whether or not legally enforceable, to make a 
contribution.
(2) The term "legislative service organization" refers to a particular 
category of working groups or caucuses organized to provide legislative 
services and assistance to Members of the House of Representatives and 
certified by the Committee on House Administration.
(3) The term "entity affiliated" means an organization which is 
described in at least 2 of the following:
(A) An organization which spends at least 10 percent of its funds in 
any year on-
(i) travel expenses for Members of Congress or congressional staff,
(ii) meals, receptions, or other food and beverage expenses on 
activities attended by Members of Congress or congressional staff, and
(iii) gifts (other than educational materials) to Members of Congress 
or congressional staff.
(B) An organization which has a name which is like or similar to the 
name of an entity of the House of Representatives, including a 
legislative service organization or congressional member organization, 
or uses the word "congressional" in its official name or title. . . . 
At the end of the bill, add:
Any penalty applicable to lobbyists or lobbying firms in this bill 
shall also apply to Members of Congress.

MR. GEKAS (during the reading): Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
MR. BRYANT: Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like 
to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] if the motion to 
recommit is the one that was most recently given to our side.


[[Page 624]]

MR. GEKAS: Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. BRYANT: I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
MR. GEKAS: Yes, Madam Speaker, we believe so.
MR. BRYANT: Madam Speaker, I would ask if we could get a clear 
identification of which motion it is.
MR. GEKAS: Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we 
are down to two versions, the one that is now being read, or was being 
read, the one concerning grassroots lobbying, GS-14's and 16's, 
campaign spending, campaign contributions, and a few others.
MR. BRYANT: Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. BRYANT: Madam Speaker, I make a point of order that the motion to 
recommit offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] is not 
in order, in that it instructs the conferees to carry out instructions 
which exceed the scope of the matters committed to conference. 
Specifically, the motion to recommit contains language which expands 
the definition of lobbyists and expands the definition of covered 
executive branch officials.
Both of these expanded definitions exceed the scope of the matters 
committed to conference. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I insist on the 
point of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Gekas] desire to be heard on the point of order?
MR. GEKAS: . . . I have a parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker. If the 
gentleman would respond to me, I am asking if in his point of order he 
itemizes the campaign contributions as one of the items.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will control the debate. Does the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] concede the point of order?
MR. GEKAS: No, Madam Speaker, I want to speak on it, but I want to make 
sure that that is what I heard; that in the point of order that he 
made, as a parliamentary question, I would ask does the point of order 
that was just entered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] include 
a point of order against the campaign financing feature of my motion?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] has made 
a point of order on several grounds. The Chair will entertain argument 
on the point of order from each Member on his own time.
MR. GEKAS: Madam Speaker, as a point of parliamentary inquiry, I simply 
wanted to have repeated whether or not the point of order that was made 
included the point on campaign financing. I could not hear the 
gentleman from Texas.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Will the gentleman from Texas repeat his point 
of order.
MR. BRYANT: Madam Speaker, I made a point of order that the motion to 
recommit offered by the gentleman is not in order in that it instructs 
the conferees to carry out instructions which 


[[Page 625]]

exceed the scope of the matters that were committed to the conference.
Specifically the motion to recommit contains language which expands the 
definition of lobbyists and expands the definition of covered executive 
branch officials, both of these expanded definitions exceed the scope 
of the matters committed to conference.
MR. GEKAS: Madam Speaker, I believe that the motion to recommit is in 
order. The important feature of the motion to recommit has to do with 
campaign contributions in which we feel that, as we argued in the well 
of the House, the big gift that we should be banning is campaign 
contributions by lobbyists, not just sandwiches. The question is, if 
the point of order is to prevail and the Chair is to rule that my 
campaign contribution feature is out of order, does that not return it 
to the status of the current law in which, then, the whole issue 
becomes one that cannot be a point of order if it is returned to 
current law? I pose that as a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the Chair rules this motion out of order, 
the gentleman may offer another motion to recommit. . . . 
The gentleman from Texas has stated the point of order two times for 
the gentleman.
The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from Texas makes a point 
of order against the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
As discussed in section 26.12, chapter 33 of Procedure in the U.S. 
House of Representatives, a motion to recommit a conference report may 
not instruct House conferees to include matter beyond the scope of 
differences committed to conference by either House.
The motion offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania includes several 
instructions that violate this principle. For example, the motion 
instructs conferees to expand the definition of "lobbyist" as defined 
in both the Senate bill and House amendment to include not only persons 
who spend a certain period of time engaging in lobbying activities 
while serving a client but also those who spend more than a certain 
dollar amount within a fixed period to influence decisionmaking.
Another example is found in the instruction that expands the definition 
of "covered executive branch official" as defined in both the Senate 
bill and House amendment to include a position in the executive branch 
that is classified at or above GS-14 of the General Schedule.
The inclusion of even one of the above-described instructions provides 
the Chair with an adequate basis to find the entire motion out of order 
on the grounds the instructions exceed the scope of differences 
committed to conference. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained. 
. . . 
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. GEKAS
MR. GEKAS: Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Gekas moves to recommit the conference report on the bill (S. 349)
to the committee of conference with instructions for the managers on 


[[Page 626]]

the part of the House to carry out the following:
(1) In the proposed section 103-
(C) strike out subparagraph (B) of paragraph (9).
(2) Strike out paragraph (5) of section 104(b).
(3) Strike out paragraph (6) of section 105(b).

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
Sec.    12.16 A motion to instruct managers to include in a conference 
report a provision not committed to conference by either House exceeds 
the scope of conference, in violation of Rule XXVIII clause 3.(9) 
In determining whether a matter is "committed to conference," the Chair 
must look to the text of the bill and amendments in disagreement and 
not to terms or disclaimers used in the debate on that text. The 
Chair's ruling on Mar. 25, 1992,(10) followed this principle. 
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON S. 3, SENATE ELECTION ETHICS ACT OF 1991
MR. [SAM] GEJDENSON [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 3) to 
amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for a 
voluntary system of spending limits for Senate election campaigns, and 
for other purposes, with House amendments thereto, insist on the House 
amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER:(11) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY   MR. THOMAS OF CALIFORNIA
MR. [WILLIAM M.] THOMAS of California: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
instruct.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Thomas of California moves that the managers on the part of the 
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on 
the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 3) be instructed:
To include provisions in the conference report that would limit the 
total cost of the bill to the total savings to be derived from the 
recommended offsets in the Senate bill and House amendment and specify 
the account given such costs and offsets under the terms of Section 
301, Requirement of Budget Neutrality.
And to include in the conference report provisions containing the 
requirement that no taxpayer dollars may be used to finance 
congressional campaigns, such financing to include (1) any payments to 
reimburse the postal service for postage discounts provided to 
congressional campaigns 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 913a (1997).
10.     138 CONG. REC. 6843, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 627]]

(2) any payments to congressional campaigns (3) any other expenditure 
or obligation to offset revenue losses created by tax credits or other 
subsidies for the purpose of financing congressional campaigns.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. GEJDENSON: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the directions 
of the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] are beyond the scope.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] desire to 
be heard on the point of order?
MR. THOMAS of California: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
It is my understanding that when the amendment to H.R. 3750 was 
presented to the House, the gentleman from North Carolina, the author 
of the amendment, indicated in an explanation of the measure that "the 
requirement that no taxpayer dollars may be used to finance 
congressional campaigns" was a portion of a substitute amendment.
In addition, on the floor during debate in the Congressional Record, 
page 34667 (11/25/91) the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Oakar] said, "No 
taxpayers' dollars are involved." . . . 
What this motion to instruct says is that no taxpayer dollars should be 
used to finance congressional campaigns. There are three examples of 
areas that financing should not be allowed, based upon the provisions 
that were in the bill. . . . 
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, based upon all the allegations that were 
presented during the presentation of this bill, it seems to me that the 
scope of the conference certainly would find acceptable an explanation 
which simply delineates more specifically where no taxpayer dollars are 
to be allowed.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule, if there are no further 
arguments.
Neither the House nor the Senate version contains the provision which 
the second part of the instruction directs the House conferees to 
include in their report.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] is quoting statements on the 
floor made by Members supporting the bill, but neither the House nor 
the Senate version contains such provisions.
For this reason, the motion exceeds the scope of the matters formally 
committed to conference and the Chair sustains the point of order.
Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] have an additional 
motion?
Sec.    12.17 It is not in order to instruct House conferees to exceed 
their authority; and where a motion directed the conferees to include 
in a subsequent conference report certain features of a separate bill, 
none of which were in the Senate bill or in the House amendments in 
disagreement, the motion was ruled out on a point of order. 
The second conference report on S. 3, the Campaign Spending Limit and 
Election Reform Act 


[[Page 628]]

was considered in the House on Apr. 9, 1992,(12) pursuant to a special 
order (H. Res. 426) waiving points of order against the report and 
against its consideration. The House had, on the previous day, 
recommitted the original conference report; but the conferees met again 
and filed a new report on the same legislative day, Apr. 8, 1992. 
The proceedings shown below relate to the second conference report (H. 
Rept. 102-487).

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(13) The question is on the conference report.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. WALSH
MR. [JAMES T.] WALSH [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report in its present form?
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I am.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Walsh moves to recommit the conference report on the bill S. 3 to 
the Committee of Conference with instructions to the managers on the 
part of the House to include in the conference report the provisions of 
H.R. 3770 including:
1. The requirement that a majority of a candidate's contributions come 
from individuals residing in the candidate's district.
2. A limit of $1,000 on PAC contributions to candidates.
3. A total ban on soft money contributions to political parties.
And to further include the requirement that no taxpayer dollars may be 
used to finance congressional campaigns.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [SAM] GEJDENSON [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of 
order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. GEJDENSON: Mr. Speaker, I would make a point of order that the 
instructions exceed the scope of the conference report. It is clear 
that the requirement of in-district funding is beyond the scope of the 
conference report, and I would move that therefore the motion to 
recommit should be ruled out of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] 
wish to be heard in opposition to the point of order?
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this motion adds to the fairness 
of the conference report, and I would urge that it be added.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] 
concede the point of order?
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I do not.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     138 CONG. REC. 9021-23, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
13.     Dennis E. Eckart (Ohio).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 629]]

MR. [PAUL B.] HENRY [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on 
the point of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The point of order is contested. The gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Henry] is recognized on the point of order.
MR. HENRY: Mr. Speaker, I want to be sure we understand what the point 
of order is and what the question is and what the contest is.
Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Gejdenson] objects to the motion to instruct because the motion 
contains a provision that would require that in order to get Federal 
taxpayer match, one would have to raise campaign funds in one's 
district.
Mr. Speaker, if I understand it, that is what the objection is.
MR. GEJDENSON: Mr. Speaker, the objection is because it is beyond the 
scope of the conference. At this stage of the game to try to rewrite 
the whole conference is really in fact an attempt to kill campaign 
finance reform, at least at this session, in my perspective. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] wish 
to be heard on the point of order? . . . 
MR. [JIM] LEACH [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, there are two issues that this 
Member would like to make. One is that in his belief this is thoroughly 
and utterly germane.
The second point is how extraordinary it is that the party of alleged 
reform may or may not want to block real reform.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Connecticut makes a point of order against the 
motion offered by the gentleman from New York on the ground that the 
instructions therein exceed the scope of the conference.
The motion offered by the gentleman from New York proposes to instruct 
the managers on the part of the House to include in the conference 
report three features of a separate bill, H.R. 3770. Each of these 
three initiatives falls outside the matters committed to the conference 
as disagreements between the Senate bill and the House amendment 
thereto.
Therefore, under clause 3 of rule XXVIII, a conference report may not 
include a matter although germane that was not committed to the 
conference of either House.
In the opinion of the Chair, the instructions proposed in the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New York exceed the scope of the 
differences committed to the conference, and the point of order is 
sustained.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. WALSH
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
MR. WALSH: In its present form, I am, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Walsh moves to recommit the conference report on the bill S. 3 to 
the committee of conference with instructions to the managers on the


[[Page 630]]

part of the House to strip all sections from the bill that allow for 
public financing of subsidies of congressional campaigns, to wit 
sections providing for matching payments to candidates, voter 
communication vouchers, and reduced postal rate subsidies for 
candidates.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
MR. WALSH: 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 179, nays 
243, not voting 12, as follows: . . . 
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
Senate Decision on Motion To Instruct
Sec.    12.18 Although conferees have wide discretion when   a Senate 
amendment has  stricken out certain language of a House bill, it was 
held in the Senate that once a measure had been adopted by that body 
instructions to its conferees in the nature of new legislation were not 
in order.
On Feb. 1, 1939,(14) the Senate was considering the amendments reported 
back in disagreement from the conference on House Joint Resolution 83, 
providing additional appropriations for work relief for fiscal 1939. 
After Senator Joseph C. O'Mahoney, of Wyoming, offered an amendment 
containing new legislation to a motion to instruct Senate conferees to 
insist on Senate amendment No. 9, Senator Alva B. Adams, of Colorado 
(the proponent of the original motion) raised a point of order.

MR. ADAMS: . . . I wish to raise the point of order that the motion of 
the Senator from Wyoming is not in order; that it is not possible at 
this point to instruct the conferees to insist upon matter which is not 
before the conference committee. . . . 
THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE:(15) The question raised involves Senate 
amendment No. 9 in the joint resolution. The amendment of the Senate 
struck out the House language. The question in conference, or which 
will be in conference, is as to whether the language of the House 
provision shall be adopted by the conferees, or whether it is to be 
stricken out of the resolution or whether the conferees shall adopt 
compromise language, and report the compromise language to their 
respective bodies for approval or disapproval.
House Joint Resolution 83 was finally acted upon by the Senate some 
time last week. That final action was reported to the House, the House 
agreed to a conference, and conferees 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     84 CONG. REC. 1004-09, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
15.     Key Pittman (Nev.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 631]]

were appointed. The question, first, is as to the authority of the 
Senate in the matter, and secondly, the authority of the conferees.
The Chair feels that all opportunity for legislation in connection with 
the House joint resolution ended with the passage of the measure in the 
Senate. The Senate has often held that it has the right to instruct its 
conferees-to instruct them, however, as to whether they shall insist 
upon a Senate amendment, or whether they shall yield on the amendment. 
The Chair does not believe that an instruction, after a measure has 
been finally passed by the Senate, can be put in the nature of new 
legislation which was not adopted by the Senate at the time the measure 
was under consideration. . . . 
The present occupant of the chair feels that it would be improper 
practice to attempt by instructions to the Senate's conferees to 
legislate beyond the scope of legislation by either branch of the 
Congress. Therefore the point of order made by the Senator from 
Colorado [Mr. Adams] is sustained.
Motion To Instruct Conferees To Take an Action Which Would Not Have 
Been in Order in House
Sec.    12.19 While Rule XX clause 2 permits a motion to instruct House 
conferees to agree to a Senate amendment which would have been in 
violation of Rule XXI clauses 2 or 5 if offered in the House, 
instructions to amend such Senate amendment should not be made in a 
manner not in order under House rules (e.g., to include unauthorized 
items (clause 2), to add further appropriations to a legislative bill 
(clause 5), or to include matter outside the scope of conferee's 
authority (Rule XXVIII clause 3)).
On Nov. 13, 1973,(16) the following proceedings occurred in regard to 
the conference report on H.R. 8877, appropriations for the Departments 
of Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare, and related agencies, for 
fiscal 1974:

MR. [ALBERT H.] QUIE [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER:(17) Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
MR. QUIE: I am, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Quie moves to recommit the Conference Report on H.R. 8877 to the 
Committee of Conference with the following instructions to the Managers 
on the Part of the House:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
Senate numbered 32 and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     119 CONG. REC. 36835, 36847, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 632]]

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, 
insert the following: "That the aggregate amounts made available to 
each State under title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act for grants to local educational agencies within that State shall 
not be more than 120 per centum of such amounts as were made available 
for that purpose for fiscal year 1973, and the amount made available to 
each local educational agency under said title I-A shall not be less 
than 90 per centum of the amount made available for that purpose for 
fiscal year 1973". . . .

MR. [DANIEL J.] FLOOD [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point 
of order against the motion to recommit on the ground that it instructs 
the conferees to include matter in the conference report which is not 
otherwise in order. This provision described in the instructions we 
just heard is clearly legislation on an appropriation act. Therefore, 
it is not eligible for inclusion in a conference report under 
provisions of clause 2, rule 20(18) and clause 2, rule 21.(19) . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) makes a point of order that 
the motion to recommit with instructions is in violation of the rules 
of the House and is not in order.
The motion to recommit directs the House conferees to recommend that 
the House recede from its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 32 and 
concur therein with an amendment. Senate amendment No. 32 was reported 
from conference in disagreement because, under clause 2 of rule XX, the 
House conferees had no authority to agree to that amendment, since it 
contained legislation on an appropriation bill and would have been 
subject to a point of order.(20) The Chair notes that on June 26, 1973, 
Chairman Holifield sustained a point of order against an amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Quie), on the grounds that 
the amendment added additional legislation to legislative language 
which had been permitted to remain in the bill by a resolution waiving 
points of order.
Under the precedents of the House, a motion to instruct conferees, or 
to recommit a bill to conference with instructions, may not include 
instructions directing House conferees to do that which would be 
inadmissible if offered as an amendment in the House-Cannon's 
Precedents, volume VIII, section 3235.
The Chair would like to point out two of the syllabi in section 3235:

Instructions to managers of a conference may not direct them to do that 
which they might not do otherwise.
A motion to instruct conferees may not include directions which would 
be inadmissible if offered as a motion in the House.

In the instant situation the Chair is of the opinion that the 
instructions included in the motion to recommit would, if offered in 
the House as an amendment to the language of the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
19.     Id. at Sec. 834.
20.     119 CONG. REC. 21388, 21389, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 633]

Senate amendment, add legislation thereto. As was the case in Chairman 
Holifield's ruling of June 26, 1973, the language would constitute a 
change in the allotment formula contained in the language of the Senate 
amendment. The Chair therefore holds that the motion to recommit is not 
a permissible motion within the meaning of clause 2, rule XX, and 
sustains the point of order.


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
C. INSTRUCTIONS TO CONFEREES; MOTIONS TO INSTRUCT
 
Sec.    13. Extending Power of Managers

Authority To Agree to Senate Amendments
Sec.    13.1 The House agreed to a special rule taking a House joint 
resolution making appropriations with Senate amendments from the Speak-
er's table, disagreeing to the amendments, agreeing to the conference 
requested, directing the Speaker to im-mediately appoint conferees 
without intervening motion, and giving specific authority to the 
conferees to agree      or disagree to any Senate amendment.
On Mar. 26, 1935,(1) Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, was recognized 
by Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, for the purpose of offering 
the following resolution relating to House Joint Resolution 117, an 
appropriations measure for relief purposes:
H. RES. 174
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 117, with Senate amendments 
thereto, be, and the same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table; 
that the Senate amendments be, and they are hereby, disagreed to by the 
House; that the conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses on the said joint resolution be, and hereby is, 
agreed to by the House; that the Speaker shall immediately appoint 
managers on the part of the House without intervening motion; and that 
the managers on the part of the House are hereby given specific 
authority to agree, with or without amendment, or disagree to any 
amendment of the Senate to the said joint resolution notwithstanding 
the provisions of clause 2 of rule XX.

After considerable debate, the resolution was agreed to by the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     79 CONG. REC. 4465-77, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 634]]

Sec.    13.2 The House granted unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table an appropriation bill with Senate amendments thereto, 
disagree to the Senate amendments, agree to the conference asked by the 
Senate, authorize the managers on the part of the House to agree to the 
amendments of the Senate with amendments, notwithstanding the 
provisions of Rule XX clause 2, and permit the conference report to be 
considered at any time.
On July 2, 1947,(2) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4031) making 
appropriations to meet emergencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1948, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree 
to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the 
Senate; and that the managers on the part of the House have authority 
to agree to the amendments of the Senate with amendments, 
notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2 of rule XX, and that the 
conference report may be considered at any time.
THE SPEAKER:(3) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none and appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Taber, Wigglesworth, Engel of Michigan, 
Stefan, Case of South Dakota, Keefe, Kerr, and Mahon.(4) 
Use of Concurrent Resolution To Place New Matter in Conference
Sec.    13.3 By adoption of a con-current resolution in both Houses, 
conferees may be authorized to consider a matter not committed to them 
in the text of a bill passed by one House and amended by the other. 
On Dec. 17, 1974,(5) the House, by unanimous consent, adopted the 
following concurrent resolution which had been messaged from the 
Senate.

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to take from the Speaker's table the Senate concurrent resolution (S. 
Con. Res. 124) relating to conference consideration of the bill (H.R. 
17468), and ask for its immediate consideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     93 CONG. REC. 8131, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3.     Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
 4.     See also 80 CONG. REC. 8822, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., June 3, 1936.
 5.     120 CONG. REC. 40472, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 635]]

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

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

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


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
C. INSTRUCTIONS TO CONFEREES; MOTIONS TO INSTRUCT
 
Sec.    14. When Conferees Fail To Act

Failure To Report Within 20 Days
Sec.    14.1 Where conferees have been appointed for 20 calendar days and 
have failed to file a report, a motion to instruct the House managers 
at the conference is in order, and is privileged under Rule XXVIII 
clause 1(c).
On Aug. 1, 1935,(7) Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, submitted the following 
resolution to instruct the House conferees on S. 2796, the Public 
Utilities Act of 1935:

Resolved, That the managers on the part of the House at the conference 
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the 
House to the bill of the Senate, S. 2796, be, and they are hereby, 
instructed to agree to the provisions of section 11 of the Senate bill.

Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, interposed a point of order against 
the resolution offered by 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 7.     79 CONG. REC. 12265, 12266, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 636]]

Mr. Rayburn on the ground that it was not privileged under Rule XXVIII 
clause 11/2a.(8) Mr. O'Connor argued that the rule applied only to 
recalcitrant conferees. Since the conferees were appointed in this 
instance without instructions,(9) he contended that they could not be 
considered recalcitrant.

THE SPEAKER:(10) The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rayburn] has presented a 
motion to instruct the conferees on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on Senate bill 
2796 to agree to the provisions of section 11 of the Senate bill. He 
does so under the provisions of rule XXVIII, which has been referred to 
and read several times to the House in the past 2 or 3 days, and with 
which all Members are familiar.
The gentleman from New York makes the point of order that the motion is 
not a privileged motion.
The Chair has had occasion in the past several days to give 
considerable thought and study to this rule. The Chair has heretofore 
stated that in the opinion of the Chair the whole object and purpose of 
the rule was to enable the House to preserve some control over 
conferees after they had been appointed. Up until the time clause 11/2
(a) of rule XXVIII was adopted the House had no authority over 
conferees after their appointment. Under the rules and practices 
preceding the adoption of this rule it was necessary for the House to 
instruct the conferees before they were appointed or the House lost 
entire control unless the conferees made a report either of 
disagreement or agreement.
The Chair has heretofore stated that in the opinion of the Chair the 
House in adopting the rule and providing that 20 days should elapse 
before a motion of this kind was in order intended to give what it 
considered at that time full opportunity to the conferees to come to 
such agreement. Under the present situation, with reference to the 
conferees on this particular bill, the Chair finds that the conferees 
were appointed more than 20 days ago.
As stated, the gentleman from Texas is offering this motion under the 
provisions of this rule. The Chair does not think it is a question of 
recalcitrancy on the part of the conferees or that that is necessary to 
make this motion in order, because the Chair repeats that in his 
opinion the moving purpose of the House in adopting the rule was to 
maintain control by the House over its conferees upon any bill which 
had been committed to them. . . . 
The Chair does not think there is any ambiguity in the language 
employed in this rule. It provides for two motions, one of which is to 
discharge and appoint new conferees, and the other to instruct the 
conferees already appointed.
The gentleman from Texas has made the latter motion. The Chair thinks 
it is clearly authorized under the plain 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
 9.     See 79 CONG. REC. 11095, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., July 12, 1935.
10.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 637]]

language of the rule and therefore overrules the point of order.(11) 

Sec.    14.2 After House conferees have been appointed for 20 calendar 
days and have failed to make a report, a motion to discharge said 
conferees is of high privilege.
On Sept. 12, 1940,(12) Mr. Harry P. Beam, of Illinois, alluding to the 
fact that House managers on S. 326 (relating to the payment of awards 
to citizens of the United States under the General Claims Convention of 
Sept. 8, 1923, between the United States and Mexico) had been appointed 
on July 11,(13) of that year, stated:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a privileged motion. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, under rule 28 of the rules of the House of 
Representatives, paragraph 11/2(a),(14) section 910, the following 
appears:

After House conferees on any bill or resolution in conference between 
the House and Senate shall have been appointed for 20 calendar days and 
shall have failed to make a report, it is hereby declared to be a 
motion of the highest privilege to move to discharge said House 
conferees and to appoint new conferees, or to instruct said House 
conferees; and, further, during the last 6 days of any session of 
Congress, it shall be a privileged motion to move to discharge, 
appoint, or instruct House conferees after House conferees shall have 
been appointed 36 hours without having made a report.

Mr. Speaker, in conformity with the above-stated rule, I hereby move to 
discharge the conferees appointed on the bill S. 326.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(15) The gentleman will send his motion to the 
desk, and the Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Beam moves to discharge the House conferees on the bill of the 
Senate S. 326.(16) 
Sec.    14.3 After conferees have been appointed in both bodies for more 
than 20 calendar days, and have failed to report, a motion in the House 
to instruct the House conferees is highly privileged.
A motion to instruct may be directed to a portion of a Senate 
amendment, in this instance the motion urged acceptance by the House 
managers of one non-germane section of the Senate amendment in the 
nature of a 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     See also 118 CONG. REC. 16838-42, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., May 11, 
1972.
12.     86 CONG. REC. 12052, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
13.     Id. at pp. 9515, 9516.
14.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 
(1997).
15.     Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
16.     See also 95 CONG. REC. 11398, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 12, 
1949.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 638]]

substitute to H.R. 31, amending the Truth in Lending Act. 
The form of the motion, as excerpted from the proceedings of May 20, 
1981,(17) is carried here. 
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES TO AGREE TO SECTION 303 OF SENATE 
AMENDMENT TO H.R. 31, THE CASH DISCOUNT ACT
MR. [EDWARD R.] MADIGAN [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
privileged motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(18) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Madigan moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
committee of conference on the bill H.R. 31 be instructed to agree to 
section 303 of the Senate amendment which removes the age restriction 
for appointment to the Surgeon Generalship.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Madigan) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support my motion to 
instruct House conferees on nongermane provisions found in H.R. 31, the 
Cash Discount Act.
As some of my colleagues may not be aware of the situation on this 
bill, I will give a brief recap:
H.R. 31, the Cash Discount Act, was reported by the House Banking 
Committee and passed the House. It was amended on the floor of the 
other body with the insertion of nongermane language relating to the 
Public Health Service Act. When returned to this body, the Speaker 
referred the nongermane portion of the amended bill to the Subcommittee 
on Health and the Environment of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Our 
distinguished chairman, the gentleman from California, called one day 
of hearings at which we discussed this and ancillary issues. The 
subcommittee and full committee took no further action. Some 6 weeks 
ago, the House appointed conferees on this bill. Three weeks ago, the 
other house did likewise. Conferees have unsuccessfully attempted to 
meet on two occasions.
This then is the situation today: A worthwhile piece of legislation has 
been blocked due to nongermane language. In addition, unrelated 
concerns have intruded upon the central issue of the amending language 
found in the bill.

Parliamentarian's Note: The 20-day rule has consistently been 
interpreted, in modern usage, to become privileged only after the 
conferees have been named in both bodies for the 20-day period required 
by the rule. Further, the rule has been interpreted to permit the 
privilege to attach to the motion only after the 20 days have 
completely run, not on the 20th day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     127 CONG. REC. 10319, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 639]]

Note, too, that the "notice requirement" in Rule XXVIII clause 1(c)(19) 
was not added to the rule until the 101st Congress.(20) 
Privilege of the House Not Alternative to 20-day Motion
Sec.    14.4 Where a rule of the House provides a specific method of 
proceeding against a dilatory or recalcitrant conference committee by a 
motion to discharge or instruct such committee, it is not in order to 
anticipate action under that rule by seeking to bring the matter before 
the House under the guise of a question of a privilege of the House.
On July 29, 1935,(1) Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, offered House 
Resolution 311, to instruct House conferees on S. 2796, the Public 
Utility Holding Company Act, to insist that any conference on that bill 
be held without the presence thereat of anyone who was not a manager 
for either the House or the Senate. The resolution contended that the 
refusal of the Senate managers to confer with their House counterparts 
unless the former were accompanied by certain advisors, constituted a 
question of a privilege of the House. Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, and Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, raised points of 
order against the resolution.

MR. BLANTON: I make the point of order that under rule XXVIII of the 
House of Representatives, after the Speaker appoints conferees, until 
the conferees make a report and file their report and statement here 
and have it printed, or unless 20 days have elapsed, and a proper 
motion is made under rule XXVIII(2) to discharge the conferees, the 
House loses jurisdiction entirely over the conferees until one of those 
two events happen.

Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, gave the following ruling:

The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Huddleston] 
has presented a resolution in which there are recitations of various 
statements of facts, and which is designed to instruct the conferees 
now having charge of the utility bill on the part of the House to 
further insist on said conferences being held-

Under free, fair, and just conditions and to insist that all persons 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 
(1997).
20.     See. H. Res. 5, 135 CONG. REC. 72, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 
1989.
 1.     79 CONG. REC. 12007-13, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 
(1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 640]]

who are not managers for either House or Senate be excluded from such 
conference.

The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] and the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Blanton] have raised a point of order and insisted that this 
resolution does not present a matter of privilege of the House. . . . 
With the limited opportunity the Chair has had to give consideration to 
this important matter, it appears that up until a short time ago, to be 
exact, the Seventy-second Congress, when a rule was adopted bearing on 
the subject, there was no way by which the House, after formal 
appointment of conferees, could instruct conferees, in the absence of a 
report of an agreement or a disagreement, except by unanimous consent. 
In the Seventy-second Congress the House, evidently realizing that 
situation, adopted a rule which the Chair will read to the House. It is 
section 11/2a of rule XXVIII. . . . 
That clause was adopted on December 8, 1931, in the first session of 
the Seventy-second Congress. Of course, the House had an object in 
adopting that rule. It was to preserve to the House the right to 
exercise authority, as the Chair construes it, in a matter pending 
between the House and Senate, insofar as its own conferees were 
concerned. As the Chair stated, up until that rule was adopted, the 
House had absolutely no authority, except by unanimous consent, to 
exercise any authority over the conferees theretofore appointed, except 
in those cases where the conferees had reported either an agreement or 
a disagreement. . . . 
As the Chair stated, from all the consideration he has given to this 
point of order in the limited time he has had to do so, he becomes more 
clearly convinced that in adopting this rule the House intended to cure 
a situation which, for some reason unexplained, had existed up until 
that time, because it was rather unusual that during all the years the 
House had never reserved to itself the right to tell conferees what 
they must do after they were appointed.
The Chair thinks that if this resolution was held in order at this time 
it would prove to be a bad precedent, for a similar question might be 
raised for one reason or another in every conference ordered by the 
House. . . . 
Now, there were two courses which the conferees could have pursued: One 
was to report to disagreement, which has not been done. The other was 
to wait for 20 days, under this rule, and then to proceed under its 
provisions as a matter of the highest privilege. If the conferees had 
reported a disagreement, it would be in order for the House to take 
such action as it pleased, either with reference to instructions or to 
sending them back for further consideration.
The Chair does not wish to be understood as passing on the merits of 
the question, because that is not within the province of the Chair. . . 
.  The Chair thinks that that is a matter of procedure that should be 
determined by the conferees. In the event that the conferees are unable 
to agree, it seems to the Chair that the remedy is provided in rule 
XXVIII. The Chair does not believe that under the facts stated a 
question 


[[Page 641]]

of privilege is involved. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of 
order.
Instruction To Agree With an Amendment
Sec.    14.5 The managers on the part of the House at a conference, 
having failed to make a report within 20 calendar days, were instructed 
to agree to a Senate amendment with an amendment.
On May 9, 1946,(3) the following proceedings occurred in the House:

MR. [BRENT] SPENCE [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, the Members of the 
conference committee on the bill (H.R. 4761) to amend the National 
Housing Act by adding thereto a new title relating to the prevention of 
speculation and excessive profits in the sale of housing, and to insure 
the availability of real estate for housing purposes at fair and 
reasonable prices, and for other purposes, having been appointed for 
more than 20 days and failing to file a report, I desire to make a 
motion under paragraph 11/2a of rule XXVIII of the House,(4) which 
motion is at the Clerk's desk. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(5) The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Spence] offers a 
motion which the Clerk will report.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Spence moves to instruct the managers on the part of the House at 
the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill 
H.R. 4761 to agree to section 11(a) of the Senate amendment, with an 
amendment, as follows: Strike out "$600,000,000" as it appears there- 
in, and insert in lieu thereof "$400,000,000."

After considerable debate, the House agreed to the motion.
Including Argument in Motion
Sec.    14.6 It is not within the province of the Chair to rule out a 
motion to instruct conferees under Rule XXVIII clause 1(c) on the 
ground that it contains argument.
On May 26, 1936,(6) Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, offered a motion 
pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 11/2a,(7) to instruct House conferees on 
H.R. 11581, the District of Columbia appropriation bill for fiscal 
1937. Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, made a point of order against 
the motion on the ground that it contained argument. Although Mr. 
Blanton subsequently withdrew his motion and asked that another motion 
be considered in its place, Mr. Snell 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     92 CONG. REC. 4750, 4766, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
 5.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 6.     80 CONG. REC. 7939, 7945, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 642]]

urged the Speaker, Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, to rule on his point 
of order.

MR. SNELL: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to have a ruling on 
this proposition. I made the point of order earlier that the 
argumentative part of the original proposition was not in order and I 
think for the future precedents of the House we should have a ruling on 
that question. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: . . . The rule to which the Chair has referred(8) provides 
only for a motion, but the Chair does not believe that any presiding 
officer ought to put himself in the position of dictating to a Member 
just how his motion should be made. If the Chair should hold that the 
motion carries argument, then it would be up to the Chair to delete 
from the motion such portions as occurred to the Chair to be 
argumentative, and if that were the practice the Chair at some time 
might delete portions of the motion in exercising that privilege.
The Chair thinks this is a matter for the House to decide, and the 
Chair is unwilling, out of a spirit of fairness, to undertake to 
dictate to the Members just how they shall draw their motions.
Recommittal to Existing Conference; Does Not Break Time Under 20-day 
Vote
Sec.    14.7 Where the Senate is first to act on a conference report and 
determines to recommit it to the committee of conference, the conferees 
are not at that point discharged; the same managers resume their 
negotiations, and a motion to instruct the managers on the part of the 
House under the "20-day rule" would still be permissible in the House 
if those conferees in fact have been appointed for more than the 20 
days. 

On May 24, 1990, the House had amended, insisted on its amendment, and 
asked for a conference on the bill S. 933, the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. 
The Senate under the normal progression of the official papers would 
act first on the report and in fact did so. As indicated by the 
comments of Mr. Steve Bartlett, of Texas, there had been some thought 
to letting the House act first. The inquiry by Mr. William E. 
Dannemeyer, of California, and the Chair's response shows that the 
continuity of the appointment of conferees is not broken if the report 
is recommitted by the first body to act. The proceedings of June 28, 
1990,(9) were as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     The Chair had previously referred to Rule XXVIII clause 11/2a.
 9.     136 CONG. REC. 16156, 16157, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 643]]

CONSIDERATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
(Mr. Hoyer asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
MR. [STENY H.] HOYER [of Maryland]: . . . I regret to inform the 
Members that it does not appear that the U.S. Senate is prepared to 
transfer the papers back to the House of Representatives this 
afternoon. As a result, I regret to inform the Members that we will not 
be considering the Americans With Disabilities Act this afternoon and, 
therefore, will not be considering it until after we return. . . . 
MR. BARTLETT: I thank the gentleman for yielding. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman for that decision, on two 
bases. First of all, on process: It seems to me that the rules of the 
House which say that the other body needs to act first, in fact, rule 
No. 555, states rather explicitly that in all cases of conference asked 
after votes of disagreement the conferees of the House making it are to 
leave the papers with the conferees of the other.
We have had disputes informally during the course of the day as to 
whether those papers could somehow be transferred back to this House 
even though the other body is required under the House rules to act 
first.
It seems to me that had that happened, it would have been disruptive to 
the process and Members would not have had sufficient, adequate 
notification as to which body was going to act first. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I would like, if I may, to ask a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The gentleman will state it.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, if the Senate, when it takes up the 
conference report, would consider a motion to recommit the bill to 
conference because of the failure of the conferees to adopt the 
provision of both Houses on the Chapman amendment and that motion to 
recommit would be successful, would it then be in order, since the 
conferees are still in existence and in business, for the House to then 
consider a motion to instruct conferees on the Chapman amendment?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman's conclusion is correct.
MR. DANNEMEYER: I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. . . . 
Giving Notice of Intent To Offer Motion To Instruct
Sec.    14.8 A Member announced to the House that it was his intention to 
offer a motion to instruct the House managers at a conference, the 
conferees having been appointed for over 20 days without having filed a 
report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 644]]

On May 22, 1968,(11) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
granted Mr. James A. Burke, of Massachusetts, permission to address the 
House.

MR. BURKE of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I have taken this time to 
advise the House that on next Wednesday, May 29, I propose to offer a 
motion to instruct the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the bill, H.R. 15414, the tax bill, to insist on an 
expenditure reduction for fiscal year 1969 of $4 billion, instead of a 
6 billion cut.(12) 
Form of Notice of Intention To Instruct Conferees
Sec.    14.9 Under Rule XXVIII clause 1 (as amended in 1989) a Member 
must give one day's notice of his intention to offer a motion to 
instruct conferees who have been appointed for 20 days without filing a 
report.  
The amendment to Rule XXVIII, requiring notice of an intention to offer 
a motion to instruct conferees under the "20-day rule" (see clause 1
(c)) was adopted in 1989;(13) the application of the new rule was 
illustrated during the proceedings of Nov. 13, 1989.(14) 
NOTICE OF MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 3299
(Mr. Tauke asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
MR. [THOMAS J.] TAUKE [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to serve 
notice that I am going to propose a motion to instruct conferees on 
H.R. 3299, the conference committee having been constituted over 20 
days. My motion will be to instruct the conferees to substitute, in 
lieu of title III of the Education and Labor Committee section, those 
provisions of the Ways and Means Committee section to expand the title 
XX block grant and the earned-income tax credit.

Parliamentarian's Note: The proposed motion to instruct can be 
described in general terms but the exact form of the motion must be 
included in the Record to constitute the adequate "notice" required by 
the rule. In the example carried here, the motion was never 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     114 CONG. REC. 14433, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
12.     Parliamentarian's Note: The conferees had reached agreement but 
had not yet filed their report. Under these conditions, a motion to 
instruct the managers on the part of the House, under Rule XXVIII 
clause 1(b) (clause 1(c) in 1997), was in order.
13.     See H. Res. 5, 135 CONG. REC. 72, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. The rule 
is currently carried in Sec. 910, House Rules and Manual (1997).
14.     135 CONG. REC. 28559, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 645]]

placed in the Record in its precise form, and perhaps because of this 
deficiency, was never called up. 
Procedure for Giving Notice of Intention To Instruct Under 20-day Rule
Sec.    14.10 The required notice under Rule XXVIII clause 1(c)(15) that 
a Member intends to offer a motion to instruct conferees under the 20-
day rule has been fulfilled by a statement during special orders, since 
giving such notice is not considered "business" which would be 
inappropriate during such proceedings.
It has long been the policy of the Speaker not to permit the conduct of 
business after the House has begun special-order speeches at the end of 
a legislative day. The announcement of an intent to offer a motion to 
instruct does not require the consent of the House and has thus been 
permitted after the conclusion of legislative business. Such a request 
is shown here.(16) 
SPECIAL ORDERS 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(17) Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, and under a previous order of the 
House, the following Members are recognized for 5 minutes each. . . . 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF INTENTION TO OFFER MOTION TO INSTRUCT ON H.R. 820, 
NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT
MR. [DANA] ROHRABACHER [of California]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 
1(c) of rule 28, I announce to the House that tomorrow I intend to 
offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 820. I had previously 
expected to offer this motion today. The form of the motion is as 
follows:

Mr. Rohrabacher moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the 2 Houses on the Senate 
amendment to the bill, H.R. 820, be instructed to insist on the 
provisions contained in section 506 of the House bill, entitled 
"Prohibitions", the text of which is as follows: "None of the funds 
made available in this Act may be used to provide any direct Federal 
financial benefit to any person who is not (1) a citizen or national of 
the United States; (2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 
residence; or (3) an alien granted legal status as a parolee, asylee, 
or refugee.".
Divisibility of Motion To Instruct Offered After 20 Days

Sec.    14.11 A motion to instruct conferees under Rule XXVIII 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
16.     See 140 CONG. REC. 26341, 26347, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 28, 1994.
17.     Robert C. (Bobby) Scott (Va.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 646]]

to agree to a Senate amendment with an amendment may not be divided for 
the purpose of permitting a vote on the Senate amendment itself.
On May 9, 1946,(18) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [BRENT] SPENCE [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, the Members of the 
conference committee on the bill (H.R. 4761) to amend the National 
Housing Act by adding thereto a new title relating to the prevention of 
speculation and excessive profits in the sale of housing, and to insure 
the availability of real estate for housing purposes at fair and 
reasonable prices, and for other purposes, having been appointed for 
more than 20 days and failing to file a report, I desire to make a 
motion under paragraph 11/2a of rule XXVIII of the House,(19) which 
motion is at the Clerk's desk. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(20) The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Spence] offers a 
motion which the Clerk will report.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Spence moves to instruct the managers on the part of the House at 
the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill 
H.R. 4761 to agree to section 11(a) of the Senate amendment, with an 
amendment, as follows: Strike out "$600,000,000" as it appears 
therein, and insert in lieu thereof "$400,000,000." . . . 

MR. [VITO] MARCANTONIO [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. MARCANTONIO: As I understand the motion filed by the gentleman from 
Kentucky, it provides for agreeing to the Senate amendment with an 
amendment. Is it possible to have the motion divided so that a vote may 
be taken on the Senate amendment itself?
THE SPEAKER: It is one proposition, it is not divisible.
Sec.    14.12 A motion to instruct conferees under Rule XXVIII clause 1
(c) is divisible if it contains two or more substantive propositions.
On May 26, 1936,(1) Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, pursuant to a 
clause in Rule XXVIII(2) offered a motion to instruct House conferees 
on H.R. 11581, the District of Columbia appropriations bill for fiscal 
1937. The motion contained three separate instructions. After the Clerk 
read the motion and after the previous question 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     92 CONG. REC. 4750, 4751, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
19.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 
(1997).
20.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 1.     80 CONG. REC. 7945, 7951, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 
(1973). In 1936, the pertinent clause was numbered 11/2a.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 647]]

was ordered, Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, rose.

MR. SNELL: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a division of the resolution.
THE SPEAKER:(3) The Chair thinks the resolution is divisible, and the 
Clerk will report the first portion of the resolution.
Motion To Instruct as Unfinished Business
Sec.    14.13 A motion to discharge conferees which is pending when the 
House adjourns becomes the unfinished business the next day.
On Sept. 12, 1940,(4) after Mr. Harry P. Beam, if Illinois, offered a 
motion to discharge the House conferees on S. 326, the following 
occurred:

MR. [SAM] RAYBURN [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(5) The gentleman will state it.
MR. RAYBURN: Mr. Speaker, if the House should adjourn now and a 
conference report is not filed by 12 o'clock noon tomorrow, would the 
motion of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Beam] be pending and still 
in order?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It would be the unfinished business of the 
House and the first thing in order tomorrow.
Number of Motions
Sec.    14.14 It has been held that the rule authorizing a motion to 
instruct conferees after the expiration of 20 calendar days is not 
restricted to one such motion.
On Aug. 22, 1935,(6) Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, offered a privileged 
motion to instruct the House conferees on S. 2796 (the Public Utility 
Holding Company Act), who had been appointed more than 20 days prior 
and had not filed a report. Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, then 
rose.

MR. HUDDLESTON: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
resolution is not privileged. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, this motion, if privileged at all, is privileged under 
House Rule 1-A,(7) the 20-day rule. It will be remembered that some 
days ago, 20 days having elapsed after the appointment of conferees 
under the rule, this matter was brought up and a motion was made by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rayburn] to instruct conferees. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
 4.     86 CONG. REC. 12053, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 5.     Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
 6.     79 CONG. REC. 14162-64, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 648]]

That motion was rejected. Thereupon, another motion was made to 
instruct the conferees and the motion was agreed to.
The view which I present is that by that action the force of the 20-day 
rule was exhausted. The bolt was shot-its force and effect is spent-and 
no motion can be again made under that rule.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that if this motion can be made today it 
could have been made at any time since the prior action by the House. 
Also, that if this motion can be made now, it being the second motion 
to instruct after a motion to instruct has been passed by the House, an 
unlimited number of motions to instruct can be made. In short, if this 
motion is privileged, a motion can be made every day to instruct 
conferees; it can be made every hour in every day. Manifestly, in the 
adoption of the rule it was never contemplated that any such 
multiplicity of motions should be made. Therefore, we are driven to the 
conclusion that only a single motion, when it is passed, can be made 
within the 20-day rule. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(8) The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Rayburn] has submitted a motion to instruct the conferees on the 
so-called "utility bill," which motion has already been read from the 
Clerk's desk. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Huddleston] makes the 
point of order that the motion is not privileged under the rules of the 
House. The Chair again reads the rule upon which the gentleman from 
Texas has predicated his motion: Section 11/2(a) of rule XXVIII reads 
in part as follows:

After House conferees on any bill or resolution in conference between 
the House and Senate shall have been appointed for 20 calendar days and 
shall have failed to make a report, it is hereby declared to be a 
motion of the highest privilege to move to discharge said House 
conferees and to appoint new conferees, or to instruct said House 
conferees.

It will be noted that the rule itself does not undertake to place any 
limitations upon the number of motions that may be made. The Chair has 
heretofore stated that, in his opinion, this rule was adopted in the 
Seventy-second Congress with the sole object and purpose on the part of 
the House of retaining control over the conferees after they had been 
appointed to consider differences between the House and the Senate.
Prior to that time, as we all know, after the appointment of the 
conferees, the House lost control. In fact, if the Chair may repeat, 
this rule was adopted to bring back to the House control over its own 
agents, or conferees, after giving them 20 days in which to come to 
some agreement with the representatives of the other body. To say that 
control is exhausted after the making of one motion it seems to the 
Chair is not justified by the rule or by the evident intent of the 
House when it adopted the rule. Certainly the House did not adopt this 
rule with the idea of retaining control of its own agents and then 
immediately after a motion was made, whatever might be the subject of 
the motion, again surrendering for all 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 649]]

time to come control of those agents or those conferees. . . . 
 . . . The Chair thinks it clear that if the House had intended that 
only one motion should be made under this rule, it would have said so 
when the rule was adopted. Certainly the Chair has no authority to 
limit the number of motions made under the plain reading of this rule.
The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order and the gentleman 
from Texas is recognized.
Sec.    14.15 Where conferees have not reported within 20 days following 
their appointment, motions to instruct can be offered; and defeat of 
one such motion does not prohibit the later submission of an identical 
motion.
Rule XXVIII clause 1(c) provides an opportunity for numerous motions to 
instruct House managers after they have been in conference for 20 
calendar days or more and have not filed a report.(9) 

The following discussion of the repetition of motions to instruct under 
this rule occurred on July 22, 1974.(10) 
MOTION TO FURTHER INSTRUCT CON-FEREES ON H.R. 69, EXTENDING THE 
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. WAGGONNER
MR. [JOE D.] WAGGONNER [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, under clause 
1, rule XXVIII, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Waggonner moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill H.R. 
69, be instructed to insist upon the provisions of the House relating 
to limitations on the transportation of students embodied in title II 
of the House bill.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [WILLIAM A.] STEIGER of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order against the preferential motion.
THE SPEAKER:(11) The gentleman will state it.
MR. STEIGER of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against 
the preferential motion to instruct the conferees on the basis that 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), permitting the 20-day motion to 
instruct, has been part of the rules since Dec. 9, 1931 (8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 3225). An amendment to the rule in the 101st Congress 
put in place a one-day notice requirement before the motion can be 
privileged. After notice is given, the Speaker then sets a time and/or 
place in the legislative schedule on the next legislative day for 
consideration of the motion. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 
(1997). 
10.     120 CONG. REC. 24448, 24449, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 650]]

on two previous occasions the House has already instructed conferees on 
H.R. 69 on identical language.
If I can be heard on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that 
without the benefit of precedents other than those contained in 
Cannon's, it is difficult for the Members of the House to understand 
fully all of the precedents of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, but let us review the history.
Prior to the appointment of conferees, the gentleman from Michigan 
offered a motion to instruct conferees on the so-called Esch amendment 
on school busing that was agreed to by the House. After 20 days had 
elapsed, the gentleman from Louisiana offered a subsequent motion to 
further instruct the conferees on exactly the same question, the busing 
of children under title II of the House bill. The gentlewoman from 
Hawaii offered a motion to instruct conferees, and I did not on a 
timely basis raise a point of order against her motion to instruct 
conferees at that point.
Let me go back to what Champ Clark said in volume 8, page 726 of 
Cannon's Precedents.
It says in the ruling at 3236, that:

One motion to instruct having been considered and disposed of, a 
further motion to instruct was not admissible.

The Speaker at that time said:

The motion to instruct is analogous to a motion to recommit, and there 
can be but one motion to recommit that is in order, and it is 
amendable; . . . there must be an end to all things sometime or other.

I make my point of order based on that appropriate ruling by Speaker 
Clark, on the basis that it is not wise nor timely for the House to 
instruct conferees time after time, whether on the same subject or on a 
different subject, and all things must come to an end.
I would hope that the Chair will support the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Louisiana desire to be heard on 
the point of order?
MR. WAGGONNER: I do desire to be heard, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, that which some people consider wise and that which the 
rules provide sometimes are somewhat different, and in this instance 
the rules are to the contrary. The rules and the precedents speak for 
themselves.
Speaker Byrns, on August 22, 1935, volume 79, 74th Congress, 1st 
session, was called to rule upon a similar point of order. A Member of 
the House who later became Speaker, Mr. Rayburn, of Texas, offered a 
privileged resolution. Mr. Huddleston made a point of order against 
that privileged resolution. He said:

Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the resolution is not 
privileged.

He went further and he said:

This motion, if privileged at all, is privileged under House Rule 1-A, 
the 20-day rule. It will be remembered some days ago, 20 days having 
elapsed after the appointment of conferees under the rule, this matter 
was brought up and a motion was made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Rayburn) to instruct conferees. That motion was rejected. There-


[[Page 651]]

upon, another motion was made to instruct the conferees and the motion 
was agreed to.

Mr. Huddleston went on to say:

The view which I present is that by that action the force of the 20-day 
rule was exhausted. The bolt was shot-its force and effect is spent-and 
no motion can be again made under that rule.

And then he went on and argued further the point.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is sufficient to quote the ruling of the Chair, 
Speaker Byrns, on that question, and the Chair stated it was ready to 
rule and the rule by the Speaker was:

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rayburn) has submitted a motion to 
instruct the conferees on the so-called "utility bill", which motion 
has already been read from the Clerk's desk. The gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Huddleston) makes the point of order that the motion is not 
privileged under the rules of the House. The Chair again reads the rule 
upon which the gentleman from Texas has predicated his motion: . . .

The Chair then read the rule. The Chair went on to say:

It will be noted that the rule itself does not undertake to place any 
limitations upon the number of motions that may be made. The Chair has 
heretofore stated that, in his opinion, this rule was adopted in the 
Seventy-second Congress with the sole object and purpose on the part of 
the House of retaining control over the conferees after they had been 
appointed to consider differences between the House and the Senate.
Prior to that time, as we all know, after the appointment of the 
conferees, the House lost control. In fact, if the Chair may repeat, 
this rule was adopted to bring back to the House control over its own 
agents, or conferees, after giving them 20 days in which to come to 
some agreement with the representatives of the other body.

Mr. Speaker, rather than to read the rest of that opinion, let me say 
the Speaker concluded then by saying: 

The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order and the gentleman 
from Texas is recognized.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the point of order be overruled and that I be 
recognized.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule. The general rule as stated on 
page 127 of Cannon's Procedures is:

Conferees failing to report within 20 days after appointment may be 
instructed or discharged and motions to instruct or discharge and 
appoint successors are of the highest privilege.

Now, the Chair would like to note that the citation that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin gave from Speaker Champ Clark did not refer to 
privileged motions under clause 1(b), rule XXVIII, where conferees have 
failed to report in 20 calendar days.
The Chair has examined the precedents that the gentleman from Louisiana 
has cited and agrees that they support the proposition that a second or 
any number of motions to instruct are in order. The Chair therefore 
overrules the point of order and recognizes the gentleman from 
Louisiana.
Sec.    14.16 A second motion to instruct conferees was made the same day 
upon the same 


[[Page 652]]

matter in disagreement between the two Houses.
On Aug. 1, 1935,(12) Speaker     Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, 
recognized Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, to offer the following 
motion to instruct the conferees on S. 2796, the Public Utilities Act 
of 1935:

The Clerk read as follows:

Motion to instruct conferees by Mr. Huddleston: Moved that managers on 
the part of the House appointed upon request of the Senate for a 
conference upon the disagreeing votes of the House and the Senate on 
the amendment adopted by the House to S. 2796 be, and they are hereby, 
instructed as follows:
That it is the will of the House that its managers insist upon a 
conference being held under just and fair conditions, such as will 
insure careful, calm, and deliberate consideration and will tend to 
promote an agreement by the conference, and that in the performance of 
their duties as such managers it is and shall remain the right and 
privilege of the managers on the part of the House, if in their 
judgment it is desirable in promoting the aforesaid ends, that such 
conference be held without the presence thereat of any person not a 
manager upon the part of either House or Senate.

Earlier that day, a motion to instruct the conferees on S. 2796, 
offered by Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, had been defeated in the House.
(13) 
Sec.    14.17 A motion to instruct House conferees who have failed to 
report for 20 calendar days is in order notwithstanding the previous 
adoption by the House of the same motion to instruct.
On May 11, 1972,(14) Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, was 
recognized in regard to S. 659, the Higher Education Amendments of 
1971.

MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged motion 
under clause 1, rule XXVIII.
THE SPEAKER:(15) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Waggonner 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 House amendment to the bill S. 659 be instructed to 
insist upon the provisions contained in Sections 1701 and 1703(b) of 
the House amendment. . . . 

MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House, this is an effort 
on my part, and others, to insist upon the instructions previously 
given to the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     79 CONG. REC. 12272, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
13.     Id. at pp. 12265-72.
14.     118 CONG. REC. 16838, 16842, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
15.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 653]]

House conferees to stand by the House language contained in the higher 
education bill which specifically, under the conditions set forth by 
the Broomfield amendment, the Ashbrook amendment, as amended by the 
Green amendment, instruct them to stand by the language of those 
amendments prohibiting busing to overcome racial imbalance and prohibit 
coercion by the executive branch of Government.(16) 

The motion to instruct was agreed to by the House.
Multiple Motions To Instruct, 20-day Rule; Notice Requirement
Sec.    14.18 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), as it existed in the 
99th Congress, any number of proper motions to instruct the House 
conferees could be offered after a bill had been committed to 
conference for more than 20 calendar days, and such motions could be 
offered one after another so long as more highly privileged business 
did not intervene. 
The proceedings on July 10, 1985,(17) illustrate how motions under the 
20-day rule could divert the House from scheduled business. As a result 
of the increased use of such motions, the House adopted a change to 
Rule XXVIII clause 1(c) in the 103d Congress, requiring one day's 
notice of a Member's intention to offer the motion.(18) 

MR. [PAUL E.] KANJORSKI [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
privileged motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(19) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Kanjorski moves that, pursuant to the provisions of clause 1(b) of 
Rule XXVIII, the managers on the part of the House at the conference on 
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to the 
bill Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 be instructed to insist on the 
House provisions providing for full cost-of-living adjustments for 
Social Security recipients, federal military and civilian retirees, 
black lung recipients, railroad retirees, and recipients of VA 
compensation and pensions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     The House had on Mar. 8, 1972, adopted a motion to instruct 
conferees identical to that offered by Mr. Waggonner in this instance. 
118 CONG. REC. 7554-63, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
17.     131 CONG. REC. 18440, 18442, 18448, 18449, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     See 135 CONG. REC. 72, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1989 (H. 
Res. 5). See current text of the rule in House Rules and Manual Sec. 
910 (1997).
19.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 654]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Kanjorski] is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY 
MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, it has now been discussed on the floor that 
the gentleman from Ohio would be entitled to offer an amendment or to 
offer another motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the Chair to allow the gentleman 
from Ohio to offer that motion immediately following the disposal of 
the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Subsequent to the disposition of the motion to 
instruct by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski], the Chair 
could recognize another Member for the purpose of offering another 
privileged motion to instruct. . . . 
MR. KANJORSKI: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
privileged motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to instruct, 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].
The motion to instruct was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . . . 
MR. [DELBERT L.] LATTA [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged 
motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
Mr. Latta moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes between the two Houses on the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 32, be instructed to insist on the 
House position on cost of living adjustments; and further in order to 
achieve the largest possible deficit reduction package, and to adopt a 
budget path that will lead the nation toward a balanced budget, the 
managers on the part of the House are instructed to adopt additional 
domestic savings to guarantee that the dollars in savings that are lost 
by insisting on the House position are realized through additional 
spending restraint.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Latta] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
Tabling Motion To Instruct After 20 Days
Sec.    14.19 A motion to instruct House conferees is highly privileged 
after they have been appointed for 20 calendar days and have failed to 
report; but pending the demand for the previous question on the motion, 
the motion to table the instructions is in order.  
The motion to instruct under Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), where conferees 
have failed to report within 20 days following their appointment, is a 
"motion of the 


[[Page 655]]

highest privilege."(20) On Sept. 22, 1976, this motion was subject to 
debate under the hour rule(1) which in the example shown, was under the 
control of Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, who offered the 
motion to instruct:(2) 

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

Pursuant to the provisions of rule XXVIII, clause 1(b), Mr. Waggonner 
moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on 
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill H.R. 12572, to 
amend the U.S. Grain Standards Act to improve the grain inspection and 
weighing system, and for other purposes, be instructed to disagree to 
the Senate amendment and to insist on the language of the House bill.

MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, my preferential motion is offered as a 
motion of the highest privilege pursuant to rule XXVIII, clause 1(b), 
which states:

After House conferees on any bill or resolution in conference between 
the House and Senate shall have been appointed for twenty calendar days 
and shall have failed to make a report, it is hereby declared to be a 
motion of the highest privilege to move to discharge said House 
conferees and to appoint new conferees, or to instruct said House 
conferees; and further, during the last six days of any session of 
Congress it shall be a privileged motion to move to discharge, appoint, 
or instruct, House conferees after House conferees shall have been 
appointed thirty-six hours without having made a report.

My motion applies to the House conferees on H.R. 12572, the so-called 
grain inspection bill. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, the conferees have been meeting for 4 months. I do not 
believe that we should abandon the House-passed provision which was 
opposed by only 33 Members when we passed this bill earlier this year. 
. . . 
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the preferential motion.
MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MR. BERGLAND
MR. [BOB] BERGLAND [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the 
preferential motion on the table.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order.
THE SPEAKER:(3) The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Waggonner) will state 
his point of order.
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, in offering a 
preferential motion, the time belongs to the offeror. Now, for the 
benefit of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Bergland), I can move the 
previous ques-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
 1.     The division of debate time on a motion to instruct conferees 
between the majority and minority parties was added to Rule XXVIII, as 
a new clause (b), in the 101st Congress. See H. Res. 5, 135 CONG. REC. 
72, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1989. 
 2.     122 CONG. REC. 31876, 31881, 31882, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 656]]

tion, and the vote occurs on the previous question. The vote does not 
occur on a motion to table until the previous question is voted on and 
unless the previous question is not ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state the gentleman's statement is not 
correct. If the gentleman moves the previous question, the motion to 
instruct conferees is first subject to being tabled.
MR. WAGGONNER: That is exactly what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker. We 
have to table my motion.
THE SPEAKER: The motion to table the motion to instruct is privileged 
over the previous question.
MR. WAGGONNER: But the previous question has to be tabled first, Mr. 
Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: No, that is not correct. The motion to table is being 
applied to the motion to instruct conferees, and not to the previous 
question on that motion.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. WAGGONNER: For my information, Mr. Speaker, will the Chair cite for 
me the rule which is the basis of the Chair's ruling?
THE SPEAKER: The citation is clause 4 of rule XVI.
MR. WAGGONNER: And that says what, Mr. Speaker?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will read a portion of the rule:

When a question is under debate, no motion shall be received but to 
adjourn, to lay on the table, for the previous question (which motions 
shall be decided without debate), to postpone to a day certain, to 
refer, or to amend, or postpone indefinitely; which several motions 
shall have precedence in the foregoing order; and no motion to postpone 
to a day certain, to refer, or to postpone indefinitely, being decided, 
shall be again allowed on the same day at the same stage of the 
question.

MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, what is that preferential order?
MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I call for the 
regular order. The regular order is on the motion to table; is it not?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct.
MR. YATES: Then, Mr. Speaker, let us have a vote.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion to table offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Bergland).
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, am I correct in assuming that the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Bergland) has moved to table the previous question?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Bergland) has moved to 
table the preferential motion to instruct conferees.
MR. BAUMAN: And that is what we will be voting on?
THE SPEAKER: Yes, and that is privileged.
MR. BAUMAN: I thank the Speaker.


[[Page 657]]

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, under what rule of the House can the 
gentleman move to table the preferential motion without the previous 
question's being denied?
THE SPEAKER: The rule which the Chair has just cited and under the 
precedents in support thereof.
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, how can any vote be conducted without the 
previous question's being ordered?
THE SPEAKER: It is a motion to table, which must be voted on before the 
motion for the previous question on the matter which the gentleman 
refers to.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, I demand the regular order.
THE SPEAKER: The regular order is demanded.
The Chair is putting the question on the motion which is before the 
House.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Bergland) to table the preferential motion offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Waggonner).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
MR. WAGGONNER: 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 224, nays 
178, not voting 28. . . . 
So the motion to table the preferential motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Discharge of Conferees by Unanimous Consent
Sec.    14.20 On one occasion the managers on the part of the House at a 
conference were by unanimous consent discharged and the House receded 
from its disagreement to the Senate amendment and concurred therein.
On Dec. 14, 1944,(4) Mr. Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, made the 
following request in the House:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the managers on the part of 
the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the bill (H.R. 3732) to repeal the prohibition against the filling 
of a vacancy in the office of district judge in the district of New 
Jersey, be discharged and that the House immediately proceed to 
consideration of the Senate amendment to that bill.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER:(5) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania? . . . 
There was no objection. . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     90 CONG. REC. 9485, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 658]]

MR. WALTER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recede and concur in the 
Senate amendment. 
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


[[Page 659]]


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
D. CONFERENCE REPORTS
 
Sec.    15. In General

When the House is in session the filing of a conference report is a 
matter of high privilege.(1) The rules provide that a conference report 
may always be presented (filed) in the House except when the Journal is 
being read, while the roll is being called, or when the House is voting 
on any proposition.(2) These reports may sometimes be filed when the 
House is not in session. The House may grant its consent that a 
conference report might be filed until  midnight on a particular date,
(3) during an adjournment of the House,(4) or during a recess of the 
House.(5) 
A conference report must be accompanied by a joint statement explaining 
the effect that the agreement contained therein will have upon the 
measure to which it relates. In the past separate explanatory 
statements were prepared and signed by each set of managers for their 
respective Houses. However, the rules now require that these statements 
be prepared and signed jointly by the conferees on the part of both 
Houses.(6) A point of order will not lie against the report on the 
ground that the explanatory statement is insufficient. This is a matter 
for the House to determine in its vote on the conference report itself.
(7) These statements may include proposed action on amendments reported 
from the conference still in disagreement.(8) On one occasion, the 
statement incorporated by reference legislative history contained in 
committee reports.(9) The statement of the managers is not read if the 
report itself is read(10) but may by 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Sec. 16.1, infra.
Precedents included below that relate to limitations on the scope of 
reports are further analyzed at the beginning of Sec. 7, supra.
 2.     Rule XXVIII clause 1(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 909 (1997).
 3.     Sec. 16.7, infra.
 4.     Sec.Sec. 16.9, 16.10, infra.
 5.     Sec.Sec. 16.10, 16.13, infra.
 6.     Rule XXVIII clause 1(d), House Rules and Manual Sec. 911 (1997). 
This clause was amended by H. Res. 5, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., pursuant to 
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1140, Pub. L. No. 
91-510, Sec. 125(b)(1) Oct. 26, 1970).
 7.     Sec. 20, generally, infra.
 8.     Sec. 20.1, infra.
 9.     See Sec. 20.2, infra.
10.     Sec. 20.7, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 660]]

unanimous consent be read in lieu of the report.(11) 
Minority views are not included in a conference report,(12) nor may 
separate minority statements ac-company a report in addition to or in 
lieu of the joint explanatory statement.(13) However, exceptions taken 
by certain managers may  be indicated in the explanatory statement 
(with the approval of the majority of the conferees),(14) or in the 
manner in which the conferees sign the report and statement.(15) 
Conference reports are printed as reports of the House(16) and both the 
report and explanatory statement must be printed in the daily edition 
of the Congressional Record for the day on which they are filed.(17) 
This requirement does not apply during the last six days of a session,
(18) and may be waived at other times by unanimous consent.(19) 
Conference reports must be signed by a majority of the managers on the 
part of each House,(20) and the Speaker does not look behind these 
signatures to determine whether the report accurately reflects the 
conduct and results of a conference.(1) 

Minority Views
Sec.    15.1 There is no provision in the rules whereby a minor-ity 
member of a conference committee may file minority views on a 
conference report, although a Member may present such views 
unofficially by extending his remarks in the Congressional Record.
On May 31, 1938,(2) after Mr. Wilburn Cartwright, of Oklahoma, asked 
unanimous consent to file a conference report and statement on H.R. 
10140, a bill amending the Federal Aid Road Act, the following 
proceedings occurred:

MR. [JESSE P.] WOLCOTT [of Michigan]: I understand that one of the 
House conferees refused to sign the conference report and expected to 
file a 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     Sec. 20.8, infra.
12.     Sec.Sec. 15.1, 20.3, infra.
13.     Sec.Sec. 20.3, 20.4, infra.
14.     Sec. 20.4, infra.
15.     Sec.Sec. 18.6-18.8, infra.
16.     Rule XXVIII clause 1(d), House Rules and Manual Sec. 911 (1997).
17.     Rule XXVIII clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912 (1997).
18.     Id. See Sec. 22.5, infra.
19.     Sec. 16.3, infra.
20.     Sec.Sec. 18.1, 18.2, infra.
 1.     Sec.Sec. 18.2-18.4, infra.
 2.     83 CONG. REC. 7759, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 661]]

minority report. My parliamentary inquiry is whether a member of the 
conference committee may file a minority report, or whether there is 
any provision in the rules covering that matter.
THE SPEAKER:(3) In answer to the parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman 
from Michigan, the Chair will state that under the rules there is no 
provision whereby a minority member of a conference committee may file 
minority views on a conference report.
MR. WOLCOTT: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. WOLCOTT: May a member file a minority report as a part of the 
proceedings without having it printed as a part of the conference 
report?
THE SPEAKER: The member can extend his remarks in the Record and 
present his views, but not officially as a part of the conference 
report.(4) 
Form of Signature Sheets Showing "Exceptions" From Conference Amendment 
in Nature of Substitute
Sec.    15.2 Form of signatures on    a conference report where managers 
inappropriately expressed their opposition to or exception from certain 
parts of the conference agreement in the nature of a substitute.
The signature sheets on this conference report, excerpted from the 
Record of Oct. 1, 1992,(5) made it clear that the three exceptions 
shown were attributed only to the name which immediately preceded the 
parenthetical comment. Since the Senate amendment to which the House 
disagreed and sent to conference was an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, exceptions were clearly inappropriate. Managers at a 
conference must act on the conference report as a whole, either by 
signing to indicate their support or declining to sign to show 
opposition to any part thereof. Under precedent (see 8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 3302), members of a conference committee may not file 
separate views.

From the Committee on Armed Services, for consideration of the House 
bill, and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference:
LES ASPIN, 
CHARLES E. BENNETT, G. V. MONTGOMERY. . .
LARRY J. HOPKINS 
  (except for Sec. 807
     on Mentor-Protege
     and Sec. 1364 on the
     Landmine Morato-
     rium),
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
 4.     See also 95 CONG. REC. 7096, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., June 1, 1949.
 5.     138 CONG. REC. 29891, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 662]]

BOB DAVIS,
DUNCAN HUNTER
  (except for Secs. 232
     and 234 related to 
     SDI),
DAVID O'B. MARTIN. . . 
ARTHUR RAVENEL, Jr., 
ROBERT K. DORNAN
  (except for Secs. 232
     and 234 related to
     SDI).
Conference Reports Not Printed in Senate
Sec.    15.3 In the Senate, the requirement of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1970 that conference reports be printed in both 
Houses is waived by unanimous consent; consequently, the Senate works 
from the House printing of such a report.
In the House, the requirement of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1970 that conference reports be printed "as a report of the House" is 
incorporated in Rule XXVIII clause 1(d).(6) The official papers on a 
conference report still, of course, reflect the joint action and 
signatures of managers from both Houses.(7) 
PRINTING OF CONFERENCE REPORTS
MR. BAKER: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding 
the provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act, conference 
reports and statements accompanying them not be printed as Senate 
reports when such conference reports and statements have been printed 
as a House report, unless specific request is made in the Senate in 
each instance to have such a report printed.
THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Sec.    15.4 Although the Senate rules require the printing of conference 
reports and the accompanying statements, this requirement is routinely 
waived, in each Congress, by a unanimous-consent request which aborts 
the printing requirement for the Congress in question whenever the 
House has printed the report. 
The request, as stated and agreed to in the Senate on Jan. 5, 1993,(8) 
is carried here. 
PROVISIONS REGARDING CONFERENCE REPORTS AND STATEMENTS
MR. [GEORGE J.] MITCHELL [of Maine]: Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that, notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXVIII, confer-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 911 (1997).
 7.     127 CONG. REC. 11, 12, 97th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1981.
 8.     139 CONG. REC. 9, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 663]]

ence reports and statements accompanying them not be printed as Senate 
reports when such conference reports and statements have been printed 
as a House report unless specific request is made in the Senate in each 
instance to have such a report printed.
Unusual Form of Conference Report To Simplify House Floor Procedure
Sec.    15.5 Form of conference report on a general appropriation bill 
where there were 132 Senate amendments, all wrapped inside the report 
as one motion to recede and concur with one nongermane amendment. 
This rather artificially constructed conference report would have been 
susceptible to points of order under several House rules, since it 
included in the agreed upon text legislative and unauthorized 
provisions. The motion to recede and concur in the final Senate 
amendment in disagreement would have been subject to attack under Rule 
XXVIII clause 4.(9) The procedure did have the advantage of reducing 
the number of debatable motions and the time required to conclude 
consideration of the conference agreement. 
The pertinent proceedings as excerpted from the Record of June 30, 
1993,(10) are set out below.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2118, MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1993 
Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky] submitted the following 
conference report and statement on the bill (H.R. 2118) making 
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1993, and for other purposes:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. 103-165)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2118) "making 
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1993, and for other purposes," having met after full and free 
conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its amendments numbered 1 through 131.
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
Senate numbered 132, and agree to the same with an amendment, as 
follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 913b (1997).
10.     139 CONG. REC. 14935, 14936, 14942, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 664]]

to provide supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1993, and for other purposes, namely:
CHAPTER I
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE
Salaries and Expenses
For an additional amount for "Salaries and Expenses", $4,000,-000. . . 
. 
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE . . . 
Report language included by the House in the report accompanying H.R. 
2118 (H. Rept. 103-91) and the report accompanying H.R. 2244 (H. Rept. 
103-105) which is not changed by the report of the Senate (S. Rept. 
103-54), and Senate report language which is not changed by the 
conference are approved by the committee of conference. The statement 
of the managers while repeating some report language for emphasis, is 
not intended to negate the language referred to above unless expressly 
provided herein.
Amendment Nos. 1-131: The Senate receded on amendments 1 through 131. 
Material in these amendments is addressed in Amendment 132.
Amendment No. 132: Deletes language proposed by the Senate and strikes 
all after the enacting clause and inserts substitute bill text 
described as follows: . . . 
A Conference Report Is Not Amendable
Sec.    15.6 A conference report under consideration is not subject to 
amendment; and the Chair has refused to recognize for a unanimous-
consent request to strike a provision carried in such a report.
A conference report is in the nature of a contract or agreement between 
the managers from the two Houses, and neither House can unilaterally 
alter the content where the report has been filed and is under 
consideration. The proceedings of Oct. 27, 1990,(11) touch on this 
principle.

MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, 
I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 5769) making 
appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1991, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(12) Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] will be recognized for 30 
min-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     136 CONG. REC. 36891, 36901, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
12.     G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (Miss.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 665]]

utes, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] will be recognized for 
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. . . . 
MR. [STEVE] BARTLETT [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to strike from the bill the two 
unauthorized specially designated metal casting centers referred to in 
amendment No. 158 previously noted.
MR. [LES] AUCOIN [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair does not entertain that request. The 
Chair does not recognize for that purpose anyway.
The gentleman is out of order.
Form of Conference Report Where House Recedes From Its Amendments
Sec.    15.7 Example of a conference report and statement where the House 
receded from its amendments to a Senate bill.
Where the House recedes from its amendments to a Senate bill, the 
measure is passed. However, the conference report cited here, on S. 
429, the Consumer Protection Against Price Fixing Act, was rejected 
when called up on June 22, 1992.(13) 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 429, CON-SUMER PROTECTION AGAINST PRICE FIXING 
ACT OF 1991     
Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas] submitted the following conference report 
and statement on the Senate bill (S. 429) to amend the Sherman Act 
regarding retail competition:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. 102-605)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 429), to amend the 
Sherman Act regarding retail competition, having met, after full and 
free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
respective Houses that the House recede from its amendments . . . 
JACK BROOKS,
DON EDWARDS,
MIKE SYNAR,
Managers on the Part of the House.
JOE BIDEN,
TED KENNEDY,
HOWARD M. METZENBAUM,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE . . . 
For the text of S. 429 as it passed the Senate, see Congressional 
Record of October 10, 1991, page H7756.
JACK BROOKS,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     138 CONG. REC. 15659, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 666]]

DON EDWARDS,
MIKE SYNAR,
Managers on the Part of the House.



 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
D. CONFERENCE REPORTS
 
Sec.    16. Privilege of Filing; When in Order

Filing of Report as Privileged

Sec.    16.1 The filing of a conference report while the House is in 
session is a privileged matter and the presentation of such a report 
does not require unanimous consent.
On Aug. 1, 1968,(14) after Mr. Graham B. Purcell, of Texas, submitted a 
conference report and statement on H.R. 16363, a bill to clarify and 
amend the Poultry Products Inspection Act, Mr. Wiley Mayne, of Iowa, 
raised the following objection:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to object to the filing of the conference report on 
the ground that it is not in proper form. I am a conferee and I have 
not had an opportunity to see the report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(15) That is a matter that the gentleman should 
take up with the gentleman from Texas.
The Chair has no knowledge of the conference report except that it is 
being filed.
MR. MAYNE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to have the record made clear that I do 
object to its filing for the reason that it is not in the proper form.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman's statement will appear in the 
Record.
Sec.    16.2 Notwithstanding the recommittal of a conference report to a 
committee of conference with instructions, the subsequent conference 
report is filed as privileged, given a new number and otherwise treated 
as a new and separate report.
On May 8, 1963,(16) the House voted to recommit the conference report, 
House Report No. 275, on H.R. 5517, a supplemental appropriations bill. 
On May 14, 1963,(17) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, to call up House Report No. 
290.

MR. THOMAS: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill 
(H.R. 5517) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1963, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent 
that the statement 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     114 CONG. REC. 24806, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
15.     Chet Holifield (Calif.).
16.     109 CONG. REC. 8043, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Id. at p. 8502.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 667]]

of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu of the report. 
. . . 
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 290)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 5517) making 
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, 
and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, 
have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as 
follows: . . . 
Printing Report in Record
Sec.    16.3 By unanimous consent, the House waived the requirement that 
a conference report be printed in the Record in accordance with Rule 
XXVIII clause 2.(18) 
On June 26, 1959,(19) the following proceedings occurred in regard to 
H.R. 7523, a bill providing for a one-year extension of existing 
corporate taxes:

MR. [WILBUR D.] MILLS [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the conferees may have until midnight Saturday night next 
to file a conference report on the bill H.R. 7523, and that rule XXVIII 
relating to printing in the Record in this instance be waived.
THE SPEAKER:(20) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Arkansas?
There was no objection.

Parliamentarian's Note: The report was printed in the daily Record, 
however, since it was filed before the Record went to press, Mr. Mills 
had anticipated that the report would not be filed in time to make this 
deadline.
Printing of Conference Report in Congressional Record
Sec.    16.4 Where the House grants permission for the filing of a 
conference report on a day when the House will not be in session, the 
report and the accompanying statement are printed in the Congressional 
Record, under a special heading, if there is a Record printed on that 
day because of a Senate session. 
Rule XXVIII clause 2(a)(1) mandates that a conference report be printed 
in the Congressional Record before House consideration is in order. The 
Congressional Rec-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
19.     105 CONG. REC. 11961, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
20.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 1.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912(a) (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 668]]

ord for Jan. 23, 1976,(2) provides an example of the practice 
described.

The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on 
Monday, January 26, 1976, at 12 o'clock noon.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2718, RAIL SERVICES ACT OF 1975
Pursuant to an order of the House on Thursday, January 22, 1976, the 
conference report on the bill (S. 2718) to improve the quality of rail 
services in the United States through regulatory reform, coordination 
of rail services and facilities, and rehabilitation and improvement 
financing, and for other purposes, is herewith printed, as follows:
[Submitted by Mr. Staggers]
 CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 94-781)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the House to the text of the bill (S. 2718) to 
improve the quality of rail services in the United States through 
regulatory reform, coordination of rail services and facilities, and 
rehabilitation and improvement financing, and for other purposes, 
having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend 
and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: . . . 
Who May File
Sec.    16.5 A conference report is filed by a manager on the part of the 
House at the conference, and it takes unanimous consent for a Member, 
not a conferee, to submit the report for printing under the rule. 

On Dec. 1, 1977,(3) Mr. Richard L. Ottinger, of New York, a member of 
the committee which reported the measure but not named as a conferee, 
asked permission of the House to file a conference report on behalf of 
another.
PERMISSION TO FILE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 9418, HEALTH PROFESSIONS 
EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1977
MR. OTTINGER: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of the 
chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to file a 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 9418) to amend the Public Health 
Service Act to require increases in the enrollment of third-year 
medical students as a condition to medical schools receiving capitation 
grants under such Act, and for other purposes.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(4) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 9418, HEALTH PROFESSIONS EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 
OF 1977
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     122 CONG. REC. 804, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     123 CONG. REC. 38271, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4.     Sidney R. Yates (Ill.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 669]]

Mr. Ottinger (on behalf of Mr. Staggers) filed the following conference 
report and statement on the bill (H.R. 9418) to amend the Public Health 
Service Act to require increases in the enrollment of third-year 
medical students as a condition to medical schools receiving capitation 
grants under such Act.
Sec.    16.6 Where conferees from two standing committees of the House 
were appointed to consider separate titles of a bill, their report was 
filed by the chairman of the committee which had originally reported 
the bill to the House.
On May 12, 1970,(5) Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, Chairman of 
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, was recognized by 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, to submit House Report No. 
91-1074. The Record carries the following entry:

Mr. Staggers submitted the following conference report and statement on 
the bill (H.R. 14465) to provide for the expansion and improvement of 
the Nation's airport and airway system, for the imposition of airport 
and airway user charges, and for other purposes: . . . 

Parliamentarian's Note: Managers had been appointed from the Committee 
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means.
(6) 
Authority To File by Midnight on a Future Day
Sec.    16.7 By unanimous consent, the House took from the Speaker's 
table a House bill with Senate amendments thereto, disagreed with the 
Senate amendments, agreed to a conference, and granted the conferees 
until midnight the following Tuesday (four calendar days from the date 
of the request) to file a report.
On June 18, 1959,(7) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [FRED] MARSHALL [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 7175) making 
appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and Farm Credit 
Administration for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1960, and for other 
purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     116 CONG. REC. 15202, 15203, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     116 CONG. REC. 5713, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 3, 1970.
 7.     105 CONG. REC. 11268, 11269, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 670]]

THE SPEAKER:(8) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota? The Chair hears none and appoints the following conferees: 
Messrs. Whitten, Marshall, Cannon, Andersen of Minnesota, and Taber.
MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the conferees 
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill H.R. 7175 may 
have until midnight June 22 in which to file a report.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Filing Conference Report During Special Orders
Sec.    16.8 A conference report, which is privileged for filing under 
the rules, can be presented during special orders.
Under Rule XXVIII clause 1(a): "The presentation of reports of 
committees of conference shall always be in order, except when the 
Journal is being read, while the roll is being called, or the House is 
dividing on any proposition."
Normally, the leadership permits no legislative business during the 
period set aside for "special order" speeches at the end of the day. 
However, the Chair does entertain unanimous-consent re-quests for late 
filing of reports having privilege. The following discussion, on Feb. 
6, 1984,(9) shows the current practice.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander) is recognized for 60 minutes.
MR. [CARL D.] PERKINS [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
yield for a unanimous-consent request?
MR. [MARK] SILJANDER [of Michigan]: I yield to the gentleman from 
Kentucky.
MR. PERKINS: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the managers may 
have until midnight tonight to file a conference report on the Senate 
bill (S. 1340) to revise and extend the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and 
to extend the Developmental Disability Assistance and Bill of Rights 
Act, and for other purposes.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: I reserve the right to 
object, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Pennsylvania reserves the 
right to object.
MR. WALKER: Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, it is my 
understanding this has been cleared by the minority side and that it is 
possible to have it cleared.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 9.     130 CONG. REC. 1902, 1903, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
10.     Harry M. Reid (Nev.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 671]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair's understanding is that the 
Speaker's statement dealt with calling up legislation, not filing a 
report. That is my understanding.
MR. WALKER: So we do have a precedent, then, that we can file 
conference reports during the special order time, that that is going to 
be permitted, that kind of business is going to be permitted during 
special order time?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The filing of a conference report can be done 
at any time as a matter of right before the House, before the House 
adjourns.
MR. WALKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania is simply, under my 
reservation of right to object, is simply trying to find out just where 
we stand on all of these rulings that we had thrown at us over the last 
couple of weeks, and I am trying to make certain I have an 
understanding of how we are operating here, and that is my only 
concern.
On the substance of the gentleman's request, I understand that has been 
cleared and there is no problem. I am simply trying to clarify what we 
are all about here.
Is it now my understanding that filing conference reports will be one 
of those items of business always permitted under special orders, under 
the time allotted for special orders?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It has always been the practice of the House 
and is still the practice of the House.
MR. WALKER: I thank the Speaker and I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
During Adjournment of House
Sec.    16.9 By unanimous consent, the House may permit the managers on 
the part of the House to have until midnight on a certain day to file a 
conference report, the report to be printed in the Record even though 
the House is not in session on that day.
On Aug. 3, 1961,(11) the following occurred in regard to H.R. 7445, the 
1962 appropriations bill for independent offices:

MR. [ALBERT] THOMAS [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the managers on the part of the House at the conference of the two 
Houses on the bill H.R. 7445 may have until midnight Friday, August 4, 
to file a conference report thereon, and that said report may be 
printed in the Congressional Record notwithstanding the fact that the 
House may not be in session.
THE SPEAKER:(12) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
There was no objection.(13) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     107 CONG. REC. 14544, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
13.     See also 108 CONG. REC. 14841, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., July 26, 
1962; and 105 CONG. REC. 14742, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., July 30, 1959.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 672]]

Parliamentarian's Note: The House adjourned from Thursday until Monday, 
the Senate from Friday until Monday. The conference report was printed 
in the Record for Friday, under a separate heading following the Senate 
proceedings.
Sec.    16.10 The House granted permission for the filing with the Clerk 
of conference reports notwithstanding the adjournment or recess of the 
House.
On June 5, 1936,(14) Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, made the 
following request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the 
adjournment or recess of the House until June 15, 1936, it may be in 
order to file conference reports with the Clerk for printing under the 
rules.
THE SPEAKER:(15) Without objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.(16) 
Filing Conference Report on Day House Does Not Meet
Sec.    16.11 Where an order of the House permits a conference report to 
be filed on a day the House will not be in session, a request can be 
made to print a special Record for that day in which the report can be 
printed. 
The following unanimous-con-sent request illustrates the mechanism 
sometimes used to expedite consideration of a conference report:(17) 

MR. [SAM M.] GIBBONS [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the conferees on the bill, H.R. 4170, the Deficit Reduction and 
Tax Reform Act of 1984, have until 12 noon on Saturday, June 23, 1984, 
to file a conference report to accompany the bill, and that there be an 
additional part of today's Congressional Record printed to contain the 
conference report. 

Parliamentarian's Note: The controlling rule here is Rule XXVIII clause 
2(a),(18) which specifies that a conference report can be considered on 
the third calendar day after filing but "only if such report and 
accompanying statement shall have been printed in 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     80 CONG. REC. 9123, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
15.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
16.     Parliamentarian's Note: The House adjourned from June 8 to June 
15, 1936, pursuant to H. Con. Res. 53.
17.     See 130 CONG. REC. 18012, 98th Cong. 2d Sess., June 22, 1984.
18.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 673]]

the daily edition of the Congressional Record for the day on which . . 
. filed."
Sec.    16.12 A conference report was, by unanimous consent, filed on a 
day when the House was not in session and printed under a separate 
heading in the Record.
On July 10, 1970,(19) the following appeared in the Congressional 
Record:

Pursuant to an order of the House on Thursday, July 9, 1970, the 
conference report on the bill (S. 3215) to amend the National 
Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, is herewith 
printed, as follows:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 91-1292)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 3215) to amend the 
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, and for 
other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed 
to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: . 
. . 

Parliamentarian's Note: The House had adjourned from July 9 until July 
13.
During Recess
Sec.    16.13 The House stood in recess pending the preparation and 
filing of a conference report.
On Oct. 21, 1965,(20) Speaker Pro Tempore Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, 
made the following statement:

Under the previous unanimous-consent agreement, the Chair declares a 
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 21 minutes p.m.), the House stood in 
recess subject to the call of the Chair.

After the recess, the House received a message from the Senate 
transmitting the official papers and the signed conference report, 
which stated in part:

The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the amendments of 
the House to the amendments of the Senate Nos. 27 and 55 to the bill 
(H.R. 8370), "An act making appropriations for the Department of 
Agriculture and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1966, and for other purposes."
And agrees to the conference report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     116 CONG. REC. 23790-92, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     111 CONG. REC. 27846, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 674]]


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
D. CONFERENCE REPORTS
 
Sec.    17. Content of Report; Corrections

Technical Correction After Adoption of Conference Report
Sec.    17.1 By unanimous consent, the House considered and agreed to a 
concurrent resolution authorizing the Clerk to make a technical 
correction in a conference report already agreed to, during the 
enrollment of a House bill.
On Oct. 10, 1972,(1) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. 
John D. Dingell, of Michigan, to offer a concurrent resolution.

The Clerk read the concurrent resolution as follows:
H. CON. RES. 717
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That 
the Clerk of the House of Representatives, in the enrollment of the 
bill (H.R. 10420) to protect marine mammals; to establish a Marine 
Mammal Commission; and for other purposes, is authorized and directed 
to make the following correction:
On page 11 of the conference report, on line 1, insert the word "of" 
after the word "conditions".

The concurrent resolution was agreed to.(2) 
Simultaneously Agreeing to Conference Report and Making Correction 
Therein
Sec.    17.2 Example of a unanimous-consent request to consider a 
conference report considered, agreed to, and modified by the 
simultaneous adoption of a concurrent resolution correcting the 
enrollment.
A unanimous-consent request to both call up and adopt a conference 
report is unusual but has been utilized where a request to consider the 
report might result in a roll call on the question of adoption. Using 
the formulation of the request carried here, an objection would 
prohibit both consideration of the report and the correction of the 
enrollment. The sponsors wanted the two steps tied together in this 
fashion since they both favored the conference report in 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     118 CONG. REC. 34643, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     Parliamentarian's Note: Although in this instance the Record is 
silent on this point, a concurrent resolution providing for technical 
corrections in a conference report which has already been agreed to is 
not privileged for consideration, and must be called up by unanimous 
consent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 675]]

the form modified by the concurrent resolution. The proceedings of Dec. 
22, 1995,(3) were as follows:
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2539, ICC TERMINATION ACT OF 1995
MR. [BUD] SHUSTER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to call up and adopt a conference report to accompany the bill 
(H.R. 2539), to abolish the Interstate Commerce Commission, to amend 
subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code, to reform economic 
regulation of transportation, and for other purposes, and that Senate 
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 37) directing the Clerk of the 
House of Representatives to make technical changes in the enrollment of 
the bill (H.R. 2539) entitled "An Act to abolish the Interstate 
Commerce Commission, to amend subtitle IV of title 49, United States 
Code, to reform economic regulation of transportation, and for other 
purposes" shall be deemed to have been adopted upon adoption of such 
conference report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution.
(For conference report and statement see proceedings of the House of 
December 18 (legislative day of December 15), 1995, at page 37339.)
The text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 37 is as follows:
S. CON. RES. 37
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That 
the Clerk of the House of Representatives, in the enrollment of the 
bill (H.R. 2539) entitled "An Act to abolish the Interstate Commerce 
Commission, to amend subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code, to 
reform economic regulation of transportation, and for other purposes" 
shall make the following corrections:
(1) In section 11326(b) proposed to be inserted in title 49, United 
States Code, by section 102, strike "unless the applicant elects to 
provide the alternative arrangement specified in this subsection. Such 
alternative" and insert "except that such".
(2) In section 13902(b)(5) proposed to be inserted in title 49, United 
States Code, by section 103, strike "Any" and insert "Subject to 
section 14501(a), any".

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(4) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
There was no objection. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The conference report on H.R. 2539 and Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 37 are adopted.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Report Incorrectly Printed in Record
Sec.    17.3 The correct text of a conference report which had been 
erroneously printed in the Record of a previous day was, by unanimous 
consent, inserted in the Record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     141 CONG. REC. 38494, 38495, 38498, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4.     Douglas Bereuter (Nebr.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 676]]

On Aug. 10, 1970,(5) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. John L. McMillan, of South Carolina.

MR. MCMILLAN: Mr. Speaker, on August 6, 1970, I filed a conference 
report (H. Rept. 91-1381) on the bill (H.R. 17711) amending the 
District of Columbia Cooperative Association Act. The  conference 
report was incorrectly printed in the Congressional Record for that 
day.
I therefore ask unanimous consent that the correct text of the 
conference report on H.R. 17711 be printed in the Record at this point.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Technical Error in Managers' Statement
Sec.    17.4 Parliamentarian's Note: Where a technical error appeared in 
the statement of the managers accompanying a conference report, the 
text of the statement in the permanent Record was, by unanimous 
consent, corrected to show the true intent of the conferees as 
reflected by the language in the conference report.
On July 12, 1966,(6) Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, was 
recognized by Speaker Pro Tempore Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, to call up 
House Report No. 1679, the conference report on S. 2950, defense 
procurement appropriations, for fiscal 1967. He then made the following 
request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the permanent Record be 
corrected . . . to reflect the agreed upon language as now appears in 
the conference report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection it is so ordered.
There was no objection.

Parliamentarian's Note: The conference report and statement of the 
managers were filed on June 30, and printed in the daily edition of the 
Congressional Record for that date. Although the permanent edition of 
the Congressional Record for July 12 does not reproduce Mr. Rivers' 
request that the statement be changed, it does contain the corrected 
version of that statement.(7) 
Statement of the Managers, Supplemented by Unanimous Consent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     CONG. REC. (daily ed.), 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     CONG. REC. (daily ed.), 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     112 CONG. REC. 15306, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 677]]

Sec.    17.5 Instance where the House permitted insertion in the 
Congressional Record of a statement by House managers at a conference, 
time not having permitted the inclusion of the explanation in the 
official statement at the time the conference report was filed.
Following the adoption of a conference report on a budget 
reconciliation bill, the House adopted a concurrent resolution 
directing the Clerk to make certain corrections in the enrollment, 
including a date change which permitted two House committees to have a 
longer period in which to submit an explanatory statement for the 
Record, "to be considered to have been filed with the conference 
report."
When the conference report was filed on July 29, 1981, the report 
contained the same provision, except that the date for filing the 
statement was July 31, 1981.(8) The concurrent resolution shown here 
permitted an extension of the time until Aug. 4, 1981.(9) 
DIRECTING CLERK OF THE HOUSE TO MAKE CORRECTIONS IN ENROLLMENT OF H.R. 
3982, OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1981
MR. [JAMES R.] JONES [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent for immediate consideration in the House of the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 167) directing the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives to make corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 3982, to 
provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first 
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 1982.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. CON. RES. 167
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That 
in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 3982), to provide for 
reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1982, the Clerk of the House 
of Representatives shall make the corrections specified in the 
succeeding sections of this concurrent resolution.
SEC. 2. In title VI of the bill: . . . 
SEC. 13. In section 1199A, strike out "July 31, 1981" and insert in 
lieu thereof "August 4, 1981".

The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     127 CONG. REC. 18981, 18985, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. (H.R. 3982, the 
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981).
 9.     H. Con. Res. 167.
10.     David E. Bonior (Mich.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 678]]

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

The unique provision in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, 
as amended by the concurrent resolution, is as follows:(11) 
STATEMENT OF MANAGERS
SEC. 1199A. The managers on the part of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives are authorized to have printed in the Congressional 
Record at any time prior to midnight on August 4, 1981, a statement in 
explanation of the provisions of this title relating to matters within 
the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Such 
statement shall be considered to have been filed at the same time and 
along with the conference report on the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act of 1981 (H.R. 3982); and shall be considered for all purposes to 
constitute the statement on the part of the managers with respect to 
such provisions.
Insertion of Provision Allegedly Omitted
Sec.    17.6 Parliamentarian's Note: The omission in a conference report 
of language allegedly agreed to in conference may be corrected 
following adoption of the report by the consideration by unanimous 
consent of a concurrent resolution authorizing insertion of that 
provision in the enrollment.
On Dec. 17, 1973,(12) after Mr. Charles C. Diggs, Jr., of Michigan, 
called up the conference report on S. 1435, the District of Columbia 
Self-Government and Government Reorganization Act, Mr. Earl F. 
Landgrebe, of Indiana, raised a point of order.

MR. LANDGREBE: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point of order concerning 
section 738 of conference report No. 93-703, "Advisory Neighborhood 
Councils" for the reason that it fails to provide as the conferees 
stated and intended during the conference held on this legislation.
In conference, the requirement was Neighborhood Councils must first be 
approved by the electors in the same public referendum required for the 
approval of the charter. Nowhere in section 738 does that requirement 
appear.
If the legislation were approved, the councils would be created by 
operation of law, not by the affirmation of the electors as provided 
for by the conferees. This section is contrary to the intent of the 
conferees and this report must not be considered.

After a brief discussion on the point of order Mr. Joel T. Broyhill, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     See the proceedings of Aug. 4, 1981, at 127 CONG. REC. 19500, 
19520, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     119 CONG. REC. 42034, 42035, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 679]]

of Virginia, made the following inquiry:

MR. BROYHILL of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, in the event the point of order 
is overruled, is there any way for the House at this time to insert the 
language into the bill and into the conference report, the language 
which was fully intended by the conferees to be included in the bill?
Obviously, it was a technical mistake, an error in printing, that it 
was not inserted in the conference report to start with.
THE SPEAKER:(13) In response to the inquiry made by the gentleman from 
Virginia, the Chair will state that the House could by a concurrent 
resolution direct the Secretary of the Senate to include the language 
before the bill is finally enrolled.(14) 


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
D. CONFERENCE REPORTS
 
Sec.    18. Signatures

Majority of Managers of Each House
Sec.    18.1 Conference reports must be signed by a majority of the 
managers on the part of each House, or the document may not be received 
as a report of the conference committee.
 Where a majority of the managers on the part of the House attempted to 
present a document purporting to be a conference report without the 
signatures or consent of a majority of the managers on the part of the 
Senate, it was held that such document might not be received as a 
report of the conference committee.
On July 31, 1935,(15) Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, one of the 
House managers appointed to confer with the Senate managers on S. 2796, 
the Public Utilities Act of 1935, presented to the House a report from 
the managers on the part of the House. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, directed the Clerk to read the report.

The Clerk read as follows:
REPORT OF HOUSE MANAGERS ON CONFERENCE UPON DISAGREEING VOTE OF THE 
HOUSE AND THE SENATE ON THE AMENDMENT ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE TO S. 2796
The undersigned managers upon the part of the House, appointed on July 
12, 1935, upon the request of the Senate for a conference upon the 
disagreeing vote of the House and the Senate on the amendment adopted 
by the House to S. 2796, beg to report as follows: . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
14.     See Parliamentarian's Note contained in footnote to Sec. 17.1, 
supra.
15.     79 CONG. REC. 12237-39, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 680]]

The report explained that a conference was prevented by the Senate 
managers' insistence that they bring to the conference expert advisors 
who were not Senators, despite the objections of the House managers. 
The report concluded with the following paragraph and signatures:

That a conference has been prevented by the unyielding refusal of the 
managers on the part of the Senate to hold same under conditions 
consistent with the proper conduct of an executive session and free 
from the presence and participation of an outsider, who was not an 
employee of Congress and who is objectionable to the managers on the 
part of the House, all in derogation of the right and privilege of the 
managers on the part of the House and of the dignity and independence 
of the House.
GEORGE HUDDLESTON,
JOHN G. COOPER,
PEHR G. HOLMES,
Managers on the part of the House.
Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, raised a point of order against the report 
on the grounds that it was not a report of a conference committee since 
it was not signed by a majority of the Senate conferees:

Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the paper read is not a 
report of the conference committee; that a conference report or a 
disagreement must be signed by a majority of the Members of the House 
conference committee and of the Senate conference committee and that 
this statement or paper has no standing in the House.

 Mr. Huddleston conceded this point, and admitted that the purported 
report was filed to forestall action under Rule XXVIII clause 1 1/2(a)
(16) to instruct or discharge the conferees for failing to submit a 
report within 20 days of their appointment:

Mr. Speaker, this report is presented as a "report from the managers on 
the part of the House." The question involved is whether or not the 
managers on the part of the House may make a report without the 
cooperation and coaction of the managers on the part of the Senate-that 
is to say, is a report signed only by the House managers a "report" 
within the meaning of the rule? This is the parliamentary question 
involved.

The Speaker summarized the arguments presented by Mr. Rayburn and Mr. 
Huddleston, and then rendered a decision:

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Huddleston] has presented 
a paper which purports to be a report signed by three of the House 
conferees on S. 2796, from which it appears that the conferees have not 
been able up to this time to reach an agreement. The gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Rayburn] makes the point of order that this paper cannot be 
considered as a 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 681]]

report, inasmuch as the Senate conferees have not affixed their 
signatures. The gentleman from Alabama frankly states that he has filed 
this statement for the purpose of forestalling any action that may be 
taken under rule XXVIII, which rule authorizes any Member as a matter 
of the highest privilege to move to discharge and appoint conferees or 
to instruct conferees after a period of 20 days has elapsed from the 
time of their appointment when they have failed to make a report on the 
matter committed to them. The Chair does not think that the rules of 
the House can be circumvented in that manner. The Chair believes that 
the House should adhere to forms and practice in matters of this kind. 
As the Chair has previously stated, this rule was adopted by the House 
to preserve the authority of the House to exercise control over its 
conferees when a sufficient time has elapsed and no report has been 
made by the conference committee. So far as the Chair is aware, the 
conferees on the part of either body have never heretofore attempted to 
file a formal report of disagreement without the acquiescence of a 
majority of the conferees of the other body. . . . 
A committee of conference is a joint committee composed of managers 
appointed on the part of each House. The managers of each House vote 
the sentiment of the House which they represent. In casting their votes 
they do so as separate committees and nothing may be agreed upon 
without the concurrent action of the two committees composing this 
joint committee, commonly called the "conference committee."
In instant case, the gentleman from Alabama admits that this purported 
report which he has presented has not been agreed to by the managers on 
the part of the Senate. Under such circumstances, the Chair does not 
believe that it is a report within the meaning of our parliamentary 
practice, and the Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Signatures Validate Report
Sec.    18.2 A conference report is received if signed by a majority of 
the managers of each House, and the Speaker will not look behind the 
signatures to determine whether the report has incorporated all the 
agreements informally made in conference.
On Dec. 17, 1973,(17) after Mr. Charles C. Diggs, Jr., of Michigan, 
called up the conference report on S. 1435, the District of Columbia 
Self-Government and Government Reorganization Act, Mr. Earl F. 
Landgrebe, of Indiana, made a point of order.

MR. LANDGREBE: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point of order concerning 
section 738 of conference report No. 93-703, "Advisory Neighborhood 
Councils" for the reason that it fails to provide as the conferees 
stated and intended 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     119 CONG. REC. 42034, 42035, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 682]]

during the conference held on this legislation.
In conference, the requirement was Neighborhood Councils must first be 
approved by the electors in the same public referendum required for the 
approval of the charter. Nowhere in section 738 does that requirement 
appear.
If the legislation were approved, the councils would be created by 
operation of law, not by the affirmation of the electors as provided 
for by the conferees. This section is contrary to the intent of the 
conferees and this report must not be considered.

Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, gave the following ruling:

THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . . 
The gentleman from Indiana has made the further point of order that the 
conference report is not properly before the House because a subsection 
of the report, allegedly agreed to in conference is not contained in 
the report submitted to the two Houses.
The Chair, of course, has no knowledge of how this agreement was 
reached. The only information the Chair has on what was agreed to in 
conference is derived from the conference report. The Chair does note 
that the subsection allegedly omitted was not contained in the Senate 
bill and thus the managers had the authority, under clause 3, rule 
XXVIII to eliminate that provision if they so desired.
Volume 5 of Hinds' Precedents section 6497, states that "A conference 
report is received if signed by a majority of the managers of each 
House." The Chair has examined the report and the papers and finds that 
it is signed by 6 of the 10 managers on the part of the House and by 
all 7 managers on the part of the Senate. The Chair can only observe 
that the report is here in a legal manner.
The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Sec.    18.3 The Chair has no knowledge of how a conference report is 
reached, and he cannot impeach the names of the managers on the part of 
the two Houses.
On June 19, 1948,(18) after Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, called 
up the conference report on S. 2655, the Selective Service Act of 1948, 
Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, rose to a point of order.

MR. MARCANTONIO: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
document which has just been presented is not the report of any 
conference. It is not the product of a full and free conference as 
required in Jefferson's Manual. I make my point of order based on the 
proposition that there has never been a valid conference-specifically, 
that there has never been a valid meeting on the part of the managers 
on the part of the House.
I would like at this time, first, to present the facts chronologically.
Yesterday the House voted, under suspension of the rules, to send the 
bill 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     94 CONG. REC. 9253, 9268, 9269, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 683]]

to conference, and the House conferees were appointed. A motion was 
made in the other body for the same purpose. Extended debate was held 
on that motion. This morning the motion to send the Senate bill to 
conference and disagree with the House amendments and authorizing the 
appointment of conferees was adopted. Immediately, before there was any 
time for a meeting, a physical meeting to take place between the 
managers on the part of the House and the managers on the part of the 
Senate, this document before you, Mr. Speaker, was filed and acted upon 
in the Senate. Physically there were some meetings. The meetings that 
took place yesterday, Mr. Speaker, all of the meetings that took place 
yesterday were prior to the adoption of the motion in the other body to 
send this bill to conference. How could they have been valid meetings? 
They could not have been valid meetings because there were no managers 
in existence on the part of the Senate. The Members of the other body 
who met with the House conferees were not managers on the part of the 
other body, therefore those meetings had no validity whatsoever. It is 
true that at those meetings the provisions of the document which we 
have before us were agreed upon. It is likewise true that the people 
who participated in those meetings on behalf of the other body were 
Members who were subsequently appointed as managers for the other body, 
but throughout those meetings they were not there as managers who had 
been appointed; in fact all the while they were participating in those 
meetings they had not as yet been authorized by the other body to be 
there. They had no authority to act.

Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled:

The Chair is ready to rule.
On page 770, volume 5, of Hinds' Precedents, section 6497 states:

A conference report is received if signed by a majority of the managers 
of each House.

The Chair has examined the report and the papers and finds that it is 
signed by five of the managers on the part of the Senate and six of the 
seven managers on the part of the House.
The Chair has no knowledge, of course, how this report was reached, but 
the Chair cannot impeach the names of the managers on the part of the 
two Houses. Furthermore, the Senate having already received the report, 
and according to a message heretofore received by the House has 
officially adopted it, the Chair feels that under the circumstances the 
report is properly before the House for such action as the House may 
see fit to take. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent and the following one (Sec. 
18.4) predated the "open conference requirement" inserted in Rule 
XXVIII clause 6, in 1975 (and amended in 1977 and 1979).  See House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 913d (94th Congress).
Informal Conference Meetings


[[Page 684]]

Sec.    18.4 The Speaker has no knowledge of informal meetings of 
conference committees prior to their appointment, and where a 
conference report before the House contained the signatures of all the 
managers he held that the report was properly before the House.
On Aug. 9, 1954,(19) after Mr. John M. Vorys, of Ohio, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 9678, the Mutual Security Act of 1954, Mr. H. 
R. Gross, of Iowa, rose with a point of order.

MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that certain Members 
of the House of Representatives exceeded their authority in connection 
with the conference report on the bill H.R. 9678; that therefore the 
pending confer-   ence report is improperly before the House. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that even before the papers were 
received from the other body, requesting a conference on the part of 
the House, before authority was given by the House for a conference, 
and well before the formal appointment of conferees on the part of the 
House, certain Members of the House of Representatives had apparently 
designated themselves as conferees and entered into agreement on one or 
more substantial issues in disagreement in connection with the bill 
H.R. 9678; that such agreement or agreements were entered into even 
before the House of Representatives formally and officially convened at 
12 o'clock noon on August 4, 1954, and gave assent to a conference. . . 
. 
Mr. Speaker, I can find no precedent which permits Members of the House 
to enter into a conference without first obtaining authority from the 
House for so doing. The weight of all precedents governs from the 
initial authority for a conference, the appointment of conferees and 
their conduct flow therefrom. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(20) The Chair wishes to state on the gentleman's point of 
order that he has no cognizance of informal meetings that may have been 
held. As a matter of fact, he would not know what Members were doing if 
they met informally in a group to discuss any specific subject. All the 
Chair can do is to take the report that is here. All 10 signatures are 
on the conference report. The conference report is here in a legal 
manner.
Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.
Requirement for Formal Conference Meeting
Sec.    18.5 While the Chair does not normally look behind signatures of 
conferees to determine the propriety of conference procedure, if 
proposed 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     100 CONG. REC. 13787, 13802, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 685]]

conferees have signed a conference report before they have been 
formally appointed in both Houses and do not meet formally in open 
session after such appointment, the conference report is subject to 
automatic recommittal to conference under Rule XXVIII clause 6.
On Dec. 20, 1982,(1) when the conference report on H.R. 5002(2) was 
called up for consideration, a point of order was raised against the 
report.

MR. [JOHN B.] BREAUX [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order 
of the House of December 17, 1982, I call up the conference report on 
the bill (H.R. 5002) to improve fishery conservation and management, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill. . . .  
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [GLENN M.] ANDERSON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of 
order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(3) The gentleman was on his feet and will 
state his point of order.
MR. ANDERSON: I make a point of order against the conference report on 
H.R. 5002 because the Senate conferees were not formally appointed at 
the time the conferees met. This procedure violates House rule XXVIII, 
clause 6, which requires an open meeting of the conferees. In this case 
there was never a valid conference meeting because the Senate conferees 
were not appointed at the time the conference met.
According to the rules on the conference report, it should be 
considered as rejected.
I would also like to point out that several of the conferees signed the 
signature sheets of the conference report prior to the premature 
meeting of the House and Senate conferees. This is clearly an improper 
procedure, so they actually signed the report prior to a conference. It 
was, if not illegal, a very improper procedure because there was no 
conference because the Senators were not conferees at the time, it was 
not an existent conference, and because they were not appointed until 
the next day.
That is my point of order, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Louisiana care to 
respond?
MR. BREAUX: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.
I would only point out that I did not have any control over the Senate 
procedures. I would only say to the Speaker that the House does not 
have any control over the speakers of the other body.
I would only note for the Speaker's consideration that the conference 
report, when filed in the House, was done 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     128 CONG. REC. 32896, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     The Fishery Conservation and Management Improvement Act.
 3.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 686]]

subsequent to the necessary action in appointing the conferees by the 
Senate.
MR. ANDERSON: But the Senators that we met with were not conferees. It 
was wholly an improper conference.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair notes that pursuant to the Senate 
message of yesterday, the conferees were not named until yesterday, so 
the Chair is prepared to rule, unless either gentleman wishes to make a 
further statement.
MR. BREAUX: This Member is certainly willing to abide by the rules.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair sustains the point of order based on 
the concession that a conference formally appointed by both Houses did 
not meet in open session following appointment.
Pursuant to clause 6(b), rule XXVIII, the conference report is 
considered as rejected, the House considered to have insisted upon 
disagreement to the Senate amendment, and the Chair is authorized to 
appoint conferees without intervening motion.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 5002
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Biaggi, Anderson, Breaux, Studds, Snyder, 
McCloskey, and Pritchard.
There was no objection.
Taking Exception to Particular Amendment
Sec.    18.6 Two House conferees (minority members) signed a conference 
report and accompanying statement with a notation following their names 
that they excepted from one of the Senate amendments upon which the 
other conferees had reached an agreement.
On May 8, 1963,(4) Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, upon being recognized 
by Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 5517, supplemental appropriations, fiscal 
1963. The report and explanatory statement were signed by the managers 
on the part of the House in the following manner:
ALBERT THOMAS,
MICHAEL J. KIRWAN,
CLARENCE CANNON,
FRANK T. BOW
(Except as to No. 47),
EARL WILSON
(Except as to No. 47),
Managers on the Part of the House.
Signatures on a Conference Report-Exceptions
Sec.    18.7 Managers at a conference sometimes attempt to disassociate 
themselves from one aspect of an agreement and in one case, the 
state-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     109 CONG. REC. 8037, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 687]]

ment of the managers was used to express their exceptions from the 
total report.
Rule XXVIII clause 1(d), requiring a joint statement by the managers of 
the House and the Senate became a part of the rules with the 
implementation of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970.(5) 
In the 95th Congress, in an unusual case, the statement accompanying 
the conference report on H.R. 3474, the Energy Research and Development 
appropriations for fiscal year 1976, disclosed that certain of the 
House managers "excepted" from certain parts of the agreement. However, 
a majority of the managers did sign without equivocation. The form of 
the statement is carried here.(6) 

Mr. [Olin E.] Teague [of Texas] submitted the following conference 
report and statement 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:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 94-696)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the Senate to 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, having met, after full and free 
conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment 
insert the following: . . . 
And the Senate agree to the same.
OLIN TEAGUE,
MELVIN PRICE,
JOHN YOUNG,
THOMAS N. DOWNING,
KEN HECHLER,
DON FUQUA,
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr. . . .
 BARRY M. GOLDWATER, Jr.,
MANUEL LUJAN, Jr.,
Managers on the Part of the House.

JOHN O. PASTORE,
HENRY M. JACKSON,
STUART SYMINGTON . . . 
Managers on the Part of the Senate. . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     See 84 Stat. 1140, Sec. 125(b) which became a part of the 
standing rules with the adoption of H. Res. 5 (117 CONG. REC. 144, 92d 
Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 1971).
 6.     121 CONG. REC. 39089, 39097, 39110, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 8, 
1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 688]]

JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the Conference 
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the 
Senate to the bill (H.R. 3474), Energy Research and Development 
Administration Authorization Act, 1976, and for other purposes, submit 
the following joint statement to the House and the Senate in 
explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the managers and 
recommended in the accompanying conference report: . . . 
D. OPPOSITION TO SECTIONS 102 AND 103 BY REPRESENTATIVE KEN HECHLER
Representative Ken Hechler, although he signed the conference report on 
the part of the House, emphasized that he is strongly opposed to two 
sections of the conference recommendation which were not in the bill 
passed by the House on June 20, 1975-Sections 102 and 103. He opposes 
Section 102 which establishes a new program, using the public lands 
free of any bonus, or royalty, for the demonstration of production of 
oil from shale by in situ methods. He also opposes Section 103 which 
establishes a new $6 billion loan guarantee program to provide 
financial assistance to private industry to build synthetic fuels and 
other commercial demonstration plants.
E. RESERVATION TO SECTIONS 102 AND 103 BY GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.
Representative George E. Brown, Jr., although he signed the Conference 
Report on the part of the House, emphasized that he did so with the 
reservation that the House should have the opportunity to work its will 
by separate vote on Sections 102 and 103.
F. RESERVATION TO SECTIONS 102 AND 103 BY BARRY M. GOLDWATER, JR.
Representative Barry M. Goldwater, Jr., although he signed the 
Conference Report on the part of the House, emphasized that he did so 
with reservations about enacting at this time Sections 102 and 103, the 
two major new sections added by the Senate, and the additional 
reservation that the House should be allowed to have a separate vote on 
each section.
MANAGERS FOR THE NONNUCLEAR PORTION OF THE JOINT STATEMENT
OLIN E. TEAGUE,
KEN HECHLER . . . 
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr. . . .
BARRY.M..GOLDWATER, Jr.,
Managers on the Part of the House.
HENRY M. JACKSON,
FRANK CHURCH . . . 
Managers on the Part of the Senate.

Authority of Conferees To "Agree in Part"
Sec.    18.8 A majority of House conferees must, by their signatures, 
agree to the provisions of a conference report for it to be valid; but 
those not necessary to that majority sometimes indicate exceptions to 
certain agreements by notations on the signature sheets.


[[Page 689]]

The accepted practice in the House, and in the Senate, is for the 
managers to either sign a conference report, without qualification, to 
show that the matters in conference have been reconciled, or to refuse 
to sign if total agreement has not been reached.  
In the instance here cited, a majority of the conferees appointed as 
exclusive conferees on certain issues separated by jurisdictional lines 
did sign, unqualifiedly. A total of 14 committees were represented in 
the list of conferees appointed to the conference on H.R. 3, the Trade 
and International Policy Act of 1987.  Five conferees were appointed 
from the Committee on Government Operations on sections 461 through 471 
of the House bill; five were named from the Committee on Science, Space 
and Technology on these same provisions. Of these ten, six signed in 
complete agreement. A minority of four indicated exception from a 
portion of the agreement. 
The manner of indicating the exceptions is illustrated by the portion 
of the signature sheets printed in the Record of Apr. 20, 1988.(7) 

From the Committee on Government Operations, for consideration of 
sections 461 through 471 of the House bill, and sections 1030 through 
1033 and 3801 through 3809 of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference:
JACK BROOKS
(Except for the Competitiveness Policy Council provided for in sections 
461 through 471 of the House bill, sections 3801 through 3809 of the 
Senate amendment, and sections 5201 through 5210 of the Conference 
Report),
JOHN CONYERS, Jr.,
STEVE NEAL,
FRANK HORTON
(Except for the Competitiveness Policy Council provided for in sections 
461 through 471 of the House bill, sections 3801 through 3809 of the 
Senate amendment, and sections 5201 through 5210 of the conference 
report).
From the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for consideration 
of sections 461 through 471 and 904 of the House bill, and sections 
2305, 3801 through 3809, and 3909 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference:
ROBERT A. ROE,
DOUG WALGREN,
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     134 CONG. REC. 7820, 7821, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 690]]

(Except for sections 461 through 471 of the House bill, and sections 
3801 to 3809 of the Senate amendment),
MANUEL LUJAN, Jr.,
SHERWOOD BOCHLERT
(Except for sections 461 to 471 of the House bill and sections 3801 to 
3809 of the Senate amendment) . . . 
Validity of Signature Where Conferee Signs "With Exceptions"  
Sec.    18.9 The practice of conferees signing a conference report "with 
an exception" was the subject of discussion in the House. 
When the conference report was filed on H.R. 2100, the National Defense 
Authorization Act, fiscal 1992, 1993, on Nov. 13, 1991,(8) the 
Congressional Record incorrectly printed the signature sheets of the 
conferees. The error made it appear that a majority of the conferees on 
the part of the House had signed the report with an exception to one 
part of the agreement relating to the F-14 fighter program. A portion 
of the signature sheets is shown here.

From the Committee on Armed Services, for Consideration of the entire 
House bill and Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference:
LES ASPIN,
G. V. MONTGOMERY,
BEV BYRON,
NICHOLAS MAVROULES,
EARL HUTTO . . . 
For all provisions of the conference report except those relating to 
the F-14:
OWEN PICKETT,
H. MARTIN LANCASTER,
JOHN TANNER,
For all provisions of the conference report except those relating to 
the F-14:
MICHAEL R. MCNULTY,
GLEN BROWDER,
GENE TAYLOR,
WILLIAM L. DICKINSON,
FLOYD SPENCE,
LARRY J. HOPKINS,
BOB DAVIS . . .

The placement of the colon, for example, in the exception stated above 
the signature of Michael R. McNulty, of New York, made it appear that 
all the names which followed McNulty were also endorsing the exception. 
Such was not the case. There were only three signatures that did not 
reflect complete agreement to the totality of the report. 
When the special order waiving points of order against the conference 
report was called up on Nov. 18, 1991, there was discussion 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     137 CONG. REC. 31803, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 691]]

about the propriety of conferees signing with exceptions. While the 
practice has been permitted in both the House and Senate,  there is no 
clear precedent about whether such a conditional signature can be 
counted when computing the number of signatures necessary to achieve a 
majority. A portion of the discussion on Nov. 18, 1991,(9) during the 
debate on H. Res. 281, which waived points of order against the 
conference report on H.R. 2100, is carried here.

MR. [WILLIAM L.] DICKINSON [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, let me say I 
would like to rise to make an important clarification with regard to 
the signature pages accompanying H.R. 2100, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal years 1992 and 1993.
Mr. Speaker, it is not unprecedented, but it is certainly unusual, to 
have conditional signatures on the conference report. Normally you need 
a majority of signatures on a conference report for it to be accepted 
by the conferees.
We have a listing here of the signatures to the conference report, and 
it lists a number of names, some of which are followed by expressions 
of opposition to specific provisions.
First, this kind of approach is very confusing; second, it is very 
unusual. And third, it is setting a very bad precedent.
If I might have the attention of my chairman just to clarify a point, 
am I correct in my interpretation that the exceptions listed refer to 
all the signatures immediately above it? Is that the chairman's 
understanding?
MR. [LES] ASPIN [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. DICKINSON: I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
MR. ASPIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is what it means. I think 
that the display here is not correct. I think it is only one of the 
Members that is listed here.
Is the gentleman looking at page 308 of the report?
MR. DICKINSON: Reclaiming my time, no, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to make an important clarification with regards to 
the signature pages accompanying H.R. 2100, the fiscal year 1992 
Defense authorization conference report. As you can see, three of my 
Democrat colleagues on the Armed Services Committee have qualified 
their support for the conference report by indicating, on the actual 
signature pages, specific conference provisions that they do not 
support.
The first point I wish to make is technical. When one looks at these 
pages, they could be misinterpreted as meaning that large groups of 
committee members were qualifying their support for the conference 
report. Adding to the confusion is the fact that when the conference 
report was printed in the Congressional Record last Thursday, November 
14, the signature pages appeared differently than they do in the 
printed copy of the report (H. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     137 CONG. REC. 32574, 32575, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 692]]

Rept. 102-311), and appeared in a form that clearly indicated that 
large groups of conferees had explicitly qualified their support. 
Therefore, I just want to set the record straight on one point; the 
qualifying remarks on the F-14 and B-1B programs refer only to the 
Members whose name appears immediately above the comment and not to 
entire blocks of Members.
The second point I wish to make is process oriented. The idea of 
explicitly qualifying one's support for a conference report, in the 
report itself, is unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable to all 
of us-no signature is worth the precedent this action is setting. Every 
conferee who signed this conference report, on both sides of the aisle, 
objects to specific provisions in it-myself included. In addition, four 
of my committee Republican conferees refused to sign the conference 
report because of their objection to specific provisions. If we are 
going to start addressing Member's individual political concerns by 
allowing explicit qualifications, many of us, especially in the 
minority party, will start taking a different tact next year.
At least on the Republican side of the aisle, we have been trying 
unsuccessfully for years to have those Members who refuse to sign the 
conference report listed as such in the actual report. If the committee 
does not put a stop to this questionable practice of Members explicitly 
qualifying support, there is certainly no reason why Members should be 
prevented from explicitly stating their opposition directly in the 
conference report.
In conclusion, I hope my chairman will work with me to address this 
problem in the future. Otherwise, it will not be long before the 
signature pages of our conference reports are many pages long with each 
and every Member indicating what they support and what they oppose in 
excruciating detail. In essence, we will have found a back door form of 
submitting additional and dissenting views on a conference report. This 
defeats the purpose of conference reports and should be stopped.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
MR. [GERALD B. H.] SOLOMON [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The gentleman will state it.
MR. SOLOMON: Mr. Speaker, is it possible to resolve this in a 
parliamentary inquiry? I do not have any time.
MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know the meaning of the 
signatures on the conference report as set out in the conference report 
on H.R. 2100, where there are conditional signatures at the end of the 
conference report excepting some Members to a portion of it and 
excepting others as to different portions.
Either we have a majority of signatures on the conference report or we 
do not. I was asking the chairman, since I think he is probably the 
author, what it means.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair understands that three of the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Ronald D. Coleman (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 693]]

signators did so with a statement of exception. The form in which the 
signatures were printed in the Record made it appear that more than 3 
Members did so.
MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Speaker, if I might proceed further in my 
parliamentary inquiry, it makes no sense. It does not say what the 
Speaker has indicated was the intent. That is not what it says here.
And there are other additional exceptions to different names following. 
I just want a clarification as to what this is and what the procedure 
is. I do not know the correct forum in which to address this.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would advise the gentleman that his 
point under these circumstances is not in the nature of a parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. DICKINSON: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if this is a parliamentary 
inquiry, would it be possible under a unanimous consent at the present 
time to get 5 minutes to address this particular problem so that it 
will not be taken off the allotted time?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would only advise the gentleman that 
the time is controlled by the gentleman from Tennessee and the 
gentleman from New York.
MR. SOLOMON: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible for the gentleman to 
yield to me for a colloquy with the manager of the rule on that side of 
the aisle?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Who yields time?
MR. [BART] GORDON [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Dickinson].
MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Speaker, if I might take this time to ask my 
chairman, what does this mean?
MR. ASPIN: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. DICKINSON: I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
MR. ASPIN: Mr. Speaker, this is my understanding. First of all, the 
rule does allow Members to sign a conference report with some proviso 
saying they signed with exceptions.
The second point is that there are three Members who signed with 
exceptions, not as one might tell by this.
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Hochbrueckner] signed for all 
provisions of the conference report except failure to include the F-14 
program. The gentleman from Virginia, Owen Pickett "for all provisions 
of the conference report except those relating to the F-14," and the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. McNulty] "for all provisions of the 
conference report except those relating to the F-14." The rest of the 
Members signed the conference report without any reservation.

Mr. Aspin then pointed out that even with the three "exceptions," a 
majority of the House managers did sign the report.

Therefore, we got more signatures than we needed. But as the gentleman 
knows, the Members from New York, in particular the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Hochbrueckner] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. McNulty], 
were interested in the F-14 program.
The gentleman from Virginia, who is also interested in Navy aviation, 
although not specifically in Grumman, 


[[Page 694]]

was also interested in the F-14 program.
So they signed it with this reservation which is their right under the 
law.
MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. If this is the 
procedure we are to follow in the future, I can see us having a 
conference report with signatures excepting every member because he 
does not agree to specific provisions. If a Member does not agree to 
everything in here, he just does what was done here, which is very 
unusual, pick out these things that he does not like and say, "I except 
that," are we going to do this next year?
MR. ASPIN: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, these 
three gentlemen are exercising their rights under the rule. . . . 
It is not my choice that they sign with that provision. The rule allows 
them to do that and, as I say, I do not know what the legal standing of 
those signatures are. So we made sure we had more signatures even 
without, even if we did not count these three gentlemen, we had enough 
signatures to file the rule.
MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Speaker, I can see that we are creating a thicket 
for the future there that Brer Rabbit sure would like to be thrown in.
I thank the gentleman for such explanation as there was, and I thank 
the gentleman from Tennessee for his indulgence on time.

Parliamentarian's Note: For a conference report to be valid, a majority 
of all conferees must sign on all issues committed to conference and 
included in the report. In the instance noted here, the Record copy of 
the signature sheets was printed so that it appeared the report was 
invalid. The record copy, showing a colon after each of the three 
excepting phrases, made it appear that all the conferees listed 
thereafter were excepting to the F-14 disposition as carried in the 
report, rather than just the first Member following the stated 
exception. The original signature sheets, which were at the desk and 
examined by the Chair, were unambiguous.
It has long been well established that members of a conference 
committee may not file separate views.(11) There are documented 
instances where conferees have signed a report with conditional 
approval or dissent.(12) In these cases, however, none of the excepted 
signatures were necessary for a majority, and so the question of 
whether such a signature could be counted has never been settled by a 
decisive precedent. 

Managers From Two Committees
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3302.
12.     See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 6489-6496, 6538.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 695]]

Sec.    18.10 Managers on the part of the House, appointed from two 
different standing committees to confer with representatives of the 
Senate on a bill containing both authorization and tax features, signed 
both the conference report and the statement as two distinct groups, 
following the respective portions of the report and statement to which 
they had agreed.
On May 12, 1970,(13) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, for the purpose of 
submitting the conference report and statement on H.R. 14465, the 
Airport and Airway Development and Revenue Act of 1970. These 
signatures of the managers from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce appeared at the end of title I of the conference report:

HARLEY O. STAGGERS,
SAMUEL N. FRIEDEL,
JOHN D. DINGELL,
J. J. PICKLE,
W. L. SPRINGER,
SAM DEVINE,
ALBERT WATSON,
Managers on the Part of the House.
Title II of the report was signed by the following members from the 
Committee on Ways and Means:

W. D. MILLS,
HALE BOGGS,
JOHN C. WATTS,
JOHN W. BYRNES,
JACKSON E. BETTS,
Managers on the Part of the House.
The sections of the statement on titles I and II of the bill were 
similarly signed by the members of the two committees.
Sec.    18.11 Managers on the part of the House, appointed from two 
different standing committees to confer with Senate conferees on 
separate titles of a Senate bill and House amendment, signed both the 
conference report and the joint statement as two distinct groups.
On Dec. 14, 1971,(14) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. 
Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, for the purpose of submitting the conference 
report and statement on S. 382, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
1971. The report and the statement were signed by 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     116 CONG. REC. 15202-17, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
14.     117 CONG. REC. 46791-801, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 696]]

the managers on the part of the House as follows:

WAYNE L. HAYS,
WATKINS M. ABBITT,
KEN GRAY,
JAMES HARVEY,
WM. L. DICKINSON,
Managers on the Part of the House as to Titles III, IV, and V of the 
House Amendment.
HARLEY O. STAGGERS,
TORBERT H. MACDONALD,
LIONEL VAN DEERLIN,
SAMUEL L. DEVINE,
ANCHER NELSEN,
Managers on the Part of the House as to Titles I and II of the House 
Amendment.(15) 
Signature Sheets Must Reflect on Which Portions Conferees Participated
Sec.    18.12 Where the Speaker ap-points conferees on a 
multijurisdictional bill and names some conferees with general 
authority but limiting the sections and titles on which other managers 
may confer, the signature sheets accompanying the conference report and 
statement must reflect precisely the portions of the bill on which they 
have conferred and agreed.
The form of the conference report on H.R. 7765, the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1980, along with a portion of the signature 
sheets is carried here.(16) The signatures in this instance were 
arranged so that the general conferees from the Committee on the Budget 
signed only once, signifying their agreement on the total bill; 
however, the limited conferees had to sign for each area on which they 
were appointed.

Mr. Giaimo submitted the following conference report and statement on 
the bill (H.R. 7765) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 
3 of the first concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 
1981:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 96-1479)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 7765) to provide for 
reconciliation pursuant to section 3 of the First Concurrent Resolution 
on the Budget for the fiscal year 1981, having met, after full and free 
conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
respective Houses as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     Messrs. Hays, Abbitt, Gray, Harvey, and Dickinson were members of 
the Committee on House Administration; Messrs. Staggers, Macdonald, Van 
Deerlin, Devine, and Nelsen were members of the Committee on Interstate 
and Foreign Commerce.
16.     See 126 CONG. REC. 31342, 31370, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 1, 
1980.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 697]]

That the Houses recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of 
the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment insert the 
following:
TITLE I-SHORT TITLE AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSE SHORT TITLE
SEC. 101. This Act may be cited as the "Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 
1980".
PURPOSE
SEC. 102. It is the purpose of this Act to implement the 
recommendations which were made by specified committees of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate pursuant to directions contained in 
section 3 of the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for the 
fiscal year 1981 (H. Con. Res. 307, 96th Congress), and pursuant to the 
reconciliation requirements which were imposed by such concurrent 
resolution as provided in section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974.
TITLE II-SCHOOL LUNCH AND CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS . . . 
And the Senate agreed to the same.

For consideration of the entire bill (including title I through title 
IX of the House bill, section 1 through title IX of the Senate 
amendment, and the title of the bill):
ROBERT N. GIAIMO,
THOMAS L. ASHLEY,
WILLIAM M. BRODHEAD,
LEON E. PANETTA,
Managers on the Part of the House.
For consideration of the entire bill (including title I through title 
IX of the House bill, section 1 through title IX of the Senate 
amendment, and the title of the bill):
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN,
J. JAMES EXON,
HENRY BELLMON,
PETE V. DOMENICI,
Managers on the Part of the Senate . . . 
For title II, subtitle A of the House bill and title I of the Senate 
amendment:
From the Committee on Education and Labor:
CARL D. PERKINS,
IKE ANDREWS,
GEORGE MILLER,
Managers on the Part of the House.
For title II, subtitle A of the House bill and title I of the Senate 
amendment:
From the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry:
H. E. TALMADGE,
GEORGE MCGOVERN,
WALTER D. HUDDLESTON,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
For title II, subtitle C of the House bill and title VII of the Senate 
amendment:
From the Committee on Education and Labor:
CARL D. PERKINS,
WILLIAM D. FORD,
JOHN BRADEMAS,
MARIO BIAGGI,
JOHN M. ASHBROOK,
JOHN BUCHANAN,
Managers on the Part of the House.

Adding Signature After Filing and Printing


[[Page 698]]

Sec.    18.13 The House agreed to a unanimous-consent request that a 
Senator be permitted to sign a conference report notwithstanding the 
filing and printing of such report.
On Aug. 25, 1950,(17) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [KARL] STEFAN [of Nebraska]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that notwithstanding the filing and printing of the conference report, 
Senator Wherry may be permitted to sign the report on the general 
provisions and the general reduction sections including chapters 10(a) 
and 11 of the bill H.R. 7786, making appropriations for the support of 
the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other 
purposes.
THE SPEAKER:(18) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Nebraska?
There was no objection.
Example of Complicated Signature Sheets Filed With Conference Report
Sec.    18.14 The signature pages on a complex conference report must 
show that managers of the two Houses have reached agreement on each 
area of disagreement; and thus remains true where a lengthy Senate 
amendment in the nature of a substitute must be reconciled with an 
equally long House text.
The conference report on the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 
was filed in the House on July 29, 1981.(19) A portion of the signature 
sheets, as carried in the Congressional Record, are presented here to 
show the variety of jurisdictional designations which were utilized in 
showing that all areas in disagreement were reconciled.

Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma submitted the following conference 
report and statement on the bill (H.R. 3982) to provide for 
reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first concurrent 
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 1982.

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3982) to provide for 
reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first concurrent 
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 1982, having met, after 
full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     96 CONG. REC. 13487, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
18.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
19.     127 CONG. REC. 18263, 18372, 18446, 18448, 18450, 18453-55, 97th 
Cong. 1st Sess. (H.R. 3982).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 699]]

the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment 
insert the following:
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act of 1981".
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title I. Agriculture, forestry, and related programs.
Title II. Armed services and defense-related programs.
Title III. Banking, housing, and related programs.
Title IV. District of Columbia. . . . 
Title XXIV. Unemployment compensation.
Title XXV. Trade adjustment assistance.
Title XXVI. Low-income home energy assistance.
Title XXVII. Health professions.
PURPOSE
SEC. 2. It is the purpose of this Act to implement the recommendations 
which were made by specified committees of the House of Representatives 
and the Senate pursuant to directions contained in part A of title III 
of the first concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 
1982 (H. Con. Res. 115, 97th Congress), and pursuant to the 
reconciliation requirements which were imposed by such concurrent 
resolution as provided in section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974.
TITLE I-AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Subtitle A-Food Stamp Program Reductions and Other Reductions in 
Authorization for Appropriations . . .
STATEMENT OF MANAGERS
SEC. 1199A. The managers on the part of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives are authorized to have printed in the Congressional 
Record at any time prior to midnight on July 31, 1981, a statement in 
explanation of the provisions of this title relating to matters within 
the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Such 
statement shall be considered to have been filed at the same time and 
along with the conference report on the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act of 1981 (H.R. 3982); and shall be considered for all purposes to 
constitute the statement on the part of the managers with respect to 
such provisions.

The signature sheets were prepared as follows:

Solely for consideration of title I of the House bill (except that 
portion of section 1015 entitled "International Programs, Public Law 
480", and the 9th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th paragraphs of such section 
1015), and title I (except parts D and G and section 142) of the Senate 
amendment.
From the Committee on Agriculture:
E DE LA GARZA,
THOMAS S. FOLEY,
ED JONES,
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr. (except for sections 1015, 1021, 1027, and 1029 of 
the House bill and section 112 of the Senate amendment) . . .
TOM HARKIN (only for sections 1001-14 and 1021 of the House bill and 


[[Page 700]]

sections 151-169 of the Senate amendment) . . .
RON MARLENEE (only for section 1015 of the House bill and sections 511-
13 and 516-19 of the Senate amendment),
Managers on the Part of the House.
From the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry:
JESSE HELMS,
S. I. HAYAKAWA,
DICK LUGAR,
THAD COCHRAN,
WALTER D. HUDDLESTON,
PATRICK LEAHY,
Managers on the Part of the Senate. . . . 
Solely for consideration of title V, section 5001, subtitles A and B 
(except sections 5112, 5130, 5131, and 5133), subtitle C, chapter 1, 
subchapters B and C (except section 5397), subtitle C, chapter 1, 
subchapter E, and subtitle C, chapter 2, subchapter B of the House 
bill, and title XI, section 1101-8(16) through (19), part B (except 
section 1117(e)), and parts C, D, F, and G (except sections 1137 and 
1163 and subparts 2 and 3 of part D) of the Senate amendment.
INDEX
Area A: (1) sections 5101, 5104, 5105, 5109, 5113, 5114, 5117, 5120, 
5121, 5122, 5124, 5125, 5126, 5132, 5140, 5143, and 5211(2)-5211(12) of 
the House bill. . . . 
Area D: (1) sections 5102, 5108, 5111, 5127, 5129, 5134, 5136, 5137, 
5138, 5211(15), and 5211(16) of the House bill. . . .
From the Committee on Education and Labor:
CARL D. PERKINS,
AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS (solely for area C),
WILLIAM D. FORD (solely for areas A and D) . . . 
LAWRENCE J. DENARDIS (solely for area D),
Managers on the Part of the House . . . 
Solely for consideration of title VI, subtitle D, chapter 15, subtitle 
E, chapter 1 (except subchapter I, and (in section 6531(a)) paragraph 
(1) and the first sentence following paragraph (5) of the proposed new 
section 17), and subtitle E, chapter 2, subchapter C of the House bill, 
and title IV, parts A, B, and E and sections 421, 422, and 423 of the 
Senate amendment.
From the Committee on Energy and Commerce:
JOHN D. DINGELL,
RICHARD OTTINGER . . .
CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, 
Managers on the Part of the House.
From the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:
BOB PACKWOOD,
BARRY GOLDWATER,
HARRISON SCHMITT,
HOWARD W. CANNON,
DANIEL INOUYE,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
Solely for consideration of title IX, subtitle C; and title XI, 
subtitle B, chapter 4 of the House bill.
From the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries:
WALTER B. JONES . . . 
From the Committee on Public Works and Transportation:
JAMES J. HOWARD  . . . 
Managers on the Part of the House.
From the Committee on Environment and Public Works:
JAMES ABDNOR,


[[Page 701]]

ROBERT T. STAFFORD,
JOHN H. CHAFEE . . . 
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
For consideration of the entire House bill and Senate amendment 
(including sections 1 and 2 of the House bill and section 1 of the 
Senate amendment).
From the Committee on the Budget:
JAMES R. JONES,
NORMAN Y. MINETA,
STEPHEN J. SOLARZ,
LEON E. PANETTA,
RICHARD A. GEPHARDT,
LES ASPIN,
DELBERT L. LATTA,
RALPH REGULA,
BUD SHUSTER,
BOBBI FIEDLER,
Managers on the Part of the House.
From the Committee on the Budget:
PETE V. DOMENICI,
RUDY BOSCHWITZ,
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
LAWTON CHILES,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the conference 
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the 
Senate to the bill (H.R. 3982) entitled, "An Act to Provide for 
Reconciliation Pursuant to Section 301 of the First Concurrent 
Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1982," submit the following 
joint statement to the House and the Senate in explanation of the 
effect of the action agreed upon by the managers and recommended in the 
accompanying conference report:
The Senate amendment to the text of the bill struck out all of the 
House bill after the enacting clause and inserted a substitute text.
The House recedes from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate 
with an amendment which is a substitute for the House bill and the 
Senate amendment.
The joint statement of managers which follows was prepared by the 
Committees on Jurisdiction, but is arranged by title of the conference 
agreement. A brief overview by the Committees on the Budget appears at 
the beginning.

STATEMENT OF BUDGET COMMITTEE MANAGERS
By approving the First Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 1982, which 
included reconciliation instructions, Congress continued and expanded 
its efforts to maintain control over Federal expenditures. Those 
reconciliation instructions directed fourteen Senate and fifteen House 
committees to report legislation achieving unprecedented reductions 
which impact on Federal spending during fiscal years 1981, 1982, 1983 
and 1984.
The provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 are the 
culmination of the work of the committees in complying with the 
reconciliation directives. Real savings have been achieved which 
compare favorably with the reconciliation bills as passed by the House 
and Senate.
The managers for the Committees on the Budget wish to acknowledge the 
extraordinary efforts of the conference participants, particularly the 
chairmen and ranking Members of the House and Senate committees, in 
achieving these savings.
What follows in this statement of managers is a title by title 
explanation of the conference agreement. This explanation has been 
prepared 


[[page 702]]

by the committees which determined the provisions of the conference 
agreement which are in their separate jurisdictions.


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
D. CONFERENCE REPORTS
 
Sec.    19. Limitations on Scope of Report

Inclusion of Provision Exceeding Managers' Authority
Sec.    19.1 A point of order will lie against a conference report on the 
ground that the conferees had agreed to a provision which was beyond 
the limits of their authority.
On Dec. 11, 1967,(20) after Mr. Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New York, called 
up the conference report on H.R. 7977, the Postal Revenue and Federal 
Salary Act of 1967, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a point of order.

MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the conference 
report on the grounds that the House managers exceeded their authority 
and did not confine themselves to the differences committed to them, in 
violation of the rules and precedents of the House of Representatives.
The House bill, in section 107(a) provided a minimum charge of 3.8 
cents for bulk third-class mail effective January 7, 1968. Section 107
(a) of the Senate amendment provided a two-step minimum charge-the 
first of 3.6 cents effective January 7, 1968, and a second 4-cent rate 
effective January 1, 1969.
The differences committed to the conferees with respect to this postage 
rate and the effective dates for this rate were: A rate range between 
3.6 cents and 4 cents; a January 7, 1968, effective date for a one-rate 
charge with no further rate provided; and January 7, 1968, and January 
1, 1969, effective dates for any two-rate charges.
The conference report contains a two-rate charge-the first, 3.6 cents, 
effective January 7, 1968; the second, 4 cents, effective July 1, 1969.
The July 1, 1969, effective date for a second rate goes beyond the 
disagreements confided to the conferees. By agreeing to any effective 
date for a second rate beyond January 1, 1969, the House managers have 
clearly exceeded their authority. . . . 
Rule 28 clause 3 of the Rules of the House(1) reads:

Whenever a disagreement to an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
has been committed to a conference committee it shall be in order for 
the Managers on the part of the House to propose a substitute which is 
a germane modification of the matter in disagreement, but their report 
shall not include matter not committed to the conference committee by 
either House.

The Senate bill was an amendment-in the nature of a substitute for the 
House bill. The conference report is an 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     113 CONG. REC. 35811, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(a) (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 703]]

additional substitute on the same subject. However, the conference 
report distinctly includes matter not committed to the conferees by 
either House, and I make the point of order on that basis. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(2) Does the gentleman from New York desire to be heard on 
the point of order?
MR. DULSKI: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair sustains the point of order.
Determining Whether Issue Is Within Scope of Conference
Sec.    19.2 In determining whether a provision included in a conference 
report is within the scope of the managers' authority, the Chair 
examines the text of the bill and amendment sent to conference; and 
where one House is silent on the matter in question the state of the 
current law may be considered the position of that House. 
On Dec. 18, 1974,(3) when the conference report on the Federal Aid 
Highway Amendments of 1974 (S. 3954) was before the House, a point of 
order was directed at a provision, having its origins in the Senate 
bill, dealing with truck weight limits. The House amendment had 
included no such provision and the Chair examined the existing law on 
the matter in determining the House position on the issue. 
A portion of the conference statement, the point of order and argument 
thereon, are carried here to illustrate the type of examination 
required by the Chair in ruling on a question raised under Rule XXVIII 
clause 3.

[Partial text of the statement of the managers accompanying the 
conference report follows.(4)]
VEHICLE SIZES AND WEIGHTS
Senate bill
Section 106 of the Senate bill amends section 127 of title 23, United 
States Code, by striking out "eighteen thousand pounds carried on any 
one axle, or with a tandem-axle weight in excess of thirty-two thousand 
pounds, or with an overall gross weight in excess of seventy-three 
thousand two hundred and eighty pounds," and inserting in lieu thereof 
the following: "twenty thousand pounds carried on any one axle, 
including all enforcement tolerances; ten thousand pounds on the 
steering axle of any truck tractor, including all enforcement 
tolerances; or with a tandem axle weight in excess of 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 3.     120 CONG. REC. 40905, 40906, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     The report and statement were carried in the Record on Dec. 17, 
1974, at 120 CONG. REC. 40575, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 704]]

thirty-four thousand pounds, including all enforcement tolerances; or 
with an overall gross weight on a group of two or more consecutive   
axles produced by application of the following formula: . . . 
House amendment
No comparable provision.
Conference substitute
The conference substitute is identical to the Senate bill except as 
follows:
(1) The phrase "10,000 pounds on the steering axle of any truck 
tractor, including all enforcement tolerances;" is deleted.
(2) Because of inclusion in the Senate passed bill of a new and 
additional weight limitation on any group of two or more consecutive 
axles of vehicles operating on the Interstate System, clarifying 
language was added by the Conference Committee to express the intent of 
the Senate as stated by the floor manager when this provision was 
debated on the Senate floor. The added language makes it clear that any 
vehicle or combination of vehicles that could lawfully operate in a 
State on the date of enactment of the Federal-Aid Highway Amendments of 
1974 may be permitted to continue to operate on the Interstate System 
in such State even though the overall gross weight of any group of 
consecutive axles may exceed that permitted by the formula in this 
section.

MR. [JAMES C.] WRIGHT [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the Senate bill (S. 3934) to authorize 
appropriations for the construction of certain highways in accordance 
with title 23 of the United States Code, and for other purposes, and 
ask unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be read in 
lieu of the report.

POINT OF ORDER
MR. [EDWARD J.] KOCH [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a 
point of order.
THE SPEAKER:(5) The gentleman will state it.
MR. KOCH: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order, pursuant to rule 
XXVIII, clause 3, of the House Rules, that the conference report on S. 
3934 is not in order because section 106(b) contains an additional 
proposition not committed to the conference committee by either House 
and which is, therefore, nongermane.
This provision adds a major exception to the safety provision relating 
to allowable vehicle weights. The provision would allow States with 
higher weights on roads other than interstate highways at the time of 
enactment to permit the heavier weights on interstate highways and to 
be exempted from the bridge facility formula in section 106(a).
That provision was neither in the House bill nor the Senate bill.
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point of order?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Texas will be heard.
MR. WRIGHT: . . . The language added by the conference committee is 
well and fully within the scope of the conference. The House, as will 
be recalled, had no provision whatever concerning size and weights, 
while the Senate bill did contain such provision. The Senate bill in 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 705]]

effect, provided for certain increases in allowable sizes and weights 
on the interstate system and at the same time included certain new 
weight restrictions that could have been interpreted to preclude 
operation of vehicles that now lawfully can be operated in a State.
Floor debate in the Senate while this provision was under consideration 
indicates very clearly that it was not the intention of the Senate to 
prohibit the operation of vehicles that now can be lawfully operated 
and, therefore, the conference committee had language to make this 
clear.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the statement of intent on the 
floor of the Senate is not conclusive, nevertheless the additional 
language is well within the scope of the conference. The Senate placed 
limitations that would have made it illegal for certain vehicles to 
operate. The House did not have any such limitation. Consequently it 
was within the purview of the conference to reduce or ease the 
limitation. And that is exactly what the language in question does-no 
more. The Senate language declared that no vehicles which do not meet 
all the new qualifications may operate. The House was silent on the 
matter. The new language merely declares that a few vehicles that 
otherwise did not qualify may operate. This had the effect of 
compromising between the "all" in the Senate language and the silence 
of the House language to arrive at some compromise in the report.

And so, in sum, Mr. Speaker, whether one accepts the floor statements 
concerning the intent of the Senate or one does not, the language added 
by the conference report is well within the scope of the matters 
referred to the conference.
MR. KOCH: Mr. Speaker, will the Chair hear me further on this?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
MR. KOCH: Mr. Speaker, the language in the bill related to a maximum of 
80,000 pounds. The conference report provides for grandfathering in 
those States that have weights in excess of that. For example, there is 
one State that allows 125,000 pounds on other than State roadways in 
that State. This conference report allows 15 such States with weights 
in excess of 80,000 pounds to operate on the interstate highways.
That was not, I submit, Mr. Speaker, either in the Senate or in the 
House bill. It is nongermane and I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is subject 
to a point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair has examined both the existing law and the 
conference report. The Chair does not see any question of germaneness 
involved, since the issue was raised in the Senate bill, but the Chair 
does find that existing law, found in section 127, title 23, highways, 
United States Code, grandfathered into, or excepted from, the law 
vehicles allowed by States that had weights different from those 
contemplated by the remainder of the Federal statute. As the Chair 
reads the language of the conference report that is exactly what it 
does here. The Chair has reviewed the language and does not believe 
that there was any intention on the part of the House or the House 
conferees in agreeing to this to outlaw or to eliminate the 
grandfa-


[[Page 706]]

thering provisions in the law. That in itself, it seems to the Chair, 
does give validity to the argument of the gentleman from Texas that the 
language contained in the conference report is within the scope of the 
provisions contained in both versions, since the House amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, by remaining silent on the subject, had in 
effect taken the position of existing law which exempted vehicles 
lawfully operated under State law from the weight and width 
restrictions in title 23, section 127.
Determining Whether Matter  Is Committed to Conference Where One House 
Is Silent on Issue
Sec.    19.3 While the scope of differences committed to conference, 
where one House has explicitly amended existing law and the other is 
silent, by implication taking the position of existing law, may be 
measured between those extremes, the inclusion of new matter, not 
contained in the amending version and not demonstrably repetitive of 
existing law, may be ruled out as a matter not committed to conference 
under Rule XXVIII clause 3.  
The conference report on the bill H.R. 620, to establish an additional 
Assistant Secretary of Interior for Indian Affairs, was called up in 
the House shortly before the sine die adjournment of the second session 
of the 93d Congress.
A portion of the statement of the managers, the point of order that the 
managers had exceeded their authority, and the Chair's ruling excerpted 
from the Record of Dec. 20, 1974,(6) are carried below.
ESTABLISHING WITHIN THE DEPART-MENT OF THE INTERIOR AN ADDITIONAL 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS
MR. [LLOYD] MEEDS [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 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, and ask unanimous 
consent that the statement of the managers be read in lieu of the 
report.

The explanation of the conference section which was the focus of the 
point of order was as follows:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 93-1620)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendments of the Senate to 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 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     120 CONG. REC. 41849, 41850, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 707]]

other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed 
to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
Senate with an amendment as follows:
That there shall be in the Department of the Interior, in addition to 
the Assistant Secretaries now provided for by law, one additional 
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs, who shall be 
appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the 
Senate, who shall be responsible for such duties as the Secretary of 
the Interior shall prescribe with respect to the conduct of Indian 
Affairs, and who shall receive compensation at the rate now or 
hereafter prescribed by law for Assistant Secretaries of the Interior.
SEC. 5. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688) is 
hereby further amended by inserting at the end thereof a new section 28 
as follows:
"(e) Any stock issued by a corporation under subsection (g) of section 
7 of this Act to any Native who is enrolled in the thirteenth region 
pursuant to this section shall, upon enrollment of that Native, be 
canceled by the issuing corporation without liability to it or the 
Native whose stock is so canceled.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER:(7) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [DON] YOUNG of Alaska: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. YOUNG of Alaska: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that section 
5(e) of the conference report introduces language presenting a specific 
topic or question that was not committed to the conference committee by 
either House and is not a germane modification of the matters in 
disagreement. The insertion of section 5(e) is a violation of clause 3 
of rule XXVIII of the rules of the House.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Washington wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
MR. MEEDS: I do, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, both the conference report and the Senate bill give 
authority for the distribution of certain funds and provides that the 
13th region, which would be created or provided by the conference bill, 
would be payable to these people as though the 13th region had been 
created in December of 1973.
Now, while the Senate bill did not mention the question of stock, that 
if the Senate bill had been passed it would have been necessary to do 
precisely what we have done in the conference report.
Therefore, the intended power of the Senate bill is covered in the 
language of the conference report and the conference reported bill. It 
is clearly within the scope, because it would absolutely be necessary 
to do this to carry out the Senate bill as it was enacted and it was in 
conference.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair has examined the Senate amendment and finds that there was 
absolutely no reference in the Senate 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 708]]

amendment that the Chair finds to a cancellation of stock previously 
issued by Native corporations to Natives who are enrolled in 
the 13th region. Therefore the conference report is in violation of 
clause 3, rule XXVIII.
The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.
MR. MEEDS: Mr. Speaker, could I be heard?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman may be heard, but will the gentleman 
indicate that there is new language in the conference report not 
contained in the Senate amendment.
MR. MEEDS: Mr. Speaker, I agree there is not language in the Senate 
bill which does this, but if the Senate bill were carried out after it 
were passed, what is set forth in the conference report would have to 
be done. It is a mechanical thing that would necessarily follow.
When the 13th region was not created, certain stock was issued to 
individuals who would have been members of that 13th region in other 
corporations. When the 13th region is created, as it is by the Senate 
bill and by conference, it would then be necessary to redistribute and 
refund that fund, so it is a necessary concomitant of either bill that 
this procedure be carried out, and it is simply set out in the 
conference reported bill.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will read clause 3, rule XXVIII:

Whenever a disagreement to an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
has been committed to a conference committee it shall be in order for 
the Managers on the part of the House to propose a substitute which is 
a germane modification of the matter in disagreement, but the 
introduction of any language in that substitute presenting a specific 
additional topic, question, issue, or proposition not committed to the 
conference committee by either House shall not constitute a germane 
modification of the matter in disagreement.

If what the gentleman says is true, the addition of this language in 
the conference report would have been redundant. To have put it in the 
conference report would have been unnecessary; the Chair must conclude 
that a new issue has been injected which was not contained in the 
Senate amendment.
The Chair, much as he dislikes to do so, must sustain the point of 
order.
Senate Standard Where Conferees Include "New Matter"
Sec.    19.4 The Senate, in determining whether a conference report is 
subject to a point of order because it includes "new matter," applies 
the following standard: If the matter is entirely irrelevant to the 
subject matter (of the bill and amendment) it is not in order.
On Aug. 19, 1982,(8) a point of order was raised against the conference 
report on the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     128 CONG. REC. 22398, 22400, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 709]]

1982, on the ground that the report contained a provision (new matter) 
not in either version submitted to the conference. The Chair ruled that 
since the managers went to conference on a complete substitute, they 
had maximum flexibility and had not violated the Senate rule. The 
Chair's decision was sustained on appeal.

MR. [JOHN P.] EAST [of North Carolina]: Mr. President, I would like to 
make a point of order regarding the conference report.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(9) Will the Senator turn on his speaker?
MR. EAST: I have it on. I think it had gotten turned off up there. I do 
not know.
If I may state my point of order:
Mr. President, I make the point of order that under the provisions of 
rule XXVIII, paragraphs 2 and 3, the conference report is out of order 
in that it contains material which is not a germane modification of 
subjects in disagreement, to wit: That the report contains a provision 
requiring a new set of information reporting requirements for certain 
businesses, and a tip allocation requirement.
I state in explanation of the point of order that the Senate struck out 
a similar provision from the Senate committee amendment to H.R. 4961, 
and that no such provision was contained in either the Senate-passed or 
original House-passed versions of the bill. Although the Senate-passed 
bill contained a provision dealing with the deductibility of business 
expenses incurred for meals and beverages, that provision dealt only 
with the issue of deductibility of business expenses. The provision 
included by the committee on conference deals with the allocation and 
reporting of income which in no way can be considered a modification of 
a provision dealing with deductions.
I further state in explanation of the point of order that the provision 
relating to the deductibility of business expenses appears under the 
heading, "Reduction in Certain Deductions and Credits," in the Senate-
passed version of H.R. 4961. The provision on tip reporting and tip 
allocation contained in the report of the Committee on Finance on H.R. 
4961 appeared under the heading, "Provision Designed To Improve 
Taxpayer Compliance." Likewise, these matters appeared in separate 
titles. The tip provision appeared in the Senate committee amendment in 
title III. It is thus clear that the committee on conference did not 
confine itself to modifying a matter in disagreement. Rather, it 
inserted new matter that had been approved at no time by either the 
Senate or the House.
I accordingly state that under the provisions of rule XXVIII, paragraph 
2, the conference report is out of order and must be rejected in its 
entirety, since the House of Representatives has already acted thereon.
MR. [ROBERT J.] DOLE [of Kansas]: Mr. President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The conferees went to conference with a complete 
substitute, which gives them the maximum latitude allowable to 
conferees. The standard is that matter en-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     Rudy Boschwitz (Minn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 710]]

tirely irrelevant to the subject matter is not in order. That standard 
has not been breached. The point of order is not well taken.
The Senator from Kansas.
MR. EAST: Mr. President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Kansas has the floor.
MR. DOLE: I am happy to yield.
MR. EAST: I would like to appeal from the ruling of the Chair and I ask 
for the yeas and nays. . . . 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the 
judgment of the Senate?
MR. [HOWARD H.] BAKER [Jr., of Tennessee]: A parliamentary inquiry. An 
"aye" vote sustains the ruling of the Chair. Is that correct?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator is correct. . . . 
Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced-yeas 68, nays 27. . . . 
So the ruling of the Chair was sustained as the judgment of the Senate.
MR. DOLE: Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
ruling of the Chair was sustained.
MR. BAKER: I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Parliamentarian's Note: Section 801 of the Commerce, Justice, State, 
and the Judiciary Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001 (as enacted 
by reference to H.R. 5548 in Pub. L. No. 106-553) provided that at the 
beginning of the 107th Congress the Presiding Officer of the Senate 
would (in a manner of speaking) turn back the clock and apply all 
precedents under Senate Rule XXVIII (re-lating to the scope of 
conference) as in effect at the end of the 103d Congress-notably 
including the above ruling of Aug. 19, 1982, to the effect that any 
matter "not entirely irrelevant" would be considered within scope-
notwith-standing the intervening decision by the Senate on appeal from 
a ruling of its Presiding Officer on Oct. 3, 1996 (142 CONG. REC. 
S11228-30 (daily ed.), 104th Cong. 2d Sess.). On that occasion, the 
Senate overturned a ruling of the Chair that the inclusion in a 
conference report of a special labor-law provision not contained in 
either the House bill or the Senate amendment exceeded the scope of 
conference, and interpreted that result on appeal as tantamount to a 
change in its rules, vitiating its scope rule entirely. There the 
matter stood for nearly two sub-sequent Congresses. Before any 
documentation in this volume of the events in the Senate on Oct. 3, 
1996, they were overtaken by the enactment of section 801 and its 
reinstatement of the earlier state of Senate practice exemplified by 
the above ruling of Aug. 19, 1982.


[[Page 711]]

Conference as Limited to Matters in Disagreement; Inclusion of New 
Criteria for Waiver of Restrictions in Conference Language
Sec.    19.5 Conferees must confine themselves to the differences 
committed to them and may not include subjects not within the 
disagreements between the two Houses.
On Aug. 19, 1937,(10) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [WILLIAM M.] WHITTINGTON [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
the conference report on the bill H.R. 7646, an act to amend an act 
entitled "An act authorizing the construction of certain public works 
on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes", 
approved June 22, 1936, and ask unanimous consent that the statement 
may be read in lieu of the conference report. . . . 
MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
against the report on the ground it exceeds the range of the 
conference. The first amendment attempts to deal with an act of June 
15, 1936, while the matters in difference between the two Houses were 
entirely confined to the act of June 22, 1936. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(11) The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] makes the point of order that 
the conferees have exceeded their au-thority in agreeing to Senate 
amendment No. 1, which is in the following language:

Provided further, That if after investigation the President finds that 
any city or town is by reason of its financial condition unable to 
comply with the requirements of section 3 as to local cooperation he is 
hereby authorized to waive such requirements in whole or in part.

This was the original Senate amendment placed in the House bill. In 
lieu of the Senate amendment, the conferees have agreed to the 
following provision:

Provided further, That if after investigation the President finds that 
States, political subdivisions thereof, or other responsible local 
agencies are unable by reason of their financial condition to comply 
with the requirements as to local cooperation with respect to providing 
lands, easements, and rights-of-way for any projects authorized by the 
Flood Control Act of June 15, 1936 (Public Act No. 678, 74th Cong.), 
the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (Public Act No. 738, 74th 
Cong.), and by this amending act, he is authorized to waive such 
requirement on any individual project not to exceed 50 percent of the 
estimated costs of the lands, easements, and rights-of-way.

In other words, the conferees by agreeing to the language last read by 
the Chair, have very largely increased the power that was not covered 
by the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     81 CONG. REC. 9376-79, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
11.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 712]]

House provision and was not covered by the original Senate amendment to 
the House bill.
There is a long and consistent line of decisions and precedents holding 
that such powers are clearly beyond the authority of conferees and the 
Chair regretfully feels compelled to sustain the point of order.(12) 
Modifying Text Not in Disagreement
Sec.    19.6 Where the Senate adopted 30 amendments to a concurrent 
resolution, but left much of the resolution unchanged, a conference 
report proposing action on all of the resolution following the 
resolving clause, thus including matter not in disagreement, was held 
not in order.
On June 10, 1953,(13) Mr. Louis E. Graham, of Pennsylvania, called up 
the conference report on House Concurrent Resolution 29, favoring the 
granting of permanent resident status to certain aliens. After the 
Clerk read the report, Mr. Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, raised a 
point of order.
MR. WALTER: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the 
conference report that the report contains names that were not in 
disagreement and deletes some of the names that were in agreement, so 
that there was nothing before the conference to change in these 
instances.
MR. GRAHAM: I concede the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER:(14) The Chair notes that the Senate adopted 30 amendments 
to this House concurrent resolution, but a large part of the 
resolution, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walter] states, has 
not been amended. The conference report proposes action on all of the 
concurrent resolution following the resolving clause, thus including 
portions which are not in disagreement. The conferees obviously have 
exceeded their jurisdiction, and the point of order is sustained.

Broadening Coverage of Provision Beyond Language in Disagreement
Sec.    19.7 Where one House strikes out of a bill of the other House all 
after the enacting clause and inserts a new text, House conferees, 
under Rule XXVIII clause 3, may not include in their report a mod-
ification of a proposition which is beyond the scope of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     See also 99 CONG. REC. 6354-57, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., June 10, 
1953.
13. 99 CONG. REC. 6354-57, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
14.     Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 713]]

that proposition as committed to conference.
On Dec. 14, 1971,(15) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, called up the 
conference report on S. 2891, to amend and extend the Economic 
Stabilization Act of 1970. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a point of 
order against the conference report.

MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the conference 
report on S. 2891 on the basis that the House managers exceeded 
their authority, did not confine themselves to the differences 
committed to them and on the basis that the managers' report contains 
matter clearly not germane to the matter in disagreement, all in 
flagrant violation of clause 3, rule XXVIII(16) and the precedents of 
the House of Representatives.
The Senate-passed bill contained a section 3 which in effect waives the 
provisions of the Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970-Public Law 91-
656-and directs the President to put into effect January 1, 1972, pay 
adjustments for the three statutory sala-ry systems-General Service, 
Foreign Service, and Veterans' Administration Medicine and Surgery-in 
an amount not to exceed the pay guidelines under the Economic 
Stabilization Act or not greater than the actual comparability 
adjustments.
The House-passed bill contained no such section 3.
The conference report, as agreed to by the conferees, contains section 
3 with two significant changes that are clearly not germane to the 
section 3 as passed by the Senate.
First, section 3 in the conference report contains an additional 
provision which raises the maximum pay limitation applicable to 
employees of the Senate and House of Representatives from level 5 to 
level 4 of the Executive Salary Schedule. This is a proposition which 
was clearly not committed to the Conference Committee.
Second, the conference report in section 3 eliminated the Senate-passed 
provision which provided that no pay adjustment under the Federal 
Statutory Pay System could exceed comparability based on the 1971 
Bureau of Labor Statistics Survey.
In essence, Mr. Speaker, the conferees not only eliminated a 
restriction on the amount of pay adjustment for the three statutory 
salary systems but they also increased rates of pay for groups of 
employees-those employees of the House and the Senate-who were not 
specifically cited in either the Senate- or House-passed bills.
Clause 3 of rule XXVIII of rules of the House reads in part as follows:

Moreover, their report shall not include matter not committed to the 
conference committee by either House, nor shall their report include a 
modification of any specific topic, question, issue, or proposition 
committed to the conference committee by either or both Houses if that 
modi-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     117 CONG. REC. 46779, 46780, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
16.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(a) (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 714]]

fication is beyond the scope of that specific topic, question, issue, 
or proposition as so committed to the Conference committee.

The rule was actually strengthened and tightened up in the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of last year in order to make it abundantly clear 
that no specific topic, question, issue, or proposition could be agreed 
to by the conferees unless committed to the Confer-ence Committee by 
either or both Houses. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(17) The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross) makes a point of order against the 
conference report on the bill S. 2391 on the ground that the conferees 
on the part of the House have exceeded their authority as defined in 
clause 3 of rule XXVIII by including matter not submitted to conference 
by either House.
Specifically, the gentleman from Iowa asserts that the conferees have 
broadened that provision of the Senate bill which authorizes 
comparability adjustments in the rates of pay of each Federal statutory 
pay system covered by the Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970 at a 
rate not in excess of 5.5 percent, effective after January 1, 1972.
The House amendment contained no comparable provision. As stated in the 
joint statement of the managers on page 22, the conferees have adopted 
the Senate provision with a "clarifying amendment" to assure that the 
comparability adjustments be made not only in the "statutory pay 
systems" as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 5301(c), but also in "all 
other Federal pay systems" covered by the Federal Pay Comparability Act 
of 1970; namely, those under which rates of pay are fixed by 
administrative action under 5 U.S.C. 5307. This would include employees 
in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and employees of 
the District of Columbia whose pay is disbursed by administrative 
action. It would also include employees whose pay is disbursed by the 
Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House.
The Chair is compelled to hold that the conferees, by deleting the word 
"statutory" in the Senate bill, have broadened the coverage of the 
comparability adjustments beyond the scope of the Senate bill or the 
House amendment. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Parliamentarian's Note: As stated in argument on the point of order, 
the conference report also included a provision which raised the 
maximum pay limitation applicable to congressional employees. This 
provision was not in the Senate bill or in the House amendment, and 
provided further grounds for sustaining the point of order.
Point of Order on Scope; Clarifying Language in Disagreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 715]]

Sec.    19.8 House conferees may not under Rule XXVIII clause 3,(18) 
include in a conference report a new topic or issue not committed to 
conference by either House, yet it is in order to include language 
clarifying and limiting the duties imposed on an executive official by 
one House's version where that modification does not expand the 
authority conferred in that version or contained in existing law, which 
may be considered the implicit position of the other House. 
The point of order raised on July 29, 1975,(19) against the conference 
report on the bill H.R. 3130, amending the National Environmental 
Policy Act to clarify the federal and state roles in the preparation of 
certain environmental analyses of certain federal programs, illustrates 
the complexity of determining questions about the "scope of 
conference." 
Where differences in language are committed to conference, the Chair 
must sometimes explore not only the text of the House bill and the 
Senate amendment but provisions of existing law on the subject to 
determine whether conference language is a "germane modification" of 
the matter in disagreement or whether it crosses the boundary and 
introduces matter not committed to conference by either House or is 
"beyond the scope" of the proposition before the conferees. 
The rather detailed argument on this conference report illustrates the 
analysis sometimes required by the Chair to reach a decision in these 
matters.

MRS. [LEONOR K.] SULLIVAN [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 3130) to amend the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in order to clarify the procedures 
therein with respect to the preparation of environmental impact 
statements, 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:(20) Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
rom Missouri?
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [JAMES J.] HOWARD [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order against the conference report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 913a (1997).
19.     121 CONG. REC. 25515-17, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
20.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 716]]

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New Jersey will state his point of 
order.
MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against the 
conference report because it contains material outside the scope of the 
conference.
Specifically, the language that is objectionable is that requiring the 
responsible Federal official to provide early notification to and 
solicitation to the view of any other State or Federal land management 
entity of any action or alternative thereto which may have significant 
impacts upon such State or affected Federal land management entity and 
to assess these impacts if there is disagreement upon them. Neither the 
House nor Senate versions of this bill require the Federal official to 
take these actions. While the amendment is not clear as to what the 
Federal official is required to give notification of, it is clearly not 
within the text of the House bill or Senate amendment.
Consequently, it is outside the scope of the conference which deals 
only with the responsibilities of the State agency or official to 
prepare an impact statement and requires the responsible Federal 
official to furnish guidance and participation in the preparation of 
such statement and its independent evaluation. Any search of the Senate 
amendment and the House bill or the two taken together demonstrates no 
requirement for notification to States or Federal land management 
entities or the solicitation of their views. More-over, the requirement 
is imposed upon the Federal official to determine if there are 
disagreements and to assess the impacts if there are such 
disagreements. Such concepts are not contained within the House bill or 
State amendment.
This is further emphasized by the date which limits this new 
requirement to after January 1, 1976. From the period of the effective 
date to January 1, 1976, the requirements that are delineated by the 
House bill and the Senate amendment would be in effect after January 1, 
1976, a completely new and additional requirement would go into effect. 
This limitation of data is a clear demonstration that there are two 
different requirements imposed by the amendment before the conference 
report. One that was within the framework of the earlier consideration 
of the Houses and another requirement that was not conceived of in 
either House before the conference. Consequently, it is clear that the 
conference report is subject to a point of order.
MRS. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California, 
the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee (Mr. Leggett) to speak 
on the point of order.
MR. [ROBERT L.] LEGGETT [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
opposition to the point of order. Under Deschler's procedures the 
appropriate sections, and especially section 15 in chapter 33, 
obviously the conference report has to be within the scope of the 
disagreement between the House and the Senate. We have attempted to do 
that and we have done it. We have had that precisely in mind at all 
times. We have had the Public Works Committee jointly participating in 
our conference and at all times our effort has been to narrow the scope 
of this rather subjective language.


[[Page 717]]

It was originally conceived that the proviso that is complained of that 
allegedly imposes these new duties might require a complete new 
environmental impact statement prepared by the Federal agency. We 
limited that. No longer are they required to submit a new Federal 
impact statement. They are required to make views and the views then 
are incorporated in the regular House version of an environmental 
impact statement.
The implication was that this would be too troublesome for the Federal 
authorities and, therefore, they would be required to make a report 
every time under the Senate bill; so we eliminated that and we said 
they only have to report at those times when they have a disagreement.
There was some confusion as to what was of major interstate 
significance and what was required and who is required to be notified. 
There was some implication we would have to notify the Sierra Club and 
various conservation agencies. So we said no, let us limit that to just 
the Federal entities that are involved, the Federal entities like the 
Federal Land Management Agency and the Park Service that have an 
interest in the conflict.
Under the provision of the Senate bill, notice would be required and 
reports would be required; so to spell it out, that is all we want is 
notification and to have them submit their views and it is well within 
the framework of the language the Senate had.
We did change the date, but we changed the date to make it less 
onerous, rather than to require a date which was some time ago.
The Senate bill actually had the June 1 change date.
To be sure, this bill is different from the House bill, but that was 
the purpose of the conference, to reconcile the differences between the 
House and the Senate. The bill we have brought here is not as broad and 
confusing as the Senate bill. We have some provisos that specifically 
limit the Senate language. We well admit that our agreement has to be 
within the scope. This is well within that reasonable connotation of 
the scope.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the point of order ought to be overruled.
MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition 
to the point of order.
Mr. Speaker, the point of order is without merit. The provisions of 
H.R. 3130, as introduced in the House and I cite now the first words:

To amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in order to 
clarify the procedures therein with respect to environmental impact 
statements.

That, Mr. Speaker, is extremely broad language and in and of itself I 
would submit to the Chair is quite sufficient to cover the language of 
the conference report in full, including the language of the conference 
report complained about by the gentleman from New Jersey.
The Senate language with regard to the title says as follows:

To amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in order to 
clarify procedures therein with respect to the preparation of 
environmental impact statements.


[[Page 718]]

Now, the gentleman from New Jersey, as I understand it, complains about 
small IV, wherein it is set out, I believe this is the language to 
which the gentleman addresses the complaint:

(iv) after January 1, 1976, the responsible Federal official provides 
early notification to, and solicits the views of, any other State or 
any Federal land management entity of any action or any alternative 
thereto which may have significant impacts upon such State or affected 
Federal land management entity and, if there is any disagreement on 
such impacts, prepares a written assessment of such impacts and views 
for incorporation into such detailed statement.

Mr. Speaker, if we will refer now to the language of the Senate bill, 
we will find at line 21 on page 2 of the Senate-passed amendment the 
following words:

Provided, That, in any statement on any such action prepared after June 
1, 1975, the responsible Federal official shall prepare independently 
the analysis of any impacts of and alternatives to the action which are 
of major interstate significance:

The action of the conferees constricts in (iv) this undertaking which 
is imposed upon the Federal official involved and it requires instead 
that he notifies the effective State or Federal officials of actions of 
this character.
Coming further on down, one will see that imposed under the Senate bill 
is, "Provided further, the procedures set forth in this paragraph shall 
not relieve the Federal official of his responsibilities for the scope, 
objectivity, and content of the entire statement or any of the 
responsibilities under the act."
So, we are maintaining under the Senate bill, maintaining the 
responsibilities of the responsible Federal official and clearly within 
the responsibility of the Federal official responsible is the 
preparation of the impact statement, is the duty to receive the advice 
of effective State and Federal agencies. That is clearly contained 
within the provisions of section 102 of the National Environmental 
Policy Act.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the action of the conferees 
restricts somewhat that responsibility and enumerates a specific 
responsibility which is imposed upon him to do specific things which 
are more broadly set out elsewhere in the National Environmental Policy 
Act, so again the action of the conferees here is clearly within the 
responsibilities of the conferees in meeting and in resolving 
differences within the periphery of the differences between the House 
and the Senate bills. So, for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I would point 
out that the point of order is not only lacking in merit, but appears 
to me to be clearly frivolous.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair is bothered over one point here and would like 
clarification if it can be given by either the proponents or those 
opposed to the point of order. That is, whether under the existing law 
or authority Federal officials have the authority or are required to 
consult with State officials and pertinent Federal agencies; something 
that the Chair does not find in either the Senate amendment or the 
House bill.

MR. LEGGETT: Mr. Speaker, one has to understand what the law is, and 
the law is made up really of the law which 


[[Page 719]]

we have in the appropriate sections enacted by the Congress and in the 
guidelines which are promulgated by the Council for Environmental 
Quality and in the regulations which are promulgated by the highway 
agency. Whenever we prepare an environmental impact statement, we have 
to send out notification to a large number of people and we have to 
solicit views, and then we have to digest those views and make up a 
report.
Now, what we intended to do with this language of early notification 
was to limit the requirements of what the existing law and regulations 
require in the preparation of a normal environmental EIS, or 
environmental impact statement. While we spell it out in the language 
here, which was different than what the Senate had, this is the only 
possible way that we could kind of split hairs and limit the activity 
and recognize what was going on at the present time but not require 
that they go as far as what would be required in the preparation of the 
syllabus.
THE SPEAKER: Is it the gentleman's statement that the Federal 
Government is either authorized by law or otherwise does have legal 
authority to consult with State and Federal agencies?
The Chair would like the answer of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ruppe).
MR. [PHILIP E.] RUPPE [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take 
this opportunity of quoting existing law:

Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible Federal 
official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal 
agency which has jurisdiction by law or such expertise with respect to 
any environmental impact involved. Copies of such statement and the 
comments and the views of the appropriate Federal, State and local 
agencies which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental 
standards shall be made available to the President, the Council on 
Environmental Quality and to the public.

I believe that this information is required and notification given.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the Speaker's inquiry is no.
THE SPEAKER: How does the gentleman apply that answer to the 
legislation cited by the gentleman from Michigan.
MR. HOWARD: I understood the Speaker to ask whether there was any 
Federal law requiring this, and I said no, there is no Federal law 
requiring this; it is in the regulations.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair said "lawful authority." It did not say 
"statutory law."
MR. LEGGETT: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on one authority?
MR. RUPPE: Mr. Speaker, I was quoting a moment ago from Section 102 of 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. That is the law. That is 
the act.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair seems to think that the statute that the 
gentleman from Michigan has read answered the question which the Chair 
asked.
MR. [E. G.] SHUSTER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the 
Speaker's indulgence to listen to that again. I believe it does not say 
"other states," but rather it says "Copies of such statement and the 
comments and 


[[Page 720]]

views of the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies."
Nowhere here does it refer to "other states," which makes a significant 
difference, the difference being the appropriate State is the State 
involved, not some adjacent State, for example.
MR. LEGGETT: Mr. Speaker, if I could be heard on one more item, the 
gentleman has ignored the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 
particularly OMB Regulation A95, that requires that whenever an 
application for a Federal grant affects a multiplicity of 
jurisdictions, that all jurisdictions have to receive notification.
MR. DINGELL: Mr. Speaker, there is another section of the Environmental 
Policy Act, and that is section 102(F), under which the responsible 
Federal official is found under the duty to "make available to States, 
counties, municipalities, institutions, and individuals advice and 
information useful in restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality 
of the environment."
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear from the gentleman from New Jersey, 
and then the Chair will be prepared to rule.
MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, in reference to what the gentleman from 
Michigan said, I would only say "make available," as he stated, is not 
"consult."
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Senate amendment contained a proviso "That, in any statement on any 
such action prepared after June 1, 1975, the responsible Federal 
official shall prepare independently the analysis of any impacts of and 
alternatives to the action which are of major interstate significance."
As explained on pages 4 and 5 of the joint statement, the conferees 
interpreted this provision in the Senate amendment to impose a broad 
range of new responsibilities on the appropriate Federal official to 
make informed determinations of actions which have a major interstate 
significance.
In arriving at such determinations, it would appear that the Senate 
language would reasonably require the Federal official to consider the 
views of each affected State or Federal agency and therefore to notify 
the States and their appropriate agencies and to solicit their views in 
order to determine major interstate significance.
As indicated on page 5 of the joint statement, the conferees have 
sought to eliminate the possibility of too broad an interpretation of 
the impacts referred to in the Senate proviso, and have thus added 
language which replaces the term "major interstate significance" with 
provisions which, though stated differently, appear to restrict or 
limit the meaning of the Senate language and which do not at the same 
time add new requirements for consultation not already authorized by 
law.
The Chair feels that such a clarification is within the permissible 
limits of clause 3, rule XXVIII, so long as it can be shown to be a 
restrictive clarification and limitation of, and not an expansion upon, 
the authorities conferred in either the House or Senate version 
thereof.
The Chair has listened to the arguments on the point of order and the 
responses to his inquiries and believes that the language placed in the 
confer-


[[Page 721]]

ence report meets this test. The Chair therefore overrules the point of 
order.
Points of Order Relating to the Scope of the Matter Committed to 
Conference
Sec.    19.9 Where one House has passed a bill of the other with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, the House rule prohibits the 
inclusion in a conference report of additional topics not committed to 
conference, or a provision "beyond the scope" of the differences 
between the two versions; and precedents predating the 1971 amendment 
to Rule XXVIII clause 3, may not be applicable when analyzing a point 
of order raised under the new rule. 
When the conference report on H.R. 12168, the Natural Gas Pipeline 
Safety Act Amendments of 1976, was called up for consideration, a point 
of order was raised by one of the House managers against the report. 
The basis of the point of order was that while the Senate amendment 
authorized certain civil suits to enforce provisions of the law, and 
the House bill contained no provision (relying on the existing law 
which did not permit such civil actions), the addition in the 
conference version of new authority for state officials to preempt such 
actions was ruled to be an "additional topic" not committed to 
conference. 
The proceedings and a portion of the argument on the point of order are 
included here:(1) 
MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 12168) to amend the Natural Gas 
Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 to authorize additional appropriations, 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.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [CLARENCE J.] BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
against the conference report on H.R. 12168 on the grounds that it 
violates clause 3 of rule 28 of the House of Representatives in that it 
contains a modification beyond the scope of issues committed to the 
conference committee. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(2) Will the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) 
advise the Chair specifically as to what language in the conference 
report he objects to. The Chair has the conference report before it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     122 CONG. REC. 32719, 32720, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 27, 1976.
 2.     John J. McFall (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 722]]

MR. BROWN of Ohio: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is in the conference report on 
page 4, approximately the seventh line. The language to which I object 
says, "(or to the applicable State agency in the case of a State which 
has been certified under section 5(a) . . ."
MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman 
will yield, will the gentleman restate that, please. I am looking for 
it, and I do not find it.
MR. BROWN of Ohio: It is under subparagraph (b), in paragraph (1) on 
page 4, about the seventh line; it says as follows:

Prior to the expiration of 60 days after the plaintiff has given notice 
of such alleged violation to the Secretary (or to the applicable State 
agency in the case of a State which has been certified under section 5
(a).

Then, Mr. Speaker, parenthetical matter has been added in subsection 
(b)(2), beneath that, which says as follows:

If the Secretary (or such State agency) has commenced and is diligently 
pursuing administrative proceedings or the Attorney General of the 
United States (or the chief law enforcement officer of such State) . . 
 

Mr. Speaker, none of those parentheticals were in the Senate bill. They 
were added in the language at the conference; and therefore, I suggest 
they are beyond the scope of the conference and do add to the State 
consideration matters which were neither in the Senate bill nor in the 
House bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
wish to be heard on the point of order?
MR. DINGELL: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to the point of 
order.
I first cite several sections of Cannon's Procedures, most specifically 
section 3265, section 3266 and section 3267.
Mr. Speaker, section 3265 states:

Where all of a bill after the enacting clause is stricken out, the 
conference report may include any germane provision.

Section 3266 says:

Where an entire bill has been stricken out and a new text inserted, the 
conferees exercise broad authority and may discard language appearing 
both in the bill and the substitute. . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair has listened to the arguments and read the statement of the 
managers and would state that the precedents cited by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) have since 1970 been somewhat outmoded by 
the new rule which the Chair will cite.
The last portion of the language cited by the gentleman from Ohio in 
parentheses is in the opinion of the Chair new language which 
conceptually was in neither the House bill nor the Senate amendment, is 
not within the scope of the conference, and is a violation of rule 
XXVIII, clause 3, which states:

 . . . nor shall their report include a modification of any specific 
topic, question, issue, or proposition committed to the conference 
committee by either or both Houses if that modification is beyond the 
scope of that specific topic, question, issue, or proposition as so 
committed to the conference committee.


[[Page 723]]

While the Chair agrees with the gentleman from Michigan that 
notification to the relevant State agency is contemplated by existing 
law and is within the scope of conference, that provision added by the 
conferees which would prohibit citizens' suits if a State attorney 
general has commenced judicial proceedings appears to the Chair to 
inject a new exception from the citizens civil action authority which 
was not contemplated in the Senate version or in existing law.
The Chair on that one basis sustains the point of order.
Scope Where Conferees Report an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
Sec.    19.10 In any case in which a disagreement to an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute has been referred to conferees it is in order 
for the conferees to report a substitute on the same subject matter, 
but they may not include in the report matter not committed to them by 
either House. They may, however, include in their report in any such 
case matter which is a germane modification of the subjects in 
disagreement.
On Oct. 5, 1951,(3) Mr. James P. Richards, of South Carolina, called up 
the conference report on H.R. 5113, the Mutual Security Act of 1951. 
Mr. Brent Spence, of Kentucky, made a point of order against the 
report, arguing that

It amends the Export-Import Bank Act, and provides that the Director 
for Mutual Security shall be a member of the Board of Directors of the 
Export-Import Bank. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the point of 
order be sustained. The conferees went beyond the scope of their 
authority in placing this provision in the conference report, a 
provision which had not been considered by either the House or the 
other body, and which provision amends an act which was not under 
consideration. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(4) Does the gentleman from South Carolina desire to be 
heard?
MR. RICHARDS: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard briefly on the point of 
order?
When this bill went to conference, the situation confronting the 
conferees was this: The Senate in its consideration of the bill as an 
amendment struck out all after the enacting clause and inserted a new 
bill. According to some of the old precedents, and to a rule in force 
at one time, it was my understanding that this type of parliamentary 
situation would open the bill wide with the sky as the limit. It will 
be re-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     97 CONG. REC. 12693, 12702-04, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
 4.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 724]]

membered that under the Reorganization Act of 1946, the rule was 
changed to provide that any conference report must be confined to the 
subject matter committed to the conference or to germane modifications 
of it. In this particular case we had in practical effect two bills 
before the conferees. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule. . . . 
The jurisdiction of conferees with reference to amendments in the 
nature of a substitute, as we have before us, is covered by section 135
(a) of part 3 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. This 
provision, which appears as section 947 of the House Rules and Manual,
(5) does not change the precedents, but merely codifies the long-
standing practice of the House.
The provision is as follows:

Sec. 135. (a) In any case in which a disagreement to an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute has been referred to conferees, it shall be 
in order for the conferees to report a substitute on the same subject 
matter; but they may not include in the report matter not committed to 
them by either House. They may, however, include in their report in any 
such  case matter which is a germane modification of the subjects in 
disagreement.
(b) In any case in which the conferees violate subsection (a), the 
conference report shall be subject to a point of order.

While the rule authorizes conferees to report a substitute on the same 
subject matter, it also restricts them to matter committed to them by 
one of the Houses. In the case before us neither House committed to the 
conferees a provision for making the Mutual Security Director a member 
of the board of the Export-Import Bank. And while the rule permits 
germane modifications of the matter in disagreement, such alteration of 
the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank is an expansion and 
not a modification of the matter in disagreement.
The Chair thinks the point of order is good and, therefore, sustains 
the point of order.(6) 
Reconciling Divergent Treatments of Subject
Sec.    19.11 Where a House amendment in the nature of a substitute 
authorized endowment and operating payments for specific institutions 
of higher education, and the Senate substitute therefor: (a) conferred 
land-grant college status on those institutions; (b) changed the form 
of the authorizations to 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     This reference is, of course, to the 1951 edition of the House 
Rules and Manual. The provision referred to was made part of the 
standing rules of the House in the following Congress, appearing in 
this form for the first time as Rule XXVIII clause 3, House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 913a (1997).
 6.     See also 117 CONG. REC. 46779, 46780, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 
14, 1971.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 725]]

include a direct appropriation; and (c) included conforming amendments 
to other legislation related to land-grant status, House conferees 
remained within the scope of the differences between the two versions 
as required by Rule XXVIII clause 3, by including in their report the 
Senate provision conferring land-grant status and a reduced House 
figure for the endowment payment.
On June 8, 1972,(7) Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, raised a 
point of order against the conference report on S. 659, the Higher 
Education Amendments of 1972. The bill had been considered in the House 
as H.R. 7248 under a rule(8) which authorized points of order against 
provisions therein that were properly under the jurisdiction of 
committees other than the Committee on Education and Labor. A point of 
order was raised pursuant to this rule and sustained against a 
provision which conferred land-grant college status on institutions on 
Guam and the Virgin Islands. After passing H.R. 7248 the House 
substituted this bill for the language of S. 659. The Senate concurred 
in this House amendment in the nature of a substitute with a substitute 
of its own which contained the provision stricken from H.R. 7248 on the 
point of order noted above. Mr. Waggonner continued,

The conferees have agreed to most of the Senate amendment.
The statement of the managers is as follows:

The conference agreement retains the House provision with respect to 
endowment grants and the Senate conforming amendments relating to land 
grant status for such institutions. The Senate amendments are modified 
so as to provide an annual authorization in the Act equivalent with 
that provided under the Senate amendments.

Thus, it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that what the conferees did was to 
agree in conference to matter which had earlier  been subject to a 
valid point of order in the House of Representatives.

Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, Chairman of the Committee on Education 
and Labor, responded to the point of order.

MR. PERKINS:  . . .  The House amendment authorized a lump sum 
appropriation of $3 million for each institution, plus an annual 
appropriation of $450,000 for each for general 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     118 CONG. REC. 20280, 20281, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 8.     H. Res. 661, 117 CONG. REC. 37765, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 27, 
1971.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 726]]

operating expenses in lieu of land-grant status for the institution.
The Senate amendment provided for endowments and payment of operating 
expenses, but in slightly different form. Land-grant status was 
conferred on the two institutions, with a cash endowment in lieu of the 
receipts from the sale of land scrip, plus conforming amendments to 
other related legislation which is related to land-grant status.
The issue before the conferees, therefore, was not whether aid should 
be extended to the College of the Virgin Islands and the University of 
Guam, but only the form such aid should take.
The conferees adopted the Senate approach of conferring land-grant 
status on the two institutions instead of assistance in lieu of land-
grant status, but limited the amount of the endowment payment to the 
House figure of $3 million. The Senate conforming amendments were 
modified to assure that the colleges' payments for general operating 
expenses did not exceed the amounts they would have received if they 
were located within the United States.
The provision reported by the conferees, therefore, represents a 
compromise between the provisions of both bills committed to 
conference. It certainly remains well within the scope of the issues 
presented to the conferees. That rule to which the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana referred applied only to the consideration of 
the bill during the House debate.
Mr. Speaker, the point of order should not be sustained.

The Speaker, Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, gave the following ruling:

. . . Since the conference report on the bill S. 659 was filed some 2 
weeks ago, the Chair has carefully scrutinized the agreements that were 
reached in conference to be sure that the managers have not violated 
the rules of the House with respect to conference reports. Obviously 
where, as here, the House amendment in the nature of a substitute and a 
Senate substitute therefor are both extensive and comprehensive 
legislative proposals, the task of writing a conference compromise is a 
difficult and painstaking task. . . . 
. . . The Chair has examined the parts of the conference report to 
which the point of order is directed and the relevant portions of the 
statement of the managers. The Chair is satisfied that the managers 
have conformed to the rules of the House, and therefore overrules the 
point of order.
Point of Order That Conferees Have Exceeded Scope; Exceeding Benefits 
in Either Version 
Sec.    19.12 Where portions of a conference report on veterans' 
benefits contained higher entitlements for vocational rehabilitation 
assistance per month than those contained in either the House bill or 
the Senate amendment, the Speaker 


[[Page 727]]

held that the conferees had exceeded the scope permitted them by Rule 
XXVIII clause 3 and sustained a point of order against the report. 
On Aug. 22, 1974,(9) when the conference report on the Vietnam-Era 
Veterans' Readjustment Act was called up for consideration, a point of 
order was lodged against the report on the ground that the conferees 
had exceeded the scope of differences committed to them. After argument 
by the Member pressing the point of order, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, 
and the rebuttal by the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
Mr. William Jennings Bryan Dorn, of South Carolina, the Chair sustained 
the point of order. 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 12628, VIETNAM ERA VETERANS READJUSTMENT 
ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1974
MR. DORN: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill 
(H.R. 12628) to amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the 
rates of vocational rehabilitation, educational assistance, and special 
training allowances paid to eligible veterans and other persons; to 
make improvements in the educational assistance programs; 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:(10) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from South Carolina?
POINT OF ORDER
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I ask to be recognized at the proper time to 
make a point of order against the conference report.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman can be recognized prior to the reading of 
the statement of the managers on the conference report.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Iowa is recognized.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against the conference 
report on H.R. 12628, the Veterans Education and Rehabilitation 
Amendments of 1974. The conference report violates clause 3 of rule 
XXVIII in that the conferees exceeded the scope of the conference.
Clause 3 of rule XXVIII states, in part, that the report of conferees:

Shall not include matter not committed to the conference committee by 
either House, nor shall their report include a modification of any 
specific topic, question, issue, or proposition committed to the 
conference committee by either or both Houses if that modification is 
beyond the scope of that specific topic, question, issue, or 
proposition as so com-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     120 CONG. REC. 30050-52, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
10.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 728]]

mitted to the conference committee. (emphasis added)

H.R. 12628, as approved by this House on February 19, authorized a 13.6 
percent increase in monthly subsistence allowances for veterans 
participating in vocational rehabilitation training and veterans 
educational programs. The Senate, on June 19, adopted an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute that authorized an 18.2-percent increase in 
monthly payments under this legislation. The House subsequently 
disagreed with the Senate amendment and a conference was held.
Sections 2 and 5 of the House-passed bill provided for an increase in 
benefits of 13.6 percent for specific categories of eligible veterans 
and dependents. The corresponding provisions passed by the Senate, 
sections 101 and 213, authorize an increase of 18.2 percent in those 
benefits. The conference report, in sections 101 and 104, clearly 
authorize an increase of 22.7 percent in monthly allowances for those 
same categories of trainees. This modification is beyond the scope of 
the specific disagreement committed to the conference committee and is 
a clear violation of clause 3 of rule XXVIII. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, sections 101 and 104 of the conference report exceed the 
scope of the conference. And I ask that the point of order be 
sustained.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from South Carolina desire to be heard 
on the point of order?
MR. DORN: I do, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to explain the background of the 
particular provisions of the conference-reported bill which appear to 
be the basis for the gentleman's raising of a point of order.
To simplify my explanation, may I take the example of a single veteran 
who is attending full-time college training. Under the existing law he 
receives an educational allowance of $220 per month. This allowance is 
paid to him directly to assist in bearing his tuition, subsistence, and 
other educational expenses. As passed by the House, H.R. 12628 proposed 
to increase this allowance to $250, representing an increase of 13.6 
percent over the current rate. Following extended hearings and 
deliberations on the part of the Senate in which there was considerable 
support for an added or supplemental partial tuition allowance, which 
would also be payable directly to the veteran, the Senate returned our 
bill with an amendment in the nature of a complete substitute. Probably 
the most significant aspect of the Senate substitute was to provide a 
new rate "package" consisting of an 18-percent increase in the basic 
monthly allowance to $260 for a single veteran, coupled with an 
additional "partial tuition assistance allowance" under a formula which 
would result, in the typical case, a maximum of $720 per school year. 
Accordingly the total assistance package proposed by the Senate 
potentially available for a single veteran, including the partial 
tuition assistance allowance, would approximate $290 per month. . . . 

I think it is also significant to point out that the net fiscal effect 
of adoption of the conferees' recommendations will result in an annual 
savings to the Government of almost a half billion dollars per year 
over the Senate version.


[[Page 729]]

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, considered in the context of the overall 
rate structure package which was considered by the conferees, it is our 
strong conviction that the agreement on the single educational 
allowance rate contained in the conference bill does not violate either 
the letter or the spirit of rule XXVIII of the House of 
Representatives.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard very briefly further?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Iowa is recognized on his point of 
order.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that the gentleman has 
offered his resistance to the point of order based upon section 102 of 
the bill. My point of order goes to sections 101 and 104 of the 
conference report.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct.
Does the gentleman from South Carolina desire to be heard on the 
specific point of order made by the gentleman from Iowa? As the Chair 
understood it, the gentleman's argument related primarily to a point of 
order that might have been made on a different section.
MR. DORN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment further to the 
distinguished gentleman from Iowa.
The decision of the conferees to drop the partial tuition assistance 
and establish a single basic allowance of $270 for chapter 34 trainees 
encompassed 98 percent of all trainees involved. Since both the House 
and Senate bills set the same percentage increase for trainees under 
Chapter 34, which may be 98 percent of all trainees, and disabled 
veterans training under chapter 31 to make up 2 percent of the 
trainees, the conferees decided to remain consistent to the positions 
of both the House and Senate, and therefore extended the 23 percent 
increase to all classes of veterans.
THE SPEAKER: Is the gentleman arguing correctly to the point of order, 
or is the gentleman, in effect, conceding?
The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Iowa makes a point of order against the conference 
report on H.R. 12628, the Veterans Education and Rehabilitation Act 
Amendments of 1974, on the ground that the conferees have exceeded the 
scope of their authority.
Specifically, it is alleged that the conference report provides a 
greater amount of vocational rehabilitation assistance per month and a 
greater apprenticeship or on-the-job training assistance, per month 
than either the House or Senate versions.
The Chair has examined section 101 of the conference report, which 
amends a table in title 38, United States Code, section 1504(b) to 
provide $209 a month in vocational assistance for a veteran with no 
dependents enrolled full time at an educational institution. Section 2 
of the House bill amends the payment figure to provide $193 a month. 
Section 101 of the Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute 
amends the same figure to provide only $201 a month.
The conference amendment clearly exceeds the dollar amount of either 
the House or Senate version.
Similarly, section 104 of the conference report amends a table in title 
38, United States Code, section 1787(b) to provide $196 a month 
assistance during the first 6 months for an individual 


[[Page 730]]

with no dependents, for apprenticeship or on-the-job training.
The House bill provides, in section 5, $182 for that purpose, and the 
Senate amendment provides, in section 213, $189 for that purpose.
The conference report exceeds the dollar amount contained in both the 
House bill and the Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute.
As the conferees have exceeded their authority under clause 3, rule 
XXVIII, the Chair therefore sustains the point of order against the 
conference report.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. DORN
MR. DORN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recede from its 
disagreement to the Senate amendment to the text of the bill and agree 
to the same with the following amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Dorn moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
Senate amendment to the text of the bill and agree to the same with the 
following amendment: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by 
the Senate amendment to the text of the bill, insert the following:
That this Act may be cited as the "Vietnam-Era Veterans' Readjustment 
Assistance Act of 1974".
Inclusion of Provision Deleted on Point of Order During Consideration 
of Bill
Sec.    19.13 A special rule permitting points of order to be raised 
against provisions in a House bill on jurisdictional grounds does not 
thereafter serve as a restriction on the authority of House conferees 
to incorporate similar provisions, which had been in a Senate 
substitute, as part of the conference report.
On June 8, 1972,(11) Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, rose with 
a point of order against the conference report on S. 659, the Higher 
Education Amendments of 1972.

MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
conference report on S. 659 does not comply with the rules and 
precedents of the House. House Resolution 661, the rule which governed 
the debate on H.R. 7248 provided in part that a point of order would 
lie against provisions in that bill that were properly under the 
jurisdiction of other committees.
Pursuant to this rule a point of order was made by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) against the language in title XII relative 
to the creation of land-grant colleges on Guam and the Virgin Islands. 
The Chair on that occasion sustained the point of order and title XII 
was stricken. It was later amended with proper language.
On November 4, 1971, the House passed H.R. 7248 and then in the usual 
manner substituted the language of the House bill for the language of 
S. 659.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     118 CONG. REC. 20280, 20281, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 731]]

On March 1, 1972, the Senate amended S. 659 with an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute for the House amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. Included in the text of this Senate amendment was language 
designating land-grant colleges on Guam and the Virgin Islands, 
language, Mr. Speaker, which had been earlier ruled out of order by you 
in the House.
The conferees have agreed to most of the Senate amendment.
The statement of the managers is as follows:

The conference agreement retains the House provision with respect to 
endowment grants and the Senate conforming amendments relating to land-
grant status for such institutions. The Senate amendments are modified 
so as to provide an annual authorization in the Act equivalent with 
that provided under the Senate amendments.

Thus, it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that what the conferees did was to 
agree in conference to matter which had earlier been subject to a valid 
point of order in the House of Representatives. . . . 
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, to permit the House conferees to agree in 
conference to a Senate amendment, the language of which has or has been 
subject to a point of order, does violence to the orderly procedure in 
the House and I, therefore, make a point of order against section 506 
of the conference report on the grounds that it includes specific 
language against which a point of order by the Chair and acting under 
the authority of House Resolution [6]61, the rule governing the 
original House debate on this legislation. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(12) Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins) desire 
to be heard on the point of order?
MR. [CARL D.] PERKINS: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is recognized.
MR. PERKINS: Mr. Speaker, the precedent to which the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana referred was with reference to a peculiar 
situation. If the bill to which he had referred had been brought to the 
floor of the House under an ordinary rule, the point of order would not 
have been well taken. But it was brought to the House under a unique 
rule at that time. . . . 
The conferees adopted the Senate approach of conferring land-grant 
status on the two institutions instead of assistance in lieu of land-
grant status, but limited the amount of the endowment payment to the 
House figure of $3 million. The Senate conforming amendments were 
modified to assure that the colleges' payments for general operating 
expenses did not exceed the amounts they would have received if they 
were located within the United States.
The provision reported by the conferees, therefore, represents a 
compromise between the provisions of both bills committed to 
conference. It certainly remains well within the scope of the issues 
presented to the conferees. That rule to which the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana referred applied only to the consideration of 
the bill during the House debate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 732]]

Mr. Speaker, the point of order should not be sustained.
It was a special and unique rule governing that debate only. It cannot 
be relied upon now. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Minnesota desire to be heard?
MR. [ALBERT H.] QUIE [of Minnesota]: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
speak in opposition to the point of order.
Mr. Speaker, adding to what the gentleman from Kentucky has said-and I 
think the gentleman from Kentucky summed up the opposition to the point 
of order in a very excellent manner-I should like to read that portion 
of the rule that applied when the point of order was made on November 
4, 1971. That part of the rule is as follows:

And further, all titles, parts, or sections of the said substitute, the 
subject matter of which is properly within the jurisdiction of any 
other standing committee of the House of Representatives, shall be 
subject to a point of order for such reason if such point of order is 
properly raised during the consideration of H.R. 7248.

We have gone by that position. We have S. 659 before us, which has been 
agreed to in the conference report. We had in the bill H.R. 7248, when 
we sent it to the other body, the $3 million for the institutions of 
higher education, but we did not make them land-grant colleges. Since 
they were already set up in that way, the House accepted that portion 
of the Senate language which is within our jurisdiction, and under the 
rules, it seems to me, we have only the question of germaneness and 
cannot raise the rule under which we operated when H.R. 7248 was 
considered in the House.
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota says that the 
point of order should have been made during the consideration, and 
properly stated, of H.R. 7248. The point I make is exactly this: A 
point of order was made and was sustained during the consideration of 
H.R. 7248. The question is not whether or not there is an 
appropriation. The question still is whether or not this committee, 
having already been ruled against on a point of order during 
consideration of H.R. 7248, can now, by another device, bring back in 
this conference report legislation which designates these two 
institutions in Guam and the Virgin Islands as land-grant institutions. 
. . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from Louisiana 
makes a point of order that the conference report violates the rules 
and precedents of the House. Since the conference report on the bill S. 
659 was filed some 2 weeks ago, the Chair has carefully scrutinized the 
agreements that were reached in conference to be sure that the managers 
have not violated the rules of the House with respect to conference 
reports. . . . 
Several of the managers on the part of the House conferred with the 
Chair during the conference deliberations and stressed to the Chair 
that at every stage of their negotiations particular attention was 
being given to the rules governing conference procedure and the 
authority of the conferees.
Whenever a possible compromise infringed or even raised a question of 
the infringement of the rules of the House, the Chair was informed that 
the man-


[[Page 733]]

agers on the part of the House resolved that matter so there was no 
conflict with the provisions of rules XX or XXVIII.
The matter to which the gentleman from Louisiana referred was contained 
in title XI of the House amendment to the Senate bill. The Chair has 
examined the parts of the conference report to which the point of order 
is directed and the relevant portions of the statement of the managers. 
The Chair is satisfied that the managers have conformed to the rules of 
the House, and therefore overrules the point of order.
Funds Authorized by One House for One Year and by the Other House for 
the Subsequent Year
Sec.    19.14 Where one House authorizes certain funds for a fiscal year 
and the other House authorizes a lesser amount for that year as well as 
additional funds for the subsequent fiscal year, and neither version 
contains an overall total amount, House conferees do not exceed the 
scope of their authority by including in their report the amount 
authorized by one House for the first year and the amount authorized by 
the other House for the subsequent year, even though the total 
authorization reflected in the report is greater than that computed in 
either version.
On June 8, 1972,(13) Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, raised a 
point of order against the conference report on S. 659, the Higher 
Education Amendments of 1972.

MR. WAGGONNER: . . . I respectfully make the point of order, Mr. 
Speaker, that the conference committee has exceeded its authority. 
Section 1803(a) of the House-passed bill dealing with appropriations 
for emergency school aid authorized $1,500,000,000 for the next 2 
fiscal years. In the Senate bill, in section 704(a) the Senate proposed 
the same amount of money, $1,500,000,000 for the first 2 fiscal years 
for emergency school aid.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as we know, section 3263, volume 8, of Cannon's 
Precedents of the House of Representatives states:

Conferees may not go beyond the limits of the disagreements confided to 
them, and where the differences involve numbers, conferees are limited 
to the range between the highest figure proposed by one House and the 
lowest proposed by the other.

Each House, Mr. Speaker, dealing with this very specific subject, came 
to a very clear dollar figure for this authorization, $1,500,000,000. 
It is apparent, Mr. Speaker, that the conferees disregarded this. The 
conferees 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     118 CONG. REC. 20281, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 734]]

proposed an authorization for the first 2 years for emergency 
school aid of $2 billion, a half-billion dollars higher than proposed 
by either House of the Congress.

Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, Chairman of the Committee on Education 
and Labor, spoke in defense of the conference report.

MR. PERKINS:  . . .  The House amendment authorized the appropriations 
for the emergency school aid provisions of $500 million for fiscal year 
1972, and $1 billion for the fiscal year 1973.
In contrast, the Senate amendment authorized $500 million for fiscal 
year 1973, and $1 billion for the fiscal year 1974.
The conference report authorizes the House amount for the fiscal year 
1973, and the Senate amount for the fiscal year 1974.
The Precedents of the House are clear. The test is the total authorized 
amount in any single year, not the cumulative total. Therefore, the 
conference report does not violate the House Rules, and the point of 
order should be overruled.
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, I desire to speak further to the point of 
order. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, the Precedents of the House do not speak to the fiscal 
year allocations. The Precedents of the House and the Rules of the 
House speak to the limitations and to the range between the highest and 
the lowest figure proposed by one House or the other. I submit the 
conferees have violated the Rules of the House, because they have not 
limited their actions to the range.
They have considered in their actions fiscal year appropriations and 
not limitations of the respective bills which went to the conference.
THE SPEAKER:(14) The Chair is prepared to rule. . . . 
The Chair will point out that neither the House nor the Senate 
provisions dealing with emergency school aid set an overall limit on 
authorizations. Both dealt with specific fiscal years. The conference 
in this situation had the authority to consider the differences between 
the two Houses with respect to each of the fiscal years 1972, 1973, and 
1974, and to compromise their differences on a year-by-year basis. This 
they have done.
The Chair holds that the conferees have not exceeded their authority, 
and overrules the point of order.
Appropriation on Legislative Bill
Sec.    19.15 A conference report is subject to a point of order in the 
House if the managers on the part of the House on a legislative bill 
agree to a Senate amendment appropriating money.
On May 22, 1936,(15) Mr. James M. Mead, of New York, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
15.     80 CONG. REC. 7790-92, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 735]]

9496, to protect the United States against loss in delivery through the 
mails of Veterans' Administration benefit checks. Mr. James P. 
Buchanan, of Texas, raised a point of order.

THE SPEAKER:(16) The gentleman from New York [Mr. Mead], chairman of 
the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, presents a conference 
report signed by the conferees on the part of the Senate and the House. 
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Buchanan] makes the point of order that 
the conference report is out of order because the conferees on the part 
of the House in conference agreed to an amendment of the Senate 
providing an appropriation contrary to the rules of the House.
Senate amendment No. 1 contains the following language:

The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to advance, from time to 
time, to the Postmaster General, from the appropriation contained in 
the Supplemental Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1936, approved February 
11, 1936, for "administrative expenses, adjusted-compensation payment 
act, 1936, Treasury Department, 1936 and 1937", such sums as are 
certified by the Postmaster General to be required for the expenses of 
the Post Office Department in connection with the handling of the bonds 
issued hereunder. Such bonds-

This amendment also contains the following language:

The Secretary of the Treasury shall reimburse the Postmaster General, 
from the aforesaid appropriation contained in said supplemental 
appropriation act, for such postage and registry fees as may be 
required in connection with such transmittal.

Rule XX, clause 2, of the rules of the House of Representatives,(17) 
reads as follows:

No amendment of the Senate to a general appropriation bill which would 
be in violation of the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI, if said 
amendment had originated in the House, nor any amendment of the Senate 
providing for an appropriation upon any bill other than a general 
appropriation bill, shall be agreed to by the managers on the part of 
the House unless specific authority to agree to such amendment shall be 
first given by the House by a separate vote on every such amendment.

It is clear to the Chair that the managers on the part of the House in 
agreeing in conference to Senate amendment No. 1 violated the 
provisions of rule XX, inasmuch as the amendment provides an 
appropriation.
The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
Sec.    19.16 A conference report on a legislative bill in which   the 
conferees had agreed to an amendment appropriating funds was ruled out 
as in violation of Rule XX clause 2.
On Oct. 4, 1962,(18) the following occurred in the House:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
17.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 736]]

MR. [THOMAS J.] MURRAY [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 7927) to adjust postal rates, and 
for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
managers on the part of the House be read in lieu of the report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(19) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee?
MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, and I do so in order to make a parliamentary inquiry, I desire 
to make a point of order against consideration of the conference 
report. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: When the Clerk reports the title of the bill, 
the gentleman may be recognized.
The Clerk will report the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Iowa makes a point of 
order. The gentleman will state the point of order.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the 
conference report on the ground that it violates clause 2 of rule XX of 
the House rules.(20) . . . 
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7927 as passed with the amendment of the Senate 
provides in section 1104, page 110, the following:

Sec. 1104. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the benefits 
made payable under the Civil Service Retirement Act by reason of the 
enactment of this part shall be paid from the civil service retirement 
and disability fund.

The words "shall be paid from the civil service retirement and 
disability fund" constitute an appropriation within the meaning of 
clause 2 of rule XX. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Murray] 
desire to be heard on the point of order?
MR. MURRAY: I do not, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] makes a 
point of order that the language contained on page 110, section 104, 
line 12, "shall be paid from the civil service retirement and 
disability fund" is in violation of clause 2, rule XX.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Restriction on Managers Au-thority - Appropriations in Senate 
Amendment; Effect of Waiver in House
Sec.    19.17 A point of order against a conference report on a 
legislative bill will only lie under Rule XX clause 2, if the provision 
alleged to be an appropriation were originally contained in a Senate 
amendment and if House managers at the conference 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     108 CONG. REC. 22332, 22333, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
19.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
20.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 737]]

were without specific au-thority to agree to that amendment, and will 
not lie against a provision permitted by the House to remain in its 
text. 
The conference report on the Vietnam Humanitarian Assistance Act of 
1975 (H.R. 6096) was called up in the House on May 1, 1975.(1) Ms. 
Elizabeth Holtzman, of New York, then raised a point of order against 
the report, arguing that it contained a provision making an 
appropriation on a legislative bill in violation of Rule XX clause 2.
(2) The provision complained of was in the House bill and permitted the 
use of previously appropriated funds of the Department of Defense to be 
used for evacuation programs. The House language had been protected 
from a point of order by a special order adopted prior to the 
consideration of the measure.(3) The point of order and the decision of 
Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, overruling the point of order are 
carried herein.(4) 

MR. [THOMAS E.] MORGAN [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 6096) to authorize funds for 
humanitarian assistance and evacuation programs in Vietnam and to 
clarify restrictions on the availability of funds for the use of U.S. 
Armed Forces in Indochina, 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 
Pennsylvania?
POINT OF ORDER
MS. HOLTZMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a point of order 
against the conference report.
THE SPEAKER: The gentlewoman will state it.
MS. HOLTZMAN: Mr. Speaker, section 7 of the conference report in the 
last sentence refers to evacuation programs authorized by this act. It 
permits a waiver of a series of laws for the purpose of allowing those 
evacuation programs to take place.
In the House bill (H.R. 6096), section 3 dealt with evacuation programs 
referred to in section 2 of the bill and waived the same series of laws 
with respect thereto. In order for section 3 to be considered, it 
required a rule from the Rules Committee. And a rule was 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     121 CONG. REC. 12752, 12753, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
 3.     See H. Res. 409, which waived points of order against this 
provision, 121 CONG. REC. 11262-70, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 22, 
1975.
 4.     121 CONG. REC. 12752, 12753, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., May 1, 1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 738]]

granted waiving points of order against section 3 of the bill. But 
section 7 of the conference report, in speaking of evacuation programs 
authorized by the entire act and not just by one section, exceeds the 
scope of section 3 of the bill and exceeds the waiver that was 
permitted under the rule. It therefore violates rule XXI, clause 5, and 
violates rule XX, clause 2, which prohibits House conferees from 
accepting a Senate amendment providing for an appropriation on a 
nonappropriation bill in excess of the rules of the House.
Mr. Speaker, last week the Committee of the Whole deliberated on an 
amendment that exceeded the limitations of the rule granted by the 
Rules Committee. That was the Eckhardt amendment, and it was ruled out 
of order by the Chairman. The language in section 7 of the conference 
report in essence has the same flaw as the Eckhardt amendment.
The last sentence of section 7 of the conference report would waive 
various provisions of law with respect to $327 million, whereas the 
last sentence of section 3 of the House bill waived these laws only 
with respect to $150 million. Section 7 of the conference report, 
therefore, is broader than section 3 of the House bill.
Had the language of section 7 been offered as an amendment to the House 
bill, it would have been subject to a point of order. Since the 
authority of the House conferees is no broader than the waiver 
originally granted to the bill by the Rules Committee, section 7 of the 
conference report should be ruled out of order.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire to be heard on 
the point of order?
MR. MORGAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The point of order has no standing. Section 3 of the House bill and 
section 7 of the conference report referred to use of funds of the 
Armed Forces of the United States for the protection and evacuation of 
certain persons from South Vietnam. The language of the conference 
report does not increase funds available for that purpose. Both the 
House bill and the conference report simply removed limitations on the 
use of funds from the DOD budget. These limitations were not applicable 
to the funds authorized in H.R. 6096. The scope of the waiver is the 
same in the conference report and the House bill.
Mr. Speaker, the changes in language are merely conforming changes. 
Section 2 of the House bill was a section which authorized the 
evacuation programs in the House bill. The conference version contains 
the evacuation programs authority in several sections plus reference to 
the entire act rather than to one specific section.
Mr. Speaker, the point of order has no standing and I hope it is 
overruled. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentlewoman from New York makes the point of order that section 7 
of the conference report constitutes an appropriation on a legislative 
bill in violation of clause 5, rule XXI, to which the House conferees 
were not authorized to agree pursuant to clause 2, rule XX.


[[Page 739]]

The Chair would first point out that the provisions of clause 2, rule 
XX, preclude House conferees from agreeing to a Senate amendment 
containing an appropriation on a legislative bill, and do not restrict 
their authority to consider an appropriation which might have been 
contained in the House-passed version. In this instance, the conferees 
have recommended language which is virtually identical to section 3 of 
the House bill, and they have not agreed to a Senate amendment 
containing an appropriation. Therefore, clause 2, rule XX, is not 
applicable to the present conference report.
While clause 5, rule XXI, permits a point of order to be raised against 
an appropriation in a legislative bill "at any time" consistent with 
the orderly consideration of the bill to which applied-Cannon's VII, 
sections 2138-39-the Chair must point out that H.R. 6096 was considered 
in the House under the terms of House Resolution 409 which waived 
points of order against section 3 of the House bill as constituting an 
appropriation of available funds for a new purpose.
The Chair feels that an analogous situation may be found in Deschler's 
Procedure, chapter 25, section 23.11. There, points of order had been 
waived against portions of a general appropriation bill which were 
unauthorized by law, and the bill passed the House containing those 
provisions and was sent to conference; the conferees were permitted to 
report their agreement as to those provisions, since the waiver carried 
over to the consideration of the same provision when the conference 
report was before the House.
The gentlewoman from New York also has in effect made the point of 
order that section 7 of the conference report goes beyond the issues in 
difference between the two Houses committed to conference in violation 
of clause 3, rule XXVIII.
In the House-passed bill, section 3 contained waivers of certain 
provisions of law in order to make available funds already appropriated 
to the Department of Defense to be used for the Armed Forces in 
"evacuation programs referred to in section 2 of the act." The 
conferees have recommended that the same waivers of law shall apply to 
"evacuation programs authorized by this act."
In the opinion of the Chair, a conforming change in phraseology in a 
conference report from language contained in the House or Senate 
version to achieve consistency in the language thereof, absent proof 
that the effect of that change is to broaden the scope of the language 
beyond that contained in either version, does not necessarily render 
the conference report subject to a point of order. In this instance, it 
appears to the Chair that the only effect of the language in the 
conference report was to accomplish the same result that would have 
been reached by section 3 of the House bill, namely to remove certain 
limitations on the use of funds in the Defense budget for military 
evacuation programs under this bill.
The Chair therefore holds that the conferees have not exceeded their 
authority and overrules the point of order.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?


[[Pae 740]]

There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and statement see proceedings of the House of 
April 28, 1975.)
Application of Rule XX Clause 2 Restriction to Senate Legislative Bills
Sec.    19.18 Rule XX clause 2, which precludes House managers from 
agreeing to Senate amendments providing for appropriations on a 
legislative bill, absent a grant of specific House authority to do so, 
applies only to Senate amendments sent to conference and not to 
appropriations contained in Senate legislative bills.
   Where a conference report on a Senate bill is before the House and 
contains a recommendation that the Senate concur in a House amendment 
with an amendment, the report is a recommendation for Senate action and 
at that moment in time there is no Senate amendment before the House 
for action. 
On June 30, 1976,(5) a conference report on S. 3295, the housing 
amendments of 1976, was before the House. The report proposed that the 
Senate recede from its disagreement with a House amendment in the 
nature of a substitute and concur therein with a further substitute. 
The proposed amendment would have included the original Senate 
provision which was, under the precedents of the House, an 
"appropriation" within the meaning of Rule XX clause 2.(6) When a point 
of order was made against the conference report, the following 
arguments and ruling ensued:

MR. [HENRY S.] REUSS [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the Senate bill (S. 3295) to extend the 
authorization for annual contributions under the U.S. Housing Act of 
1937, to extend certain housing programs under the National Housing 
Act, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the 
statement of the managers be read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     122 CONG. REC. 21632-34, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 741]]

THE SPEAKER:(7) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [GARRY E.] BROWN of Michigan: Reserving the right to object, Mr. 
Speaker, I raise a point of order against the conference report.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. BROWN of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
conference report on S. 3295 on the basis that the House managers 
exceeded their authority by agreeing to two matters not in the original 
House amendment to the Senate bill and which violates clause 2, rule 
XX, of the House Rules and Precedents of the House. Clause 2, rule XX, 
reads in part as follows:

Nor any amendment of the Senate providing for an appropriation upon any 
bill other than a general appropriation bill shall be agreed to by the 
managers on the part of the House unless specific authority to agree to 
such amendment shall first be given by the House by a separate vote on 
every such amendment.

The Senate-passed bill contains section 9(a)(2) and 9(b) which in 
effect provide for expenditures to be made from the various FHA 
insurance funds to honor claims made eligible for payment by the 
provisions of section 9 generally. These amendments are to section 518
(b) of the National Housing Act and relate to sections 203 and 221 
housing programs for which the authority of the Secretary of HUD to pay 
claims related to certain structural defects has expired if the claims 
were not filed by March 1976.
Both sections 9(a)(2) and 9(b) include identical language which states 
as follows:

Expenditures pursuant to this subsection shall be made from the 
insurance fund chargeable for insurance benefits on the mortgage 
covering the structure to which the expenditures relate.

The words "Expenditures pursuant to this subsection shall be made from 
the insurance fund" constitute an appropriation within the meaning of 
clause 2, rule XX. Based on precedents under clause 5, rule XXI, it is 
clear that payments out of funds such as the FHA insurance fund are 
within the meaning of the term "appropriation" and that the action 
taken by the House managers is violative of clause 2, rule XX.
In support of this point of order, I cite the ruling of the Chair on a 
point of order raised by H. R. Gross on October 1, 1962, to the 
conference report on H.R. 7927. A Senate provision agreed to in that 
report provided that-

The benefits made payable . . . by reason of enactment of this part 
shall be paid from the civil service retirement and disability fund.

Inasmuch as when the House agreed to go to conference, it did not give 
specific authority to agree to such an amendment. I therefore submit 
that it is not in order for such language to be included in the 
conference report.
The FHA insurance funds are designed to provide the reserves for 
payments on defaulted mortgages and for the operation of HUD related to 
the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 742]]

various insurance programs and any diversion of the use of such funds 
such as for payment for defects in the structure would violate clause 5 
of rule XXI. In further support of this point of order, and 
specifically on the point that the provisions constitute a diversion of 
funds for a separate purpose not within the intention of the 
legislation establishing the fund, I cite the ruling of the Chair on 
October 5, 1972, which holds that an amendment allowing for the use of 
highway trust fund moneys to purchase buses,

would seem to violate clause 4 of rule XXI in that it would divert or 
actually reappropriate for a new purpose funds which have been 
appropriated and allocated and are in the pipeline for purposes 
specified by the law under the original 1956 act.

I say, Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the conference 
report on this basis.
I would note, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Oklahoma is the one 
who sustained the point of order raised by Mr. Gross in the case which 
I have referred to.
Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to anticipate a ruling against my point of 
order, but if that should be the case, Mr. Speaker, I suggest we are 
making a mockery of the rules of the House.
Since some of my comrades may not be aware of it, the rules of the 
House in clause 5, rule XXI, provide:

No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall be reported 
by any committee not having jurisdiction to report appropriations, nor 
shall an amendment proposing an appropriation be in order during the 
consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee not 
having that jurisdiction. A question of order on an appropriation in 
any such bill, joint resolution, or amendments thereto may be raised at 
any time.

Mr. Speaker, that is a rule of the House. Now, since the House in its 
rules cannot have extraterritorial effect or extra body effect, in 
order to protect the House from having its rules violated by the 
Senate, we adopted clause 2 of rule XX which related to action that the 
Senate might take that would be violative of the House rules. But the 
very fact that this is not a Senate amendment on a House bill is 
insignificant if the rules of the House are going to have any real 
meaning because what we are saying is any time we want to violate the 
House rules, we can have the rule provide that after consideration of 
the bill it shall be in order for the such-and-such Senate bill to be 
taken from the Speaker's desk and everything after the enacting 
clause stricken and apply the House language, or we can, when the bill 
is under consideration before the House get consent to strike 
everything after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and substitute 
the House language. In either of those cases that for all intents and 
purposes precludes a Member of this House from saying that the rules of 
this House are violated with respect to action by the Senate.
I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, at this point in time when we are 
having some questions raised about the integrity of the House rules and 
House administration, this is not the time to render a decision on a 
point of order that gives in effect further credence to 


[[Page 743]]

the fact that we do not intend to maintain integrity in this House with 
respect to the rules of the House if the procedure is carried out in a 
circuitous way.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Ohio care to be heard on the point 
of order?
MR. [THOMAS L.] ASHLEY [of Ohio]: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, clause 2 of rule XX of the rules of the House makes out of 
order any provision in a Senate amendment which provides for an 
appropriation. However, the rule does not address itself to provisions 
in Senate bills. The conferees accepted the provision in question, 
without change, from a Senate bill and not from a Senate amendment. 
Therefore, no violation of the House rules is involved even if the 
provision is considered to be an appropriation.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from Michigan has made a point of order against the 
conference report, referring to the language of rule XX, clause 2, 
which places certain restrictions on the managers on the part of the 
House in a conference with the Senate.
The Chair has ruled on this matter before.
On January 25, 1972, the Chair ruled in connection with a point of 
order made by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross) against the 
conference report on a foreign military assistance authorization bill 
(S. 2819) on the ground that the House conferees had exceeded their 
authority by including in the conference report an appropriation 
entirely in conflict with clause 2, rule XX. That rule provides, in 
relevant part, that "no amendment of the Senate"-that is the important 
language-no amendment of the Senate providing for an appropriation upon 
any bill other than a general appropriation bill, shall be agreed to by 
the managers on the part of the House.
The Chair would point out that it was a Senate bill which was sent to 
conference with a House amendment thereto. The rule is restricted in 
its application to Senate amendments and, thus, is not applicable in 
the present situation.
The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.
MR. BROWN of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the ruling of the Chair, 
I just would like to point out that in the conference report the 
paragraph appears:

That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
House to the text of the bill and agree to the same with an amendment.

In other words, with a Senate amendment.
Now, I respectfully suggest that for all intents and purposes, by using 
the circuitous route of taking up the Senate bill and including the 
House language, we nullify totally the basic directive of the House 
rules that this House shall not concur in any appropriation in a 
legislation bill not a general appropriations act, and for the Chair to 
rule that we will accept a circuitous violation of the House rules, 
that we will not accept a direct violation, I think is not in the best 
interests of the House.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair just thinks there are other rules that govern 


[[Page 744]]

and that can protect the House in situations of this type.(8) The 
gentleman has referred to the language of the conference agreement; and 
the Chair would point out that the managers have proposed that the 
Senate recede and concur in the House amendment with an amendment. 
There is no Senate amendment before the House at this time.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin that 
the statement be read in lieu of the report?
There was no objection.

Appropriation Language in Legislative Bill, Restriction on Managers 
Authority
Sec.    19.19 A provision in a legislative bill authorizing the use, 
without a subsequent appropriation, of funds previously appropriated by 
law for a particular purpose, for a new purpose, constitutes an 
appropriation in a legislative bill (in contravention of Rule XXI 
clause 5(a)) and violates the restriction placed on the managers by 
Rule XX clause 2. A conference report may be ruled out on a point of 
order if the managers exceed their authority.
The point of order against the conference report on H.R. 5612, the 
Small Business Assistance Act, together with the Chair's response, as 
recorded in the proceedings of Oct. 1, 1980,(9) are set out below:

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The gentleman from California is now 
recognized on his point of order.
MR. [GEORGE E.] DANIELSON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I rise and make 
a point of order against the conference report on the bill, H.R. 5612, 
on the grounds that the conferees have agreed to a provision in the 
Senate amendment which constitutes an appropriation on a legislative 
bill, in violation of 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     The procedural safeguards mentioned by the Speaker against the 
inclusion of appropriations in Senate bills include: (1) possible 
points of order under Sec. 401 of the Congressional Budget Act-if the 
Senate provision can be construed as new spending authority not subject 
to amounts specified in advance in appropriations acts where budget 
authority has not been provided in advance (in this case, the money had 
already been appropriated and was in a revolving fund-so Sec. 401 was 
not applicable); and (2) returning Senate bills which contain 
appropriations to the Senate by asserting the constitutional 
prerogative of the House to originate "revenue" measures-construed 
under the precedents to include at least "general appropriation bills".
 9.     126 CONG. REC. 28638, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
10.     William H. Natcher (Ky.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 745]]

clause 2 of rule XX of the rules of the House of Representatives. The 
conferees have included, as an amendment to the bill, a title II, which 
provides for the award of attorneys' fees and other expenses to the 
prevailing party other than the United States, in certain actions or 
administrative proceedings in which the judgment or adjudication has 
been adverse to the United States, unless the court or adjudicative 
officer of the agency finds that the position of the United States was 
substantially justified or that special circumstances make the award 
unjust.
I will specify the place in the report if anyone so desires.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Iowa desire to be 
heard on the point of order?
MR. [NEAL] SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I think nothing I could say 
would add or subtract anything. The Speaker has all the information.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Danielson) makes the point of order 
that the conference report on the bill H.R. 5612 contains provisions of 
the Senate amendment constituting appropriations on a legislative bill 
in violation of clause 2, rule XX, which prohibits House conferees from 
agreeing to such provisions without prior authority of the House.
The provisions in title II question authorize appropriations to pay 
court costs and fees levied against the United States, but also provide 
that if payment is not made out of such authorized and appropriated 
funds, payment will be made in the same manner as the payment of final 
judgments under sections 2414 and 2517 of title 28, United States Code. 
Judgments under those sections of existing law are paid directly from 
the Treasury pursuant to section 724a of title 31 of the United States 
Code, which states that there are appropriated out of the Treasury such 
sums as may be necessary for the payment of judgments, awards, and 
settlements under sections 2414 and 2517 of title 28. Thus the 
provision in the Senate amendment contained in the conference report 
extends the purposes to which an existing permanent appropriation may 
be put and allows the withdrawal directly from the Treasury, without 
approval in advance by appropriation acts, of funds to carry out the 
provisions of title II of the Senate amendment.
For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order against 
the conference report.
Applicability of Rule XXI Clause 5(a) to a Motion To Concur in a Senate 
Amendment to a House Legislative Bill
Sec.    19.20 In a case of first impression, the Speaker entertained a 
point of order under Rule XXI clause 5(a), (which prohibits the 
inclusion in a legislative bill or an amendment thereto of an item        
of appropriation) where an amendment in disagreement was pending and a 
motion was offered to recede and 


[[Page 746]]

concur in a Senate amendment to a House legislative bill. 
The conference report on H.R. 5612, the Small Business Assistance Act, 
1980, was ruled out on a point of order since the managers had agreed 
to a Senate amendment carrying an appropriation, a provision to which 
the managers on the part of the House could not agree under the 
restrictions imposed on their authority under Rule XX clause 2.(11) 
A motion was then made by the manager of the bill, Mr. Neal Smith, of 
Iowa, to recede from disagreement and concur in the Senate amendment to 
the House bill with a further amendment which was essentially the text 
of the conference agreement but modified by a new section making 
expenditures in order only to the extent and in such amounts as are 
provided in advance in appropriation acts. 
Two points of order were made against this motion, one under Rule XXI 
clause 5(a)(12) on the ground that the motion still contemplated a 
reappropriation of funds; the other under Rule XXVIII clause 5(13) on 
the ground that the language in the motion would not have been germane 
to the original House bill. 
The Chair entertained the Rule XXI point of order first, since, if 
sustained, it would invalidate the entire motion. That point of order 
was overruled since the Chair discerned no appropriation in the 
language of the motion. The germaneness point of order was then 
pressed, and the Chair sustained that argument, thus setting the stage 
for a motion to reject the portion of the motion which would not have 
been considered germane. 
The proceedings of Oct. 1, 1980,(14) involving the latter two points of 
order are carried here.  The proceedings involving the conference 
report itself are covered in Sec. 25.13, infra. 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. SMITH OF IOWA
MR. SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Smith of Iowa moves that the House recede from its disagreement to 
the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 5612) to amend section 8
(a) of the Small Business Act and 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
12.     Id. at Sec. 846a.
13.     Id. at Sec. 913c.
14.     126 CONG. REC. 28638-42, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 747]]

concur therein with the following amendment:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate, insert the 
following:
"PART A. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT 
ROGRAM AMENDMENTS  . . ."
TITLE II-EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT
SEC. 201. This title may be cited as the "Equal Access to Justice Act". 
. . . 
AWARD OF FEES AND OTHER EXPENSES IN CERTAIN AGENCY ACTIONS
SEC. 203. (a)(1) Subchapter I of chapter 5 of title 5, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
section:
"Sec. 504. Costs and fees of parties . . ."
"(d)(1) Fees and other expenses awarded under this section may be paid 
by any agency over which the party prevails from any funds made 
available to the agency, by appropriation or otherwise, for such 
purpose. If not paid by any agency, the fees and other expenses shall 
be paid in the same manner as the payment of final judgments is made 
pursuant to section 2414 of title 28, United States Code. . . ."
LIMITATION
SEC. 207. The payment of judgments, fees and other expenses in the same 
manner as the payment of final judgments as provided in this Act is 
effective only to the extent and in such amounts as are provided in 
advance in appropriations Acts. . . .

MR. SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, this amendment retains all of the 
language agreed to by the conferees, but it specifically provides that 
the provisions for the payment of judgments, attorney's fees and other 
expenses are effective only to the extent and in the amounts approved 
in advance in appropriations acts. This modifies those provisions which 
have been ruled to be an appropriation on an authorization bill. It 
makes no other changes in the language. It retains verbatim all other 
provisions which are so essential to small business. If the House 
adopts the amendment, this bill would be sent back to the Senate with 
the House amendment and, hopefully, it would pass.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [GEORGE E.] DANIELSON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I will again 
raise a point of order of an appropriation in a legislative bill, for 
the reason that this amendment, if adopted, would require an 
affirmative action at any time  against, for example, the Comptroller 
General before he could issue a voucher authorizing the payment of 
funds from the Treasury as to whether or not the award of attorneys' 
fees and costs pursuant to this proposed bill was something heretofore 
authorized and for which funds had theretofore been appropriated.
This would be an added burden and an added activity on the part of the 
Comptroller General and would constitute, I respectfully submit, an 
appropriation on a legislative bill.
For that reason, I again raise the point of order. . . . 
MR. SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear the way it is 
worded that it is just an authorization for an appropriation. There has to be a 


[[Page 748]]

specific appropriation, the same procedure we use in almost all laws 
around here.
MR. [JOSEPH M.] MCDADE [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard 
on the point of order?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(15) The Chair will be glad to hear the 
gentleman.
MR. MCDADE: Mr. Speaker, the language says only to the extent and in 
such amounts as are provided in advance in appropriations acts.
My friend and I have been on the Appropriations Committee together, I 
guess, for about 36 years. This is boiler-plate language. The point of 
order ought not to lie.
FURTHER POINT OF ORDER
MR. [DAN] ROSTENKOWSKI [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I further make a 
point of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will be glad to hear the gentleman.
MR. ROSTENKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, the amendment, as I understand it, 
further allows for attorneys' fees to be paid in excess of what was 
prescribed for in the legislation out of the Small Business Committee. 
The general application of the bill is far in excess. I still think 
that the germaneness of the amendment of the gentleman is in question.
MR. SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will dispose of the appropriation 
point of order first.
Then the Chair will take up the matter of germaneness.
On page 22 of the motion the following limitation under section 207 is 
included:

The payment of judgments, fees and other expenses in the same manner as 
the payment of final judgments as provided in this act is effective 
only to the extent and in such amounts as are provided in advance in 
appropriation acts.

Therefore, the point of order is overruled under clause 5, rule XXI.
The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Rostenkowski) if he desires to make a point of order as to the 
germaneness of a portion of the motion offered by the gentleman from 
Iowa.
MR. ROSTENKOWSKI: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the attorney's fees is 
not germane to the narrow small business bill. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is now ready to rule. While the 
motion is germane to the Senate amendment which contains the provision 
concerning attorneys' fees, the Chair would rule that the language is 
not germane to the original House bill which narrowly amended the Small 
Business Act in an unrelated way. That is under clause 5 of rule 
XXVIII, the Chair would sustain a point of order as to title II of the 
motion.
Does the gentleman from Illinois have a motion to reject that portion?
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. ROSTENKOWSKI
MR. ROSTENKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     William H. Natcher (Ky.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 749]]

Mr. Rostenkowski moves to strike title II of the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Smith.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Rostenkowski) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Smith) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Rostenkowski).
Conference Compromise Eliminating Appropriation on Legislative Bill
Sec.    19.21 Although Rule XX clause 2 prohibits House conferees from 
agreeing to a Senate amendment containing an appropriation to a 
legislative bill absent specific authority from the House, the 
conferees may include in their report a modification of such an 
amendment which eliminates the appropriation.
On June 8, 1972,(16) the House was considering the conference report on 
S. 659, the Higher Education Amendments of 1972. Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, 
Jr., of Louisiana, raised a point of order against the conference 
report. Among the alleged defects of the conference report was the 
agreement of the House managers to a Senate provision which conferred 
land-grant status on colleges on Guam and the Virgin Islands and 
changed the form of an authorization for their endowments and operating 
expenses to include a direct appropriation. Mr. Waggonner quoted 
from the statement of the managers:

The conference agreement retains the House provision with respect to 
endowment grants and the Senate conforming amendments relating to land- 
grant status for such institutions. The Senate amendments are modified 
so as to provide an annual authorization in the Act equivalent with 
that provided under the Senate amendments.

Mr. Waggonner continued,

. . . [T]he Managers on the part of the House may not agree in 
conference to amendments in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI or to 
Senate amendments to legislative bills carrying appropriations unless 
authorized by a vote of the House.

Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, Chairman of the Committee on Education 
and Labor, responded to the point of order.

MR. PERKINS:  . . .  The House amendment authorized a lump sum 
appropriation of $3 million for each institution, plus an annual 
appropriation of $450,000 for each for general 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     118 CONG. REC. 20280, 20281, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 750]]

operating expenses in lieu of land-grant status for the institution.
The Senate amendment provided for endowments and payment of operating 
expenses, but in slightly different form. Land-grant status was 
conferred on the two institutions, with a cash endowment in lieu of the 
receipts from the sale of land scrip, plus conforming amendments to 
other related legislation which is related to land-grant status.
The issue before the conferees, therefore, was not whether aid should 
be extended to the College of the Virgin Islands and the University of 
Guam, but only the form such aid should take.
The conferees adopted the Senate approach of conferring land-grant 
status on the two institutions instead of assistance in lieu of land-
grant status, but limited the amount of the endowment payment to the 
House figure of $3 million. The Senate conforming amendments were 
modified to assure that the colleges' payments for general operating 
expenses did not exceed the amounts they would have received if they 
were located within the United States.
The provision reported by the conferees, therefore, represents a 
compromise between the provisions of both bills committed to 
conference. It certainly remains well within the scope of the issues 
presented to the conferees.

Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, then stated:

The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from Louisiana makes a point 
of order that the conference report violates the rules and precedents 
of the House. Since the conference report on the bill S. 659 was filed 
some 2 weeks ago, the Chair has carefully scrutinized the agreements 
that were reached in conference to be sure that the managers have not 
violated the rules of the House with respect to conference reports. 
Obviously where, as here, the House amendment in the nature of a 
substitute and a Senate substitute therefor are both extensive and 
comprehensive legislative proposals, the task of writing a conference 
compromise is a difficult and painstaking task.
Several of the managers on the part of the House conferred with the 
Chair during the conference deliberations and stressed to the Chair 
that at every stage of their negotiations particular attention was 
being given to the rules governing conference procedure and the 
authority of the conferees.
Whenever a possible compromise infringed or even raised a question of 
the infringement of the rules of the House, the Chair was informed that 
the managers on the part of the House resolved that matter so there was 
no conflict with the provisions of rules XX or XXVIII.
. . . The Chair has examined the parts of the conference report to 
which the point of order is directed and the relevant portions of the 
statement of the managers. The Chair is satisfied that the managers 
have conformed to the rules of the House, and therefore overrules the 
point of order.
Unauthorized Designated Allocations Within Range of Disagreement on 
Lump-sum Appropriation


[[Page 751]]

Sec.    19.22 When language in an appropriation bill specifically limits 
use of a lump-sum appropriation "to projects authorized by law," and 
the conferees agree to a sum between the differences of the two Houses, 
a conference report is not subject to a point of order upon the ground 
that the lump-sum appropriation embraces funds which would exceed the 
amount authorized by law if apportioned to two of the projects in 
accordance with the Senate report.
On Aug. 13, 1957,(17) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 8090, public works appropriations, fiscal 
1958.

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
against the conference report on the ground that it carries 
appropriations not authorized by law. In support of the point of order, 
Mr. Speaker, I call attention to the conference report and the 
statement in connection therewith. On page 4, the Success Reservoir is 
carried at $5 million and the Terminus Reservoir at $2,500,000. The two 
together are more or less in the same project. They had only $500,000 
available at the time the bill was in the House, and there has been no 
authorization bill passed since that time. At the time the bill was in 
the House, the committee said:

Success and Terminus Reservoirs, Calif.: The current basin monetary 
authorization would be exceeded by $6,882,000 if the budget estimates 
of $7,500,000 were allowed for these two projects. The committee has 
allowed $618,000, the balance remaining in the present monetary 
authorization. Of this amount $518,000 is for Success Reservoir and 
$100,000 is for Terminus Reservoir. The Corps of Engineers is directed 
to proceed with these two projects up to the limit of the budget 
estimates, using available unobligated funds, should legislation be 
enacted increasing the monetary limitation to an amount equal to or in 
excess of the total of the budget estimates. . . .

THE SPEAKER:(18) Does the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] desire 
to be heard on the point of order?
MR. CANNON: . . . Senate amendment No. 4, on page 5, to which the 
gentleman refers, is not an appropriation but precludes use of funds 
for items in the appropriation unless or until authorized.
Accordingly, the point of order that it is not authorized does not lie. 
. . . 
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] makes a point of 
order on two items set forth in the statement of the managers on the 
part of the House. It appears to the Chair that the report of the 
conference committee stays within the amount of the two Houses. The 
language on page 3 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     103 CONG. REC. 14571-76, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 752]]

specifies that the appropriation can only be used for projects 
authorized by law. Therefore, the Chair must overrule the point of 
order. . . . 
The gentleman from Missouri is recognized on the conference report.

Parliamentarian's Note: At the time H.R. 8090 was being considered by 
the House Subcommittee on Public Works Appropriations, it was conceded 
that only $618,000 remained of the funds previously authorized for the 
Success and Terminus Reservoirs. It was contemplated at that time that 
the omnibus rivers and harbors and flood control authorization bill, S. 
497, would subsequently authorize $6,882,000, the difference between 
the $7,500,000 estimated for these reservoir projects by the Bureau of 
the Budget and requested by the Army Corps of Engineers, and the 
$618,000 of unspent authorizations then available to be appropriated.
(19) The House report on H.R. 8090 allocated this $618,000 ($500,000 to 
Success and $118,000 to Terminus)(20) as part of a lump-sum 
appropriation of $442,186,800 for general construction for rivers and 
harbors and flood control.(1) The Senate report on H.R. 8090 alluded to 
S. 497,(2) which had passed the Senate and was then pending before the 
House Committee on Public Works. In reliance  on these anticipated 
increased authorizations the Senate report allocated the full 
$7,500,000 for these two projects,(3) and appropriated a lump sum for 
general construction for rivers and har-bors and flood control of 
$470,040,500.(4) But S. 497 was not law at the time the conferees met 
on H.R. 8090. (Nor was it ever enacted into law. After the House 
adopted it during the second session of the 85th Congress, the 
President vetoed it.)(5) 
The conferees agreed to a lump sum, $449,398,500, between the House and 
Senate figures. Since the bill limited the use of the lump sum to 
projects authorized by law, funds in excess of that authorized, which 
were allocated to Success and Terminus Reservoirs in the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     See hearings on H.R. 8090 before House Subcommittee on Public 
Works of the Committee on Appropriations, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., at pp. 
418, 419 (1957).
20.     H. Rept. No. 85-552, p. 4, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. (1957).
 1.     Id. at pp. 3, 8.
 2.     S. Rept. No. 85-609, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 19, 20 (1957).
 3.     Id. at p. 9.
 4.     Id. at pp. 6, 18.
 5.     See 104 CONG. REC. 6389, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 15, 1958.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 753]]

Senate report, could not be used for that purpose.
Senate Practice; Constitutional Point of Order
Sec.    19.23 Senate practice admits a point of order that a portion of a 
conference report is out of order under the Constitution, but such a 
point is not decided by the Presiding Officer but is submitted to the 
Senate: "Is the point of order well taken?"     
During consideration in the Senate of the conference report on H.R. 
2264, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, 1994, a constitutional 
point of order was raised by Senator John S. McCain III, of Arizona. 
The disposition of the point of order is carried here.(6) 

MR. MCCAIN: Madam President, I make a constitutional point of order 
that the retroactive tax increases in the conference report which 
predate April 8, 1993, are in violation of the due process clause of 
the fifth amendment of the Constitution.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(7) Under the precedents and practices of the 
Senate, the Chair has no power or authority to pass on such a point of 
order. The Chair, therefore, under the precedents of the Senate, 
submits the question to the Senate, Is the point of order well taken?
Debate on this question is limited to 1 hour equally divided and 
controlled in the usual form pursuant to section 305(c)(2) of the 
Congressional Budget Act.
The Senator from Arizona controls 30 minutes, the Senator from 
Tennessee controls 30 minutes.
Who yields time? . . . 
Mr. McCain addressed the Chair.
THE VICE PRESIDENT:(8) The question before the Senate is, Is the point 
of order well taken? The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted-yeas 44, nays 56. . . . 
THE VICE PRESIDENT: On this vote, the yeas are 44, the nays are 56. The 
point of order is not sustained.
MR. [DANIEL P.] MOYNIHAN [of New York]: Mr. President, I move to 
reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Senate Decision Interpreting "Byrd Rule"
Sec.    19.24 In the Senate, under the so-called "Byrd rule" (section 13 
of the Budget Act), a provision which produces no measurable 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     See 139 CONG. REC. 19750, 19759, 19760, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., 
Aug. 6, 1993.
 7.     Patty Murray (Wash.).
 8.     Albert A. Gore, Jr. (Tenn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 754]]

changes in outlays or revenues is not necessarily extraneous.
The provision in the conference report on H.R. 2264, the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1994, which was targeted by a point of order by 
Senator John C. Danforth, of Missouri, related to a program to provide 
pediatric  immunizations under the Medicaid program. The point of 
order, the Chair's response, and the vote taken on the motion to 
sustain the Chair's ruling are carried here.(9) 

MR. DANFORTH: Mr. President, I am concerned about the state of the Byrd 
rule, which is a rule that I think is extremely important in the 
Senate, and concerned that budgetary effects which are incapable of 
estimation have been used to justify what I would think to be 
extraneous provisions in this bill, I would like now to make two 
inquiries of the Chair.
First, is a provision of the budget reconciliation bill extraneous 
under section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Budget Act, the Byrd rule, if it 
produces no changes in outlays or revenues that can be estimated?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(10) Such a provision would not necessarily be 
out of order.
MR. DANFORTH: Would not necessarily be out of order.
The second question is: If the impact on outlays or revenues cannot be 
estimated, are they merely incidental to a nonbudgetary component under 
section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Byrd rule?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Once again, that would not necessarily be the 
case.
MR. DANFORTH: Mr. President, I now wish to raise a point of order, and 
do raise a point of order under sections 313(b)(1)(A) and 313(b)(1)(D) 
of the Budget Act, known as the Byrd rule; that title XIX, section 1928
(d)(4)(B) in the conference agreement, section 13631(b) is extraneous 
to the reconciliation bill because it produces no change in the outlays 
or revenues or produces changes in outlays or revenues which are merely 
incidental to the nonbudgetary components of the provision.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The point of order is not well taken.
MR. DANFORTH: Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Under the previous order, there is a half-hour 
equally divided on the appeal.
MR. DANFORTH: Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is this a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered. 
MR. [JAMES R.] SASSER [of Tennessee]: Mr. President, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume, and I will be very brief.
Mr. President, first, with regard to the Byrd rule, we worked very hard 
and very faithfully over a period of well over a week in going over 
this bill to try 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     139  CONG. REC. 19763, 19764, 19767, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 
6, 1993.
10.     Herbert H. Kohl (Wis.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 755]]

to clarify and remove items that might be subject to the Byrd rule.
As the distinguished ranking member indicated, I think over 150 items 
were removed from the reconciliation instrument here, because it was 
felt that they would be subject to the Byrd rule. And we furnished our 
friends on the other side of the aisle, the distinguished staff 
colleagues on the Senate Budget Committee, copies of the draft language 
so that we would each know where we were, and there would be no 
surprises as we worked together to try to expunge the Byrd rule 
problems from the reconciliation conference report. . . . 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: All time has been yielded back.
The question is, is the appeal of the Senator from Missouri well taken? 
An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 
sworn is required for the appeal to be well taken.
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted-yeas 43, nays 57. . . . 
Senate Practice; Point of Order Under "Byrd Rule"
Sec.    19.25 Although a point of order under section 313 of the Budget 
Act is not debatable in the Senate, under section 904(d) of the Budget 
Act an appeal of a ruling thereon is debatable for one hour, equally 
divided between and controlled by the moving party and the bill 
manager. 
On Aug. 6, 1993, during the debate on the conference report on H.R. 
2264, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1994, a point of order 
was directed to a provision imposing domestic content requirements on 
U.S. cigarette manufacturers. The Presiding Of-ficer held the provision 
not to be "extraneous" and therefore not subject to such point of order 
under the Byrd rule, as expressed in section 313 of the Budget Act.
While under section 313 a point of order is not subject to debate, an 
appeal from the decision of the Presiding Officer under section 904 is 
subject to one hour of debate.
To overturn the Chair's decision, a vote of three-fifths of the Members 
duly chosen and sworn is required.
A relevant portion of the proceedings is carried herein.(11) 

MR. [HANK] BROWN [of Colorado]: . . . Mr. President, I raise a point of 
order that section 1106(a) is extraneous and violates section 313(b)(1)
(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     139 CONG. REC. 19780-83, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 6, 1993.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 756]]

It violates it because it produces changes in the revenues that are 
clearly only incidental to the nonbudgetary components of the 
provision. The reality is this imposes the first domestic content 
provision that applies to exports. It is a tiny fraction of revenue-
actually not even reducing the deficit-but only one-fourth of 1 percent 
of the tobacco--
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(12) If the Senator will withhold, the Chair 
wishes to advise the Senator the point of order is not debatable. So if 
the Senator is setting a predicate for offering a point of order, that 
is acceptable. If he is debating a point of order already offered, it 
is not.
MR. BROWN: I do raise that point of order and ask the Chair to rule on 
section 1106(a).
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Chair will not sustain the point of order. 
The point of order is not sustainable.
MR. BROWN: Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The vote will be taken by the yeas and nays.
MR. [WENDELL H.] FORD [of Kentucky]: Mr. President, as I understand it 
we have 30 minutes? Was that the gentleman's agreement? Or what is the 
time agreement?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Chair advises the Senate the time available 
for debate will be 1 hour unless changed by unanimous consent. . . . 
MR. [PAUL S.] SARBANES [of Maryland]: Mr. President, we ask unanimous 
consent the time on the appeal be limited to 10 minutes equally 
divided, 5 to a side.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Hearing no objection, that will be the order. . 
. . 
MR. FORD: Mr. President, the Byrd rule under which my colleague from 
Colorado has made his appeal is very important. The individual's name 
who is carried on this Byrd rule does it because it is important to 
this institution.
Mr. President, let me explain to my colleagues, while I believe the 
Parliamentarian after careful review-and I underscore careful-has 
advised the Chair that this provision does not violate that Byrd rule.
This provision raises some $29 million over a 5-year period for deficit 
reduction.
The CBO estimate for this provision analyzed each part of the provision 
and concluded that each had a budgetary impact on the $29 million in 
savings achieved by this provision. That is the Byrd rule question, not 
the underlying argument. . . . 
I urge my colleagues to uphold the ruling of the Chair. . . . 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(13) All time has expired. The question is, Is 
the appeal of the Senator from Colorado well taken? An affirmative vote 
of three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn is required to 
overturn the decision of the Chair.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.).
13.     Charles S. Robb (Va.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 757]]

MR. BROWN: Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The clerk will call the roll. . . . 
If there are no other Senators desiring to vote, on this vote the yeas 
are 43, the nays are 57. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 
sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, the appeal is rejected.
MR. [GEORGE J.] MITCHELL [of Maine]: Mr. President, I move to 
reconsider the vote by which the appeal was rejected.
MR. [PATRICK J.] LEAHY [of Vermont]: I move to lay that motion on the 
table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
D. CONFERENCE REPORTS
 
Sec.    20. Statements Accompanying Report

Parliamentarian's Note: A report of a conference committee must be 
printed as a report of the House, and must be accompanied by the 
explanatory statement prepared jointly by the conferees on the part of 
the House and the conferees on the part of the Senate. Such statement 
must be sufficiently detailed and explicit to inform the House as to 
the effect which the amendments or proposition contained in such report 
will have upon the measure to which those amendments or propositions 
relate.(14) 
Sufficiency of the joint statement is a matter for the House to 
determine in its vote on the conference report, and not for the Speaker 
to determine on a point of order.

Proposed Action on Amendments in Disagreement
Sec.    20.1 Although the rules do not require the managers of a 
conference to set out in their explanatory statement proposed action on 
amendments in disagreement, they may do so if they desire.
On June 19, 1941,(15) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
John J. Cochran, of Missouri, who made the following remarks in regard 
to H.R. 4590:

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Speaker, in order to advance my thought, I am 
referring specifically to the Department of the Interior appropriation 
bill, which will undoubtedly be considered today.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     Rule XXVIII clause 1(d), House Rules and Manual, Sec. 911 (1997).
15.     87 CONG. REC. 5352, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 758]]

The conference report on that bill indicates that the Senate receded in 
10 instances and the House receded on 89 amendments. There are in 
disagreement 38 amendments. The conference report and statement explain 
the amendments that have been agreed to. After the House has disposed 
of the amendments that have been agreed to en bloc we will then take up 
individually the amendments in disagreement. The conference report 
simply states that those amendments are in disagreement, but upon 
investigation I have determined that in many instances a majority of 
the conferees have already agreed that when those amendments are 
reached a motion will be made to recede and concur with an amendment. 
Naturally amendments in disagreement taking them as a whole are most 
important. I feel that the conferees not only on appropriation bills, 
but on all other bills where amendments are in disagreement and a 
motion is to be made to recede and concur, with an amendment that has 
already been agreed to by the conferees, then that motion should be 
printed in the conference report, so that the Members of the House may 
have an opportunity to intelligently examine the amendment and take 
such action as they deem advisable when it is reached. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: . . . The Chair knows of no ruling of any Speaker or of 
anything in the rules or precedents of the House, that would require a 
conference committee to file more than what they considered to be a 
detailed statement of agreement made in the conference. Explanatory 
statements are made in the statement accompanying a conference report, 
but it is, so far as the Chair knows, entirely within the hands of the 
managers as to what they will include in the statement. The Chair 
cannot see how, under the rules of the House, members of a conference 
committee can be forced to include something in their statement that 
they do not want to include, and that would be the position of the 
Chair upon this matter at this time.
It occurs to the Chair, however, that the managers certainly under the 
rules would have the power to include in the statement accompanying a 
conference report the additional information suggested by the gentleman 
from Missouri in his parliamentary inquiry.
Joint Statement and Legislative History
Sec.    20.2 Example of a joint statement of managers accompanying a 
conference report which incorporated by reference legislative history 
from House and Senate committee reports on the pending bill and 
"related legislation."
H.R. 956, the Product Liability Legal Reform Act, had been reported by 
the Committee on the Judiciary and then referred sequentially to the 
Committee on Commerce. Commerce did not report H.R. 956 but filed a 
report on a similar measure, H.R. 917. Conferees were named from both


[[Page 759]]

committees and the inclusion of portions of the legislative history 
from both versions of the bill in part reflects the jurisdictional 
dispute between the two on the subject of product liability.
A portion of the joint statement showing the manner in which the 
committee reports were incorporated by reference is excerpted from the 
Record of Mar. 14, 1996,(16) and included here. 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 956, COMMON SENSE PRODUCT LIABILITY LEGAL 
REFORM ACT OF 1996
Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois] submitted the following conference 
report and statement on the bill (H.R. 956) to establish legal 
standards and procedures for product liability litigation, and for 
other purposes:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. 104-481)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 956), to establish 
legal standards and procedures for product liability litigation, and 
for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have 
agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as 
follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, 
insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS
(a) SHORT TITLE.-This Act may be cited as the "Common Sense Product 
Liability Legal Reform Act of 1996".
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.-The table of contents is as follows: . . . 
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE . . . 
The conferees incorporate by reference in this Statement of Managers 
the legislative history reflected in both House Report 104-64, Part 1 
and Senate Report 104-69. To the extent not otherwise inconsistent with 
the conference agreement, those reports give expression to the intent 
of the conferees. (The conferees also take note of House Report 104-63, 
Part 1, which contains supplementary legislative history on a related 
bill.) . . . 
From the Committee on the Judiciary, for consideration of the House 
bill, and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
conference:
HENRY HYDE,
JAMES SENSENBRENNER,  Jr.,
GEORGE W. GEKAS,
BOB INGLIS,
ED BRYANT,
From the Committee on Commerce, for consideration of the House bill, 
and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
TOM BLILEY,
MICHAEL OXLEY,
CHRISTOPHER COX,
Managers on the Part of the House.
LARRY PRESSLER,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     142 CONG. REC. 4784, 4790, 4793, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 760]]

SLADE GORTON,
TRENT LOTT,
TED STEVENS,
OLYMPIA SNOWE,
JOHN ASHCROFT,
J.J. EXON,
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
Minority Views
Sec.    20.3 A statement of the managers on the part of the House 
accompanies conference reports but minority views do not accompany such 
reports.
On June 1, 1949,(17) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [JOHN W.] MCCORMACK [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the House conferees on the reorganization bill 
may have until midnight tonight to file a report. . . . 
MR. [JOSEPH W.] MARTIN [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Is there any minority 
report?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we have not agreed, but I ask that the conferees 
may have until midnight tonight in case there is a report.
MR. [CLARE E.] HOFFMAN of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, would that include the right of the minority to file a report?
MR. MCCORMACK: Yes. I will also ask that that be included.
THE SPEAKER:(18) Well, there are no minority views on a conference 
report.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. HOFFMAN of Michigan: May not the conferees express their views? 
They can do it on the floor, then, can they not, if they can get 
recognition.
THE SPEAKER: A statement of the managers on the part of the House 
accompanies the conference report.
Sec.    20.4 Minority views are not in order on a conference report; but 
the majority of the managers may, in the statement accompanying the 
report, indicate exceptions taken by certain conferees.
On Dec. 6, 1967,(19) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, for the purpose of calling 
up the conference report on H.R. 6111, a bill providing for the 
establishment of a Federal Judicial Center. By unanimous consent, the 
statement of the managers on the part of the House was read in lieu of 
the report. The last paragraph of the statement read as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     95 CONG. REC. 7096, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
19.     113 CONG. REC. 35135-37, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 761]]

Representative MacGregor and Representative McClory, although they 
signed the conference report, emphasize their exceptions to two 
portions of the amendment. They would except as to that part of section 
620 that locates the Federal Judicial Center in the judicial branch of 
the Government rather than in the Administrative Office of the United 
States Courts, and except as to that part of section 625 that 
authorizes the Director to appoint and fix the compensation of 
professional personnel rather than to require the Board to appoint and 
fix the compensation of such personnel.
Content of the Statement of Managers
Sec.    20.5 The Statement of Managers which must accompany a conference 
report is an informative document, is not voted on, and may contain 
such matter as the conferees of the House and Senate may jointly 
determine-and a tribute to a deceased staff member who had a major 
impact on the legislation has been included. 
On Aug. 25, 1980,(20) the statement accompanying the conference report 
on H.R. 5192, the education amendments of 1980, carried a tribute to 
the associate general counsel of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan submitted the following conference 
report and statement on the bill (H.R. 5192), an act to amend and 
extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 96-1251)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 5192) to amend and 
extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes, having 
met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do 
recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of 
the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment insert the 
following:
That this Act may be cited as the "Education Amendments of 1980". . . . 
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the conference 
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the 
Senate to the bill (H.R. 5192) to amend and extend the Higher Education 
Act of 1965, and for other purposes, submit the following joint 
statement to the House and the Senate in explanation of the effect of 
the action agreed upon by the managers and recommended in the 
accompanying conference report:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     126 CONG. REC. 22946, 22987, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 762]]

IN MEMORIAM
The conferees note with great sadness the absence from our 
deliberations of Mr. William F. Gaul, Associate General Counsel of the 
House Committee on Education and Labor.
Mr. Gaul has provided a central thread of informed judgment and wise 
counsel throughout all previous conference committee deliberations on 
the Higher Education Act from its original enactment in 1965 through 
the amendments of 1968, 1972, and 1976.
Mr. Gaul worked tirelessly on the House version of this reauthorizing 
legislation through its enactment last November. But shortly 
thereafter, he was stricken by a fatal illness which confined him to 
hospital quarters during our conference committee deliberations.
We have greatly missed his good and wise counsel in our deliberations. 
We wish he could have been with us. But most of all, we wish to record, 
as a part of this conference report, our great and continuing 
indebtedness to Mr. Gaul for the extraordinary contributions he had 
made throughout the last fifteen years to the creation, development, 
and refinement of the Higher Education Act.
On behalf of the millions of postsecondary students and the thousands 
of postsecondary institutions who have and will continue to benefit 
from the Higher Education Act, we wish to state that Mr. William F. 
Gaul's leadership role in constructing this legislation will be greatly 
noted and long remembered.
Legal Effect of Language in Statement of Managers
Sec.    20.6 On occasion the House has referenced conditions specified in 
the statement of managers accompanying a conference report in an 
amendment to an amendment in disagreement, thus elevating the 
referenced portion of the statement to the status of law.
Under Rule XXVIII clause 1(d),(1) the statement of managers which is 
required to accompany a conference report is to be jointly prepared by 
the managers of the two Houses, and shall be sufficient to inform the 
House as to the effect the amendments or propositions contained in such 
report will have on the measure to which those amendments or 
propositions relate. Such statement is explanatory and for guidance in 
interpreting the explicit provisions in the conference report, but does 
not have the status of law. By incorporating certain conditions spelled 
out in such a statement into an amendment, those conditions can be, in 
a sense, elevated to the status of law. The type of motion which has 
been used to accomplish this result is illustrated by the motion 
offered to an amendment in disagreement to H.R. 4624, the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 911 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 763]]

Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act 
of 1995, conference report in 1994, which is carried here.(2) 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. STOKES
MR. [LOUIS] STOKES [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Stokes moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 28, and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert the following: 
": Provided further, That notwithstanding the language preceding the 
first proviso of this paragraph, $289,500,000 shall be used for special 
purpose grants in accordance with the terms and conditions specified 
for such grants in the committee of conference report and statement of 
the managers (H. Rept. 103-715) accompanying H.R. 4624, except for the 
grant of $500,000 for the Earth Conservatory for the acquisition of 
land near Wilkes-Barre, PA".

MR. [JOHN] LEWIS of California (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in 
the Record.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(3) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Reading Statements and Reports
Sec.    20.7 The statement of the managers accompanying a conference 
report is not read after the reading of the report itself.
On July 23, 1946,(4) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [BRENT] SPENCE [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference 
report on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 371) extending the effective 
period of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, and the 
Stabilization Act of 1942, as amended, and ask unanimous consent that 
the statement of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu 
of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
THE SPEAKER:(5) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky? . . . 
MR. [JESSE P.] WOLCOTT [of Michigan]: Do I correctly understand, Mr. 
Speaker, that if objection is made to the reading of the statement in 
lieu of the report, that in that case the joint resolution will be read 
and then the statement will be read?
THE SPEAKER: If the request made by the gentleman from Kentucky is 
objected to, then the conference report will be read.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     140 CONG. REC. 24324, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 12, 1994.
 3.     Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).
 4.     92 CONG. REC. 9754, 9765, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 764]]

MR. WOLCOTT: If objection is made to that request, will the resolution 
be read and then the statement be read?
THE SPEAKER: The conference report will be read. The only thing before 
the House now is the conference report.
MR. WOLCOTT: In view of the fact that there is no additional time, and 
it is apparent that no additional time will be granted, I think the 
Members should have an opportunity to read the joint resolution or hear 
it read. For that reason, I object.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will read the conference report.
The Clerk read the conference report. . . . 
MR. WOLCOTT: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of 
the managers on the part of the House be read.
MR. SPENCE: I object, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Objection is heard.
Sec.    20.8 The statement of the managers accompanying a conference 
report is not read after the reading of the report itself. And although 
the statement may by unanimous consent be read in lieu of the report, 
if objection is made to the reading of the statement in lieu of the 
conference report, the Clerk reads the report.
On the legislative day of Sept. 25, 1961,(6) the Speaker Pro Tempore, 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Albert Thomas, of 
Texas, who called up the conference report on the supplemental 
appropriations bill for fiscal 1962.

MR. THOMAS: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill 
(H.R. 9169) and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
managers on the part of the House be read in lieu of the report. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Clerk read the conference report.
Withdrawal of Conference Report Pending Completion of Reading the 
Report
Sec.    20.9 When a conference report is called up for consideration in 
the House, the statement of the managers may be read in lieu of the 
report by unanimous consent; and if there is objection, the Clerk 
proceeds to read the report; but the manager may withdraw the report at 
any 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     107 CONG. REC. 21518-28, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1961 
(Calendar Day).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 765]]

time before action is taken thereon. 
Until the new rules were adopted for the 96th Congress,(7) every 
conference report had to be read to initiate its consideration. This 
reading requirement could be dispensed with by unanimous consent or by 
other parliamentary means, and often for the sake of clarity, the 
request was made to read the statement of the managers in lieu of the 
report.
In the illustration included here, the objection to dispensing with the 
reading of the report was motivated by a desire to put off 
consideration until another day. The following proceedings occurred on 
July 18, 1977:(8) 

MR. [CARL D.] PERKINS [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 6138) to provide employment and 
training opportunities for youth, 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 PRO TEMPORE:(9) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read the conference report.
The Clerk proceeded to read the conference report.
MR. PERKINS (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I again ask unanimous 
consent that the statement of the managers be read in lieu of the 
report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, it is after 
5:30.
Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read the conference report.
MR. PERKINS (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the 
conference report at this time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     See H. Res. 5, 125 CONG. REC. 7-16, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 
15, 1979. This change is now embodied in Rule XXVIII clause 2(c), House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 912d (1997). See also Sec. 25.7, infra.
 8.     123 CONG. REC. 23459, 23460, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 766]]


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT
 
Sec.    21. In General

Conference reports embody the compromises negotiated by the managers of 
both Houses and must be acted on in both Houses.(1) Each report must be 
voted on as a whole and adopted or rejected in its entirety,(2) 
although the House rules now permit separate votes on nongermane matter 
contained in a conference report.(3) In accordance with Jefferson's 
Manual, conference reports may not be amended or altered by either 
House acting alone(4) although the two Houses may do so by concurrent 
resolution.(5) A report may also be amended by recommittal with 
instructions to the conference committee who may then file a new 
report.(6) 
Parliamentarian's Note: The question of consideration as provided for 
in Rule XVI clause 3,(7) may be raised against a conference report, and 
this is a proper way to avoid immediate consideration of a report. On 
Sept. 28, 1976, Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, entertained the 
question of consideration before recognizing Members wishing to press 
points of order against the substance of the report.(8) A conference 
report cannot be tabled,(9) referred,(10) or amended.(11) There is no 
direct 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 549 (1997); see Sec.Sec. 21.2, 21.3, 
infra.
 2.     Sec.Sec. 30.4, 30.5, infra.
 3.     H. Res. 1153, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 13, 1972, added clause 4 
to Rule XXVIII, House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(b) (1997). This clause 
provides that the House may vote separately on portions of conference 
reports containing nongermane material if offered in the House. 
However, in conformity with the principle set forth in Sec. 542 of 
Jefferson's Manual, rejection of a portion of a conference report 
results in the rejection of the entire report.  See Sec.Sec. 30.10-
30.12, infra.
 4.     Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 542 (1997); see 
Sec. 30.6, infra.
 5.     8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3308; and 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 
6536, 6537.
 6.     8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3317. See generally, Sec. 32, infra.
 7.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 781 (1997). See also 8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 2439.
 8.     122 CONG. REC. 33018, 33019, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9.     5 Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 6538-6544.
10.     Id. at Sec. 6558.
11.     Id. at Sec.Sec. 6534, 6535.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 767]]

precedent on the applicability of the motion to postpone.
Conference Report Not Subject to Motion To Lay on the Table
Sec.    21.1 While the practice of the House is not to allow a motion to 
table a conference report, the Senate has taken such action and 
informed the House, by message, that it insisted on its amendments to a 
House bill. The House then acted on the bill and amendments thereto by 
privileged motion, the stage of disagreement being in effect. 
The practice of the House is not to apply the motion to lay on the 
table a conference report. This practice has been followed at least 
since the 42d Congress when Speaker Blaine refused to entertain the 
motion, and his decision was sustained on appeal.(12) 
In the 93d Congress, the Senate did table a conference report on    a 
House bill and the Senate amendments in disagreement, in-formed the 
House of this action together with a message further insisting on its 
amendments. 
The message and the proceedings of July 16, 1974,(13) in the House are 
carried here.
FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A further message from the Senate by Mr. Arrington, one of its clerks, 
announced that the Senate had tabled the report of the committee of 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments 
of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 7824) entitled "An act to establish a 
Legal Services Corporation, and for other purposes."
And that the Senate further insists upon its amendments to the above-
entitled bill, disagreed to by the House. . . . 
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION ACT
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. PERKINS
MR. [CARL D.] PERKINS [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Perkins moves that the House take from the Speaker's table the bill 
H.R. 7824, with the Senate amendments thereto, recede from its 
disagreement to the Senate amendment 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 this Act may be cited as the "Legal Services Corporation Act of 
1974".
SEC. 2. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 is amended by adding at 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 6539, 6540. 
13.     120 CONG. REC. 23348, 23349, 23353, 23354, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 768]]

the end thereof the following new     title:
"TITLE X-LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION ACT . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(14) The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins) will be 
recognized for 1 hour.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, when was this matter brought to the floor of 
the House.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the Senate had just messaged 
this matter over to the House; the Chair received the message a few 
minutes ago, informing the House that the Senate insists on its 
amendments to the House bill.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, is there any information available to the 
Members of the House concerning the action taken by the other body on 
this matter?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that that is not a parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. PERKINS: If the gentleman will yield, yes, there happens to be.
MOTION TO LAY THE MOTION ON THE TABLE OFFERED BY MR. GROSS
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion on the table.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Iowa.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
MR. GROSS: 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: The Chair will count; 162 Members are present, not a 
quorum.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device; and there were-yeas 136, nays 
269, not voting 29. . . . 
So the motion to table was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
MR. PERKINS: Mr. Speaker, on May 16 we sent the Legal Services 
conference report, after it was adopted, over to the Senate. As I 
recall, the House acted first. Over there, the conference report was 
tabled. I do not know the reasons why, but I presume they received word 
that in all probability the conference report as passed by the House 
and agreed to by the Senate may not be acceptable to the President of 
the United States.
Receiving Senate Message During Adjournment
Sec.    21.2 The Speaker laid before the House a communica-  tion from 
the Clerk advising that pursuant to authority granted, he had, during 
adjournment, received a message from the Senate an-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 769]]

nouncing agreement to a conference report.
On June 30, 1958,(15) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, laid before the 
House the following communication from the Clerk of the House:
June 30, 1958.
THE HONORABLE THE SPEAKER,
House of Representatives.
SIR: Pursuant to authority granted on June 27, 1958, the Clerk received 
from the Secretary of the Senate on Friday, June 27, 1958, the 
following message:
That the Senate agree to the report of the committee of conference on 
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate 
to the bill (H.R. 12181) entitled "An act to amend further the Mutual 
Security Act of 1954, as amended, and for other purposes."
Respectfully yours,
RALPH R. ROBERTS,
  Clerk, United States House of Representatives.
Senate Has "Deemed" Adoption of Conference Report When Message Received 
From House
Sec.    21.3 The Senate stipulated, by unanimous consent, that a 
conference report already agreed to by the House be deemed to 
have been adopted by the Senate, on receipt of a message from the House 
informing the Senate of the adoption of a Senate concurrent resolution 
correcting the enrollment of the bill in question, changing a proviso 
included in the conference agreement.
The unanimous-consent request propounded in the Senate not only deemed 
the adoption of the report but disposed of the motion to reconsider and 
provided for the insertion of comments by Senators into the 
Congressional Record. 
The request, made on Oct. 21, 1993,(16) is included here. The House 
agreed to the concurrent resolution on Oct. 26, 1993,(17) and this is 
the date shown in the House Calendar for the adoption of the conference 
report in the Senate.

MR. [GEORGE J.] MITCHELL [of Maine]: Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that when the Senate receives a message from the House that the 
House has agreed to Senate Con-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     104 CONG. REC. 12671, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
16.     139 CONG. REC. 25876, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     For the House action and the text of the concurrent resolution, 
see 139 CONG. REC. 25876, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 770]]


current Resolution 48, as passed the Senate, that the conference report 
accompanying H.R. 2403, the Treasury, Postal Service appropriations 
bills shall be deemed to have been adopted, and the motion to 
reconsider shall be deemed to have been laid on the table, with the 
above occurring without any intervening action or debate; and that any 
statements relating to that conference report be placed in the Record 
at the appropriate place.
THE ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, it is so ordered.
So the conference report was deemed to have been agreed to, as follows:
H.R. 2403
That the Senate recede from certain of its amendments.
That the House recede from its disagreement to certain amendments of 
the Senate and agree to the same.
That the House recede from its disagreement to certain amendments of 
the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment; and the Senate 
agree to the same.
Signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both Houses.
Consideration of Report Before Amendments in Disagreement
Sec.    21.4 In the consideration of conference reports the report itself 
is considered and voted up or down before action is taken on amendments 
in disagreement.
On Mar. 16, 1942,(18) after Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, called up 
the conference report on S. 2208, to further expedite the prosecution 
of the war, he raised  a parliamentary inquiry:

Amendment No. 32 is highly controversial. I understand it is my duty to 
move that the House further insist upon this amendment. May I ask 
unanimous consent that the consideration of that amendment be postponed 
for the moment?
THE SPEAKER:(19) The Chair suggests to the gentleman from Texas that 
the first thing to do is to adopt the conference report, leaving out, 
of course, those matters that are in disagreement.
MR. SUMNERS of Texas: Then, Mr. Speaker, I make that motion at this 
time.

Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, then posed an inquiry concerning the 
disposal of another amendment reported from the conference in 
disagreement. The Speaker replied,

The parliamentary situation is this: Insofar as the amendments in 
disagreement are concerned, the conference report must first be voted 
up or down.
Recognition for Question of Privilege of the House During Consideration 
of Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     88 CONG. REC. 2502-04, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
19.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 771]]

Sec.    21.5 During the consideration of a conference report the Speaker 
declined to recognize a Member on a question of privilege of the House.
On Oct. 3, 1949,(20) the House was considering the conference report on 
S. 1407, to promote the rehabilitation of the Hopi and Navaho Indian 
tribes and the better utilization of resources on their respective 
reservations. Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, then sought the floor:

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. [TOBY] MORRIS [of Oklahoma]: I yield to the gentleman from 
Michigan.
MR. HOFFMAN of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege 
of the House.
THE SPEAKER:(1) What is the gentleman's question of privilege?
MR. HOFFMAN of Michigan: The question of privilege is that, although we 
have been in session here something like 9 months, ever since we came 
back it has been almost impossible, in spite of the efforts of the 
Speaker, for the Members to hear what is going on. And I have a 
resolution which I want to offer, and which is as follows:

Be it resolved, That the legislative business of the House be suspended 
until order in the House is obtained so that Members may be informed as 
to the measures which are being considered.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman for that purpose 
inasmuch as there is another matter pending before the House.
Speaker's Discretion as To Scheduling of Conference Report
Sec.    21.6 The Speaker announced from the Chair that he would not 
recognize Members for unanimous-consent requests until disposition of a 
conference report on a bill making appropriations for foreign 
assistance.
On Oct. 6, 1962,(2) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, made 
the following statement regarding the consideration of the conference 
report on H.R. 13175:

The Chair desires to make a brief statement that the Chair will not 
recognize any Member for unanimous-consent requests until after the 
foreign assistance appropriations conference report is disposed of.
In order that Members may understand the reason why the Chair is doing 
this, last night our dear friend and distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Passman] had an accident. He was sent to 
the Naval 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     95 CONG. REC. 13662, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 2.     108 CONG. REC. 22709, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 772]]

Hospital. He is in his office. He is going to handle the conference 
report this morning. . . . 
The Chair, and I know the Members, will all agree with the thoughts and 
the action of the Chair to have the conference report disposed of as 
quickly as possible so that the gentleman from Louisiana may go back to 
the hospital for further treatment.
Withdrawal of Report After Filing
Sec.    21.7 A conference report has been withdrawn by unanimous consent.
On June 8, 1942,(3) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [R. EWING] THOMASON [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw the conference report which I filed this morning on 
the bill S. 2025, to readjust the pay and allowances of personnel of 
the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Coast and Geodetic Survey, 
and Public Health Service.
THE SPEAKER:(4) Without objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Special Consideration of a Conference Report Established by Special 
Order
Sec.    21.8 A special order providing for the consideration in the House 
of a conference report on a major budget reconciliation bill may 
contain many elements. In 1993, the resolution included: a blanket 
waiver of points of order; the allocation of extended debate time among 
the 14 committees involved; a clause self-executing anoth-er resolution 
providing new procedures to implement budget enforcement procedures; 
special procedures to follow in the House if the conference report were 
rejected; and finally, specifying that the previous question be 
considered as ordered without any intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit which could not contain instructions. 

House Resolution 240 was called up in the House on Aug. 5, 1993. 
Following its adoption, the conference report itself was considered and 
adopted by the narrowest of margins. The resolution from the Committee 
on Rules, a portion of the debate, and the consideration of the 
conference report as ex-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     88 CONG. REC. 5031, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[Page 773]]

cerpted from the Record of Aug. 5,(5) are noted below. 
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2264, OMNIBUS 
BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993
MR. [ANTHONY C.] BEILENSON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 240 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 240
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2264) to 
provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 7 of the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1994. 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 six hours, with one hour equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means; twenty minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Agriculture; twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed 
Services; twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking, Finance and 
Urban Affairs; twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
Labor; twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; 
twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; twenty 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; twenty minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries; twenty 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources; twenty minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service; twenty 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation; 
twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs; and one 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Budget. 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 adopted. 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     139 CONG. REC. 19309, 19310, 19321, 19476, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 774]]

SEC. 2. House Resolution 235 is hereby adopted.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson] is recognized for 1 hour. 
MR. BEILENSON: . . . Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 240 provides for 6 
hours of general debate on the reconciliation conference report, with 
the time allocated among the committees instructed to report deficit 
reduction legislation, and the time for each committee equally divided 
and controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of 
each. The conference report will be considered as read. All points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration are 
waived.
The conference report needs a waiver of the three-day layover 
requirement. The report also exceeds the scope of the conference; for 
example, the section providing an income tax credit for employees who 
pay Social Security taxes on their employees' tip income was in neither 
the House nor Senate bill. To meet the conferees' ambitious deficit 
reduction target, it was necessary for conferees to exceed scope in 
order to reach agreement between the Houses.
Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit which may not 
contain instructions. No further action on this reconciliation measure 
is in order except by subsequent order of the House. Finally, the rule 
provides that House Resolution 235 is adopted.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain House Resolution 
235. First, the intent is to put in place, in conjunction with the 
executive order that the President issued yesterday, the entitlement 
review procedures dropped from the conference report because of the 
Byrd rule in the Senate. The Executive order directs the Office of 
Management and Budget to set targets for entitlement spending. . . . 
Finally, under House Resolution 235, it would not be in order to 
consider any general appropriation bill until Congress, if required, 
adopts a budget resolution including the entitlement review problem. 
The point of order could be waived only by adoption of a single 
resolution covering all general appropriation bills. . . . 
H. RES. 235
Resolved, That, for fiscal years 1994 through 1997-
(1) the provisions of, and the procedures and points of order set forth 
in, sections 16004(c)(2), 16005, and 16009 of H.R. 2264, as passed the 
House (One Hundred Third Congress), shall, with respect to the House of 
Representatives, apply to any special direct spending message the 
President submits pursuant to a presidential order as if that message 
were submitted pursuant to section 16004(c)(1) of that bill; and
(2) for purposes of this application, any reference in section 16004(c)
(2) to paragraph (1) or in section 16005 or 16009 to section 16004 
shall be deemed to be to the appropriate provisions of that 
presidential order. . . .

MR. [MARTIN O.] SABO [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 240, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2264) 
to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 7 of the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1994.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     Gerald D. Kleczka (Wis.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 775]]

The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(7) Pursuant to House Resolution 240, the 
conference report is considered as having been read. . . . 
Pursuant to the rule, the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee 
on the Budget will each control 1 hour of debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member; and the 
following committees will each control 20 minutes of debate, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member: The 
Committee on Agriculture; the Committee on Armed Services; the 
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs; the Committee on 
Education and Labor; the Committee on Energy and Commerce; the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs; the Committee on the Judiciary; the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries; the Committee on Natural 
Resources; the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service; the 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation; and the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
At this time, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], will be 
recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo]. . . . 
MR. SABO: Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Foley].
MR. [THOMAS S.] FOLEY [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, one important thing 
has happened today, and important as it was, a more important thing is 
about to happen.
The important thing that has already happened was not a reconciliation 
but an engagement, and all of us wish our two colleagues on the 
Republican side, Susan Molinari and Bill Paxon, the best of futures and 
the warmest of best wishes. . . . 
Whether we decide at long last, after many years of indulgence and 
avoidance and delay and excuse, take a hard road back to fiscal 
responsibility and a sound economic future for all of our people. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to House Resolution 240, the previous 
question is ordered on the conference report.
The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. [JOHN R.] KASICH [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 218, noes 
216, not voting 0.


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT
 
Sec.    22. Calling Up as Privileged

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


[[Page 776]]

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


[[Page 777]]

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

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


[[Page 778]]

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

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


[[Page 779]]

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

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

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


[[Page 780]]

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

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

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


[[Page 781]]

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 782]]

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


[[Page 783]]

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

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


[[Page 784]]

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

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

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


[[Page 785]]

mental retardation. He then made the following request:

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

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

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

[[Page 786]]

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


[[Page 787]]

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

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


[[Page 788]]

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


[[Page 789]]

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

MR. MURPHY of New York: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on 
the Senate bill (S. 521) to increase the supply of energy in the United 
States from the Outer Continental Shelf; to amend the Outer Continental 
Shelf Lands Act; and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that 
the statement of the managers be read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     122 CONG. REC. 32102, 32103, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 790]]

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

[[Page 791]]

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


[[Page 792]]

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

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

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


[[Page 793]]

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


[[Page 794]]

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

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


[[Page 795]]

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

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

The Clerk read as follows:

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

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


[[Page 796]]

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

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

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


[[Page 797]]

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

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


[[Page 798]]

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


[[Page 799]]

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

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

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

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


[[Page 800]]

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

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

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


[[Page 801]]

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


[[Page 802]]

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

CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. 94-120)

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

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


[[Page 803]]

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


[[Page 804]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 805]]

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

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

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

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


[[Page 806]]

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

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


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT
 
Sec.    23.  Who May Call Up; Reading

It is the general practice for the Speaker to recognize the senior 
majority manager on the part of the House to call up a conference 
report for consideration. On one instance, this general practice was 
followed even though this senior majority manager (the chairman of the 
legislative committee which had handled the bill) had not signed the 
report and was opposed to it.(6) The Speaker may recognize a junior 
member of the conference committee in the absence of the senior House 
conferee(7) or even the ranking majority member in lieu of the chairman 
of the legislative committee who was also a conferee.(8) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     See annotation to Rule XIII clause 4(a) House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 746 (1997).
 3.     Id. at Sec. 909.
 4.     116 CONG. REC. 13987-4014, 14021-33, 14043, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 5.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 6.     Sec. 23.3, infra.
 7.     Sec. 23.1, infra.
 8.     Sec. 23.2, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 807]]

Junior Member of Conference Committee
Sec.    23.1 The Speaker has recognized a junior member of the conference 
committee when the senior House conferee was unable to be present on 
the floor to file or call up the report.
On Dec. 23, 1969,(9) the Record indicates that Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Thomas L. Ashley, of Ohio, 
for the following purpose:

Mr. Ashley submitted the following conference report and statement on 
the bill (H.R. 4293) to provide for continuation of authority for 
regulation of exports:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. 91-786)
The signatures were affixed to the report in the following manner:
WRIGHT PATMAN,
LEONOR SULLIVAN,
HENRY REUSS,
THOMAS ASHLEY,
WILLIAM B. WIDNALL,
CHESTER L. MIZE,
Managers on the Part of the House.(10) 
MR. ASHLEY: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate 
consideration of the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4293) to 
provide for continuation of authority for regulation of exports.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
There was no objection.

Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Patman, the senior House conferee, was 
unable to be present on the floor either to file or call up the 
conference report.
Ranking Majority Member
Sec.    23.2 The Speaker has recognized the ranking majority member of a 
committee (not the chairman, who was also a conferee) to call up a 
conference report.
On July 17, 1967,(11) the following occurred in the House:

THE SPEAKER:(12) The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Friedel].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     115 CONG. REC. 40982-84, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Ashley was the fifth ranking Democrat 
on the Committee on Banking and Currency. Wright Patman (Tex.), was the 
chairman of the committee, and Mrs. Leonor K. Sullivan (Mo.), and Mr. 
Henry Reuss (Wis.), were the third and fourth ranking majority members, 
respectively.
11.     113 CONG. REC. 19032, 19033, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 808]]

MR. [SAMUEL N.] FRIEDEL: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report 
on the Senate joint resolution (S.J. Res. 81) to provide for the 
settlement of the labor dispute between certain carriers by railroad 
and certain of their employees, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will read the conference report.
The Clerk read the conference report. . . . 
MR. FRIEDEL: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Friedel moves to concur in the Senate amendments to the House 
amendment.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 1 hour.

Parliamentarian's Note: The chairman of the Committee on House 
Administration(13) was op-posed to the legislation, had not handled the 
resolution when it was under debate in the House, and had agreed that 
the Speaker should recognize the ranking majority member to call up 
this report and offer the essential motions.
Member Opposed to Conference Report
Sec.    23.3 The senior manager on the part of the House at a conference 
called up a conference report, even though he had not signed the report 
and was in fact opposed to it.
On Dec. 6, 1967,(14) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized William R. Poage, of Texas, Chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture, to call up the conference report on H.R. 12144, the 
Federal Meat Inspection Act:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 12144) to clarify and otherwise 
amend the Meat Inspection Act, to provide for cooperation with 
appropriate State agencies with respect to State meat inspection 
programs, and for other purposes. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Poage].
MR. POAGE: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. . . . 
This report is signed by all of the conferees on the part of the Senate 
and all but two of the conferees on the part of the House. I am one of 
those two. . . . 

After Mr. Poage explained his opposition to the conference report, and 
after debate had taken place thereon, the House adopted the report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     Omar T. Burleson (Tex.).
14.     113 CONG. REC. 35144-51, 35163, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 809]]


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT
 
Sec.    24. Custody of the Official Papers

Neither House may consider a conference report until it has possession 
of the official papers,(15) which consist of the original bill and any 
amendments thereto.(16) Copies of the conference report itself and the 
statement of the managers must also be available on the floor.(17) 

It is customary for the managers of the House which had requested a 
conference to carry the official papers with them to the conference. If 
the conferees reach an agreement (even a partial agreement), the papers 
change hands, and the managers of the House which had agreed to the 
conference take possession thereof and their House acts first on the 
report.(18) However, if the managers of the agreeing House fail to take 
possession of the papers at the close of a successful conference, the 
managers of the asking House may retain the papers and that House acts 
first on the report.(19) When the conferees report in total 
disagreement the papers do not change hands.(20) 

Possession of Official Papers
Sec.    24.1  It is not in order to consider a conference report in the 
House until the original (official) papers are in possession of the 
House.
On Aug. 20, 1937,(1) Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, submitted the 
conference report and statement of the managers on H.R. 7985, providing 
for the enlargement of Washington Airport. After Mr. May sought 
unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the conference 
report, the following occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(2) The gentleman from Kentucky has filed a conference 
report. Has the gentleman from Kentucky the original papers in the 
case? The only papers available are copies of the conference report and 
the official papers do 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     Sec. 24.1, infra.
16.     Sec. 24.2, infra.
17.     Rule XXVIII clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997), 
as amended by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 
1140, Pub. L. No. 91-510, Sec. 125(b)(2) (Oct. 26, 1970).
18.     Sec. 24.3, infra.
19.     Sec.Sec. 24.4, 24.5, infra.
20.     Sec. 24.13, infra.
 1.     81 CONG. REC. 9515, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 810]]

not seem to have been returned from the Senate.
MR. MAY: The report is signed by the Senate conferees and by the House 
conferees.
THE SPEAKER: But the Chair cannot permit the consideration of a 
conference report on a bill while the original papers are in the 
possession of the other body, which seems to be the case in this 
instance. The Chair is of the opinion the gentleman will have to 
withhold his request for consideration until the papers are sent over 
from the Senate. The Chair has had a diligent search made and the 
records do not show that the papers have been messaged over.
Sec.    24.2 When a conference report is called up for consideration it 
is not necessary that copies of the bill to which the conference report 
relates be available for all Members of the House; it is sufficient 
that the official papers-the House bill and the Senate amendment there-
to-are before the House.
On July 28, 1954,(3) after the House consented to dispensing with the 
reading of the conference report on H.R. 8300, the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1954, Mr. Herman P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania, raised several 
points of order:

Mr. Speaker, the first point of order I wish to offer to the conference 
report is that a copy of the House bill is not before the House.
THE SPEAKER:(4) A copy of the report is not before the House?
MR. EBERHARTER: A copy of the House bill, H.R. 8300, is not before the 
House. Members cannot obtain a copy of the House bill.
THE SPEAKER: The subject matter before the House is the conference 
report, rather than the bill as such.
MR. EBERHARTER: Mr. Speaker, if I may discuss the matter, under section 
6518, chapter 527, I think it is, volume 5 of Cannon's Precedents, it 
is stated that the House bill with the Senate amendments must be on the 
floor of the House for consideration. As I see it, the Members are 
unable to obtain copies of the House bill.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will say that both the bill and the conference 
report are here. The precedent in volume 5, section 6518, of Hinds' 
Precedents requires the official papers-the House bill and the Senate 
amendment-to be here. They are here at the desk at this moment, and 
there is no requirement that each Member have a copy. The point of 
order is overruled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     100 CONG. REC. 12399, 12425, 83d Cong. 2d Sess. See Rule XXVIII 
clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997) which requires 
that such reports be printed in the Record, and thus affords Members 
the opportunity to examine a report prior to its consideration.
 4.     Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 811]]

Agreeing House To Take Custody of Papers
Sec.    24.3 The House agreeing to a conference normally takes possession 
of the original papers at the conclusion of the conference and acts 
first on the report.
On Dec. 19, 1963,(5) several Members were discussing the possibility of 
prompt action on the conference report anticipated on the foreign aid 
appropriations bill of 1964.

MR. [CHARLES A.] HALLECK [of Indiana]: As I understand it, the other 
body having asked for the conference, if the conferees are able to 
agree on a conference report then we would get the papers first.
MR. [OTTO E.] PASSMAN [of Louisiana]: That is my understanding. . . . 
MR. HALLECK: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(6) The gentleman will state it.
MR. HALLECK: Mr. Speaker, in the event that the conference report is 
acted on first in the House, as we now understand it will be, would a 
motion to recommit with instructions be in order?
THE SPEAKER: A proper motion would be.
Failure of Managers To Take Possession of the Papers
Sec.    24.4 If the managers on the part of the House which agrees to a 
conference fail to take possession of the papers at the close of a 
conference, the other House may, since it has the papers before it, act 
first on the conference report.
On July 4, 1952,(7) after the House had completed debate on the 
conference report on S. 3066, to amend the defense housing laws, the 
following occurred:

MR. [BRENT] SPENCE [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
MR. [ABRAHAM J.] MULTER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER:(8) The Chair will state to the gentleman from New York 
that a motion to recommit is not in order, the Senate having acted on 
the conference report.(9) 
MR. MULTER: Mr. Speaker, if they did, they acted improperly, because 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     109 CONG. REC. 25249, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 7.     98 CONG. REC. 9379, 9380, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
 8.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 9.     98 CONG. REC. 9216, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., July 3, 1952.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 812]]

this should have been acted on in the House first.(10) 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is not aware that the Senate has acted 
improperly. We have received a message that they agreed to the 
conference report.
Order of Acting on a Conference Report and Course of Official Papers; 
Effect on Motion To Recommit
Sec.    24.5 While the House agreeing to the request for a conference 
normally acts first on the report, if conferees reach an agreement, an 
exchange of the official papers in conference can change the normal 
order of action on the report.  
Where the managers on the part of the House had signed a conference 
report before their formal appointment, thus making the report, if 
called up, vulnerable to a point of order under Rule XXVIII clause 6,
(11) the report was recommitted to the conference, by unanimous 
consent, so that an open meeting of the conferees could take place 
before signatures were affixed to the report. Discussion about the 
course of conference papers and the options available to the House 
acting first to recommit or instruct are excerpted from the proceedings 
of Mar. 25, 1980,(12) and are carried here. 
RECOMMITTAL TO CONFERENCE OF S. 662, INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS 
AUTHORIZATION
MR. [HENRY S.] REUSS [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to recommit the Senate bill, S. 662, to conference.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(13) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin? . . . 
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Further reserving the right to 
object, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a further parliamentary 
inquiry.
If this request is granted, the House is then asking the other body for 
a conference. At that point it allows the other body to act first under 
the rules, and that would preclude a motion to recommit with 
instructions on the part of any Member of the House. Is that correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: This request would not change the order of 
consideration of the new report. It merely asks for a recommital of the 
conference report to the same conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     The Senate requested the conference on this measure on July 3, 
Id. at pp. 9048, 9049, and the House agreed thereto on the same date, 
Id. at p. 9216.
11.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 913d (1997).
12.     126 CONG. REC. 6429-31, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
13.     John P. Murtha (Pa.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Pae 813]]

MR. BAUMAN: If the motion is granted, is a motion to recommit or a 
motion to instruct in order at this time?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The House would still act first on the 
conference report.
MR. BAUMAN: Further reserving the right to object, the gentleman from 
Maryland, knowing the outcome of the consideration of the conference, 
would very much like to make a motion to instruct but does not have one 
prepared at this time.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair advises that would not be in order 
at this time in any event.
MR. BAUMAN: That was the question the gentleman put to the Chair, 
whether a motion to instruct would be in order at this time. The Chair 
says "No." If this request is not granted and a point of order is made 
against the consideration of the conference report, as the gentleman 
from Wisconsin suggested, it might be that no motion to instruct would 
be in order under rule XXVIII at that time, would it?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If a point of order were sustained under 
clause 6 to rule 28 a new conference would be considered as requested 
and conferees appointed without intervening motion and the Senate would 
probably agree to a new conference and would probably act first on the 
new conference report. . . . 
If this request is granted to recommit the conference report, the 
motion to recommit would be protected for the minority.
MR. BAUMAN: But if the other body acts, Mr. Speaker, that precludes a 
motion to recommit with instructions; does it not?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If this goes back to the same conference the 
other body, of course, does not have to agree to a request for a new 
conference.
MR. BAUMAN: But the other body can act first, thereby precluding any 
motion to recommit?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the papers are traded in conference, that 
is possible, but not the normal sequence. . . . 
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, is it 
within the province of the senior conferee to return the papers to this 
House for action first, in order to protect a motion to recommit?
MR. REUSS: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that is absolutely 
right. That would be the normal course.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, do I 
have the guarantee of the gentleman from Wisconsin that that will be 
his course of action? 
MR. REUSS: Yes, the gentleman does. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.

Parliamentarian's Note: Under Rule XXVIII, if a point of order is 
sustained against a report under clause 6(b), the report is deemed to 
be rejected, and the Speaker appoints new conferees without intervening 
motion, thus precluding a motion to instruct.


[[Page 814]]

Transmittal of Conference Papers
Sec.    24.6 In rare circumstances conference papers may be informally 
exchanged between the House and Senate, to accommodate a particularly 
tight legislative schedule; and on one occasion the House, which was 
scheduled to act first on a report, informally left the papers with the 
Senate at the conclusion of the conference and after the Senate acted 
on a motion to recommit (which was defeated) the papers were given (not 
messaged to) to the House which acted first on the report.
When papers are transferred in an informal fashion there is no 
indication in the Record of the transaction. The first message shown in 
the Congressional Record occurred when the House informed the Senate 
that it had adopted the conference report. After the Senate had 
rejected the motion to recommit, and relinquished the papers to the 
House, it continued to debate the conference report. The excerpt from 
the proceedings of July 14, 1988,(14) follows:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT-CONFERENCE REPORT-FISCAL YEAR 
1989
THE ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE:(15) Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now proceed to the consideration of the conference report 
on H.R. 4264, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4264) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 1989 for military activities of the 
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel 
strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other 
purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to 
recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this report, 
signed by a majority of the conferees.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report.
Under the previous order, the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Quayle, is 
recognized to offer a motion to recommit. The Senator from Indiana.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT
MR. [DAN] QUAYLE [of Indiana]: Mr. President, I send a motion to 
recommit 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     134 CONG. REC. 18277, 18281, 18286, 18411, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
15.     Richard C. Shelby (Ala.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 815]]

to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
THE ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Quayle] moves to recommit the pending 
conference report with instructions that the Senate conferees insist on 
a position more favorable to the Senate position on ICBM modernization, 
SDI, Poseidon SSBNs, depressed trajectory missile testing, and nuclear 
testing, and that in addition the amendments authorized be changed to 
eliminate those items not requested nor estimated for in the 
President's budget, with the resulting savings to be apportioned to 
readiness and sustainability programs that will enhance conventional 
deterrence forces.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: The Senator from Indiana. . . . 
Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to the motion to 
recommit the conference report. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll. . . .

The motion to recommit was rejected. The Senate then informally 
relinquished possession of the papers to the House and continued to 
debate the report.(16) 
Later, in the House:
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4264, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, 
FISCAL YEAR 1989
MR. [LES] ASPIN [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions 
of House Resolution 492, I call up the conference report on the bill 
(H.R. 4264) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1989 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military 
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, 
to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
Forces, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Where Transmittal of Conference Papers Does Not Follow Normal Practice
Sec.    24.7 It is customary, at the conclusion of a successful 
conference, for the asking House to surrender the original papers to 
the agreeing House, so that the latter may act first on the report; but 
failure to follow this usual order does not specifically violate a 
rule.
At the conclusion of the successful conference on H.R. 3982, the 
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981, the Senate retained the original 
papers for a period of time, and did not give them to the House 
conferees to file them in the House with the conference report.  They 
were later delivered separately to the House, by the Senate 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     134 CONG. REC. 18411, 100th Cong. 2d Sess., July 14, 1988.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 816]]

messenger, and were filed at the Speaker's table. 
On July 31, 1981,(17) a parliamentary inquiry was addressed to the 
Speaker, as follows:

MR. [BRUCE F.] VENTO [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(18) The gentleman will state it.
MR. VENTO: Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the Chair whether the papers of 
the reconciliation package, H.R. 3982, are in the possession of the 
House.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Yes, they are.
MR. VENTO: Mr. Speaker, I would further inquire, is it customary for 
these papers to remain in the possession of the House at the conclusion 
of a conference committee, and in this instance, were they retained at 
the conclusion of the conference committee, or were they more recently 
delivered to the House?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Yes, the Chair would say to the gentleman, it 
is customary for the papers to be transferred to the House which agree 
to the conference-and is to act first on the report-at the conclusion 
of a successful conference.
MR. VENTO: In this case, Mr. Speaker, were the papers retained by the 
House conferees on the matter of the reconciliation conference?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evidently not, because they were brought  back 
to the House this morning at about 9:15 by a messenger from the other 
body.
MR. VENTO: Mr. Speaker, in other words, this violated one of the tenets 
that we have in terms of consideration.
I thank the Chair.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would advise the gentleman that this 
deviated from custom but did not especially violate the rules of the 
House.

Parliamentarian's Note: Jefferson's Manual, in section 555,  states 
that the conferees of the asking House are to surrender the original 
papers to the conferees of the other House at the conclusion of a 
successful conference. Of concern to some Members in the instance which 
generated the inquiry by Mr. Vento was the possibility that the Senate, 
by retaining the papers, could then, by motion, recede from its 
amendment to the House bill, clearing the Reconciliation Act for the 
President's signature and preventing the House from taking further 
action-a course advocated by some Members who wished to address the 
issue of Social Security minimum benefits as part of the reconciliation 
package.
Senate: Discharging a Matter in Conference
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     127 CONG. REC. 18884, 18885, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Barney Frank (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 817]]

Sec.    24.8 The Senate having possession of the original papers on a 
House bill with Senate amendments on which it had earlier asked for 
and   the House had agreed to a conference thereon, subsequently agreed 
to a motion that the Senate further insist on its amendment, thereby 
discharging its conferees and sending the papers back to the House for 
possible disposition by privileged motion, the stage of disagreement 
having been reached.
Instance where the Senate insisted on its amendment to a bill already 
"in conference," managers from both Houses having been appointed. The 
message from the House and the motion offered by the senior Senate 
conferee on Dec. 18, 1982,(19) are carried here as illustrative of a 
rarely used practice.
Parliamentarian's Note: In Senate practice, there is a difference 
between "receiving a message from the House" which occurred in this 
instance on Dec. 13, 1982,(20) and "laying before the Senate a message 
from the House," which was the incident that made the request of Mr. 
Strom Thurmond, of South Carolina, timely. Normally, when a matter is 
in conference, only the conferees can by a proper motion in the 
conference, make the official papers available for action.

[From the Congressional Record of the Senate proceedings on Dec. 13, 
1982.]
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE
At 12:10 p.m. [on Dec. 13, 1982], a message from the House of 
Representatives, delivered by Mr. Gregory, one of its reading clerks, 
announced that the House disagrees to the amendment of the Senate to 
the bill (H.R. 3963) to amend the Contract Services for Drug Dependent 
Federal Offenders Act of 1978 to extend the periods for which funds are 
authorized to be appropriated; agrees to the conference asked by the 
Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints 
Mr. Rodino, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Kastenmeier, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Glickman, Mr. 
Sawyer, Mr. Fish, and Mr. Kindness as managers of the conference on the 
part of the House. . . .

 On Dec. 18, 1982, the message was laid before the Senate.
CONTRACT SERVICES FOR DRUG DE-PENDENT FEDERAL OFFENDERS  ACT
MR. THURMOND: Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate 
a message from the House of Representatives on H.R. 3963.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     128 CONG. REC. 32270, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     Id. at p. 30183.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 818]]

The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message from 
the House of Representatives:

Resolved, That the House disagree to the amendment of the Senate to the 
bill (H.R. 3963) entitled "An act to amend the Contract Services for 
Drug Dependent Federal Offenders Act of 1978 to extend the periods for 
which funds are authorized to be appropriated," and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses thereon.

MR. THURMOND: Mr. President, this concerns the crime package. I move 
that the Senate further insist on its amendment to H.R. 3963.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(1) The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond).
The motion was agreed to.
MR. THURMOND: I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was 
agreed to.
MR. [WILLIAM] PROXMIRE [of Wisconsin]: I move to lay that motion on the 
table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
MR. THURMOND: Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for 
yielding.
House Action Where Senate Discharged Its Conferees and Insisted on 
Disagreement
Sec.    24.9 The Senate, having discharged its conferees by further 
insisting on disagreement to its amendment to a House bill in 
conference, messaged this action to the House; and there the original 
manager of the bill offered a privileged motion to recede and concur in 
the Senate amendment with an amendment.
On Dec. 20, 1982,(2) a motion was made in the House to take from the 
Speaker's table a House bill with a nongermane Senate amendment which 
had previously been sent to conference, and to recede from disagreement 
and concur with a further amendment. The Senate amendment-a "crime 
package" which had been added in the Senate to a bill dealing with drug 
offenders-was very long, and rather than face an arduous reading 
thereof, Mr. William J. Hughes, of New Jersey, withdrew his motion. The 
proceedings were as indicated below:

MR. HUGHES: Mr. Speaker, I move to take from the Speaker's table the 
bill (H.R. 3963) to amend the Contract Services for Drug Dependent 
Federal Offenders Act of 1978 to extend the periods for which funds are 
authorized to be appropriated, with the Senate 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     David F. Durenberger (Minn.).
 2.     128 CONG. REC. 32886, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 819]]

amendment thereto, recede from disagreement to the Senate amendment, 
and agree to the Senate amendment with an amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment.
The Clerk proceeded to read the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment.
MR. HUGHES: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
considered as read and printed in the Record.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(3) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: I reserve the right to 
object.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Michigan reserves the right 
to object to considering the amendment as being read and printed in the 
Record.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object. It is a little 
hard to tell in the House, with all the loud noise, just exactly what 
we are doing.
Is the gentleman considering to go to conference?
MR. HUGHES: No, if the gentleman will yield, I asked to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3963) to amend the Contract Services for 
Drug Dependent Federal Offenders Act of 1978 to extend the periods for 
which funds are authorized to be appropriated, with the Senate 
amendment thereto, recede from disagreement to the Senate amendment, 
and agree to the Senate amendment with an amendment.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I withdraw my 
reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey to consider the amendment as read and printed 
in the Record?
MR. CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, might the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Crime explain what is involved in the Senate amendment or amendments 
from which he is receding?
MR. HUGHES: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I am going to 
explain that in the text of my remarks.
MR. [JOHN] CONYERS [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
MR. HUGHES: Will the gentleman let me explain, if I might?
MR. CONYERS: That is all right, I object.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue to read the amendment.
The Clerk continued to read the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment.
MR. HUGHES (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the motion.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, does that request have to be made in the form 
of a motion?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 820]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: No, it does not.
MR. CONYERS: Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. CONYERS: Does the request have to receive unanimous consent?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: No. It is a matter of right to withdraw the 
motion in the House prior to action thereon.
Asking House May Retain Papers and Act First
Sec.    24.10 On one occasion the Senate, having asked for a conference, 
retained the official papers at the successful conclusion of the 
conference (instead of following the customary practice of surrendering 
them to the agreeing body) and acted first on the report.
On Oct. 20, 1965,(4) Mr. George H. Fallon, of Maryland, called up the 
conference report on S. 2300, the Rivers and Harbors Authorization Act 
of 1965. Although the Senate had requested this conference(5) and the 
House had agreed thereto,(6) the Senate conferees retained the official 
papers and the Senate acted first on the report, voting its approval on 
Oct. 19, 1965.(7) During the debate on the conference report, Mr. 
William C. Cramer, of Florida, made these remarks concerning the 
actions of the Senate:

If we thus let them subvert the rules of this House, which are very 
clear, that the party asking for the conference, the other body has the 
right to act first on the conference report. . . . 
In conference a member of the conferees asked the chairman the 
question: "Is it not true that the other body, the Senate, having asked 
for this conference, we, the House, have a right to the papers and to 
act first?" The answer was "Yes" by the chairman of the conference, the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. McNamara.
Action on Amendments in Disagreement While Conference Is in Progress
Sec.    24.11 Where a conference is in progress, the House which is in 
possession of the official papers may unilaterally discharge its 
conferees and act on the amendments in disagreement. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     111 CONG. REC. 27698-708, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5.     111 CONG. REC. 24841-49, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 23, 1965.
 6.     111 CONG. REC. 25074, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 24, 1965.
 7.     Id. at pp. 27346, 27347, 27360.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 821]]

The controversial issue of whether there should be a federal employee 
pay cap attached to the further continuing appropriation bill, fiscal 
1981 (H.J. Res. 637) could not be resolved between the Houses as the 
adjournment of the 96th Congress, 2d Session approached. The sequence 
of events leading to this impasse are shown in the Calendar of the 
House of Representatives for the 96th Congress, as follows:

. . . Senate agreed to House amendment to Senate amendment No. 7 with 
an amendment Dec. 13 (Legislative day of Nov. 20), 1980. Senate 
insisted on its amendment and asked for a further conference Dec. 13 
(Legislative day of Nov. 20), 1980. House agreed to a further 
conference Dec. 13, 1980. Senate further insisted on its amendment to 
House amendment to Senate amendment No. 7 Dec. 15 (Legislative day of 
Nov. 20), 1980.

 The unusual Senate action carried here as taken from the Record of 
Dec. 15, 1980,(8) was the last legislative act involving that bill.

MR. [WILLIAM] PROXMIRE [of Wisconsin]: . . . Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate further insist upon its amendment to 
the House amendment to the Senate amendment No. 7 to House Joint 
Resolution 637.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(9) Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
MR. [THEODORE F.] STEVENS [of Alaska]: Mr. President, that disposes of 
returning House Joint Resolution 637. It does not dispose of House 
Joint Resolution 644. I might state we have all been involved in 
negotiations concerning this bill. It is my understanding that the new 
resolution would continue the expenditure levels of the Federal 
Government at the 1980 level or the House level, whichever is lower . . 
. 

Parliamentarian's Note: There are few precedents for the type of action 
taken by the Senate. The House has taken a similar action by the 
adoption of a rule on at least one occasion. See 5 Cannon's Precedents 
Sec. 6526.
Version of Report of House Acting First
Sec.    24.12 Parliamentarian's Note: When the Senate acts first on a 
conference report, it is the Senate version of the report (the copy of 
the conference report signed first by the Senate managers) which is 
messaged to the House with the other original pa-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     126 CONG. REC. 34221, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9.     George J. Mitchell (Maine).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 822]]

pers and is before the House for action.(10) 
Progression of Conference "Official Papers"
Sec.    24.13 Where conferees report in total disagreement, the papers 
are normally retained by the asking House so that it may act first on 
the matter in disagreement; but where the only matter remaining in 
disagreement is an amendment of the asking House, which cannot amend 
its own amendment, the papers may be transferred so that the agreeing 
House may address the disagreement by amending. 
The conference agreement brought before the House on Oct. 7, 1975, was 
the second report dealing with amendments in disagreement on H.R. 8121, 
the State, Justice, Commerce, and the Judiciary appropriations for 
fiscal 1976. This second report dealt with the sole remaining Senate 
amendment in disagreement, and the conferees agreed to recommend a 
further amendment to that amendment. Since the Senate could not amend 
its own amendment, the report was filed in disagreement, the House 
retained the papers and acted first on the managers recommendation. 
The form of the report, the Senate amendment in disagreement, and the 
House action thereon are shown in the Congressional Record  excerpt and 
the relevant parts of the statement of the managers are carried here:
(11) 
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 94-527)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the Senate numbered 8 to the bill (H.R. 8121) 
"making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, and 
Commerce, the judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1976, and the period ending September 30, 1976, and for 
other purposes," having met, after further full and free conference, 
have been unable to agree.
JOHN M. SLACK . . . 
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE . . .
TITLE I-DEPARTMENT OF STATE
General provisions-Department of State
Amendment No. 8: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on 
the part of the House will offer a motion as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Deschler's Procedure (93d Cong.), Ch. 33 Sec. 18.3.
11.     121 CONG. REC. 31510, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 2, 1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 823]]

Restore the matter stricken by said amendment amended to read as 
follows:
"SEC. 104. It is the sense of the Congress that any new Panama Canal 
treaty or agreement must protect the vital interests of the United 
States in the Canal Zone and in the operation, maintenance, property 
and defense of the Panama Canal." 
The managers on the part of the Senate will move to concur in the 
amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate.

When the report was called up and read on Oct. 7, 1975, the Speaker(12) 
laid down the amendment in disagreement.(13) 

The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

Senate amendment No. 8: Page 16, line 18, strike out:
"SEC. 104. None of the funds appropriated in this title shall be used 
for the purposes of negotiating the surrender or relinquishment of any 
U.S. rights in the Panama Canal Zone."
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. SLACK
MR. [JOHN M.] SLACK [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Slack moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 8 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: Restore the matter stricken by said amendment 
amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 104. It is the sense of the Congress that any new Panama Canal 
treaty or agreement must protect the vital interests of the United 
States in the Canal Zone and in the operation, maintenance, property 
and defense of the Panama Canal."
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [JOHN J.] FLYNT [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. FLYNT: Mr. Speaker, is a division of the question in order?
THE SPEAKER: Yes, a request for a division of the question is in order.
MR. FLYNT: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division of the question.
THE SPEAKER: The question will be divided.


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT
 
Sec.    25. Points of Order

Prior to 1979, points of order against conference reports were raised 
or reserved after the report was read(14) and before the joint 
statement of the managers was read.(15) It was too late to raise a 
point of order once debate had begun on a conference report.(16) When a 
point of order was reserved prior to the reading of the statement it 
could be raised after the statement is read.(17) However, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
13.     121 CONG. REC. 32064, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
14.     Sec.Sec. 25.5, 25.6, infra.
15.     Sec. 25.6, infra.
16.     Sec. 25.16, infra.
17.     Sec. 25.13, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 824]]

when a point of order was reserved pending a request that the statement 
be read in lieu of the report, and this request was denied, the point 
of order can be raised after the report is read.(18) The pertinent rule
(19) now provides that a report on meeting the availability 
requirements in clause 2(b) of the rule is considered as read. Points 
of order are properly made after the title of the report is reported.
When a point of order against a conference report is sustained, this 
nullifies the agreements reached in conference, and the bill and 
amendments are again before the House for consideration.(20) Since the 
stage of disagreement has already been reached(1) amendments which may 
have required consideration in the Committee of the Whole need not be 
considered there again.(2) 
The sustaining of a point of order on the ground that the conference 
report contained provisions beyond the range of disagreement as 
committed to the conferees does not preclude the subsequent adoption of 
the identical provision when offered in a motion to concur in the 
Senate amendment with a germane amendment.(3) 
Points of order against a conference report may be waived by the 
provisions of a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules,(4) and 
will not be entertained when a conference report is being considered 
under a motion to suspend the rules.(5) 

Violation of Instructions by Conferees
Sec.    25.1 The Speaker may not rule out of order a conference report as 
in contravention of instructions imposed on the managers.
On Aug. 12, 1940,(6) Mr. Clarence F. Lea, of California, called up the 
conference report on S. 2009, the Transportation Act of 1940. Among the 
several points of order raised against the conference report was the 
following:

MR. [JAMES W.] WADSWORTH [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a 
point 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     Sec. 25.14, infra. 
19.     Rule XXVIII clause 2(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912d (1997).
20.     Sec. 25.24, infra.
 1.     Id.
 2.     Sec. 25.4, infra.
 3.     Sec. 25.22, infra.
 4.     See Sec.Sec. 26.1-26.6, infra.
 5.     Sec.Sec. 26.7, 26.8, infra.
 6.     86 CONG. REC. 10146, 10174-77, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 825]]

of order against this conference report as now presented to the House. 
It will be remembered that on May 9 the House, by a majority vote, 
recommitted this transportation bill to the conferees with definite 
instructions to insist upon certain amendments. As to two of those 
amendments the conferees are re-porting what might be termed 
"compromises." As to the third amendment, known generally as the 
Wadsworth amendment, the conferees have eliminated it entirely from 
this conference report. My contention is that in doing so the conferees 
have ignored the instructions of the House and have exceeded their 
power. Having been instructed by the House to insist upon this specific 
amendment, it was their duty, obviously, to strive earnestly in its 
behalf in their negotiations with the Senate conferees. Failing to 
persuade the Senate conferees to accept the Wadsworth amendment, it was 
their duty to report the amendment back to the House as being in 
disagreement, and to ask the House for further instructions concerning 
it. This the House conferees have failed to do. Instead, they have 
completely ignored the amendment in their report, and in doing so they 
have ignored the instructions of the House. I contend, sir, that the 
House, having once by a majority vote instructed its conferees to 
insist upon a certain amendment, and the Senate conferees having 
refused to accept it, it is the duty, under the rule, of the House 
conferees to report such disagreement to the House and await further 
instructions.

The Speaker, William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, quoted from Cannon's 
Precedents:

Mr. Speaker Clark, as reported in section 3248, volume VIII, of 
Cannon's Precedents, rendered a decision upon which the following 
syllabus is based:

The Speaker may not rule out of order a conference report as in 
contravention of instructions imposed on the managers. . . . 

The Chair reads the following from the precedent he has just cited: . . 
. 

The Speaker has not a thing to do in passing upon the question of 
whether the conferees did or did not comply with the instructions of 
the House. That question is for the House to decide. . . . 

The Speaker then read section 6395 of Hinds' Precedents, and concluded:

It seems to the Chair that that opinion is as clear as crystal. This is 
a matter for the House to decide. The point of order is overruled, and 
the House has the conference report before it. If the House does not 
like the conference report, it can vote it down. That is its remedy.

Speaker Bankhead continued:

In other words, at the proper stage in the proceedings on this 
conference report, after the previous question has been ordered, if it 
is ordered on the adoption of the conference report, the Members making 
these points of order, or any other Member, may, in addition to the 
opportunity to vote down the conference report, have the right to offer 
a motion to recommit this entire bill to the conferees. . . . 


[[Page 826]]

In view of the decisions read, the Chair feels constrained to overrule 
the point of order made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth]. 
. . . 
Time for Point of Order as to Failure of Conferees To Reflect Views of 
Members
Sec.    25.2 A point of order that conferees appointed do not represent 
the attitude of the majority and minority members of the House on   
the disagreements in issue should be made when they are appointed, and 
it is too late to raise such question at the time the conferees file 
their report.

On July 27, 1946,(7) Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, submitted for printing 
the conference report on S. 1253, a railroad reorganization measure. 
Mr. Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, then rose:

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the filing of the report.
THE SPEAKER:(8) The gentleman will state it.
MR. WALTER: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, when conferees 
are appointed the differences in the views of the several Members 
should be considered in the appointment of the conferees.
In the instant case no regard was taken of seniority or the views of 
the Members, particularly those of the Committee on the Judiciary. An 
examination of the motion to recommit will disclose that those Members 
who did not speak on behalf of the bill voted against the motion to 
recommit, so that the only conferees on this tremendously important 
legislation were the proponents of any kind of legislation. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: Of course, the Chair could enter into quite a discussion 
about the point the gentleman has raised, but the Chair thinks it is 
necessary only to say that if the point of order the gentleman contends 
for would lodge it comes too late. It should have been made when the 
conferees were appointed.

The Clerk read the title of the bill, and the Speaker ordered the bill 
printed.(9)
Time for Point of Order as to Consideration in Committee of the Whole
Sec.    25.3 A point of order under Rule XX clause 1 that a particular 
Senate amendment included in a conference report should have been 
considered in the Committee of the Whole is not in order 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     92 CONG. REC. 10326, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 9.     See 92 CONG. REC. 10327, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 27, 1946.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 827]]

when the report is called up for consideration, and must be made before 
the bill and Senate amendment are sent to conference.
On Oct. 20, 1966,(10) Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 13103, the Foreign Investment Tax Act of 
1966. Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, rose with a point of order: 

Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a point of order against title III of the 
conference report.
THE SPEAKER:(11) The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. SMITH of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, this point of order is directed at 
title III of the conference report. That title is the one that provides 
for the contribution of $1 apiece from any taxpayer who wishes to do 
so, to be used as a fund to be divided between the political parties in 
Presidential elections. The title itself has never been before the 
House. This is a Senate amendment to the bill that the gentleman from 
Arkansas has just called up. It is not germane to that bill itself and 
comes under the prohibition of rule XX of the rules of the House.(12) 
And, Mr. Speaker, I shall read the part that is relevant to the point 
of order:

Any amendment of the Senate to any House bill shall be subject to the 
point of order that it shall first be considered in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union, if originating in the House, 
it would be subject to that point. . . . 

THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . . 
Without passing upon the germaneness of the amendment, because that 
point was not raised, the Chair calls attention to the fact that the 
Senate amendment went to conference by unanimous consent. Where 
unanimous consent was obtained, the effect of that is to circuit rule 
XX, in other words, to waive or vitiate that portion of rule XX.
If objection had been made at the point when the unanimous consent 
request was made to send the bill to conference, then the bill could 
have been referred to the proper standing committee, and then, if and 
when reported out of the committee would have been brought up for 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union.
At this point, and under the parliamentary situation, the bill was sent 
to conference by unanimous consent; and this applies to all bills that 
go to conference by unanimous consent, if there be provisions therein 
that might be subject to the first sentence of rule XX. If there is no 
objection made at that time, the bill goes to conference; which in this 
case had the effect of suspending that portion of rule XX. Therefore, 
it is properly before the House at the present time as part of the 
conference 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     112 CONG. REC. 28240, 28241, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
12.     Rule XX clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 828]]

report and the Chair overrules the point of order.
Sec.    25.4 Amendments between the Houses, once disagreed to, do not 
again require consideration in the Committee of the Whole in the event 
the conference report is ruled out of order.
On Aug. 19, 1937,(13) Mr. John Taber, of New York, raised a point of 
order against the conference report on H.R. 7646, relating to public 
works for flood control, on the ground that the conferees had exceeded 
their authority.

THE SPEAKER:(14) The Chair is prepared to rule. . . . 
There is a long and consistent line of decisions and precedents holding 
that such powers are clearly beyond the authority of the conferees and 
the Chair regretfully feels compelled to sustain the point of order.
MR. [BERTRAND H.] SNELL [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. SNELL: When a conference report has been thrown out on a point of 
order is it not the same as if it had been rejected by the House.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New York makes a parliamentary inquiry 
as to whether when a point of order to a conference report is sustained 
ipso facto, the Senate amendments come before the House for further 
consideration. Is that the parliamentary inquiry?
MR. SNELL: Yes.
THE SPEAKER: In reply to the gentleman the Chair calls the gentleman's 
attention to section 3257, volume 8, Cannon's Precedents:

When a conference report is ruled out of order, the bill and amendments 
are again before the House as when first presented, and motions 
relating to amendments and conference are again in order.

MR. SNELL: When this first came back from the Senate there was an 
important matter that should have gone before the committee for 
consideration because it entailed expenditure of large amounts of 
money, and is it a privileged motion to move to consider that in the 
House at the present time?
THE SPEAKER: It is in the opinion of the Chair, because by sending the 
bill and Senate amendments to conference, the provisions of the rules 
requiring consideration in Committee of the Whole were waived.
The Clerk will report the first amendment in disagreement.
Time for Point of Order as to Substance of Report
Sec.    25.5 A point of order against a conference report is properly 
raised after the reading of the report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     81 CONG. REC. 9376-79, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
14.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 829]]

On the legislative day of Sept. 25, 1961,(15) Mr. Albert Thomas, of 
Texas, called up the conference report on H.R. 9169, supplemental 
appropriations for fiscal 1961, and sought 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 PRO TEMPORE:(16) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Clerk read the conference report.
MR. TABER: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the conference 
report, and I refer especially to the paragraph on page 30, under the 
title of "Preservation of Ancient Nubian Monuments-Special Foreign 
Currency Program". . . . 

After hearing the arguments for and against the point of order, the 
Speaker Pro Tempore overruled the point of order.
Sec.    25.6 Points of order against conference reports are made after 
the reading of the report and before the reading of the joint statement 
of the managers.
On Mar. 27, 1945,(17) the Clerk was about to read the conference report 
on H.R. 1752, providing for the mobilization of civilian manpower, when 
Mr. Forest A. Harness, of Indiana, posed a parliamentary inquiry:

I propose to make a point of order against the report. As I understand 
the rules, the point of order must be made after the reading of the 
report and before the reading of the statement.
THE SPEAKER:(18) That is correct.(19) 
Reading of Conference Report Dispensed With if Printed in Record
Sec.    25.7 In the 96th Congress, the House adopted a new rule waiving 
the reading requirement for any conference report (and amendment in 
disagreement) which has been printed in the Record for three days.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     107 CONG. REC. 21521, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1961 
(Calendar Day).
16.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
17.     91 CONG. REC. 2838-40, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
19.     See also 117 CONG. REC. 46779, 46780, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 
14, 1971; 100 CONG. REC. 12399-445, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., July 28, 1954; 
96 CONG. REC. 14120, 14134, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 1, 1950; and 93 
CONG. REC. 10479, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., July 26, 1947.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 830]]

On Jan. 15, 1979,(20) Rule XXVIII clause 2,(1) was amended as indicated 
as part of the package of rules changes adopted on the opening day of 
the 96th Congress.

(19)(a) In Rule XXVIII, clause 2, add the following new subclause:
"(c) Any conference report and Senate amendment in disagreement which 
has been available as provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this clause 
shall be considered as having been read when called up for 
consideration." . . . 

MR. [JAMES C.] WRIGHT [Jr., of Texas]: . . . We would anticipate that 
all of the Members on the Democratic side, as has been the tradition 
unbrokenly in the past, will support the decision of the Democratic 
Caucus and of the majority party. Basically, the purpose of these 
changes is to save the time of the House, to save the taxpayers waste 
of that valuable time, and to save Members the harassment that has 
sometimes come from procedural demands that they present themselves and 
vote on meaningless votes.
Proper Time for Point of Order
Sec.    25.8 Where a conference report is considered as read, pursuant to 
a special order previously adopted, the proper time to raise a 
point of order is when the report is called up for consideration and 
the title has been reported.
On Oct. 6, 1978,(2) the House had adopted a special order providing, 
inter alia, that for the remainder of the second session, 95th 
Congress, conference reports might be considered on the same day filed 
(subject to the two-hour layover requirement in Rule XXVIII clause 2) 
and would be considered as read when called up for consideration.

MR. [RICHARD] BOLLING [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1404 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 1404
Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time during the remainder of 
the second session, Ninety-fifth Congress, up to and including October 
15, 1978: (1) 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), and 
any said conference report or amendment in disagreement shall be 
considered as having been read when called up for consideration; (2) 
for the Speaker 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     125 CONG. REC. 9, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912d (1997).
 2.     124 CONG. REC. 34085, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 831]]

to declare recesses at any time, subject to the call of the Chair; and 
(3) for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules.

It was pursuant to this authority that Mr. George E. Danielson, of 
California, called up the conference report on S. 555, the Ethics in 
Government Act, on Oct. 12, 1978.(3) 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 555, ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978
MR. DANIELSON: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the 
Senate bill (S. 555) to establish certain Federal agencies, effect 
certain reorganizations of the Federal Government, to implement certain 
reforms in the operation of the Federal Government and to preserve and 
promote the integrity of public officials and institutions, and for 
other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill. 
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 11, 1978.)
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(4) Under the rule previously adopted, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
Sec.    25.9 Where a conference report is considered read pursuant to a 
special order previously adopted, the proper time for pressing a point 
of order against the report is after the title has been reported. 
A parliamentary inquiry about the proper timing of a point of order was 
directed to the Speaker on Oct. 12, 1978.(5) 

CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 555, ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978
MR. [GEORGE E.] DANIELSON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the Senate bill (S. 555) to establish certain 
Federal agencies, effect certain reorganizations of the Federal 
Government, to implement certain reforms in the operation of the 
Federal Government and to preserve and promote the integrity of public 
officials and institutions, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 11, 1978.)
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) Under the rule previously adopted, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [CHARLES E.] WIGGINS [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I pose a 
parliamentary inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     124 CONG. REC. 36459, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
 5.     124 CONG. REC. 36459, 36460, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 832]]

It is my intention to make a point of order against title VI of the 
conference report, and I will do so at this time if it is the 
appropriate time to do so.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: This is the appropriate time. Is the gentleman 
designating title VI?
Points of Order When Statement of Managers Is Read in Lieu of Report
Sec.    25.10 A point of order against a conference report must be made 
or reserved after the reading of the report and before the reading of 
the statement; and if unanimous consent is asked that the statement be 
read in lieu of the report, the point of order must be made or reserved 
before the reading of the statement.
On Dec. 17, 1969,(7) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [CARL D.] PERKINS [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (S. 2917) to improve the health and 
safety conditions of persons working in the coal mining industry of the 
United States, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
managers on the part of the House be read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER:(8) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
MR. [JOHN N.] ERLENBORN [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. ERLENBORN: It is my intention to make a point of order against the 
conference report. I understand that this must be made before the 
statement on the part of the managers is read. Am I correct?
THE SPEAKER: In response to the parliamentary inquiry, the gentleman's 
understanding is also the understanding of the Chair. The gentleman is 
correct.
MR. ERLENBORN: If I do not object to the unanimous-consent request for 
dispensing with the reading of the report, will I be protected in my 
point of order before the statement of the managers is read?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman could reserve a point of order, and he could 
exercise it at the conclusion of the reading of the statement of the 
managers on the part of the House.
MR. ERLENBORN: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the point of order against the 
report and withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     115 CONG. REC. 39704, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 8.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 833]]

There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.(9) 
Sec.    25.11 A point of order against a conference report must be made 
after the reading of the report and before the reading of the joint 
statement, and where unanimous consent is granted to read the statement 
in lieu of the report, a point of order is properly made before the 
reading of the statement commences. 
On Dec. 15, 1975,(10) the chairman of the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce(11) called up the report of the managers at the 
conference on S. 622, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Mr. 
Staggers then asked that the statement be read in lieu of the report. 
Numerous Members reserved the right to object to this request to 
question various managers at the conference about the meaning and 
effect of several controversial provisions and to ask the Chair about 
the proper time to lodge points of order against the report. The action 
of calling up the report, the proceedings, and a portion of the 
colloquies under the reservation of the right to object are carried 
herein:

MR. [OLIN E.] TEAGUE [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I reserved the right to 
object in order to ask a question of the gentleman from West Virginia, 
the chairman of the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from West Virginia a 
question with respect to the inclusion in the conference substitute for 
S. 622, of provisions relating to application of advanced automotive 
technology. These provisions establish a program in the Department of 
Transportation to develop new automotive technologies and guarantee 
loans for these purposes. These provisions came from title II of S. 
1883, which was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology as 
H.R. 9174. Is the inclusion of these provisions in the conference 
report an assertion of jurisdiction by the Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce Committee over the subject of energy or environmental research 
and development?
MR. STAGGERS: If the gentleman will yield, I will be very happy to say 
very emphatically that we have no intention of ever invading the 
authority of any other committee. . . . 
MR. TEAGUE: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection. . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     See also 118 CONG. REC. 20278-80, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., June 8, 
1972; 118 CONG. REC. 1076, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 25, 1972; and 93 
CONG. REC. 10479, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., July 26, 1947.
10.     121 CONG. REC. 40672, 40675, 40676, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11.     Harley O. Staggers (W. Va.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 834]]

THE SPEAKER:(12) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers)?
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [JOHN B.] ANDERSON of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. ANDERSON of Illinois: I address the Chair with the following 
parliamentary inquiry: At which point would it be in order to offer or 
make a point of order against section 102 of the conference report?
THE SPEAKER: If objection to the reading of the statement is not made, 
or at any time prior to reading the statement. The Chair has promised 
he is going to recognize the gentleman from California first on that 
issue, either now or at that point.
MR. ANDERSON of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, if I still have the floor, I 
make a point of order against section 102 of the conference report.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will not be recognized because there is a 
unanimous-consent request pending.
MR. ANDERSON of Illinois: May I reserve a point of order against that 
section?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman's rights will be protected, but the Chair 
has already promised the gentleman from California that he would 
recognize him first on his point of order.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Staggers).
MR. [GEORGE E.] BROWN [Jr.] of California: Reserving the right to 
object, Mr. Speaker I reserve the right to object to inquire further 
with regard to the scope of the conference report and the degree to 
which it conforms to rule XXVIII, clause 1. I call the attention of 
either the chairman of the committee or the chairman of the 
subcommittee to the statement in the report having to do with sections 
531 and 541 which state, in one sentence, that the provisions follow 
the House language. . . . 
MR. BROWN of California: I understand that the conference report has 
dropped the definition of any energy action. The gentleman is, 
therefore, defining this as merely a technical action?
MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [Jr., of Michigan]: It is defined in the 
conference report.
MR. BROWN of California: No; the definition of any energy action is 
nowhere defined. It was in the House bill when it went to the Senate, 
but that provision was dropped for the conference report.
MR. DINGELL: I thank the gentleman for that advice.
MR. BROWN of California: Is it the gentleman's view, then, that that is 
purely a technical matter and that the report in that respect does 
conform to the requirements of clause 1, rule XXVIII?
MR. DINGELL: Let me read the language of section 551 for the benefit of 
the gentleman:

For purposes of this section, the term "energy action" means any matter 
required to be transmitted or submitted to the Congress in accor-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 835]]

dance with the procedures of this section. . . . 

MR. DINGELL: I support the conference report.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
There was no objection.
Reservation of Point of Order
Sec.    25.12 A point of order against a conference report must be made 
or reserved prior to the reading of the statement of the managers in 
lieu thereof, and when so reserved may be entertained after the reading 
of the statement.
On June 23, 1959,(13) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [ALBERT] RAINS [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference 
report on the bill (S. 57) to extend and amend laws relating to the 
provision and improvement of housing and the renewal of urban 
communities, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the 
statement of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu of 
the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER:(14) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Alabama?
MR. [GRAHAM A.] BARDEN [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BARDEN: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point of order against the 
conference report. Should I reserve the point of order against the 
conference report at this point or wait until later?
THE SPEAKER: If the gentleman intends to make a point of order he has 
to reserve it at this time.
MR. BARDEN: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the point of order at this time.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the statement of the managers on the 
part of the House being read in lieu of the report?
There was no objection. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will read the statement of the Managers on the 
part of the House.
The Clerk read the statement. . . . 
MR. BARDEN: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the provisions 
of the conference report.
Sec.    25.13 A point of order against a conference report normally is 
entertained after the reading of the report, or after the reading is 
dispensed with; but a point of order has been entertained after the 
reading of the statement where a clear reservation of the point of 
order was on the record in a timely manner. 
When a conference report on a bill was called up in the House on 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     105 CONG. REC. 11599, 11600, 11615, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
14.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 836]]

Oct. 1, 1980,(15) repeated unanimous-consent requests were made to 
dispense with the reading of the report and then to read the statement 
in lieu of the report. After receiving assurances that his right to 
press a point of order would be protected, Mr. George E. Danielson, of 
California, allowed the reading of the statement to proceed and the 
Chair then entertained the point of order.

MR. [NEAL] SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report 
on the bill (H.R. 5612) to amend section 8(a) of the Small Business 
Act, 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.
MR. DANIELSON: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against this 
conference report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(16) The gentleman will be protected.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa?
MR. [DAN] ROSTENKOWSKI [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read the report.
The Clerk proceeded to read the report.
MR. SMITH of Iowa (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the statement of the managers be read in lieu of the 
report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
MR. DANIELSON: Mr. Speaker, a while ago I raised a point of order 
against the conference report. I understood the Speaker to say that my 
point of order will be protected.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct.
MR. DANIELSON: If I am not waiving any rights, I will withdraw my 
reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the statement of the 
managers will be read in lieu of the report.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of  
September 30, 1980.)
Reservation of Point of Order Pending Request That Statement Be Read in 
Lieu of Report
Sec.    25.14 When a point of order against a conference report is 
reserved pending a request that the statement of the managers be read 
in lieu of the report, and this request is denied, the point of order 
is made after the report is read.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     126 CONG. REC. 28637, 28638, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
16.     William H. Natcher (Ky.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 837]]

On Dec. 20, 1969,(17) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [OTTO E.] PASSMAN [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 15149) making appropriations for 
foreign assistance and related programs for the fiscal year ending June 
30, 1970, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the 
statement of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu of 
the report.
MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(18) The gentleman from Illinois will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
MR. YATES: At what point is it in order to make a point of order 
against the conference report?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state in response to the parliamentary 
inquiry of the gentleman from Illinois that such a point of order would 
be in order after the reading of the report or the gentleman can 
reserve a point of order now before the reading of the statement 
accompanying the report.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the conference 
report.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Illinois reserves a point of order on 
the conference report.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana? . . 
. 
MR. [DONALD M.] FRASER [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the 
unanimous-consent request.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will read the conference report.
The Clerk read the conference report.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against that portion of 
the conference report which provides funds for the purchase of planes 
for the Republic of China on the ground that it is an appropriation 
that is not authorized by law.
Consideration of Conference Report Postponed To Preserve Point of Order
Sec.    25.15 A point of order against a conference report is made 
following the reading of the report and is premature when only the 
title has been read by the Clerk.
In response to a parliamentary inquiry during the session of the House 
on Sept. 30, 1976,(19) the Speaker explained the proper time for 
raising a point of order against a conference report. 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 12572, U.S. GRAIN STANDARDS ACT OF 1976
MR. [THOMAS S.] FOLEY [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 12572) to amend the U.S. Grain 
Standards Act to improve the grain inspection and weighing system, and 
for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

17.     115 CONG. REC. 40445-48, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
19.     122 CONG. REC. 34224, 34225, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 838]]

the statement of the managers be read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [W. HENSON] MOORE [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order against consideration of this conference report.
THE SPEAKER:(20) The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, the conference report, in particular section 8, 
subparagraph (5), violates clause 3 of Rule XXVIII of the rules of the 
House.
THE SPEAKER: Will the gentleman withhold his point of order, because 
the gentleman is premature. We have to read the report before the point 
of order would lie.
MR. MOORE: My rights will be protected to raise the point of order, Mr. 
Speaker?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman's rights will be protected. . . . 
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I reserve my point of order on the conference 
report.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Moore) reserves a point 
of order on the conference report.
Does the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley) request that this matter 
be put over and be made the first order of business tomorrow?
MR. FOLEY: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the further 
consideration of this conference report be postponed, and that it be 
made the first order of business tomorrow.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
There was no objection.
During Debate on Report
Sec.    25.16 A point of order against a conference report must be made 
after the reading of the conference report is completed or dispensed 
with, and comes too late after debate has been had on the conference 
report.
On Oct. 18, 1972,(1) Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 16810, to provide a temporary increase in the 
public debt limitation, and obtained the consent of the House that the 
statement of the managers be read in lieu of the report.

MR. MILLS of Arkansas (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be considered as 
read.
THE SPEAKER:(2) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arkansas?
There was no objection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 1.     118 CONG. REC. 37065-67, 37073, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 839]]

MR. MILLS of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. . . . 

Mr. Mills then began to explain the conference report, answering 
several questions posed by Mr. John F. Seiberling, of Ohio, Mr. Richard 
C. White, of Texas, and Ms. Bella S. Abzug, of New York.

MR. JAMES J. PICKLE [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. MILLS of Arkansas: I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
MR. PICKLE: I was off the floor when this bill was first brought up, 
after waiting an hour.
MR. MILLS of Arkansas: Let me tell the gentleman about it, if he wanted 
to make a point of order.
MR. PICKLE: I wanted to ask that question of the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, may I make a parliamentary inquiry?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. PICKLE: Would the gentleman from Texas be permitted to make the 
point of order that the title in this conference report pertaining to 
the unemployment benefits program is not germane under this conference 
report?
THE SPEAKER: That point of order would come up too late now.
Subsequent Point of Order
Sec.    25.17 Where a point of order against a conference report is 
overruled, a second point of order may be pressed against the report 
providing that debate on the report has not intervened.
On Dec. 20, 1969,(3) after Mr. Otto E. Passman, of Louisiana, called up 
the conference report on H.R. 15149, foreign assistance appropriations 
for fiscal 1970, Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, raised a point of 
order against the report on the ground that the conferees exceeded 
their authority. After Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
heard the arguments for and against the conference report, the 
following occurred:

THE SPEAKER: . . . The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 1 
hour.
MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Louisiana yield for a 
parliamentary inquiry?
MR. PASSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a point of order against 
consideration of the bill.
MR. PASSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I yielded to the gentleman for a 
parliamentary inquiry, not for a motion.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against consideration 
of the conference report in toto.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     115 CONG. REC. 40445-48, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 840]]

Several Points of Order
Sec.    25.18 The Speaker indicated that the Chair would rule on all 
points of order raised against a conference report, whether they were 
made separately or at one time.
On June 8, 1972,(4) the House was considering the conference report on 
S. 659, the Higher Education Amendments of 1972. After further reading 
of the report had been dispensed with, Speaker Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, recognized Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, who 
sought to offer separately two points of order.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair would state to the gentleman from Louisiana that 
the Chair would prefer the gentleman would make both points of order at 
this time.
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this, if the 
gentleman from Louisiana states both points of order simultaneously, 
for consideration simultaneously, is the gentleman hindered in any way 
if one point of order should have merit and the other not have merit?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the gentleman from Louisiana 
would not lose his rights to have the Chair pass on both points of 
order.
MR. WAGGONNER: A further parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding then that the Chair 
will rule on the points of order separately?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will rule on all points of order.
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this, will the 
Chair rule separately on all points of order?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the Chair would like to hear the 
points of order first.
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to make the points of order 
separately.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Louisiana will state his first point of 
order.
Order of Entertaining Points of Order Against Conference Reports
Sec.    25.19 The Chair attempts to entertain and rule on points of order 
against conference reports which, if sustained, will vitiate the entire 
report (as under the Congressional 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     118 CONG. REC. 20278-80, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 841]]

Budget Act) before entertaining points of order under Rule XXVIII 
clause 4, which if sustained will merely permit motions to reject the 
nongermane portions of the report. 
On Sept. 23, 1976,(5) the House had before it H.R. 10339, the 
conference report on the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 
1976. A Member challenged the report, stating that he had two points of 
order, one that the report provided for new entitlement authority to 
become prematurely effective (in violation of section 401(b)(1) of the 
Budget Act), and another that the conferees had agreed to a provision 
which was not germane to the House version of the measure (Rule XXVIII 
clause 4).(6)    The Chair first heard argument on the Budget Act 
point, for if it were sustained, there would be no need to address the 
second point of order. The proceedings were as indicated:

MR. [JOSEPH P.] VIGORITO [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 10339) to encourage the direct 
marketing of agricultural commodities from farmers to consumers, 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:(7) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [JOHN H.] ROUSSELOT [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. ROUSSELOT: Mr. Speaker, I have two points of order to raise against 
the conference report on H.R. 10339 (H. Rept. 94-1516).
The first is under the Budget Control Act. The second is under House 
Rule XXVIII.
Section 401(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 
Act (Public Law 93-344) provides as follows:

(b) LEGISLATION PROVIDING ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY.-
(1) It shall not be in order in either the House of Representatives or 
the Senate to consider any bill or resolution which provides new 
spending authority described in subsection (c)(2)(C) (or any amendment 
which provides such new spending authority) which is to become 
effective before the first day of the fiscal year which begins during 
the calendar year in which such bill or resolution is reported.

The text of the conference agreement as set forth in the amendment 
adding a new section 8 is as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     122 CONG. REC. 32099, 32100, 32104, 32108, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 913b (1997).
 7.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 842]]

EMERGENCY HAY PROGRAM
SEC. 8. In carrying out any emergency hay program for farmers or 
ranchers in any area of the United States under section 305 of the 
Disaster Relief Act of 1974 because of an emergency or major disaster 
in such area, the President shall direct the Secretary of Agriculture 
to pay 80 percent of the cost of transporting hay (not to exceed $50 
per ton) from areas in which hay is in plentiful supply to the area in 
which such farmers or ranchers are located. The provisions of this 
section shall expire on October 1, 1977.

It is clear from a literal reading of this proposed language that 
certain livestock owners will be entitled to a hay subsidy immediately 
upon enactment of this bill.
This bill is effective during the so-called transition period of July 
1-September 30, 1976.
In any event it is a new spending authority effective before October 1, 
1976 . . . . 
The second point of order is that section 8 of the conference report is 
not in compliance with rule XXVIII, clause 4, and if such language were 
offered to H.R. 10339 during its consideration in the House it would 
not be deemed to be germane under rule XI, clause 7.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Vigorito) desire 
to be heard on the points of order?
MR. VIGORITO: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on the two 
points of order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
MR. VIGORITO: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that if this program is 
an entitlement program under section 401 of the Budget Act, the funding 
could not be given an authorization in this bill until the beginning of 
the next fiscal year, or, in this case, October 1, 1976. If that is the 
case, I would think that we could develop legislative intent here in 
that none of the funding would begin in this bill until fiscal year 
1977. As a practical matter, the bill will probably not have cleared 
the President prior to that time, anyway, and consequently we will not 
be delaying the impact of the bill for any substantial length of time. 
We have less than a week before October 1 comes about. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is having difficulty with the argument made by 
the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, because, as the Chair 
understands it, theoretically and legally it would be possible to begin 
the payments before October 1, 1976, which would be in violation of the 
Budget Impoundment and Control Act, as the entitlement to those 
payments might vest prior to October 1. If, as the Chair understands 
it, the entitlement to payments only vested after October 1, 1976, 
there would be no violation of the Budget Control Act.
What is the gentleman's answer to that?
MR. VIGORITO: The intent is only to begin after October 1, 1976.
THE SPEAKER: Of course, the Chair sees before him language which it 
seems to the Chair-and the Chair is sympathetic with what the gentleman 
is trying to do-indicates that:

In carrying out any emergency hay program for farmers or ranchers in 
any area of the United States under section 305 of the Disaster Relief 
Act of 1974 because of an emergency or 


[[Page 843]]

major disaster in such area, the President shall direct the Secretary 
of Agriculture to pay 80 percent of the cost of transporting hay (not 
to exceed $50 per ton) from areas in which hay is in plentiful supply 
to the area in which such farmers or ranchers are located. The 
provisions of this section shall expire on October 1, 1977.

This language does not say when the entitlement to payments vests and 
does not imply when the payments begin. It does say when the payments 
end. But the point is that the payments cannot begin before October 31, 
1976, without violating the Congressional Budget Act. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair thinks that under the present circumstances he 
should insist that the gentleman consider another procedure, because he 
thinks it can be worked out. Therefore, the Chair must sustain the 
point of order.
The Chair will not rule on the second point of order, on germaneness 
grounds, because one point of order against the entire conference 
report has been sustained.
Will the gentleman undertake to work that out within the next day or 
two?
MR. VIGORITO: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to pull this off so 
that we can work this out.
THE SPEAKER: The conference report is no longer before the House. The 
gentleman can dispose of the Senate amendments under another procedure. 
. . . 
MR. [BOB] BERGLAND [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I move to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 10339) to encourage the direct marketing 
of agricultural commodities from farmers to consumers, with Senate 
amendments thereto, and consider the Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:

Page 1, line 4, strike out "1975" and insert: "1976". . . .

MR. BERGLAND (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that Senate amendments be considered as read and printed in the Record.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(8) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
MR. ROUSSELOT: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, can the 
gentleman tell us if the problem of compliance with the budget 
resolution is included in the gentleman's motion?
MR. BERGLAND: If the gentleman will yield, the answer is yes. The 
question which the gentleman raised earlier has been met. The effective 
date is October 1, 1976, therefore clearing up the question of 
entitlement in violation of the Budget Act. . . . 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BERGLAND
MR. BERGLAND: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bergland moves to recede from disagreement to Senate amendment No. 
1 and concur therein.

The motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the next Senate 
amendment:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     John J. McFall (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 844]]

Senate amendment: Page 5, line 16, strike out "for the fiscal year 
beginning October 1, 1976" and insert: "for each of the fiscal years 
ending September 30, 1977, September 30, 1978, and September 30, 1979".
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BERGLAND
MR. BERGLAND: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.(9) 
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bergland moves to recede from disagreement to Senate amendment No. 
2 and concur therein with an amendment as follows: On page 1, lines 4 
and 5 of the Senate engrossed amendments, strike out "September 30, 
1978, and September 30, 1979" and insert in lieu thereof "and September 
30, 1978";

The motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the last Senate 
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 3: Page 5, after line 16, insert:
EMERGENCY HAY PROGRAM
SEC. 8. (a) In carrying out any emergency hay program for farmers or 
ranchers in any area of the United States under section 305 of the 
Disaster Relief Act of 1974 because of an emergency or major disaster 
in such area, the President shall direct the Secretary of Agriculture, 
at the option of the farmers and ranchers, to:
(1) Purchase hay in areas of the United States in which hay is in 
plentiful supply, transport such hay to the area in which such farmers 
or ranchers are located, and sell such hay to such farmers or ranchers 
as prescribed in this section, or
(2) Pay the costs to transport the cattle of farmers and ranchers from 
such area to a location where adequate grazing land is available and 
the costs of transporting such cattle back to such area.
(b) Hay shall be made available under section 305 to farmers and 
ranchers to help such farmers and ranchers maintain their cattle herds 
during any period such assistance is needed as the result of an 
emergency or major disaster. . . . 
(g) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to utilize the 
facilities of the Commodity Credit Corporation in carrying out any 
emergency livestock feed program under section 305 of the Disaster 
Relief Act of 1974.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BERGLAND
MR. BERGLAND: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bergland moves to recede from its disagreement to Senate amendment 
no. 3 and concur therein with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the 
matter proposed to be inserted by 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     Under a literal reading of Sec. 401(b) of the Congressional 
Budget Act, a point of order lies against the consideration in the 
House of a Senate amendment containing new entitlement authority, and 
such point of order would come before a motion was offered to recede 
and concur with an amendment which cured the Budget Act violation. The 
chairman of the Budget Committee (Mr. Adams) agreed with the 
Parliamentarian that a point of order should not lie against the mere 
consideration of such a Senate amendment so as to prevent any motion to 
dispose of the amendment. Rather, the point of order lies against the 
motion when made to dispose of the Senate amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 845]]

the Senate amendment, insert the following:
EMERGENCY HAY PROGRAM
SEC. 8. In carrying out any emergency hay program for farmers or 
ranchers in any area of the United States under section 305 of the 
Disaster Relief Act of 1974 because of an emergency or major disaster 
in such area, the President shall direct the Secretary of Agriculture 
to pay 80 percent of the cost of transporting hay (not to exceed $50 
per ton) from areas in which hay is in plentiful supply to the area in 
which such farmers or ranchers are located. The provisions of this 
section shall expire on October 1, 1977; and shall become effective on 
October 1, 1976, or on the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is 
later.

The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the votes by which action was taken on the 
several motions was laid on the table.
Sec.    25.20 Under Rule XXVIII clause 4, once a motion to reject a 
portion of a conference report has been agreed to, following a decision 
that the portion was not germane, a point of order against the entire 
conference report under clause 3 of that rule, as exceeding scope, 
comes too late if the Speaker has already recognized the manager of the 
report to offer a motion to recede and concur with an amendment under 
clause 4. 
On Dec. 15, 1975,(10) during a long series of "reservations of the 
right to object" to a unanimous-consent request to dispense with 
further reading of a lengthy motion that the House recede and concur in 
a Senate amendment in disagreement with a further amendment (the 
text of the conference report which had not been stricken by the ruling 
on the germaneness point of order), the Speaker(11) responded to 
several inquiries concerning the parliamentary situation.

So the motion [to reject the portion of the conference report held not 
to be germane] was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Staggers).
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. STAGGERS
MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Staggers moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
Senate amendments to the House amendment and concur with an amendment, 
as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     121 CONG. REC. 40681, 40710-14, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. (conference 
report on S. 622, Standby Energy Authorities Act).
11.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 846]]

Senate amendment, insert the following:

That this Act may be cited as the "Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act" . . .(12) 

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

The term "developing new underground coal mines" includes expan-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     The Staggers' motion deleted two provisions from the conference 
report. The first was that section which had been rejected by the 
adoption of a motion to reject as provided under Rule XXVIII clause 4, 
House Rules and Manual Sec. 913b (1997). The conferees had, however, 
adopted a provision defining "new coal mines" to include new shafts in 
old mines, a change not contemplated by either version of the bill and 
thus not within the scope of the matter committed to conference, and 
this was also deleted by the Staggers' motion. Rule XXVIII clause 4(d)
(1), House Rules and Manual (1997), states that "If any such motion to 
reject has been adopted, after final disposition of all points of order 
and motions to reject under the preceding provisions of this clause, 
the conference report shall be considered as rejected and the question 
then pending before the House shall be-(1) whether to recede and concur 
in the Senate amendment with an amendment which shall consist of that 
portion of the conference report not rejected . . .". Since the 
Staggers' motion deleted an additional section of the conference report 
against which no point of order had been raised it was not technically 
in order under the rule, however no point of order was made against the 
motion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 847]]

sion of existing underground coal mines.

Mr. Speaker, existing mines are clearly not the same thing as new 
mines. . . . 
MR. ANDERSON of Illinois: With the clear understanding from the 
gentleman from West Virginia that the provision of the conference 
report has now been amended to insure that these loan guarantees will 
not go to the owners or the operators of existing mines, I will not 
raise a point of order which I think otherwise would have been 
sustained.
MR. STAGGERS: I thank the gentleman from Illinois.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inquire about the 
parliamentary status with reference to this amendment. Presuming the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia is in order 
before the House and is not objected to under the unanimous consent 
reservation, is it then in order that the amendment would be voted on 
immediately? Would there be time to debate that amendment?
THE SPEAKER: It would be subject to debate.
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Subject to debate under what time limitation?
THE SPEAKER: One-hour rule.
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, assuming that it then is approved, at 
that point does the House then go into consideration of the conference 
report, as amended, or does that infer approval of the conference 
report at that point?
THE SPEAKER: The conference report has been rejected by the action on 
the Goldwater motion pursuant to clause 4(d), rule XXVIII.
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I understand the 
answer to my question. Once more, the question is that, if the motion 
of the gentleman from West Virginia is not objected to and is open to 
debate for 1  hour--
THE SPEAKER: Adoption of the motion to strike rejected the conference 
report, the pending motion is to recede and concur with an amendment.
MR. BROWN of Ohio: And that would be a vote on the whole conference 
report?
THE SPEAKER: Minus the parts that were stricken.
MR. BROWN of Ohio: In other words, it would be a vote on the whole 
conference report except that which is taken out by the amendment of 
the gentleman from West Virginia, is that correct?
THE SPEAKER: By the motion of the gentleman from California and the 
additional deletion from page 8 contained in the motion of the 
gentleman from West Virginia. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
MR. [JOE D.] WAGGONNER [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, let us try to 
clear up the parliamentary situation here, and let us try to do it on a 
step-by-step basis to see if we can gain an understanding of where we 
are.
Mr. Speaker, am I correct in saying that by voting up the Goldwater 
mo-


[[page 848]]

tion, the net effect is that the House has now rejected the conference 
report?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct.
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, am I further correct in saying that if 
there is no objection to the motion under a reservation of objection or 
otherwise, offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers), 
there will be provided 1 hour of debate, 30 minutes for and 30 minutes 
against, on his motion, which has the net effect of striking from 
section 102 that language which makes in order or authorizes loan 
guarantees for development of existing coal mines?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is partially correct.
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, am I further correct in saying that if 
there is no objection and we do debate that issue and that motion is 
agreed to, then the situation would have developed wherein, if that 
motion is agreed to, the conference would then be reconvened and the 
Senate would have the option of accepting the action of the House or 
not accepting it?
THE SPEAKER: No. Would the gentleman bear with the Chair for a moment?
All the House can do now is to send an amendment back to the Senate. 
The Senate can either ask for a new conference or it can accept the 
amendment as presented to the Senate by the House. . . . 
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
MR. [JOHN H.] ROUSSELOT [of California]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
gentleman yield?
MR. BROWN of Ohio: I yield to the gentleman from California.
MR. ROUSSELOT: Mr. Speaker, could we have another explanation on why 
the point of order that the gentleman from Illinois made could not be 
made at this point, could not be in order?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the point of order raised by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) was to the conference report and 
the conference report is no longer before the House.
While, in fact, most of what the Clerk is reading is identical to the 
text of the conference report, it is still a motion as though it were 
taken out and typed up separately. The Clerk is now reading a motion. 
Whether we read the whole motion or whether we agree to dispense with 
the further reading of the motion will have nothing to do with the 
parliamentary situation topside or bottom.
MR. ANDERSON of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. BROWN of Ohio: I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
MR. ANDERSON of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield 
further, as I understand and interpret the remarks as given by the 
Speaker, they are that once the motion offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Goldwater) to reject certain language in the conference 
report was adopted, the conference report was gone. Therefore any point 
of order which I might otherwise have been entitled to make under rule 
XXVIII, clause 3, having to do with certain matters as being beyond the 
scope of the conference, was no longer in order. That is, as I 
understand, the ruling of the Chair.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman did not seek recognition at that time, and 
if, under the operation of clause 4(d), rule 


[[Page 848]]

XXVIII, a conference report is rejected, no further points of order 
against the report are in order. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BAUMAN: Would a point of order lie at this point against the 
portion of the motion, section 102, a point of order based on other 
grounds?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair knows of no other grounds. . . . 
MR. [JOHN E.] MOSS [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I insist upon regular 
order.
MR. BAUMAN: The gentleman from Maryland is making a point of order.
MR. MOSS: Mr. Speaker, I insist upon regular order. The reading of the 
motion is the order before the House at this moment.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state to the gentleman that no point of 
order, whether there is one or is not, assuming there were one, would 
be in order until the motion is read.
MR. BAUMAN: I thank the gentleman. I will wait for that. . . . 
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) will 
be recognized for 30 minutes.
Points of Order Based on Nongermane Provisions in Conference  Report
Sec.    25.21 Where four points of order were raised against provisions 
in a conference report, on the ground that the provisions targeted 
contained nongermane matter in violation of Rule XXVIII clause 4,(13) 
the Chair ruled on each point as it was raised. Two of the provisions 
were held germane, two were ruled not to be germane. One motion 
rejecting the offending matter was voted down. No motion to reject the 
second item of nongermane matter having been offered, the conference 
report as reported from the committee of conference was agreed to. 
The conference report of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975 was filed and 
called up in the House on Mar. 26, 1975.(14) Since printed copies were 
not available when the report was filed, the report was informally 
debated pursuant to special orders until the chairman of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, Al Ullman, of Oregon, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 913b (1997).
14.     121 CONG. REC. 8899, 8930, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 850]]

formally called up the report.(15) At that time, four points of order 
were lodged, seriatim, against provisions in the conference substitute. 
The first, raised by Mr. Barber B. Conable, Jr., of New York, was held 
to be germane; the second, also argued by Mr. Conable, was ruled out as 
not germane but after debate on the motion to reject the provision, on 
a voice vote the motion was defeated. The third, by Mr. Bill Frenzel, 
of Minnesota, was held not germane but no motion to reject the 
provision was offered. The final point of order, by Mr. William A. 
Steiger, of Wisconsin,  was held germane.
After further debate on the conference agreement, the report was 
adopted by the House on a roll call vote.

MR. ULLMAN: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill 
(H.R. 2166) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide for a 
refund of 1974 individual income taxes, to increase the low income 
allowance and the percentage standard deduction, to provide a credit 
for certain earned income, to increase the investment credit and the 
surtax exemption, and for other purposes, 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:(16) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Oregon?
There was no objection.

The table of contents of the conference statement and the parts of the 
agreement which were the object of points of order are carried here for 
purposes of clarity.(17) 
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. 94-120)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2166) to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide for a refund of 1974 
individual income taxes, to increase the low income allowance and the 
percentage standard deduction, to provide a credit for certain earned 
income, to increase the investment credit and the surtax exemption, and 
for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have 
agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as 
follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of 
the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment insert the 
following:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     121 CONG. REC. 8900, 8902, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 26, 1975. 
See also Sec. 22.23, supra
16.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
17.     See 121 CONG. REC. 8900-16, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 26, 1975, 
for full text of the conference report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 851]]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS
(a) SHORT TITLE.-This Act may be cited as the "Tax Reduction Act of 
1975".
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.-
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Amendment of 1954 Code.
TITLE I-REFUND OF 1974 INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES
Sec. 101. Refund of 1974 individual income taxes.
Sec. 102. Refunds disregarded in the administration of Federal programs 
and federally assisted programs.
TITLE II-REDUCTIONS IN INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES
Sec. 201. Increase in low income allowance.
Sec. 202. Increase in percentage standard deduction.
Sec. 203. Credit for personal exemptions.
Sec. 204. Credit for certain earned income. . . . 
TITLE III-CERTAIN CHANGES IN BUSINESS TAXES
Sec. 301. Increase in investment credit.
Sec. 302. Allowance of investment credit where construction of property 
will take more than 2 years.
Sec. 303. Change in corporate tax rates and increase in surtax 
exemption. . . .
TITLE IV-CHANGES AFFECTING INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES
Sec. 401. Federal welfare recipient employment incentive tax credit.
Sec. 402. Time when contributions deemed made to certain pension plans.
TITLE V-PERCENTAGE DE-   PLETION
Sec. 501. Limitations on percentage depletion for oil and gas.
TITLE VI-TAXATION OF FOREIGN OIL AND GAS INCOME AND OTHER FOREIGN 
INCOME
Sec. 601. Limitations on foreign tax credit for taxes paid in 
connection with foreign oil and gas income.
Sec. 602. Taxation of earnings and profits of controlled foreign 
corporations and their shareholders. . . .  
TITLE VII-MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 701. Certain unemployment compensation.
Sec. 702. Special payment to recipients of benefits under certain 
retirement and survivor benefit programs.

The provision in the conference report at which the first point of 
order was directed is included here.
SEC. 208. CREDIT FOR PURCHASE OF NEW PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE.
(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.-Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of 
chapter 1 (relating to credits allowed) is amended by redesignating 
section 44 as section 45 and by inserting after section 43 the 
following new section:
"SEC. 44. PURCHASE OF NEW PRIN-CIPAL RESIDENCE.
"(a) GENERAL RULE.-In the case of an individual there is allowed, as a 
credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year, an 
amount equal to 5 percent of the purchase price of a new principal 
residence purchased or constructed by the taxpayer.


[[Page 852]]

"(b) LIMITATIONS.-
"(1) MAXIMUM CREDIT.-The credit allowed under subsection (a) may not 
exceed $2,000.
"(2) LIMITATION TO ONE RESIDENCE.-The credit under this section shall 
be allowed with respect to only one residence of the taxpayer.
"(3) MARRIED INDIVIDUALS.-In the case of a husband and wife who file a 
joint return under section 6013, the amount specified under paragraph 
(1) shall apply to the joint return. In the case of a married 
individual filing a separate return, paragraph (1) shall be applied by 
substituting '$1,000' for '$2,000'.
"(4) CERTAIN OTHER TAXPAYERS.-In the case of individuals to whom 
paragraph (3) does not apply who together purchase the same new 
principal residence for use as their principal residence, the amount of 
the credit allowed under subsection (a) shall be allocated among such 
individuals as prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, but the sum 
of the amounts allowed to such individuals shall not exceed $2,000 with 
respect to that residence.
"(5) APPLICATION WITH OTHER CREDITS.-The credit allowed by subsection 
(a) shall not exceed the amount of the tax imposed by this chapter for 
the taxable year, reduced by the sum of the credits allowable under 
sections 33, 37, 38, 40, 41, and 42.
"(c) DEFINITIONS.-For purposes of this section-
"(1) NEW PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE.-The term 'new principal residence' means 
a principal residence (within the meaning of section 1034), the 
original use of which commences with the taxpayer, and includes, 
without being limited to, a single family structure, a residential unit 
in a condominium or cooperative housing project, and a mobile home.
"(2) PURCHASE PRICE.-The term 'purchase price' means the adjusted basis 
of the new principal residence on the date of the acquisition thereof. 
. . . 
POINT OF ORDER
MR. CONABLE: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.(18) 
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. CONABLE: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
conference report on the ground it contains matter which is in 
violation of provision 1, clause 7, of rule XVI. The nongermane matter 
I am specifically referring to is that section of the report dealing 
with the tax credit on sales of new homes. It appears in section 208 of 
the conference report, on page 14, as reported by the Committee on 
Conference.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) desire to 
be heard further on the point of order?
MR. CONABLE: Mr. Speaker, I will add only briefly that a careful 
scrutiny of the titles of the House bill, as it was sent to the Senate, 
shows many types 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     Synopsis of this point of order: To a House bill containing 
several sections amending diverse portions of the Internal Revenue Code 
to provide individual and business tax credits, a portion of a Senate 
amendment in the nature of a substitute in the form of a new section 
which was contained in a conference report and which added a new 
section relating to tax credits for new home purchases and amended a 
portion of the law amended by the House bill was held germane. See 121 
CONG. REC. 8900, 8902, 8930, 8931, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 26, 1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 853]]

of tax measures, but nothing relating to the sale of homes. This 
clearly is an addition of a very divergent nature to the bill and deals 
with the nonbusiness and nonpersonal type of credit.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman) desire to be 
heard on the point of order?
MR. ULLMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak against the point of 
order.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very broad bill. It was a broadly based bill 
when it left this House to go to the other body. It has many diverse 
sections and many different kinds of tax treatments. It does deal with 
tax credits. It did deal with tax credits when it left the House, both 
for individuals and for corporations.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this falls totally within the purview of 
the bill as we passed it in the House and should be considered germane 
to the bill.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) makes the point of order 
against section 208 of the conference report on the bill H.R. 2166 on 
the ground that it would not have been germane to H.R. 2166 as passed 
by the House and is thus subject to the provisions of clause 4, rule 
XXVIII.
In passing upon any point of order against a portion of the Senate 
amendment in the nature of a substitute which the conferees have 
incorporated in their report, the Chair feels it is important to 
initially characterize the bill H.R. 2166 in the form as passed by the 
House. The House-passed bill contained four diverse titles, and 
contained amendments to diverse portions of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1954. Title I of the House bill provided a refund of 1974 individual 
income taxes. Title II provided for reductions, including credits, in 
individual income taxes. Title III made several changes in business 
taxes, and title IV further affected business taxes by providing for 
the repeal of the percentage depletion for oil and gas.
The Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute contained provisions 
comparable to all four titles in the House-passed bill, and also 
contained a new title IV amending other portions of the Internal 
Revenue Code, making further amendments to the code with respect to tax 
changes affecting individuals and businesses, and a new title VI and 
title VII, relating to taxation of foreign and domestic oil and gas 
income and related income, and to the tax deferment and reinvestment 
period extension, respectively. The provision against which the 
gentleman makes the point of order was contained in section 205 of 
title II of the Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Chair would call the attention of the House to the precedent 
contained in Cannon's VIII, section 3042, wherein the Committee of the 
Whole ruled that to a bill raising revenue by several diverse methods 
of taxation, including excise taxes, an amendment in the form of a new 
section proposing an additional method of taxation-a tax on the 
undistributed profits of corporations-was held germane. The Chair would 
emphasize that the portion of the Senate amendment included in the 
conference report against which the point of order has been made was in 
the form of a new section to the House 


[[Page 854]]

bill, and was not an amendment to a specific section of the House bill. 
As indicated in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 14.4, the 
test of germaneness in such a situation is the relationship between the 
new section or title and the subject matter of the bill as a whole.
The Chair would also point out that section 203 of the House bill, on 
page 10, amends the same portion of the code which this part of the 
conference report would amend.
For these reasons, the Chair holds that section 208 of the conference 
report is germane to the House-passed bill and overrules the point of 
order.

The portion of the conference report relevant to the second point of 
order was as follows:
SEC. 702. SPECIAL PAYMENT TO RECIPIENTS OF BENEFITS UNDER CER-TAIN 
RETIREMENT AND SURVIVOR BENEFIT PROGRAMS.
(a) PAYMENT.-The Secretary of the Treasury shall, at the earliest 
practicable date after the enactment of this Act, make a $50 payment to 
each individual, who for the month of March, 1975, was entitled 
(without regard to sections 202(j)(1) and 223(b) of title II of the 
Social Security Act and without the application of section 5(a)(ii) of 
the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974) to-
(1) a monthly insurance benefit payable under title II of the Social 
Security Act,
(2) a monthly annuity or pension payment under the Railroad Retirement 
Act of 1935, the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, or the Railroad 
Retirement Act of 1974, or
(3) a benefit under the supplemental security income benefits program 
established by title XVI of the Social Security Act; . . . 
POINT OF ORDER
MR. CONABLE: Mr. Speaker, I have another point of order against the 
conference report.(19) 
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New York will state his point of order.
MR. CONABLE: I make a point of order against the conference report on 
the ground that it contains matter which is in violation of clause 7, 
rule XVI.
The nongermane matter I am specifically referring to is that section of 
the report dealing with a rebate to social security recipients. This 
section appears as section 702 of the conference report, on page 55.
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Chair's ruling on my 
earlier point of order. There is clearly nothing 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     A synopsis of this point of order: To a House bill containing 
several diverse amendments to the Internal Revenue Code to provide 
individual and business tax credits, a portion of a Senate amendment in 
the nature of a substitute contained in a conference report which 
authorized appropriations for special payments to social security 
recipients was not related to tax benefit provisions in the Internal 
Revenue Code and was ruled out as not germane. See 121 CONG. REC. 8911, 
8912, 8931, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 26, 1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 855]]

in the House bill dealing with social security matters. There is 
nothing relating to a trust fund or the relationship of trust fund and 
general fund.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this, if not the 
earlier one, is clearly outside the scope of the House bill.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman) desire to be 
heard on the point of order?
MR. ULLMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in opposition to 
the point of order.
In the House-passed bill there was a provision very specifically 
rebating funds to individuals under title I. The measure included in 
this conference report does not affect the trust fund in any way. It 
does not in any way amend the Social Security Code.
In the statement of the managers we say the following:

The conferees emphasize that these payments are not Social Security 
benefits in any sense, but are intended to provide to the aged, blind, 
and disabled a payment comparable in nature to the tax rebate which the 
bill provides to those who are working.

Therefore, in a broadly based bill such as this kind, where various 
kinds of rebates are passed along to different segments of the public, 
it seems to me that this is perfectly within the scope of the bill and 
should be determined germane to the bill.
MR. CONABLE: Mr. Speaker, if I may add further, these recipients of 
rebates are recipients of rebates solely by virtue of their entitlement 
to social security benefits. We are using that device to designate who 
will receive these benefits. It is clearly outside the scope of a 
general tax law.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule.
Title V of the Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute 
"Miscella-neous Provisions" contained sections which did not amend the 
Internal Revenue Code and which could not be considered germane to any 
portion of the House-passed bill or the bill as a whole. Specifically, 
section 501 of the Senate amendment providing a special payment to 
recipients of benefits under certain retirement and survivor benefit 
programs, a modification of which was incorporated into section 702 of 
the conference report, is not germane to the House-passed bill. That 
provision is not related to the Internal Revenue Code and would provide 
an authorization of appropriations from the Treasury.
For this reason, the Chair holds that the section 702 of the conference 
report is not germane to the House bill and sustains the point of 
order.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. CONABLE
MR. CONABLE: Mr. Speaker, I move the House reject the nongermane 
amendment covered by my point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New York is recognized for 20 minutes 
in support of his motion.

The motion to reject was defeated on a voice vote.
The provisions in title VII pertinent to the third point of order were 
as follows:


[[Page 856]]

TITLE VII-MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 701. CERTAIN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.
(a) AMENDMENT OF EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT OF 1974.-
Section 102(e) of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1974 
is amended-
(1) in paragraph (2) thereof by striking out "The amount" and inserting 
in lieu thereof "Except as provided in paragraph (3), the amount"; and
(2) by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
"(3) Effective only with respect to benefits for weeks of unemployment 
ending before July 1, 1975, the amount established in such account for 
any individual shall be equal to the lesser of-
"(A) 100 percentum of the total amount of regular compensation 
(including the dependents' allowances) payable to him with respect to 
the benefit year (as determined under the State law) on the basis of 
which he most recently received regular compensation; or
"(B) twenty-six times his average weekly benefit amount (as determined 
for purposes of section 202(b)(i)(C) of the Federal-State Extended 
Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970) for his benefit year."
(b) MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENTS.-The Secretary of Labor shall, at the 
earliest practicable date after the enactment of this Act, propose to 
each State with which he has in effect an agreement entered into 
pursuant to section 102 of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act 
of 1974 a modification of such agreement designed to cause payments of 
emergency compensation thereunder to be made in the manner prescribed 
by such Act, as amended by subsection (a) of this section. 
Notwithstanding any provision of the Emergency Unemployment 
Compensation Act of 1974, if any such State shall fail or refuse, 
within a reasonable time after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
to enter into such a modification of such agreement, the Secretary of 
Labor shall terminate such agreement. . . . 
POINT OF ORDER
MR. FRENZEL: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
conference report.(20) 
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Minnesota will state his point of 
order.
MR. FRENZEL: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
conference report on the ground that it contains matter which is in 
violation of the provisions of clause 7 of rule XVI. The nongermane 
matter that I am specifically referring to is that section of the 
report dealing with section 701, providing certain unemployment 
compensation benefits.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman desire to be heard any further?
MR. FRENZEL: I do, Mr. Speaker.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     A synopsis of this point of order: To a House bill amending 
diverse portions of the Internal Revenue Code to provide individual and 
business tax credits, a portion of a Senate amendment in the nature of 
a substitute contained in a conference report providing certain 
unemployment compensation benefits-a matter not within the class of tax 
benefits contained in the House bill-was conceded to be not germane. 
See 121 CONG. REC. 8911, 8933, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 26, 1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 857]]

I have looked over the House bill, and I can find no reference therein 
to unemployment compensation benefits. As nearly as I can figure it, 
this particular section came from a Senate nongermane amendment and has 
no relation whatsoever to anything that was contained in the House 
bill.
I, therefore, say the point of order should be sustained.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Oregon desire to be heard upon the 
point of order?
MR. ULLMAN: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Oregon concedes the point of order, and 
the point of order is sustained.
Does the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel) desire to offer a motion?
MR. FRENZEL: Mr. Speaker, I do not.

The provisions of the conference report pertinent to the final point of 
order were as follows:
SEC. 602. TAXATION OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF CONTROLLED FOREIGN 
CORPORATIONS AND THEIR SHAREHOLDERS.

(a) REPEAL OF MINIMUM DISTRIBUTION EXCEPTION TO REQUIREMENT OF CURRENT 
TAXATION OF SUBPART F INCOME.-
(1) REPEAL OF MINIMUM DISTRIBUTION PROVISIONS.-Section 963 (relating to 
receipt of minimum distributions by domestic corporations) is hereby 
repealed.
(2) CERTAIN DISTRIBUTIONS BY CONTROLLED FOREIGN CORPORATIONS TO 
REGULATED INVESTMENT COM-PANIES TREATED AS DIVIDENDS.-Subsection (b) of 
section 851 (relating to limitations on definition of regulated 
investment company) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
following new sentence:
"For purposes of paragraph (2), there shall be treated as dividends 
amounts included in gross income under section 951(a)(1)(A)(i) for the 
taxable year to the extent that, under section 959(a)(1), there is a 
distribution out of the earnings and profits of the taxable year which 
are attributable to the amounts so included." . . . 
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [WILLIAM A.] STEIGER of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order(1) against the conference report on the ground that it contains 
matter which is in violation of the provisions of clause 7 of rule XVI. 
The nongermane matter that I am specifically referring to is that 
section of the report dealing with taxation of earnings and profits of 
controlled foreign corporations and their shareholders, in section 602 
as reported by the committee of conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     A synopsis of the fourth point of order: To a House bill 
containing several sections amending diverse portions of the Internal 
Revenue Code to provide certain individual and business tax credits, a 
new section of a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute 
contained in a conference report which dealt with earnings and profits 
of controlled foreign corporations and which included limitations on 
the use of foreign tax credits from foreign oil-related income was held 
germane. See 121 CONG. REC. 8909, 8933, 8934, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., 
Mar. 26, 1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 858]]

THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Wisconsin desire to be heard on 
his point of order?
MR. STEIGER of Wisconsin: I do, Mr. Speaker.
As the Speaker well knows, I am sure, from listening carefully to the 
explanations regarding previous points of order, at no point during the 
consideration of the House-passed bill is there any mention of foreign 
taxation and the dealings of foreign taxes insofar as American 
corporations and their subsidiaries are concerned.
Title I of the 1975 tax bill dealt with the refund for 1974 taxes. 
Title II dealt with reductions in individual income taxes. Title III 
dealt with certain changes in business taxes, the title which dealt 
with the investment tax credit or income tax total, particularly as 
related to small business.
This particular provision, Mr. Speaker, in no way deals with a matter 
that was covered, mentioned, or dealt with by the bill that is 
presented to the House, or voted upon by the House.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully urge that the point of order be 
sustained.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Oregon desire to be heard on the 
point of order?
MR. ULLMAN: Mr. Speaker, I do. I wish to speak against the point of 
order.
Mr. Speaker, the bill that the House passed had a great many diverse 
sections in it; it had credits. The matter that has been raised is an 
amendment to the Internal Revenue Code very clearly, and much of it is 
in the way of a credit. We have dealt with credits here both for 
individuals and for corporations in the bill that the House passed.
It seems to me that in a bill of this scope and in a bill that deals as 
broadly with tax credits and matters such as this that does involve an 
amendment to the Internal Revenue Code, it is very clearly within the 
province of the bill, and should be ruled germane.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule.
For the reasons stated in the opinion of the Chair on a similar point 
of order made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) and for the 
reasons stated by the gentleman from Oregon, the Chair overrules the 
point of order.
Subsequent Inclusion of Nongermane Provision
Sec.    25.22 A conference report having been ruled out of order because 
the conferees had agreed on a provision which was outside the scope of 
the differences before them, the House proceeded to consider the 
Senate amendment and concurred therein with a germane amendment which 
included the same provision as that subject to the point of order when 
incorporated in the conference report.


[[Page 859]]

On Dec. 11, 1967,(2) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a point of order 
against the conference report on H.R. 7977, the Postal Revenue and 
Federal Salary Act of 1967.

MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the conference 
report on the grounds that the House managers exceeded their authority 
and did not confine themselves to the differences committed to them, in 
violation of the rules and precedents of the House of Representatives.
The House bill, in section 107(a) provided a minimum charge of 3.8 
cents for bulk third-class mail effective January 7, 1968. Section 107
(a) of the Senate amendment provided a two-step minimum charge-the 
first of 3.6 cents effective January 7, 1968, and a second 4-cent rate 
effective January 1, 1969.
The differences committed to the conferees with respect to this postage 
rate and the effective dates for this rate were: A rate range between 
3.6 cents and 4 cents; a January 7, 1968, effective date for a one-rate 
charge with no further rate provided; and January 7, 1968, and January 
1, 1969, effective dates for any two-rate charges.
The conference report contains a two-rate charge-the first, 3.6 cents, 
effective January 7, 1968; the second, 4 cents, effective July 1, 1969.
The July 1, 1969, effective date for a second rate goes beyond the 
disagreements confided to the conferees. By agreeing to any effective 
date for a second rate beyond January 1, 1969, the House managers have 
clearly exceeded their authority. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(3) Does the gentleman from New York desire to be heard on 
the point of order?
MR. [THADDEUS J.] DULSKI [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I concede the 
point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair sustains the point of order.
The Clerk will report the Senate amendment. . . . 
MR. DULSKI (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that further reading of the Senate amendment be dispensed with and that 
it be printed in full in the Record at this point.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
There was no objection.
MR. DULSKI: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Dulski moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 7977) and concur therein with 
an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment 
insert the following: . . . 

The provision in the conference report against which Mr. Gross 
addressed his point of order was included as Sec. 107(a) of Mr. 
Dulski's substitute for the Senate 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     113 CONG. REC. 35811-33, 35841, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 860]]

amendment.(4) After the House debated Mr. Dulski's motion, the 
following resulted:

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(5) The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Dulski] that the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and concur therein, with an 
amendment. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 327, nays 63, not voting 
43. . . . 
Order of Taking Points of Order Against Conference Report
Sec.    25.23 Where the Chair expects multiple points of order against a 
conference report, he may in his discretion require all points of order 
which allegedly violate one rule (e.g., Rule XXVIII clause 3) to be 
stated at the same time, so that he can rule on the several arguments 
in an order which will accommodate the schedule of the House and, where 
possible, save time. 
On Sept. 28, 1976,(6) after the Speaker had overruled a Rule XXVIII 
clause 6 point of order against a conference report which would have, 
if sustained, vitiated the entire report, he entertained seven points 
of order under Rule XXVIII clause 3, and after hearing argument on some 
seven points in contention, found that each allegation of a scope 
violation was unfounded. The House then proceeded to the consideration 
of the conference report under the hour rule, with the hour being 
equally divided between the manager of the conference report and the 
minority. 
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [HAMILTON] FISH [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order against the conference report.
THE SPEAKER:(7) The gentleman will state it.
MR. FISH: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the conference 
report on the grounds that in section 208 the managers have exceeded 
their authority in several instances and in section 101 in one 
instance, and the report, therefore, is in violation of clause 3 of 
rule XXVIII.
Mr. Speaker, so as not to burden the House with unnecessary discussion, 
I will ask the Chair to rule on these 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     See 113 CONG. REC. 35824, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 11, 1967.
 5.     Omar T. Burleson (Tex.).
 6.     122 CONG. REC. 33020, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 861]]

questions of scope one at a time, because as soon as one is upheld, 
consideration of the others will not be needed.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair must state that when more than one point of 
order is going to be made under a particular House rule, it is proper 
under the precedents for the Chair to require all such points of order 
to be stated and for the Chair then to make his decision on the 
separate points of order, and the Chair intends to follow that 
procedure.
MR. FISH: Very good, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear all the arguments of the gentleman.
Sustaining of Point of Order as Affecting Consideration of Amendments 
in Disagreement
Sec.    25.24 When a conference report is ruled out of order, the bill 
and amendments are again before the House and, the stage of 
disagreement having been reached, motions relating to amendments and 
further conference are in order.
On Dec. 14, 1971,(8) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a point of order 
against the conference report on S. 2891, to amend and extend the 
Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, on the ground that the conferees 
had exceeded their authority. After the point of order was discussed, 
the following occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(9) The Chair is ready to rule. . . . 
The Chair is compelled to hold that the conferees, by deleting the word 
"statutory" in the Senate bill, have broadened the coverage of the 
comparability adjustments beyond the scope of the Senate bill or the 
House amendment. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
MR. [WRIGHT] PATMAN [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House 
insist on its amendments to the bill (S. 2891) to extend and amend the 
Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, and request a further conference 
with the Senate thereon.
The motion was agreed to.(10) 
Senate Practice Where Point of Order Is Sustained Against Conference 
Report
Sec.    25.25 In the Senate, if a point of order is sustained against a 
conference report that contains new matter not committed to the 
conference, the report is automatically recommitted to the conference, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     117 CONG. REC. 46779, 46780, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 9.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
10.     See also 97 CONG. REC. 12702-04, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 5, 
1951; 81 CONG. REC. 9376-79, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 19, 1937; and 
80 CONG. REC. 7790-92, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., May 22, 1936.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 862]]

if the Senate is acting first on the report.
In the House, where a conference report is ruled out on a point of 
order, the amendments in disagreement remain before the body for 
disposition. The Senate practice differs, as shown by the proceedings 
of Aug. 12, 1982.(11) 

MR. [HOWARD H.] BAKER [Jr., of Tennessee]: Mr. President, I submit a 
report of the committee of conference on H.R. 5930 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(12) The report will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 5930) to extend the 
aviation insurance program for 5 years, having met, after full and free 
conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees. . 
. .

MRS. [NANCY L.] KASSEBAUM [of Kansas]: Mr. President, I raise a point 
of order under rule XXVIII that the conferees have exceeded their 
authority by including new matter not committed to them by either 
House.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Rule XXVIII states:

Conferees shall not insert in the report matter not committed to them 
by either House, nor shall they strike from the bill matter agreed to 
by both Houses. If new matter is inserted in the report, or if matter 
which was agreed to by both Houses is stricken from the bill, a point 
of order may be made against the report.

New matter has been inserted. The point of order is valid.
MR. [ROBERT W.] PACKWOOD [of Oregon]: Mr. President, I take appeal from 
the decision of the Chair and I ask for the yeas and nays. . . . 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who 
desire to vote?
The result was announced-yeas 59, nays 38. . . . 
So the ruling of the Chair was sustained as the judgment of the Senate.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The conference report is recommitted.
Senate Application of "Byrd Rule"
Sec.    25.26 In the Senate, under the so-called "Byrd rule" (section 13 
of the Budget Act), a provision which produces no measurable 
changes in outlays or revenues is not necessarily extraneous.
The provision in the conference report on H.R. 2264, the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1994, which was targeted by a point of order by 
Senator John C. Dan-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     128 CONG. REC. 20886, 20897, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
12.     H. John Heinz III (Pa.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 863]]

forth, of Missouri, related to a program to provide pediatric  
immunizations under the Medicaid program. The point of order, the 
Chair's response, and the vote taken on the motion to sustain the 
Chair's ruling are carried here.(13) 

MR. DANFORTH: Mr. President, I am concerned about the state of the Byrd 
rule, which is a rule that I think is extremely important in the 
Senate, and concerned that budgetary effects which are incapable of 
estimation have been used to justify what I would think to be 
extraneous provisions in this bill, I would like now to make two 
inquiries of the Chair.
First, is a provision of the budget reconciliation bill extraneous 
under section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Budget Act, the Byrd rule, if it 
produces no changes in outlays or revenues that can be estimated?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(14) Such a provision would not necessarily be 
out of order.
MR. DANFORTH: Would not necessarily be out of order.
The second question is: If the impact on outlays or revenues cannot be 
estimated, are they merely incidental to a nonbudgetary component under 
section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Byrd rule?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Once again, that would not necessarily be the 
case.
MR. DANFORTH: Mr. President, I now wish to raise a point of order, and 
do raise a point of order under sections 313(b)(1)(A) and 313(b)(1)(D) 
of the Budget Act, known as the Byrd rule; that title XIX, section 1928
(d)(4)(B) in the conference agreement, section 13631(b) is extraneous 
to the reconciliation bill because it produces no change in the outlays 
or revenues or produces changes in outlays or revenues which are merely 
incidental to the nonbudgetary components of the provision.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The point of order is not well taken.
MR. DANFORTH: Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Under the previous order, there is a half-hour 
equally divided on the appeal.
MR. DANFORTH: Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is this a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered. . . . 
MR. [JAMES R.] SASSER [of Tennessee]: Mr. President, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume, and I will be very brief.
Mr. President, first, with regard to the Byrd rule, we worked very hard 
and very faithfully over a period of well over a week in going over 
this bill to try to clarify and remove items that might be subject to 
the Byrd rule.
As the distinguished ranking member indicated, I think over 150 items 
were removed from the reconciliation instrument here, because it was 
felt that they would be subject to the Byrd rule. And we furnished our 
friends on the other side of the aisle, the distinguished staff 
colleagues on the Senate Budget Committee, copies of the draft 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     139  CONG. REC. 19763, 19764, 19767, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 
6, 1993.
14.     Herbert H. Kohl (Wis.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 864]]

language so that we would each know where we were, and there would be 
no surprises as we worked together to try to expunge the Byrd rule 
problems from the reconciliation conference report. . . . 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: All time has been yielded back.
The question is, is the appeal of the Senator from Missouri well taken? 
An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 
sworn is required for the appeal to be well taken.
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted-yeas 43, nays 57. . . . 

Budget Act Point of Order in Senate

Sec.    25.27 Although a point of order under section 313 of the Budget 
Act is not debatable in the Senate, under section 904(d) of the Budget 
Act an appeal of a ruling thereon is debatable for one hour, equally 
divided between and controlled by the moving party and the bill 
manager. 

On Aug. 6, 1993, during the debate on the conference report on H.R. 
2264, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1994, a point of order 
was directed to a provision imposing domestic content requirements on 
U.S. cigarette manufacturers was held by the Presiding Officer not to 
be "extraneous" and subject to a point of order under the Byrd rule, as 
expressed in section 313 of the Budget Act.
While under section 313 a point of order is not subject to debate, an 
appeal from the decision of the Presiding Officer under section 904 is 
subject to one hour of debate.
To overturn the Chair's decision, a vote of three-fifths of the Members 
duly chosen and sworn is required.
A relevant portion of the proceedings is carried herein.(15) 

MR. [HANK] BROWN [of Colorado]: . . . Mr. President, I raise a point of 
order that section 1106(a) is extraneous and violates section 313(b)(1)
(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
It violates it because it produces changes in the revenues that are 
clearly only incidental to the nonbudgetary components of the 
provision. The reality is this imposes the first domestic content 
provision that applies to exports. It is a tiny fraction of revenue-
actually not even reducing the deficit-but only one-fourth of 1 percent 
of the tobacco--
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(16) If the Senator will withhold, the Chair 
wishes 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     139 CONG. REC. 19780-83, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 6, 1993.
16.     Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 865]]

to advise the Senator the point of order is not debatable. So if the 
Senator is setting a predicate for offering a point of order, that is 
acceptable. If he is debating a point of order already offered, it is 
not.
MR. BROWN: I do raise that point of order and ask the Chair to rule on 
section 1106(a).
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Chair will not sustain the point of order. 
The point of order is not sustainable.
MR. BROWN: Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The vote will be taken by the yeas and nays.
MR. [WENDELL H.] FORD [of Kentucky]: Mr. President, as I understand it 
we have 30 minutes? Was that the gentleman's agreement? Or what is the 
time agreement?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Chair advises the Senate the time available 
for debate will be 1 hour unless changed by unanimous consent. . . . 
MR. [PAUL S.] SARBANES [of Maryland]: Mr. President, we ask unanimous 
consent the time on the appeal be limited to 10 minutes equally 
divided, 5 to a side.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Hearing no objection, that will be the order. . 
. . 
MR. FORD: Mr. President, the Byrd rule under which my colleague from 
Colorado has made his appeal is very important. The individual's name 
who is carried on this Byrd rule does it because it is important to 
this institution.
Mr. President, let me explain to my colleagues, while I believe the 
Parliamentarian after careful review-and I underscore careful-has 
advised the Chair that this provision does not violate that Byrd rule.
This provision raises some $29 million over a 5-year period for deficit 
reduction.
The CBO estimate for this provision analyzed each part of the provision 
and concluded that each had a budgetary impact on the $29 million in 
savings achieved by this provision. That is the Byrd rule question, not 
the underlying argument. . . . 
I urge my colleagues to uphold the ruling of the Chair. . . . 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(17) All time has expired. The question is, Is 
the appeal of the Senator from Colorado well taken? An affirmative vote 
of three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn is required to 
overturn the decision of the Chair.
MR. BROWN: Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The clerk will call the roll. . . . 
If there are no other Senators desiring to vote, on this vote the yeas 
are 43, the nays are 57. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 
sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, the appeal is rejected.
MR. [GEORGE J.] MITCHELL [of Maine]: Mr. President, I move to 
recon-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     Charles S. Robb (Va.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 866]]

sider the vote by which the appeal was rejected.
MR. [PATRICK J.] LEAHY [of Vermont]: I move to lay that motion on the 
table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


 
        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.


 
        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. 


 
        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.


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT
 
Sec.    29. Disposition of Reports and Amendments in Disagreement

A conference report may reflect an agreement to all amendments 
submitted to conference, some of the amendments (a partial conference 
report or partial agreement), or none of the amendments (a report of 
total disagreement). When the conferees report a partial agreement, the 
amendments remaining in disagreement are  considered after the 
consideration of the report itself.(4) However, in unusual 
circumstances, these amendments have been considered before the vote on 
the conference reports.(5) Since the 93d Congress, the "three-day 
rule"(6) has applied to reports of total disagreement as well as 
amendments in disagreement accompanying a partial conference report. 
This includes a disagreement reported by the conferees to an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute.(7) A two-hour availability requirement 
was added to Rule XXVIII in the 94th Congress.(8) The older practice 
was to consider amendments in disagreement the same day a report was 
submitted.(9) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     Sec. 29.3, infra.
 5.     Sec. 29.4, infra.
 6.     Rule XXVIII clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997). 
This rule delays the consideration of a conference report until the 
third day after the report and statement of the managers have been 
filed in the House, and requires that the report and statement be 
printed in the daily edition of the Congressional Record for the day on 
which they are filed (except during the last six days of a session). 
See generally Sec. 27, supra.
 7.     Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912b 
(1997), as amended pursuant to H. Res. 1153, Sec. 2(b)(2), 92d Cong. 2d 
Sess. (Oct. 13, 1972). The provisions of this clause became effective 
immediately prior to the beginning of the 93d Congress.  See Sec. 29.1, 
infra.
 8.     122 CONG. REC. 4625, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 26, 1976 (H. Res. 
868). Rule XXVIII clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997); 
Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912b (1997).
 9.     See Sec. 29.12, infra, and 107 CONG. REC. 8892-94, 87th Cong. 1st 
Sess., May 25, 1961, for examples of the old 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 939]]

Each amendment reported in disagreement from a conference committee may 
be debated under the hour rule.(10) Since the beginning of the 93d 
Congress, control of this debate has been divided between the majority 
and minority parties(11) and, since the 94th Congress, may be divided 
three ways to give an opponent time if both the majority and minority 
managers support the motion offered by the floor manager.(12) 
Through the first session of the 93d Congress, the rules of the House
(13) provided for a separate vote (a two-thirds vote) on any Senate 
amendment which, if offered in the House, would be subject to a point 
of order on a question of germaneness. If the amendment were held not 
to be germane under that test, its adoption required a two-thirds vote. 
The mechanism for permitting points of order against provisions in a 
conference report or an amendment reported in disagreement which would 
have been subject to a point of order if offered in the House was 
shifted to Rule XXVIII clauses 4 and 5 in 1974. If the Chair sustains 
such a point of order, the amendment is not stricken but a motion to 
reject the provision is then in order. This new rule permits separate 
votes on parts of a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute if 
the Chair rules the provision to come within the rule. However, the 
general practice of requiring consideration of Senate amendments in 
their entirety still applies, and the rejection of any section of any 
amendment pursuant to these rules results in the rejection of the 
entire amendment.(14) 
When the amendment in disagreement is a House amendment, the House may 
recede therefrom and the bill returns to the position it had when last 
considered by the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
procedure whereby amendments accompanying reports in total disagreement 
were considered immediately after the report was filed.
10.     Sec. 29.18, infra.
11.     Sec. 29.22, infra. See Parliamentarian's Note in Sec. 29.19, 
infra.
12.     Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912(b) 
(1997).
13.     See Rule XX clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1971), 
adopted as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, adopted 
Jan. 22, 1971. For historical treatment, see House Rules and Manual 
Sec.Sec. 827, 913c (1997).
14.     The reader is urged to consult later editions of this volume as 
they are published for further modifications of the rules concerning 
this subject.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 940]]

Senate.(15) However, in accordance with Jefferson's Manual, the House 
may not recede from its own amendment and concur therein with an 
amendment.(16) 
When considering a Senate amendment reported from conference in 
disagreement, the House is not bound by the restrictions placed on the 
conferees, and it may recede and concur in the amendment with a germane 
amendment which is beyond the range of disagreement between the House 
and Senate versions.(17) The House may concur in a nongermane Senate 
amendment, and by so doing makes that matter germane to the House bill, 
and this matter may be included in a further conference report on that 
bill.(18) Also, where the conferees require specific additional 
authority to agree to a Senate legislative amendment to a House general 
appropriation bill, when such an amendment is reported from conference 
in disagreement the House may consider it(19) and may concur therein 
with an amendment which adds new legislation, provided that this 
amendment is germane to the Senate amendment.(20) The House may also 
agree to an amendment reported from conference in disagreement which 
carries an appropriation on a bill other than a general appropriation 
bill.(1) 
An example of the wide latitude the House may exercise when considering 
an amendment reported from conference in disagreement occurred when the 
House acted to incorporate many legislative provisions into the last 
general appropriation bill of a session.(2) 

Three-day Rule

Sec.    29.1 Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(3) requires that all amendments 
reported from conference in disagreement as well as reports in complete 
disagreement and the joint statement 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     Sec. 29.47, infra.
16.     House Rules and Manual, Jefferson's Manual Sec. 526 (1997). See 
Ch. 32, Sec. 7.15, supra. See, generally, Ch. 32, Sec.Sec. 7-12, supra.
17.     Sec.Sec. 29.31, 29.32, infra.
18.     Sec. 29.30, infra.
19.     Sec. 29.33, infra.
20.     Sec. 29.35, infra.
 1.     See Sec. 29.33, infra.
 2.     See Sec. 29.38, infra.
 3.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912b (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 941]]

of the conferees must be printed in the Record on the day they are 
filed and be available for three calendar days before the amendment(s) 
in disagreement may be considered in the House.

On Oct. 13, 1972,(4) Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules called up House Resolution 1153, to amend the rules 
of the House. He explained that section 2 of House Resolution 1153 
accomplished two objectives:

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 Thursday. 
Surely, this should give Members enough time to study the report. . . . 
Section 2 of the resolution also takes care of a problem that arose 
recently concerning situations in which House conferees report they 
cannot come to an agreement with the Senate. The Chair has ruled that 
in situations of this kind, the normal rules on conference reports do 
not apply. The report of the conferees need not be available for 3 days 
before consideration; the report need not be available on the floor; 
and the debate time does not have to be equally divided for and 
against.
The Committee on Rules believes that all reports of conferees should be 
subject to these conditions, even when the conferees have not come to 
an agreement. House Resolution 1153 will accomplish this goal. . . .

Consideration of the resolution was concluded in the following manner:

MR. SISK: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Sisk: On page 8, immediately below line 5 
insert the following:
"Sec. 6. The amendments made by the foregoing sections of this 
resolution shall become effective immediately before noon on January 3, 
1973." . . . 

THE SPEAKER:(5) The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sisk.).
The amendment was agreed to.
MR. SISK: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the resolution. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 281, nays 57, not voting 
93. . . . 
So the resolution was agreed to. . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     118 CONG. REC. 36013-15, 36021-23, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 5.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 942]]

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Waiver of Three-day Rule

Sec.    29.2 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 if the House waives Rule 
XXVIII clause 2(b).

On June 29, 1973,(6) Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, requested 
unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the conference 
report and amendment reported from conference in disagreement on H.R. 
8410, providing for a continuation of a temporary increase in the 
public debt limit. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. 
William A. Steiger, of Wisconsin, to pose a parliamentary inquiry:

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.

Amendments in Disagreement Considered-After Consideration of Conference 
Report

Sec.    29.3 When a conference report is being considered, the vote first 
occurs on agreeing to the conference report; the amendments reported 
there-in in disagreement are re-ported and acted on thereafter.

On Dec. 24, 1963,(7) the House was considering the conference report 
and amendments still in disagreement on H.R. 9499, foreign aid 
appropriations.

MR. [JOHN J.] RHODES of Arizona: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to 
propound a parliamentary inquiry, if I may.
THE SPEAKER:(8) The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. RHODES of Arizona: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the 
first vote which will occur will be on the conference report.
THE SPEAKER: That is correct.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     119 CONG. REC. 22381, 22382, 22384, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 7.     109 CONG. REC. 25532, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 943]]

MR. RHODES of Arizona: And amendment No. 20 which is the so-called 
wheat amendment is not part of the conference report?
THE SPEAKER: That is correct. That will be considered by the House 
separately.
MR. RHODES of Arizona: If I may inquire further, Mr. Speaker, amendment 
No. 20 will be brought up in disagreement and on proper motion by the 
gentleman from Louisiana, a separate vote will occur at that time on 
amendment No. 20.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair understands that a motion will be made with 
respect to that amendment which is in disagreement.

- Prior to a Vote on a Conference Report

Sec.    29.4 Where adoption of a conference report is postponed pursuant 
to a special order putting over roll call votes to another day, the 
House proceeds immediately to the consideration of amendments reported 
back in disagreement.

On Sept. 18, 1962,(9) Mr. Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi, called up 
the conference report on H.R. 12648, agriculture appropriations, fiscal 
1963. After debate was held on the report, the following took place:

MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. [RALPH F.] BEERMANN [of Nebraska]: Mr. Speaker, I objected to the 
vote on the ground that a quorum is not present.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Further proceedings on this matter will be 
deferred until tomorrow.
The Clerk will report the first amendment in disagreement.

The House then proceeded to dispose of all the amendments in 
disagreement.

Consideration of Amendment in Disagreement Before Proceeding to 
Conference Report (Senate)

Sec.    29.5 In the Senate, where a conference report was pending and the 
conferees had reported certain amendments in disagreement, the Senate 
by unanimous consent amended one of those amendments, then proceeded to 
adopt the conference re-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     108 CONG. REC. 19708, 19714, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
10.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 944]]

port, and finally disposed of the remaining amendments in disagreement. 

Where a conference report on a continuing appropriation bill had been 
rejected by the Senate, perhaps because there had been no opportunity 
to offer and vote on an amendment involving a cap on federal 
comparability pay, the Majority Leader asked that the vote on adoption 
of the conference report be reconsidered and then suggested a procedure 
to allow a vote on the controversial provision by attaching it as an 
amendment to one of the amendments in disagreement. The request of 
Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd, of West Virginia, together with the 
proceedings of Dec. 13, 1980,(11) that followed, are carried here.

So the conference report (H.J. Res. 637) was rejected. . . . 
MR. ROBERT C. BYRD: Mr. President, a conference report cannot be 
amended. It can only be rejected or adopted. If it is rejected it can 
only go back to conference. In the event both bodies agree to have 
another conference, in which case all amendments that have not already 
been receded from by the House would again be up for negotiation.
The House has already adopted the conference report, and in so doing 
released its conferees. . . . 
. . . [A]s I say, the Senate can only do two things: That is, adopt the 
conference report or reject it. It cannot amend the conference report. 
But the Senate can, after adopting the conference report, vote to amend 
one of the amendments in disagreement, and there are several there. 
That is what I propose to do . . . . 
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to vote 
on the motion to reconsider forthwith, and that if the Senate votes to 
reconsider the vote, which I hope it will do because the decision is 
wrong at the moment-at the moment the conference report is rejected, 
but I hope the Senate will vote to reconsider.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed forthwith to a vote to 
reconsider, and if the motion to reconsider is agreed to, that I be 
recognized to offer an amendment on the pay cap, and that there be no 
more than 10 minutes for debate to be equally divided between the two 
leaders or their designees. I will not take any of the time. I will 
yield it to anybody. The Senate would proceed to vote within 10 minutes 
on the amendment. . . . 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(12) Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request? Objection is not heard. It is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to reconsider the vote by 
which the conference report was rejected. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     126 CONG. REC. 33985-90, 33994, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
12.     Daniel P. Moynihan (N.Y.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 945]]

So the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Under the previous order, the Senator from West 
Virginia is recognized.
MR. ROBERT C. BYRD: Mr. President, I ask that the clerk state the first 
amendment is disagreement.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The clerk will state the first amendment in 
disagreement.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment 
of the Senate numbered 7 to the aforesaid resolution, and concur 
therein with an amendment as follows:
Strike the matter stricken and inserted by said amendment, and insert: 
"not exceed $500,000,000: Provided further, That an overall ceiling for 
Foreign Military Credit Sales loans and grants of $3,046,187,000 is 
hereby established provided that of these funds $25,000,000 shall be 
for Oman and $6,000,000 for Kenya.".

MR. ROBERT C. BYRD: Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment, 
which is the language on the pay cap, and which the Senate previously 
adopted.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The clerk will state the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Robert C. Byrd) proposes an 
unprinted amendment numbered 1954 to the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment numbered 7.

MR. ROBERT C. BYRD: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the end of the amendment, add the following: "Notwithstanding any 
other provision of this joint resolution, the provisions of section 306
(a), (b), and (d) of H.R. 7593 (providing salary pay cap limitations 
for executive, legislative, and judicial employees and officials) shall 
apply to any appropriation, fund, or authority made available for the 
period October 1, 1980, through September 30, 1981, by this or any 
other Act.". . . .  

So the motion of Mr. Robert C. Byrd to concur in the House amendment 
with UP amendment No. 1954 was agreed to. . . . 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The question now is, Shall the conference report 
on House Joint Resolution 637 upon reconsideration be agreed to?
The yeas and nays are automatic.
MR. ROBERT C. BYRD: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the yeas and nays be vitiated.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on the adoption of the conference report.
The conference report was agreed to.
MR. ROBERT C. BYRD: Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by 
which the conference report was agreed to.
MR. [LOWELL P.] WEICKER [Jr., of Connecticut]: Mr. President, I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
MR. [WARREN G.] MAGNUSON [of Washington]: Mr. President, I ask 


[[Page 946]]

unanimous consent that the Senate concur en bloc in the amendments of 
the House to amendments of the Senate numbered 23, 24, 33, 34, 64, 89, 
90, 103, 109, 111, 134, 136, and 139.

The Senate having disposed of all the amendments in disagreement in a 
manner consistent with the prior House action, then, anticipating that 
the amendment added to the House amendment to Senate amendment number 7 
might not be accepted by the House, insisted on its amendment and asked 
a conference thereon.(13) The House, later on that same day, agreed to 
the request for a further conference.

Availability of Amendments on Floor

Sec.    29.6 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(14) copies of Senate 
amendments reported from conference in disagreement, as well as 
conference reports in complete disagreement and accompanying joint 
statements of the managers, must be available on the floor of the House 
when any such amendment  is considered, unless the amendment is 
considered under suspension of the rules.

On June 29, 1973,(15) Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, sought 
unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the conference 
report and amendments in disagreement on H.R. 8410, providing for a 
continuation of a temporary increase in the public debt limit. Mr. 
William A. Steiger, of Wisconsin, under a reservation of objection, 
posed a parliamentary inquiry:

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:(16) The Chair will state that the Chair has the authority 
to recognize the gentleman for such a motion.
MR. STEIGER of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to 
object, may I ask the Chair's indulgence in a question relating to rule 
XXVIII, clause 2(b), as to whether we have waived that part of the rule 
XXVIII governing conference reports, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     126 CONG. REC. 33996, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
14.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912 (1997).
15.     119 CONG. REC. 22318, 22383, 22384, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
16.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 947]]

which says: Nor shall it be in order to consider any such amendment 
that is to the conference unless copies of the report and accompanying 
statement together with the text of the amendment are then available on 
the floor.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that copies of the Senate amendment 
and conference report are available, but that suspension of the rules 
will suspend all rules.

Recommendations for Proposed Action

Sec.    29.7 The rules do not require conference committees to set out in 
their reports proposed action on amendments in disagreement.

On June 19, 1941,(17) Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, anticipating 
the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 4590, Department of 
Interior appropriations, fiscal 1942, with 38 amendments reported in 
disagreement, posed a parliamentary inquiry in which he noted that the 
conferees had agreed informally on a motion to recede from the various 
amendments in disagreement and concur therein with an amendment.

MR. COCHRAN: . . . I feel that the conferees not only on appropriation 
bills, but on all other bills where amendments are in disagreement and 
a motion is to be made to recede and concur, with an amendment that has 
already been agreed to by the conferees, then that motion should be 
printed in the conference report, so that the Members of the House may 
have an opportunity to intelligently examine the amendment and take 
such action as they deem advisable when it is reached.
I am not asking for an immediate decision but I respectfully request, 
if the Chair is not prepared, that he examine the present rules of the 
House in reference to conference committees and see if we are in 
position under existing rules to require conferees to publish motions 
they propose to make in reference to amendments that are in 
disagreement in the conference report. I feel that the membership of 
the House is entitled to such information. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(18)   . . .  The Chair knows of no ruling of any Speaker 
or of anything in the rules or precedents of the House, that would 
require a conference committee to file more than what they considered 
to be a detailed statement of agreements made in the conference. 
Explanatory statements are made in the statement accompanying a 
conference report, but it is, so far as the Chair knows, entirely 
within the hands of the managers as to what they will include in the 
statement. The Chair cannot see how, under the rules of the House, 
members of a conference committee can be forced to include something in 
their statement that they do not want to include; and that would be 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     87 CONG. REC. 5352, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 948]]

the position of the Chair upon this matter at this time.
It occurs to the Chair, however, that the managers certainly under the 
rules would have the power to include in the statement accompanying a 
conference report the additional information suggested by the gentleman 
from Missouri in his parliamentary inquiry.

Time for Point of Order

Sec.    29.8 A point of order against a matter reported from       
conference in disagreement should be made after the conference report 
is agreed to and when the matter in disagreement is before the House 
for disposition.

On Oct. 6, 1949,(19) Mr. Michael J. Kirwan, of Ohio, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 3838, Department of Interior appropriations, 
fiscal 1950. After the further reading of the managers' statement 
(which was being read in lieu of the report itself) was dispensed with, 
the following occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(20) Does the gentleman from Montana [Mr. D'Ewart] desire 
to make a point of order?
MR. [WESLEY A.] D'EWART [of Montana]: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state to the gentleman, however, that the 
matter which he is complaining of is not in the conference report. It 
is a matter still in disagreement between the two bodies. The Chair 
doubts whether the gentleman's point of order would be proper at this 
time.
MR. D'EWART: Then, Mr. Speaker, the proper time to take this matter up 
would be when it comes before the House as a matter in disagreement.
THE SPEAKER: May the Chair inquire of the gentleman whether he intends 
to make a point of order against the conference report, or against a 
particular amendment in disagreement?
MR. D'EWART: Against a particular amendment, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kirwan].
MR. KIRWAN: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
The conference report was agreed to.

Mr. Kirwan then obtained the consent of the House for the en bloc 
consideration of several of   the amendments in disagreement including 
Senate amendment No. 132. After the Clerk read Senate amendment No. 
131, Mr. Kirwan made this request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Senate amendment No. 132 be 
deleted from my motion.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     95 CONG. REC. 14028, 14034-36, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
20.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 949]]

There was no objection.
The Clerk continued to read the amendments in disagreement.

At the conclusion of the reading of these specified amendments in 
disagreement, the following occurred:

MR. KIRWAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recede and concur in 
these Senate amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Kirwan moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendments of the Senate numbered 6, 17, 20, 38, 46, 47, 50, 63, 66, 
83, 108, 109, 125, 128, 130, 131, 133, 134, 144, 148, 156, 162, 164, 
166, 172, 174, and 189 and concur therein.

MR. D'EWART: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a point of order against 
Senate amendment No. 132.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair understands that Senate amendment No. 132 has 
been deleted [from the unanimous-consent request to recede from 
disagreement to a series of Senate amendments].

After the disposition of all other amendments in disagreement, Senate 
amendment 132 was then reported:(1) 

THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 132: Page 56, line 7, insert the following: ": 
Provided further, That no part of this or prior appropriations shall be 
used for construction, nor for further commitments to construction of 
Moorhead Dam and Reservoir, Mont., or any feature thereof until a 
definite plan report thereon has been completed, reviewed by the States 
of Wyoming and Montana, and approved by the Congress."

MR. D'EWART: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state the point of order.
MR. D'EWART: Mr. Speaker I make a point of order against the provision 
found on page 56 of H.R. 3838, as reported by the conference committee. 
This provision reads as follows:

That no part of this or prior appropriations shall be used for 
construction, nor for further commitments to construction of Moorhead 
Dam and Reservoir, Mont., or any feature thereof until a definite plan 
report thereon has been completed, reviewed by the States of Wyoming 
and Montana, and approved by the Congress.

I make this point of order under rule 21, as it is clearly legislation 
on an appropriation bill; (1) because it is an affirmative direction 
and (2) it restricts executive discretion to a degree that may be 
fairly termed a change in policy. I call the Speaker's attention to 
page 422, section 844 of the House Rules and Manual, which reads, in 
part, as follows:

A provision proposing to construe existing law is in itself a 
proposition of legislation and therefore not in order. . . . 

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this provision is clearly subject to a 
point of order under rule 21.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     See 95 CONG. REC. 14038, 14039, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 6, 
1949.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 950]]

THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair has listened to the gentleman from Montana very carefully. 
The Chair will state that if an amendment of this sort had been 
proposed in the House of Representatives when this bill was under 
consideration in all probability it would have been subject to a point 
of order. The Chair does not feel that in this case it is a violation 
of clause 2 of rule 21, for the simple reason that it has been held as 
early as 1921 by Mr. Speaker Gillette that when an amendment that might 
have been subject to a point of order in the House if offered here was 
adopted by the Senate, and the conferees reported such an amendment in 
disagreement the House may consider the amendment.
Therefore, the Chair must overrule the point of order of the gentleman 
from Montana.
MR. KIRWAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recede and concur in the 
Senate amendment, and I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Montana 
[Mr. D'Ewart].

Budget Resolution Reported in Technical Disagreement Because of Scope

Sec.    29.9 Where conferees on a concurrent resolution on the budget 
reported in disagreement, their report stated the reasons for this 
action and explained that a compromise between the House and Senate 
managers was possible only by including figures outside the range of 
differences submitted to conference.

The conference report on Senate Concurrent Resolution 80 and a portion 
of the joint statement of the managers filed in the House on May 15, 
1978,(2) is included here. For further proceedings leading up to the 
debate on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment, see Sec. 28.14, 
supra.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 80
Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut] 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 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     124 CONG. REC. 13615, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 951]]

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,
Managers on the Part of the House.
WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, 
FRITZ HOLLINGS,
ALAN CRANSTON,
LAWTON CHILES,
JAMES ABOUREZK,
HENRY BELLMON,
ROBERT DOLE,
H. JOHN HEINZ,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.

JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the conference 
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 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, report that the conferees have been unable to agree. This is 
a technical disagreement, necessitated by the fact that in some 
instances the substitute language agreed to by the conferees includes 
figures which (for purely technical reasons) would fall outside the 
range between the corresponding House and Senate provisions.
It is the intention of the conferees that the managers on the part of 
the Senate will offer a motion in the Senate to recede and concur in 
the House amendment to the Senate-passed resolution with an amendment 
(in the nature of a substitute) consisting of the language agreed to in 
conference. Upon the adoption of such amendment in the Senate, the 
managers of the House will offer a motion in the House to concur 
therein. 

Reporting Amendments in Technical Disagreement

Sec.    29.10 Where conferees on a particular Senate amendment in 
disagreement develop compromise language to settle the dispute between 
the two Houses which is "legislative language" to which the House 
managers cannot agree (under Rule XX clause 2) without specific 
permission of the House, the matter is often brought back in "technical 
disagreement." 

This was the situation on May 16, 1978,(3) when a Senate amendment in 
disagreement to H.R. 9005, making appropriations for the District of 
Columbia, fiscal 1978, was considered in the House. The proceedings 
were as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     124 CONG. REC. 13921-23, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 952]]


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

Senate amendment No. 37: Page 13, line 14, strike out: "$168,757,900" 
and insert "$102,173,400".
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. NATCHER
MR. [WILLIAM H.] NATCHER [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Natcher moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 37 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum named in said amendment, 
insert: "$129,173,400: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated 
for the Washington Civic Center shall be obligated until the 
Subcommittees on the District of Columbia Appropriations of the House 
of Representatives and the Senate have approved the plan submitted by 
the Mayor and the City Council for the Washington Civic Center".
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BAUMAN
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bauman moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 37 and concur therein.

MR. NATCHER: Mr. Speaker, I demand that the question be divided.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question will be divided.
Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) seek time?
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman would take some time 
briefly. I do not want to prolong this debate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) is 
recognized for 30 minutes. . . . 
MR. NATCHER: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to 
recede.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recede.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is, Will the House recede from 
its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 37.
The House receded from its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 37.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. NATCHER
MR. NATCHER: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Natcher moves that the House concur in the amendment of the Senate 
numbered 37 with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum named in 
said amendment, insert: "$129,173,400: Provided, That none of the funds 
appropriated for the Washington Civic Center shall be obligated until 
the Subcommittees on the District of Columbia Appropriations of the 
House of Representatives and the Senate have approved the plan 
submitted by the Mayor and the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 953]]

City Council for the Washington Civic Center".
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BAUMAN
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bauman moves to table the motion to concur in the amendment of the 
Senate numbered 37, with an amendment.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the preferential motion 
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
MR. BAUMAN: 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 PRO TEMPORE: 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 190, nays 
199, answered "present" 1, not voting 44. . . . 
So the preferential motion to table was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
MR. NATCHER: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion 
now pending.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the preferential motion offered by the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) to concur in the Senate amendment No. 37, with 
an amendment.
The question is on the preferential motion offered by the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. [JOHN H.] ROUSSELOT [of California]: 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 199, nays 
183, answered "present" 1, not voting 51.

Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to table a motion disposing of an 
amendment in disagreement does not carry with it the amendment and the 
bill itself, since if the motion is tabled other motions remain 
available for disposition of the amendment, whereas the tabling of a 
Senate amendment itself has the effect of carrying to the table the 
House bill as well.

Where Conferees Report in Complete Disagreement

Sec.    29.11 Where conferees have filed a conference report on a Senate 
bill, and the Senate has then amended a House amendment to the bill, 
the conference report is called up in the House but is not acted on, 
and a motion


[[Page 954]]

to concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment is privileged, 
the stage of disagreement being in effect. 
The House does not act on a conference report in total disagreement but 
proceeds to consider the amendments in disagreement by motion. On Feb. 
24, 1976, the following conference report was filed:(5) 
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 94-839)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 2017) to amend the Drug 
Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972, and for other purposes, having 
met, after full and free conference, have been unable to agree.

The conference report and the amendments in disagreement were taken up 
and resolved on Mar. 4, 1976:(6) 

MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the Senate bill (S. 2017) to amend the Drug Abuse 
Office and Treatment Act of 1972, and for other purposes.
THE SPEAKER:(7) The Clerk will read the conference report.
The Clerk read the conference report.
(For conference report and statement see proceedings of the House of 
February 24, 1976.)
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will read 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 to the text of the bill (S. 2017) entitled "An Act to amend 
the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972, and for other 
purposes", insert the following:
That section 101 (21 U.S.C. 1101) of the Drug Abuse Office and 
Treatment Act of 1972 (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the 
"Act") is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
paragraph: . . . 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. STAGGERS
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House, concur in the Senate 
amendment to the House amendment on the Senate bill S. 2017.
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Sec.    29.12 Prior to the 93d Congress, when conferees reported in total 
disagreement their report was filed, ordered printed, called up and 
read, and the amendments in 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     122 CONG. REC. 4102, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     122 CONG. REC. 5497, 5502, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 955]

disagreement were immediately called up for consideration.

On June 30, 1972,(8) proceedings in the House relative to the filing of 
a conference report occurred as indicated below:

Mr. Mills of Arkansas submitted the following conference report on the 
bill (H.R. 15390) to provide for a 4-month extension of the present 
temporary level in the public debt limitation:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 92-1215)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 15390) to provide for 
a four-month extension of the present temporary level in the public 
debt limitation, having met, after full and free conference, have been 
unable to agree.

WILBUR D. MILLS,
AL ULLMAN,
JAMES A. BURKE,
Managers on the Part of the House.
RUSSELL B. LONG,
CLINTON P. ANDERSON,
HERMAN TALMADGE,
WALLACE F. BENNETT,
CARL T. CURTIS,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
Following a call of the House, the proceedings continued as follows:

MR. [WILBUR D.] MILLS of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 15390) to provide for a 4-month 
extension of the present temporary level in the public debt ceiling.

THE SPEAKER:(9) The Clerk will read the conference report.
The Clerk read the conference report. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the first amendment in disagreement.

Mr. John W. Byrnes, of Wisconsin, then raised a parliamentary inquiry:

Mr. Speaker, I make this parliamentary inquiry so that the Members of 
the House can be apprised of the parliamentary situation which we are 
in.
Under normal circumstances, Mr. Speaker, a conference report is filed, 
it either lays over under the rule(10) for 3 days--
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will ask the gentleman from Wisconsin to please 
state his parliamentary inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     118 CONG. REC. 23716, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 9.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
10.     Rule XXVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 912 (1971) as 
amended pursuant to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, Pub. L. 
No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140, Sec. 125(b)(2), Oct. 26, 1970, required that 
conference reports lay over for three days prior to consideration. 
Clause 2(b) was not added to this rule until the adoption of H. Res. 
1153, Sec. 2(b)(2), 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 13, 1972, and did not take 
effect until the 93d Congress.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 956]]


MR. BYRNES of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, my first parliamentary inquiry 
involves a question, and the question is: Why does this conference 
report differ, and why does this not follow the normal rules of the 
House with regard to laying over with respect to the required 
legislative days?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Wisconsin that 
the conference report was reported back in complete disagreement from 
the conference committee. . . . 
Where conferees report in disagreement all of the amendments of the 
Senate no action is taken on the report. It is filed, ordered printed 
and called up and read before further action is taken on the amendments 
in disagreement.
Where the conferees report they have been unable to agree on all 
amendments submitted to them the report is not acted on and the Speaker 
directs the Clerk to report the amendments in disagreement.
That is what the Chair is getting ready to do.(11)

Senate Action on Conference Report in Disagreement

Sec.    29.13 In the Senate, a conference report in total disagreement is 
agreed to before disposition of the amendment reported in disagreement.

Based on precedents of the Senate dating back at least to 1913,(12) a 
conference report in total disagreement, called up in that body, is 
acted upon before motions to dispose of the amendment in disagreement 
are entertained. The proceedings with respect to the concurrent 
resolution on the budget in the 96th Congress, as excerpted from the 
Record of May 23, 1979,(13) demonstrate the Senate practice. 
FIRST CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1980-CONFERENCE 
REPORT
MR. [EDMUND S.] MUSKIE [of Maine]: Mr. President, I submit a report of 
the committee of conference on House Concurrent Resolution 107 and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(14) The report will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the Senate to the resolution (H. Con. Res. 107) 
setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for 
fiscal year 1980 and revising the congressional budget for the U.S. 
Government for fiscal year 1979, having 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     See 118 CONG. REC. 23717, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., June 30, 1972.
12.     See Senate Procedure, Riddick-Frumin, p. 489, Sen. Doc. 101-28, 
101st Cong. 
13.     125 CONG. REC. 12398, 12399, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
14.     David H. Pryor (Ark.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 957]]

met, after full and free conference, have been unable to agree. Signed 
by a majority of the conferees.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report. . . . 
MR. MUSKIE: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the use of 
small electronic calculators be permitted on the Senate floor during 
consideration of and votes on the conference report on House Concurrent 
Resolution 107.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, it is so ordered.
MR. MUSKIE: Mr. President, I move that the conference report in 
disagreement be agreed to.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, the conference report in 
disagreement is agreed to.
MR. MUSKIE: Mr. President, I think I have to make one further request 
before I go any further.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recede from its amendment to 
the resolution (H. Con. Res. 107), and that it only be in order to move 
to agree to the resolution with a new amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, which shall not be amended.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there objection? . . . 
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Disagreement to Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute

Sec.    29.14 Under current practice, where conferees report that they 
are unable to agree on an amendment in the nature of a substitute sent 
to conference, their report is filed, and called up after three days 
but not acted upon, and the Speaker then directs the Clerk to report 
the amendment in disagreement.

On July 31, 1973,(15) Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, submitted the 
conference report in disagreement on S. 1888, to extend and amend the 
Agricultural Act of 1970.
On Aug. 3, 1973,(16) the following occurred in the House:

MR. POAGE: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill (S. 
1888) to extend and amend the Agricultural Act of 1970 for the purpose 
of assuring consumers of plentiful supplies of food and fiber at 
reasonable prices.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER:(17) The Clerk will read the conference report.
The Clerk read the conference report.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
July 31, 1973.)
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will read the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     119 CONG. REC. 27001-13, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
16.     Id. at p. 28121.
17.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 958]]

The Clerk proceeded to read the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment.
(For Senate amendment to House amendment, see proceedings of the Senate 
of July 31, 1973.)(18) 

Sec.    29.15 A conference committee reported a disagreement in order to 
give the House an opportunity to perfect a Senate amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.

On June 8, 1937,(19) Mr. William P. Connery, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
obtained the consent of the House to recommit the conference report on 
H.R. 6551 (to create a Civilian Conservation Corps) to the committee of 
conference. Mr. Connery had made an agreement with John Snell, of New 
York, the Minority Leader, to recommit this report to set the stage for 
later proceedings in which separate votes could occur in the House on 
three provisions on which the House had originally insisted. On June 
21, 1937,(20) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, recognized Mr. 
Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, to call up the subsequent conference 
report on H.R. 6551, in place of Mr. Connery who had died in the 
interim.

MR. RAMSPECK: . . . First, let me explain the parliamentary situation, 
briefly. After having reported a conference agreement to the House, Mr. 
Connery asked that the bill be recommitted to the conferees in order to 
give the House an opportunity to express its choice on the three 
matters. In pursuance of this desire, the conferees have reported a 
disagreement. I propose to offer a motion that the House recede from 
its disagreement to the Senate amendment. If that motion carries, which 
I trust it will, I then propose to offer three separate amendments to 
the Senate amendment which will substitute for the Senate provisions in 
controversy the House provisions. On each of these amendments a 
separate vote may be had if desired.
After the disposition of the three motions, I shall move to offer as a 
substitute for the entire Senate amendment a proposal which will 
contain, first, all the matters tentatively agreed on by the conferees, 
about which I am sure there is no substantial controversy; and, second, 
the matters which the House has just voted on in the previous separate 
three motions.
By following this procedure we shall be able to dispose of the 
noncontroversial matters, give the House the desired separate votes, 
and offer a proposition to the Senate which it can agree to or send to 
conference and which will set forth in definite fashion the position of 
the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     119 CONG. REC. 26897-911, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
19.     81 CONG. REC. 5462, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
20.     Id. at pp. 6095-97, 6099, 6100.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 959]]

I may say further that the reason for this complicated procedure is the 
fact that the Senate, in considering the House bill, struck out all 
after the enacting clause and substituted the Senate bill. It therefore 
became impossible for the conference, under the parliamentary 
situation, to carry out the promise which Mr. Connery made the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Snell] when the bill was taken from the 
Speaker's table and sent to conference. This is the only parliamentary 
method by which we can carry out that promise, and I am sure the 
Members of the House, in view of what has happened since, will join 
with me in helping to keep a promise for a man who never broke one. 
[Applause] . . . 
MR. [CARL E.] MAPES [of Michigan]: I do not understand clearly the 
parliamentary situation. As I understand the gentleman's motion, it is 
to recede and concur in the Senate amendment? . . . 
MR. RAMSPECK: If the pending motion is adopted, then I shall offer a 
motion to put back in the bill the provisions of the House bill and we 
will then go to conference on that.
MR. MAPES: After the House recedes, the gentleman then proposes to 
offer amendments to the Senate amendment?
MR. RAMSPECK: That is correct.

Parliamentary Situation Where Conference Report Ruled Out on Point of 
Order

Sec.    29.16 Amendments between the Houses once disagreed to do not 
again require consideration in the Committee of the Whole in the event 
the conference report is ruled out of order.

On Aug. 19, 1937,(1) after Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
sustained a point of order against the conference report on H.R. 7646, 
relating to public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, Mr. 
Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, raised a parliamentary inquiry:

When a conference report has been thrown out on a point of order is it 
not the same as if it had been rejected by the House?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New York makes a parliamentary inquiry 
as to whether, when a point of order to a conference report is 
sustained ipso facto, the Senate amendments come before the House for 
further consideration. Is that the parliamentary inquiry?
MR. SNELL: Yes.
THE SPEAKER: In reply to the gentleman the Chair calls the gentleman's 
attention to section 3257, volume 8, Cannon's Precedents:

When a conference report is ruled out of order, the bill and amendments 
are again before the House as when first presented, and motions 
relating to amendments and conference are again in order.

MR. SNELL: When this first came back from the Senate there was an 
im-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     81 CONG. REC. 9376-79, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 960]]

portant matter that should have gone before the committee for 
consideration because it entailed expenditure of large amounts of 
money, and is it a privileged motion to move to consider that in the 
House at the present time?
THE SPEAKER: It is in the opinion of the Chair, because by sending the 
bill and Senate amendments to conference, the provisions of the rules 
requiring consideration in the Committee of the Whole were waived.

Sec.    29.17 Where a conference report on a House bill, amended in the 
Senate by a complete amendment in the nature of a substitute, is ruled 
out of order, the Senate amendment in disagreement remains before the 
House for disposition by any of a variety of motions. If the conference 
manager determines to proceed immediately to address the amendment in 
disagreement, the Speaker directs that it be read and then a motion may 
be offered to dispose of the amendment in disagreement.

On Sept. 27, 1976,(2) the conference report on H.R. 5546, the Health 
Professions Educational Assistance Act of 1976, was called up for 
consideration in the House. A point of order was raised against the 
report by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget,(3) and the 
report was then ruled out of order in violation of section 401(a) of 
the Congressional Budget Act, since it contained new spending authority 
not subject to advance appropriations. 

The manager(4) of the conference then offered a motion to recede from 
disagreement and concur in the Senate substitute with a further 
amendment which rectified the Budget Act violation. 
The various inquiries regarding this procedure are contained in the 
portions of the Congressional Record which are set forth herein:(5) 

MR. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order on the conference 
report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) The gentleman from Washington will state 
his point of order.
MR. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement on H.R. 5546, the 
Health Professions Assistance Act of 1976, contains a provision which 
appears to provide borrowing authority which is not subject to advance 
appropriations. Consequently, it would 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     122 CONG. REC. 32655, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     Brock Adams (Wash.).
 4.     Harley O. Staggers (W. Va.).
 5.     122 CONG. REC. 32655, 32656, 32679, 32703, 32704, 94th Cong. 2d 
Sess., Sept. 27, 1976.
 6.     John J. McFall (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 961]]

be subject to a point of order under section 401(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act.
Section 401(a) provides:

It shall not be in order in either the House of Representatives or the 
Senate to consider any bill or resolution which provides new spending 
authority described in subsection (c)(2)(A) or (B) (or any amendment 
which provides such new spending authority), unless that bill, 
resolution, or amendment also provides that such new spending authority 
is to be effective for any fiscal year only to such extent or in such 
amounts as are provided in appropriation acts.

Section 401(c)(2)(B) of the Budget Act defines spending authority as 
authority "to incur indebtedness-other than indebtedness incurred under 
the second Liberty Bond Act-for the repayment of which the United 
States is liable, the budget authority for which is not provided in 
advance by appropriation acts." This form of spending authority is 
commonly known as borrowing authority.
The conference report accompanying H.R. 5546 contains a provision 
creating a student loan insurance fund under section 734 of the Public 
Health Service Act.
Clearly, the requirement that the Secretary of the Treasury purchase 
these obligations constitutes borrowing authority.
And since the provision contains no requirement that the authority be 
limited to amounts provided in advance in appropriation acts, it 
appears to give rise to a section 401(A) point of order.
The fact that the provision relates to default payments which might 
arise pursuant to a loan guarantee program does not bring the provision 
within the "loan guarantee" exception to section 401 of the Budget Act. 
Although the loan guarantee itself may not be subject to advance 
appropriation, the default payment made pursuant to the provision in 
question does not constitute a loan guarantee and it is fully subject 
to the requirements of section 401.
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. ADAMS: I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia, the chairman of 
the committee.
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I have a motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Staggers) concedes the point of order.
Therefore, the point of order is sustained.
The Clerk will report the Senate amendment in disagreement.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) called up a conference report, and a 
point of order was made against that conference report, which was 
sustained.
Is the conference report still before the House, Mr. Speaker?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The conference report is not, but the Senate 
amendment in disagreement is; and a 


[[Page 962]]

motion will be offered, the Chair will state to the gentleman from 
Maryland, that could cure the point of order. Therefore, if the 
gentleman will bear with us for the sake of orderly procedure, we will 
have this matter properly before the House. . . . 
MR. STAGGERS (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that further reading of the Senate amendment in disagreement be 
dispensed with.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. STAGGERS
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Staggers moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate to the bill H.R. 5546, and agree to the same 
with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment 
insert the following:
SHORT TITLE: REFERENCE TO ACT
SECTION 1. (a) This Act may be cited as the "Health Professions 
Educational Assistance Act of 1976". . . .

MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object to the 
unanimous-consent request made by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Staggers).
My inquiry of the Chair is the same as I made before, and that is that 
in view of the fact that a point of order has been made to any 
consideration of the conference report, is the motion that is being 
made to agree with the Senate amendment to the amendment of the House 
deleting the offending phrase?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: When a conference report is ruled out of order 
as this one was, then the Senate amendment in disagreement is before 
the House. This motion, if passed, would remedy the point of order that 
was made. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [ROBERT H.] MICHEL [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. MICHEL: My parliamentary inquiry is this, Mr. Speaker, could the 
Chair advise us how many disagreeing amendments there are if there is 
no conference report to be adopted?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will advise the gentleman there is 
only one amendment and that is in the nature of a substitute and it is 
a very long amendment, it is about three-quarters of an inch thick and 
the reading of the Senate amendment was dispensed with.
The Chair understands that the offending language which was objected to 
by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Adams) which gave rise to the point of order is not in 
the motion now before the House.
MR. MICHEL: I thank the gentleman.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Staggers) will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from 
Ken-


[[Page 963]]

tucky (Mr. Carter) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).

Debate on Amendments in Disagreement

Sec.    29.18 Debate on each amendment in disagreement is under the hour 
rule.

On Mar. 16, 1942,(7) Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, called up the 
conference report and amendments in disagreement on S. 2208, the second 
war powers bill. Mr. Sumners then inquired:

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:(8) 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.

Control of Debate

Sec.    29.19 As each amendment in disagreement is reported, the Chair 
recognizes the Member handling the conference report to offer a motion 
relating to that amendment; and even though another Member offers a 
preferential motion pertaining to the amendment, the Member 
handling the report does not thereby lose control of his or her 
allotted time for debate.

On Oct. 24, 1967,(9) Mr. Joe L. Evins, of Tennessee, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 9960, independent offices appropriations, 
fiscal 1968. After the House adopted the report, it granted unanimous 
consent for the en bloc consideration of two of the Senate amendments 
in disagreement.

THE SPEAKER:(10) The Clerk will report the Senate amendments in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 58: On page 36, line 23, strike out "$75,000,000" 
and insert "$125,- 000,000".
Senate amendment No. 59: On page 37, line 2, strike out  
"$237,000,000" and insert "$537,- 000,000".

MR. EVINS of Tennessee: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Evins of Tennessee moves that the House insist on its disagreement 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     88 CONG. REC. 2502-04, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 9.     113 CONG. REC. 29837-42, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 964]]

to the amendments of the Senate numbered 58 and 59.

MR. [ROBERT N.] GIAIMO [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Giaimo moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendments of the Senate numbered 58 and 59 and concur therein.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Evins].

During the hour of debate under his control, Mr. Evins recognized three 
Members, including Mr. Giaimo, who spoke in favor of the preferential 
motion, and two Members who spoke in favor of the motion that the House 
insist on  its disagreement to the Senate amendments. After this time 
had expired, the consideration of Senate amendments No. 58 and No. 59 
ended in the following manner:

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the preferential motion offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Giaimo] that the House recede from its 
disagreement to Senate amendments No. 58 and No. 59, and concur 
therein. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 156, nays 241, not voting 
35. . . . 
So the preferential motion was rejected. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Evins] that the House insist upon its disagreement 
to the amendments of the Senate No. 58 and No. 59.
The motion was agreed to.

Parliamentarian's Note: In this instance, Mr. Evins controlled the 
entire hour of debate on the motion offered by Mr. Giaimo. A Member 
handling a conference report controlled the entire hour of debate on 
each amendment reported in disagreement through the 92d Congress. Had 
this occurred after the 92d Congress, Mr. Evins would have controlled 
half an hour of debate and a Member of the minority the other half 
hour. House Resolution 1153, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 13, 1972, which 
became effective on Jan. 3, 1973, added clause 2(b) to Rule XXVIII, 
House Rules and Manual Sec. 912 (1973), to provide that time for debate 
on amendments reported from conference in disagreement be divided 
between the majority and minority parties. See also Sec. 29.27, infra.

Amendments in Disagreement as Unfinished Business

Sec.    29.20 Where the House disposed of a conference report on one day 
and then adjourned, the amendments in disagreement were consid-


[[Page 965]]

ered as unfinished business when the House next met. 
A portion of the proceedings of Aug. 1, 1991,(11) are carried to show 
how the Chair initiated the consideration of amendments in disagreement 
which remained to be disposed of after an adjournment of the House. 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2427, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1992
AMENDMENTS IN DISAGREEMENT
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(12) The unfinished business is consideration 
of the amendments in disagreement on the conference report on H.R. 
2427.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 30, 1991, the 
amendments in disagreement are considered as having been read.
The Clerk will designate the first amendment in disagreement.

Modifying Pending Motion To Recede and Concur With Amendment 

Sec.    29.21 Where a motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment 
is before the House, offered under Rule XXVIII clause 4,(13) following 
the rejection of portions of a conference report after a decision that 
they were not germane, the only way to further modify the pending 
motion is to vote down the previous question.

On Dec. 15, 1975,(14) during the prolonged consideration of the 
conference report on S. 622, the Standby Energy Authorities Act, 
several inquiries were directed to the Speaker(15) after the majority 
manager of the conference report offered his motion that the House 
recede from disagreement and concur in the Senate amendment (to the 
House amendment to the Senate bill) with a further amendment. The 
pertinent debate from the Congressional Record is included here.

MR. [CLARENCE J.] BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, is the motion offered by the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) at this point amendable?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     137 CONG. REC. 20954, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).
13.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 913b (1997).
14.     121 CONG. REC. 40713, 40714, 40716, 40738, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
15.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 966]]

THE SPEAKER: No.
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Is it divisible?
THE SPEAKER: The only way it could be amended is if it is read. After 
debate, the previous question is in order. If the previous question is 
voted down, then it is amendable. . . . 
The Chair would like for the sake of the entire House, if the gentleman 
will bear with the Chair, to hear a parliamentary inquiry.
The gentleman from California is correct. The regular order is the 
reading of the motion.
MR. [JOHN E.] MOSS [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I am inclined not to 
be charitable. I insist upon the rules being applied, in this instance 
the reading of the motion pending.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will read.
The Clerk proceeded to read the motion.
MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts] (during the reading): Mr. 
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion [to recede and concur 
with an amendment] and amendment be considered as read and printed in 
the Record.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts? . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a parliamentary inquiry?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields to himself for a parliamentary inquiry.
The gentleman is recognized for 30 minutes.
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, in order to get to a modification of 
what we have before us that might receive a majority vote on the floor 
of the House, is it required that we would divide the question and that 
the House vote to recede and then modify the amendment of the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers)?
THE SPEAKER: The way the gentleman can get at what he apparently is 
trying to get at is to vote down the previous question on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from West Virginia.
MR. BROWN of Ohio: So that when the previous question on the motion of 
the gentleman from West Virginia is put, there should be a vote 
requested on that previous question so that we can vote down the 
previous question and then modify the amendment of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is not saying it should be done. The Chair is 
saying that that is the way to get done what the gentleman wants done. 
. . . 
The question is on ordering the previous question.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is voted down, 
then there is no vote on the issue raised by the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Staggers), and the time goes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Waggonner) for a motion, as I understand. Now, the vote 
to accomplish that would be a "no" vote, is that correct?
THE SPEAKER: A vote against the previous question will permit an 
amendment to be offered to the pending motion.


[[Page 967]]

MR. BROWN of Ohio: I thank the Speaker.

Division of Debate Time on Motion To Dispose of Amendment Between 
Houses

Sec.    29.22 In the modern practice, debate on a privileged motion to 
dispose of a Senate amendment in disagreement, during the subsequent 
stages of action following the rejection of a conference report, is 
equally divided between the majority and minority parties.

While the provisions of Rule XXVIII clause 2(b) specifically address 
the division of debate time on an amendment "reported in disagreement" 
from a conference committee, the practice has developed of dividing the 
time between the parties on any motion to dispose of an amendment, once 
the stage of disagreement has been reached.
On Dec. 19, 1985,(16) the Chair's announcement of the division of time 
in the proceedings carried here shows the practice that has been 
followed in recent years.(17) 
FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A further message from the Senate by Mr. Sparrow, one of its clerks, 
announced that the Senate agrees to the amendment of the House to the 
amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3128) entitled "An act to 
make changes in spending and revenue provisions for purposes of deficit 
reduction and program improvement, consistent with the budget 
process," with an amendment.
The message also announced that the Senate had passed a joint 
resolution of the following title, in which concurrence of the House is 
requested:

S.J. Res. 255. Joint Resolution Relative to the convening of the 2d 
session of the 99th Congress.
CONSOLIDATED OMNIBUS RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1985
MR. [WILLIAM (BILL) H.] GRAY of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3128) to make changes in 
spending and revenue provisions for purposes of deficit reduction and 
program improvement, consistent with the budget process, with the 
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment, and 
concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     131 CONG. REC. 38359, 38360, 38367, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     This practice supersedes that followed in the period immediately 
following the adoption of Rule XXVIII clause 2(b) in 1972. See House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 912(b) (1997) for a synopsis of the evolution of 
dividing debate time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 968]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(18) The Clerk will report the title of the 
bill and the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the 
Senate amendment as follows:
(See Senate proceedings in today's Record, page S18201, part II.)
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. DAUB
MR. [HAL] DAUB [of Nebraska]: Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion.
My motion is in writing, and it is on its way to the desk.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Daub moves to table the motion.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to lay on the 
table offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Daub).
The motion to table was rejected.
MR. GRAY of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I move to limit debate to 15 
minutes per side.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman requests that debate be limited. 
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
MR. DAUB: Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Objection is heard.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gray] will be recognized for 30 
minutes and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Latta] will be recognized for 
30 minutes [on the pending motion to concur].
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gray]. . . . 
MR. GRAY: . . . Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gray] to concur in the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
MR. GRAY of Pennsylvania: 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 137, nays 
211, not voting 86, as follows: . . . 
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Debate Time on Amendments Offered Once Stage of Disagreement Reached

Sec.    29.23 While the modern practice in the House is to divide time on 
motions to dispose of amendments once the stage of disagreement has 
been reached, as recently as the 96th Congress, the practice was to 
recognize the Member 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 969]]


making a motion for a full hour where the pending amendment had not 
been reported in disagreement.
The House had earlier adopted the conference report on S. 918, a bill 
addressing Small Business Act amendments but the Senate had rejected 
the report and thereafter had concurred in the House amendment to the 
Senate bill with a further amendment. When this new amendment reached 
the House on Feb. 6, 1980,(19) the following request was entertained 
and the debate proceeded as indicated.
SMALL BUSINESS ACT
MR. [NEAL] SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I move to take from the 
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 918) to amend the Small Business 
Act and Small Business Investment Act of 1958 and for other purposes, 
with a Senate amendment to the House amendment and concur in the Senate 
amendment to the House amendment with an amendment.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment and the 
House amendment to the Senate amendment to the House amendment, as 
follows:

Senate Amendment to House Amendment: In lieu of the matter proposed to 
be inserted by the House engrossed amendment, insert:
TITLE I-AUTHORIZATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS  AMENDMENTS . . . 
MR. SMITH of Iowa (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that further reading of the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment and the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment be dispensed with and that they be printed in the Record.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(20) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under the rule, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Smith) is recognized for 1 hour.

Recognition To Control One-third Time Against Conference Report

Sec.    29.24 The minority has no priority of recognition in opposition 
to a conference report to control one-third of the debate time where 
both managers are not opposed; and the Chair will recognize the senior 
member of the reporting committee to control the 20 minutes in 
opposition, regardless of party affiliation. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     126 CONG. REC. 2133, 2140, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 970]]

The rule providing for a three-way division of time on a conference 
report, where the managers are in favor of the report and another 
Member rises in opposition, was adopted in 1985.(1) 
The proceedings carried here(2) show the factors the Chair considers in 
deciding whom to recognize for the time in opposition.

MR. [PETER W.] RODINO [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1200) to amend the Immigration 
and Nationality Act to effectively control unauthorized immigration to 
the United States and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(3) Pursuant to House Resolution 592, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Tuesday, October 14, 1986.)
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rodino] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lungren] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
MR. [DON] EDWARDS of California: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards] 
opposed to the conference report?
MR. EDWARDS of California: I am opposed to the conference report, Mr. 
Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rodino] 
opposed to the conference report?
MR. RODINO: No, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under the rules, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Edwards], the senior member of the originally reporting committee, 
is entitled to 20 minutes.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [F. JAMES] SENSENBRENNER [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I rise 
to a point of order. I believe that the member of the minority would 
have preference to control the 20 minutes in opposition to the 
conference report under the precedents of the House and rule XXVIII, 
clause 2(b).
I am opposed to the conference report, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would state to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin under a ruling this year recognition goes to 
the opposition on the issue but not necessarily the minority party in 
the House; and under the rules the Chair is constrained to recognize 
the senior member of the Judiciary Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     See Rule XXVIII clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a 
(1997), adopted as part of the package of rules put in place by H. Res. 
7 (131 CONG. REC. 393, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1985).
 2.     See 132 CONG. REC. 31630, 31631, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 15, 
1986.
 3.     Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 971]]

MR. [DAN] LUNGREN [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I could not hear the 
Chair's ruling. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that a member of the 
Subcommittee on Immigration would have the right to this time.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair was stating that under a situation 
like this, it is regrettable where two Members are seeking equal time, 
the Chair must rule that under the precedents of the House that in this 
case 20 minutes should be given to the senior Member in opposition to 
the conference report. That senior Member is the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Edwards].
Therefore, the time will be divided, 20 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Rodino], 20 minutes to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lungren], and 20 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Edwards].
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rodino].

Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair had occasion to make another decision 
regarding recognition later on the same day. The chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi, offered 
a motion on a Senate amendment in disagreement on the continuing 
appropriation bill, for fiscal year 1987. Both he and the minority 
floor manager, Ralph Regula, of Ohio, were in favor of the motion. A 
majority Member, Mike Lowry, of Washington, offered a preferential 
motion and claimed one-third of the time for debate on the underlying 
Whitten motion.(4) 

Demand for One-third of Debate Time Must Be Timely

Sec. 29.25 A challenge under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b),(5) that both 
managers are in favor of the pending motion to dispose of the amendment 
in disagreement is timely when the motion is offered but comes too late 
after debate has begun. 

As the proceedings of Nov. 6, 1991,(6) show, a Member must be timely if 
he desires to have a three-way division of time on a motion to dispose 
of an amendment in disagreement. 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. NATCHER
MR. [WILLIAM H.] NATCHER [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Natcher moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 29 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     See proceedings at 132 CONG. REC. 32116, 32117, 99th Cong. 2d 
Sess., Oct. 15, 1986 (H.J. Res. 738).
 5.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912b (1997).
 6.     137 CONG. REC. 30564, 30565, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 972]]

sum proposed by said amendment, insert "$125,000,000, of which 
$25,000,000 shall be for the Healthy Start program".

MR. [CARL D.] PURSELL [of Michigan] (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, 
I ask unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(7) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the motion is agreed to.
MR. [DAN] BURTON of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Objection is heard. . . . 
Does the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher] seek time on the motion?
MR. NATCHER: Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time at this time.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Michigan seek time?
MR. PURSELL: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Pursell] is 
recognized for 30 minutes. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. BURTON of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. BURTON of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, on these 
motions on amendments in disagreement, those who are opposed get some 
portion of the time. I was not allocated any time, nor was the question 
put by the Chair on whether or not the gentleman from Tennessee or the 
gentleman from Michigan was opposed. If they are opposed, they get the 
time, and I will ask them for time, but if they are not opposed, 
according to the rules, I believe I get part of the time.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would state that ordinarily the 
gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from Michigan would be 
recognized on each amendment. However, at the time the motion is 
offered, if another Member challenges the minority Member and the 
minority Member is not opposed, then that Member making the challenge 
would be entitled to one-third of the time.
MR. BURTON of Indiana: As a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, 
usually the Chair puts the question to those involved, the chairman and 
the ranking member: "Are you opposed to the motion?" And if they are 
not opposed, then those who are opposed are granted part of the time.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair normally does not put that question 
to the two managers unless there is a challenge.
MR. BURTON of Indiana: With all due respect to my colleague from 
Tennessee and my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Speaker, I make that 
request.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: On this amendment, the gentleman's request is 
not timely. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Pursell] controls the 
time. The gentleman from Indiana would have to ask for time from the 
gentleman from Michigan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     Don J. Pease (Ohio).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 973]]

Sec.    29.26 A Member who has offered a pending preferential motion to 
dispose of a Senate amendment in disagreement does not thereby gain 
control of time and may not, in time yielded him for debate, move the 
previous question and deprive the managers of the hour divided between 
them. 

Where a conference report(8) had been adopted and a motion offered by 
the majority manager of the conference to dispose of an amendment in 
disagreement by receding and concurring with a further amendment, a 
preferential motion to recede and concur was offered by Mr. Robert E. 
Bauman, of Maryland. Mr. Bauman was then yielded a brief time to debate 
his preferential motion by the minority manager, Mr. Robert H. Michel, 
of Illinois. The proceedings were as indicated below:(9) 

MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Flood) has offered or will offer a motion, and I have a preferential 
motion at the desk.
THE SPEAKER:(10) The Clerk will first report the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FLOOD
MR. [DANIEL J.] FLOOD [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Flood moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 72 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter inserted by said 
amendment, insert the following:
SEC. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
require, directly or indirectly, the transportation of any student to a 
school other than the school which is nearest or next nearest the 
student's home, and which offers the courses of study pursued by such 
student, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964."
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BAUMAN
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bauman moves that the House recede from its disagreement to Senate 
amendment No. 72 and concur therein.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Flood).
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, who has the right to the time 
under the motion?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) has 30 
min-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     H.R. 8069 (Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare 
appropriations for fiscal year 1976).
 9.     121 CONG. REC. 38714, 38716, 38717, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 4, 
1975.
10.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 974]]

utes, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) has 30 minutes. 
The time is controlled by the committee leadership on each side, and 
they are not taken from the floor by a preferential motion. . . . 

MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume 
before I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman). . . . 
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania has the floor and the 
Chair is trying to let the gentleman be heard.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have not yielded. My time has not expired.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman has time for debate only.
MR. BAUMAN: No; Mr. Speaker, it was not yielded for debate only.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Maryland has 15 seconds.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman was yielded to for debate only. The 
gentleman from Illinois had no authority under clause 2, rule XXVIII to 
yield for any other purpose but debate.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I was yielded to. There was no limitation on 
for what purpose.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman was yielded 5 minutes. He can use it for 
debate only. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division of the question.
MR. MICHEL: A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The question will be divided.
MR. MICHEL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois was given to 
understand that the time was to be divided equally. There was no 
indication on the part of the gentleman from Illinois that he had 
concluded giving what time he wanted to allocate to Members for general 
debate.
The gentleman from Illinois still has a request pending.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman has 30 minutes for debate only. He can yield 
more time.
MR. MICHEL: I am still entitled, if I understand it, to the balance of 
the time to which I have been originally allocated. The gentleman from 
Illinois has 17 minutes remaining.

Debate on Amendments in Disagreement

Sec.    29.27 When amendments in disagreement are considered in the House 
after disposition of the conference report, each amendment is debatable 
for one hour, equally divided between the majority and minority 
parties, and this division of time is not 


[[Page 975]]

disturbed by the offering of a preferential motion.

The rule dividing time on an amendment in disagreement(11) was first 
adopted in the 92d Congress.(12) It was later amended, in the 99th 
Congress,(13) to provide for a three-way division of time if the 
majority and minority floor leaders on the conference report both 
support the offered motion.
In the 94th Congress, a controversial Senate amendment was reported in 
disagreement from the conference dealing with the bill H.R. 8069, the 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and related agencies 
appropriation bill for fiscal year 1976. The original motion to dispose 
of the Senate amendment, offered by the majority floor manager of the 
report, was to recede from disagreement and concur with a further 
amendment. Immediately after the motion of Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of 
Pennsylvania, was read, Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland, offered a 
preferential motion to recede and concur. The Chair(14) explained that 
the offering of this preferential motion did not deprive Mr. Flood of 
the floor. When the minority floor leader yielded part of his debate 
time to Mr. Bauman, the latter spoke briefly and then attempted to move 
the previous question, but the Chair declined to entertain the motion 
since it would cut off the time allocated to the managers under Rule 
XXVIII clause 2(b). After debate, the question on receding and 
concurring was divided, the House receded from disagreement, rejected a 
motion to concur with an amendment, and eventually concurred in the 
Senate amendment.(15) 

MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Flood) has offered or will offer a motion, and I have a preferential 
motion at the desk.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will first report the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FLOOD
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912b 
(1997).
12.     See H. Res. 1153 (118 CONG. REC. 36013-23, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., 
Oct. 13, 1972).
13. See H. Res. 7 (131 CONG. REC. 393-413, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 
3, 1985).       
14.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
15.     121 CONG. REC. 38714, 38716-19, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 4, 
1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 976]]

Mr. Flood moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 72 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter inserted by said 
amendment, insert the following:
"SEC. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
require, directly or indirectly, the transportation of any student to a 
school other than the school which is nearest or next nearest the 
student's home, and which offers the courses of study pursued by such 
student, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964."

PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BAUMAN
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bauman moves that the House recede from its disagreement to Senate 
amendment No. 72 and concur therein.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Flood).
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, who has the right to the time 
under the motion?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) has 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) has 30 minutes. 
The time is controlled by the committee leadership on each side, and 
they are not taken from the floor by a preferential motion. . . . 
MR. [ROBERT H.] MICHEL [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman). . . . 
MR. BAUMAN: The gentleman from Maryland has made his case and if the 
gentleman would like to concur in the stand taken by the majority party 
in favor of busing he can do that. I do not concur.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I demand the question be divided.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania has the floor and the 
Chair is trying to let the gentleman be heard.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have not yielded. My time has not expired.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman has time for debate only.
MR. BAUMAN: No; Mr. Speaker, it was not yielded for debate only.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Maryland has 15 seconds.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman was yielded to for debate only. The 
gentleman from Illinois had no authority under clause 2, rule XXVIII to 
yield for any other purpose but debate.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I was yielded to. There was no limitation on 
for what purpose.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman was yielded 5 minutes. He can use it for 
debate only. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division of the question. . . . 


[[Page 977]]

MR. MICHEL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois was given to 
understand that the time was to be divided equally. There was no 
indication on the part of the gentleman from Illinois that he had 
concluded giving what time he wanted to allocate to Members for general 
debate.
The gentleman from Illinois still has a request pending.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman has 30 minutes for debate only. He can yield 
more time.
MR. MICHEL: I am still entitled, if I understand it, to the balance of 
the time to which I have been originally allocated. The gentleman from 
Illinois has 17 minutes remaining.
THE SPEAKER: That is correct, but the question has been divided.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, when must a request for division be made?
THE SPEAKER: Any time the motion is pending and before the question is 
put the question may be divided, and it is already divided.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, if the question has been divided, then I have a 
preferential motion.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Illinois has 15 minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman's motion may come later.
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may require, and 
yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte). . . . 
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
THE SPEAKER: The question is, Will the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 72?
The House receded from its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 72.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FLOOD
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read the preferential motion as follows:

Mr. Flood moves that the House concur in the amendment of the Senate 
numbered 72 with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter 
inserted by said amendment, insert the following:
"SEC. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
require, directly or indirectly, the transportation of any student to a 
school other than the school which is nearest or next nearest the 
student's home, and which offers the courses of study pursued by such 
student, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964."

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the preferential motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


[[Page 978]]

MR. BAUMAN: 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 133, nays 
259, answered "present" 15, not voting 27. . . . 
So the preferential motion to the Senate amendment numbered 72 was 
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER: The question is, Will the House concur in the Senate 
amendment?
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. [JOHN F.] SEIBERLING [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded 
vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 260, noes 
146, answered "present" 1, not voting 27. . . . 
So the Senate amendment was concurred in.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.

Effect of Prior Action by Senate

Sec.    29.28 Where conferees re-port in disagreement, and the Senate 
then recedes and concurs in the House amendments with an amendment, 
the conference report is not acted on in the House and the Speaker 
directs the Clerk to report the Senate amendment to the House 
amendments for disposition by motion.

On Sept. 19, 1967,(16) the Senate, acting first on the conference 
report in complete disagreement on S. 953 (amending the Food Stamp Act 
of 1964), concurred in the House amendment in the nature of a 
substitute thereto, with an amendment. Later that day,(17) Mr. William 
R. Poage, of Texas, called up this conference report in the House. 
After the Clerk read the report the following occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(18) The Chair lays before the House the Senate amendments 
to the House amendment to S. 953, which the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House engrossed 
amendment insert: . . . 

After the Clerk read the Senate substitute for the House amendment in 
the nature of a substitute for the Senate bill, Mr. Poage was again 
recognized.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     113 CONG. REC. 25968, 25969, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Id. at p. 26040.
18.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 979]]

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Poage moves that the House concur in the Senate amendments to the 
House amendment to S. 953.

The House adopted the motion offered by Mr. Poage.

Motion To Recommit

Sec.    29.29 A motion to recommit an amendment reported in disagreement 
by the conferees is not in order.

On Oct. 17, 1967,(19) the House was considering the amendments in 
disagreement reported from the conference on H.R. 11476, Department of 
Transportation appropriations, fiscal 1968. The following occurred:

MR. [EDWARD P.] BOLAND [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Boland moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 13 and concur therein.

THE SPEAKER:(20) The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 1 
hour. . . . 
MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry, if the gentleman will yield.
MR. BOLAND: I yield to the gentleman.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it. . . . 
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, is it in order to move to recommit this 
particular amendment to conference?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Illinois that 
at this point it would not be in order to do so.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Massachusetts will yield 
further for a parliamentary inquiry, is it in order, in the event the 
motion to recede and concur is voted down?
THE SPEAKER: After the House has taken some specific action with 
relation to the amendment of the other body, the Chair assumes that a 
further conference could be requested.

Inclusion in Second Conference Report of Concurrence in Nongermane 
Senate Amendment

Sec.    29.30 Where a House bill, with a Senate amendment to a House 
amendment to a nongermane Senate amendment reported in disagreement 
from an initial conference, is sent to a further conference, the House 
having separately concurred with an amendment in the nongermane Senate 
amendment following its approval of the first conference report, the 
subject of that nongermane 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     113 CONG. REC. 29044, 29048, 29049, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
20.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 980]]

Senate amendment becomes germane to the House bill, and may be included 
in the subsequent conference report.

On Oct. 17, 1972,(1) the House adopted House Report No. 92-1606, the 
conference report on H.R. 16810, to provide a temporary increase in the 
public debt limitation. Senate amendment No. 10 contained an 
unemployment benefits program, was therefore not germane to the House 
bill, and was for this reason reported by the conferees in 
disagreement. The House receded from its disa-greement to this 
amendment and concurred therein with an amendment:


THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 10:  . . . 

MR. [WILBUR D.] MILLS of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Mills of Arkansas moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
to Senate amendment numbered 10 and agree to the same with the 
following amendment: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by 
the Senate amendment, insert the following: . . .  

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

Later that day,(2) the Senate rejected this conference report, 
concurred in the House amendment to the Senate amendment with a further 
nongermane amendment, and requested a further conference with the House 
in a message received by the House on Oct. 18, 1972.(3) 

The message also announced that the Senate disagrees to the report of 
the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 16810) entitled "An 
act to provide for a temporary increase in the public debt limit and to 
place a limitation on expenditures and net lending for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1973."
And that the Senate agrees to the amendment of the House of 
Representatives to the amendment of the Senate numbered 10, to the 
above-entitled bill, with an amendment.
And that the Senate further insist upon its amendments to the above-
entitled bill and request a further conference with the House of 
Representatives on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon and 
appoints Mr. Long, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Talmadge, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. 
Jordan of Idaho be the conferees on the part of the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
1.      118 CONG. REC. 36951-53, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     Id. at pp. 36854-58.
 3.     Id. at p. 37050.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 981]]

Following receipt of the message, the House disagreed to the Senate 
amendments and agreed to the conference in the following exchange:(4) 

MR. MILLS of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 16810) to provide for a 
temporary increase in the public debt limit and to place a limitation 
on expenditures and net lending for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1973, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arkansas?
MR. [JAMES J.] PICKLE [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, I would ask the gentleman from Arkansas if this is the measure 
which also pertains to the extension of the unemployment benefits 
program.
MR. MILLS of Arkansas: If the gentleman will yield, it does. Yes.
MR. PICKLE: With great hesitation and reluctance, Mr. Speaker, I make 
the point of order that that portion of the bill is not germane.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will advise that this is a matter of disagreeing 
to the Senate amendments and that issue is not before the House at this 
time, so a point of order is not available at this time.
MR. PICKLE: Then the same point of order may be reserved when it comes 
back from conference?
THE SPEAKER: Perhaps.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas? The 
Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees . . . . 

The next day(5) Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, submitted and called 
up(6) the further conference report on H.R. 16810, House Report No. 92-
1614, which recommended that the Senate recede from its amendment to 
the House amendment to Senate amendment No. 10. During the debate on 
this conference report, Mr. James J. Pickle, of Texas, raised a 
parliamentary inquiry:

MR. PICKLE: Would the gentleman from Texas be permitted to make the 
point of order that the title in this conference report pertaining to 
the unemployment benefits program is not germane under this conference 
report?
THE SPEAKER:(7) That point of order would come up too late now.
MR. MILLS of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, just for the purpose of 
clarification, may I make a parliamentary inquiry?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. MILLS of Arkansas: Since the House did approve the nongermane 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     Id. 
 5.     Id. at pp. 37065-73.
 6.     Parliamentarian's Note: Immediate consideration of this 
conference report was in order since this was the day on which the 92d 
Congress adjourned sine die. Id. at p. 37200.
 7.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 982]]

proposal with an amendment, that then becomes, when the conference 
committee submits a second conference report, germane to the bill, and 
can be included in the conference report, can it not?

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct.

Matters Beyond Scope of Disagreement

Sec.    29.31 In amending a Senate amendment reported from conference 
still in disagreement the House is not confined to the differences 
between the House bill and the Senate amendment; but the amendment to 
the Senate amendment must be germane.

On May 29, 1936,(8) the House adopted the conference report on H.R. 
11418, agriculture appropriations, fiscal 1937. After the Clerk read 
Senate amendment No. 85, reported in disagreement, Mr. William M. 
Colmer, of Mississippi, offered a motion to recede and concur therein 
with an amendment. Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, rose with a point 
of order:

Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the proposed amendment to 
the Senate amendment embraces provisions that are not in conference; 
that the gentleman can propose only such things as are embraced within 
the jurisdiction of the conference; and the amendment exceeds that 
matter by releasing restrictions that have already been agreed to by 
the conferees.
THE SPEAKER:(9) As the Chair reads the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi, it contains exactly the same language as 
the first portion of the Senate amendment except the amount is $40,000 
instead of $80,000.
MR. BLANTON: But, Mr. Speaker, it releases restrictions that have been 
agreed upon.
THE SPEAKER: In the opinion of the Chair the amendment is germane.
MR. BLANTON: Mr. Speaker, only those matters that were embraced within 
the jurisdiction of the conferees may be offered as amendments.
THE SPEAKER: This Senate amendment was reported back to the House still 
in disagreement, as a matter of fact, and is now before the House for 
such action as the House may see fit to take. The gentleman from 
Mississippi has offered a motion to recede and concur in the Senate 
amendment with an amendment. The Chair has held that the amendment is 
germane and therefore overrules the point of order.

The Senate amendment reported in disagreement from conference 
appropriated $80,000 with a proviso relating to authorizing 
appropriation of user fees collected 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     80 CONG. REC. 8341-44, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 983]]

under a related law. Mr. Colmer's amendment varied from the Senate 
amendment only in changing the amount appropriated to $40,000 and 
eliminating the proviso.

Sec.    29.32 While conferees are restricted by the differences in the 
bill and amendment before them, the House, when acting on a Senate 
amendment in disagreement, is not subject to the same limitation and 
may recede and concur in the Senate amendment with a further germane 
amendment which goes beyond the provisions of either the House or 
Senate versions.

On Dec. 11, 1967,(10) Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New York, the Chairman of 
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 7977, the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary 
Act of 1967. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, rose with a point of order:

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the conference report on 
the grounds that the House managers exceeded their authority and did 
not confine themselves to the differences committed to them, in 
violation of the rules and precedents of the House of Representatives.
The House bill, in section 107(a) provided a minimum charge of 3.8 
cents for bulk third-class mail effective January 7, 1968. Section 107
(a) of the Senate amendment provided a two-step minimum charge-the 
first of 3.6 cents effective January 7, 1968, and a second 4-cent rate 
effective January 1, 1969.
The differences committed to the conferees with respect to this postage 
rate and the effective dates for this rate were: A rate range between 
3.6 cents and 4 cents; a January 7, 1968, effective date for a one-rate 
charge with no further rate provided; and January 7, 1968, and January 
1, 1969, effective dates for any two-rate charges.
The conference report contains a two-rate charge-the first, 3.6 cents, 
effective January 7, 1968; the second, 4 cents, effective July 1, 1969.
The July 1, 1969, effective date for a second rate goes beyond the 
disagreements confided to the conferees. By agreeing to any effective 
date for a second rate beyond January 1, 1969, the House managers have 
clearly exceeded their authority.
Mr. Speaker, the precedents of the House, Cannon's Precedents, volume 
VIII, section 3264, have established that where two Houses fix 
different periods of time the conferees have latitude only between the 
two, but may not go beyond the longer nor within the shorter.

Mr. Dulski conceded the point of order, whereupon Speaker John 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     113 CONG. REC. 35811-33, 35841, 35842, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 984]]

W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, sustained the point of order. The Clerk 
then began to read the Senate amendment (in the nature of a substitute) 
in disagreement.

MR. DULSKI (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that further reading of the Senate amendment be dispensed with and that 
it be printed in full in the Record at this point.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
There was no objection.
MR. DULSKI: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion. 
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Dulski moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 7977) 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. Dulski's substitute for the Senate amendment consisted of the 
conference report which had just been ruled out on Mr. Gross' point of 
order.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(11) The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Dulski] that the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and concur therein with an 
amendment. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 327, nays 63, not voting 
43. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to.

Consideration of Senate Legislative Amendments to General Appropriation 
Bills

Sec.    29.33 When an amendment that might have been subject to a point 
of order in the House as in violation of Rule XXI clause 2,(12) if 
offered in the House, was adopted by the Senate, and the conferees 
reported such an amendment in disagreement, the House may consider the 
amendment.

On Oct. 6, 1949,(13) the House approved the conference report on H.R. 
3838, Department of Interior appropriations, fiscal 1950. After the 
Clerk read Senate amendment No. 132, reported from conference still in 
disagreement, Mr. Wesley A. D'Ewart, of Montana, interposed a point of 
order on the ground that the amendment contained legislation and was 
therefore in violation of Rule XXI clause 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     Omar T. Burleson (Tex.).
12.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1997).
13.     95 CONG. REC. 14028, 14038, 14039, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
----------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 985]]

2. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, gave the following ruling:

The Chair has listened to the gentleman from Montana very carefully. 
The Chair will state that if an amendment of this sort had been 
proposed in the House of Representatives when this bill was under 
consideration in all probability it would have been subject to a point 
of order. The Chair does not feel that in this case it is a violation 
of clause 2 of rule 21, for the simple reason that it has been held as 
early as 1921 by Mr. Speaker Gillette that when an amendment that might 
have been subject to a point of order in the House if offered here was 
adopted by the Senate, and the conferees reported such an amendment in 
disagreement the House may consider the amendment.
Therefore, the Chair must overrule the point of order of the gentleman 
from Montana.

Consideration of Senate Amendments in Disagreement

Sec.    29.34 Rule XX clause 1(14) requires consideration of certain 
Senate amendments in the Committee of the Whole; but this requirement 
applies only before the state of disagreement is reached and it is too 
late to raise a point of order after the matter has been to conference 
and an amendment in dis-agreement is before the House.

During consideration of an amendment in disagreement to the conference 
report on the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and related 
agencies appropriation bill for fiscal year 1976,(15) an amendment in 
disagreement restricting appropriations in the bill to bus students to 
a school other than that nearest his or her home was reported. Mr. 
Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, raised a point of order of two 
parts: first, that the Senate amendment was legislative; second, that 
it required consideration in the Committee of the Whole.

The response of Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, put both arguments in 
perspective.

THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 72: Page 47, line 4, insert:
"SEC. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
require, directly or indirectly, the transportation of any student to a 
school other than the school which is nearest the student's home, and 
which offers the courses of study pursued by such student, in order to 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1997).
15.     121 CONG. REC. 38714, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 4, 1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 986]]

comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
POINT OF ORDER
MR. CONTE: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order on the amendment. This 
is legislation on an appropriation bill, and I would like to be heard 
on the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Massachusetts may be heard on his point 
of order.
MR. CONTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a point of order against 
Senate amendment No. 72 to the Labor-HEW Appropriations Act of 1976.
At this point, I should like to direct the Chair to rule 21, section 2 
of the House regarding the prohibition of legislation in an 
appropriations bill. The pertinent language states:

Nor shall any provisions in any such bill or amendment thereto changing 
existing law be in order.

Clearly, the purpose of this rule prohibiting legislation in an 
appropriations bill is to prohibit the overt alteration of fundamental 
law. This is the case where an amendment is concealed by the subterfuge 
of a limitation on spending.
While the Senate amendment No. 72 might appear to only act as a 
limitation on spending, it will actually change basic law as I will now 
set out.
Section 215(a), title II of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 
1974 provides the following language, which limits the specific 
distance a student may be transported in a schoolbusing program:

No court, department or agency of the United States shall, pursuant to 
section 214, order the implementation of a plan that would require the 
transportation of any student to a school other than the school closest 
to his place of residence which provides the appropriate grade level 
and type of education for such student. (Emphasis added.)

Notice that the distance a student can be transported is limited to the 
"school closest or next closest to his place of residence." I should 
now address myself to the language of the Senate amendment here in 
question:

None of the funds contained in this act shall be used to require, 
directly or indirectly, the transportation of any student to a school 
other than the school which is nearest the student's home, and which 
offers the courses of study pursued by such student, in order to comply 
with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Emphasis added.)

As is readily apparent, where the Equal Educational Opportunities Act 
of 1974 (Public Law 93-380) limits busing to either the student's 
immediate or adjacent school district, the Senate amendment further 
limits the transportation to the student's immediate district. I am 
sure the Chair can see this apparent attempt to change the effect of 
section 215(a) of Public Law 93-380.
I should like to note that while this is a Senate amendment and may be 
consistent with the rules of that House-it is not controlling. It is 
clear that since this is an appropriations bill and naturally 
originates in the House, it is the House rules which are controlling 
and I cite rule 20 on this point:

Any amendment of the Senate to any House bill shall be subject to the


[[Page 987]]

point of order that it shall first be considered in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union, if, originating in the 
House, it would be subject to that point.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I contend that this amendment carries 
the standard of a simple limitation in an appropriations bill, but in 
reality is a prima facie case of legislation in an appropriations bill, 
which on its face changes existing law.
Therefore, I urge that this point of order be sustained.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule.

The Chair overrules the point of order raised by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) because when that stage is reached that an 
amendment is in disagreement between the two Houses, the rule-clause 1 
of rule XX-cited by the gentleman from Massachusetts no longer applies 
and the amendment may be disposed of in the House. The Senate amendment 
is reported back in disagreement and not as part of the conference 
report, therefore clause 2 of rule XX is not applicable and the Senate 
amendment may be considered by the House.

Sec.    29.35 Where a Senate amendment proposing legislation on a general 
appropriation bill is, pursuant to the edict of Rule XX clause 2,(16) 
reported back from conference in disagreement, a motion to recede and 
concur in the amendment with a further amendment is in order (albeit 
the further amendment is also legislative), and the only test is 
whether the further amendment is germane to the Senate amendment 
reported in disagreement.(17) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
17.     Parliamentarian's Note: House con-sideration of Senate 
legislative amendments to general appropriation bills as illustrated by 
this precedent differs from Committee of the Whole consideration of 
House legislative provisions which had been permitted to remain in a 
general appropriation bill pursuant to a resolution waiving points of 
order against such provisions. In an example of the latter case, the 
Chairman has ruled that these legislative provisions could be perfected 
by germane amendments so long as they did not add further legislation. 
See 119 CONG. REC. 21388, 21389, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 26, 1973. 
These different rulings demonstrate the changing priority of two policy 
considerations at different stages of the legislative process. During 
the early stages great care is taken to separate the authorizing and 
appropriating functions of the House. Later, after both Houses have 
considered a matter and after the conferees have reported a 
disagreement, the requirement of expeditious disposal of the 
legislation supersedes 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 988]]

On Dec. 15, 1970,(18) the House was considering the amendments reported 
in disagreement from the conference on H.R. 17755, Department of 
Transportation appropriations, fiscal 1971. The following occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(19) The Clerk will report the next amendment in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment numbered 14: On page 7 line 11, insert:
"That $28,000,000 of the foregoing amount shall be available only upon 
enactment into law of H.R. 19444, 91st Congress, or similar 
legislation: Provided further,".

MR. [EDWARD P.] BOLAND [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
motion.
MR. [ROBERT C.] ECKHARDT [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order on amendment No. 14.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the receding 
from the position of the House and concurring with the Senate has the 
effect of attaching positive legislation to an appropriation bill in 
violation of rule 21, paragraph 2, and other provisions.
Mr. Speaker, may I be heard briefly on my point of order?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
MR. ECKHARDT: . . . The provision contained in this motion to concur 
would provide that the managers on the part of the House will offer a 
motion to recede and concur in the amendment of the Senate with an 
amendment providing that $28 million of the appropriation for 
operations shall be derived from the airport and airways trust fund for 
combating hijacking.
So in effect this constitutes an amendment on H.R. 17755, an 
appropriation bill which alters existing law, Public Law 91-258. . . . 
MR. BOLAND: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point of order?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is recognized.
MR. BOLAND: Mr. Speaker, the motion is, I believe, germane to the 
Senate amendment. . . . 
There is no question about the amendment being legislation, but I 
submit that the House can legislate further, since this is in the bill, 
and the action of the Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Department 
of Transportation refers to the Senate amendment.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair recognizes that the Senate amendment is legislation on an 
appropriation bill not authorized by law.
However, the conferees did not agree to it in conference, but reported 
it back in disagreement. The Senate amendment is not subject to a point 
of order in the House. The Chair calls attention to volume VII of the 
Cannon's Prece-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
this earlier policy, and the House is accorded greater latitude in 
amending the Senate amendment.
18.     116 CONG. REC. 41504, 41505, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
19.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 989]]

dents, section 1572, the syllabus of which reads as follows:

Senate amendments interdicted by clause 2, rule XXI, are not subject to 
a point of order under the rule providing for a separate vote on such 
amendments when considered in the House, as the rule applies to 
conferees and their reports only.

The Chair overrules the point of order.

Perfecting Senate Amendments in Disagreement in the House

Sec.    29.36 Where a Senate amendment containing legislation is reported 
in disagreement from a conference on a general appropriation bill, it 
may be perfected by a further House amendment, albeit legislative in 
effect, so long as the House amendment is germane to the Senate 
amendment. 

Rule XX clause 2,(20) prohibits the managers on the part of the House 
from agreeing to a Senate amendment which would constitute legislation 
on a general appropriation bill under Rule XXI clause 2(b).(1) Such 
amendments of the Senate are routinely reported in disagreement to 
avoid making the conference report subject to a point of order. 
During the proceedings of Aug. 1, 1979,(2) the point of order against 
the manager's motion to recede and concur with an amendment, the 
response of Speaker Pro Tempore James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, and the 
subsequent action in dividing the question on the manager's motion were 
as follows:

MR. [TOM] BEVILL [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bevill moves to recede in the amendment of the Senate No. 37 and 
concur therein with an amendment as follows in lieu of the matter 
proposed to be inserted by the Senate insert:
SEC. 502. There is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not 
otherwise appropriated, for an additional amount for "Construction of 
an Extension to the New Senate Office Building" $52,583,400 toward 
finishing such building and to remain available until expended: 
Provided, That the amount of $137,730,400 shall constitute a ceiling on 
the total cost for construction of the Extension to the New Senate 
Office Building.
It is further provided, That such building and office space therein 
upon completion shall meet all needs for personnel presently supplied 
by the Carroll Arms, the Senate Courts, the Plaza Hotel, the Capitol 
Hill 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
 1.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 834b (1997).
 2.     125 CONG. REC. 22007, 22008, 22010, 22011, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 990]]

Apartments and such buildings shall be vacated.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state the point of order.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, this amendment offered at this time would not 
have been in order had it been offered to the bill as originally before 
the House. The bill is an appropriation bill and this constitutes 
legislation on an appropriation bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Alabama desire to be 
heard on the point of order?
MR. BEVILL: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out this is merely a change of 
the report language that is in the appropriation bill and it is germane 
and it is a part of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair would 
like to state that the only requirement of the amendment in the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Alabama is that it be germane to the 
Senate amendment. The language is quite clearly germane to the Senate 
amendment No. 37 and, therefore, the motion is in order and the point 
of order is overruled.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
 MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, under the rules would not a demand by any 
Member to separate the questions to recede and concur with an amendment 
be permitted and then only a vote would occur on the first part of 
that, which would be the motion to recede?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct, such a motion would 
be in order. The House could consider the first part if the two items 
were separated.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I demand that the question be divided.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is protected.
The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 30 minutes in support of 
his motion, or such portion of that time as he may consume. . . . 
MR. BEVILL: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is, will the House recede from 
its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 37?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote, and I request a fair 
count.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will state that the gentleman is 
fully within his rights to demand a recorded vote and to expect a fair 
count.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 214, noes 
184, not voting 36, as follows: . . . 
So the House receded from its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 37.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


[[Page 991]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is, Will the House concur in 
Senate amendment No. 37 with an amendment?
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.   

Amendment to Senate Amendment in Disagreement Must Be Germane

Sec.    29.37 While a point of order against a motion to recede and 
concur with an amendment in a Senate amendment to a general 
appropriation bill reported from conference in disagreement will not 
lie merely because the proposed House amendment adds legislation, there 
is a requirement that it be germane to the Senate amendment. 

An amendment reported in disagreement from the conference on defense 
appropriations, fiscal 1980, which restricted the use of funds for 
missile development was pending when a motion was offered to recede and 
concur with a further amendment authorizing certain new research and 
development funds. The point of order against the motion offered by the 
bill's manager and subsequent arguments thereon, as excerpted from the 
proceedings of Dec. 12, 1979,(3) are carried here.

THE SPEAKER:(4) The Clerk will report the next amendment in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 56: Page 29, line 7, insert: None of the funds 
appropriated under this paragraph to continue development of the MX 
Missile may be used in a fashion which would commit the United States 
to only one basing mode for the MX missile system.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. ADDABBO
MR. [JOSEPH P.] ADDABBO [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Addabbo moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 56 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter inserted by said 
amendment, insert:
None of the funds appropriated under this paragraph to continue 
development of the MX missile may be used in a fashion which would 
commit the United States to only one basing mode for the MX missile 
system.
In addition to any other funds authorized to be appropriated under this 
heading, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated during fiscal 
year 1980 an additional amount of $5,000,000 only for research and 
development on the Perimeter Acquisition Radar Attack Characterization 
System (PARCS).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     125 CONG. REC. 35520, 35521, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 992]]


POINT OF ORDER
MR. [RICHARD H.] ICHORD [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of 
order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. ICHORD: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Addabbo) for the reason 
that this calls for an authorization. The amendment calls for an 
authorization in an appropriation bill.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, the amendment is not germane, and I would 
point out for the edification of the Chair that the authorization for 
the PARCS radar was rejected by both the Committee on Armed Services of 
the House and the permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
House, which are the authorizing committees for this particular weapons 
system.
MR. ADDABBO: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
MR. ADDABBO: . . . We realize that this is authorization on an 
appropriation bill, but it is insisted on by the Senate chairman of the 
conference committee, Senator Stennis of Mississippi, who is also the 
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. . . . 
So, Mr. Speaker, I do concede the point of order, but I would hope the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ichord) would not insist on his point of 
order.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ichord) insist on 
his point of order?
MR. ICHORD: Mr. Speaker, I must insist on the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman insists on his point of order.
MR. [JACK] EDWARDS of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point 
of order?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
MR. EDWARDS of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I hate to find myself at odds with 
my subcommittee chairman, but I do not believe that I can concede the 
point of order.
This is a point of order raised against an amendment brought back in 
disagreement. It is not a point of order raised to a bill, and my 
understanding of the rules is that a point of order would not lie to an 
amendment brought back in disagreement.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will rule that the germaneness point of order is 
well taken. It is very obvious that the motion is not germane as it 
relates to the Senate amendment 56, and the Chair sustains the point of 
order.

Adding Legislative Provisions to Appropriation Bill

Sec.    29.38 The House adopted a resolution waiving points of order 
against a conference report on an appropriation bill, and making in 
order motions to recede from disagreement to any Senate amendment 
(reported from conference still in disagreement) and concur therein 
with an amendment inserting in this bill any or all pro-


[[Page 993]]

visions of a legislative bill (and amendments thereto) as agreed to by 
the House conferees on the appropriation bill.
On Aug. 2, 1955,(5) Mr. James W. Trimble, of Arkansas, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules reported and called up House Resolution 337, 
providing for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 7117, 
appropriations for the legislative branch for fiscal 1956.

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 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. . . . 

Mr. Trimble explained the purpose of the resolution:

This rule waives points of order on the conference report on the 
legislative appropriation bill. Briefly, it simply waives points of 
order for the substitution of certain features of H.R. 7440.

Mr. Karl M. LeCompte, of Iowa, added:

This resolution will make in order the consideration of legislation on 
a conference report.

The House debated the extent to which this resolution would incorporate 
provisions of H.R. 7440 in the conference report on H.R. 7117, and then 
adopted the resolution.
Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, then submitted and called up the 
conference report on H.R. 7117. The House adopted the report without 
debate, and the Speaker instructed the Clerk to read the only amendment 
reported in disagreement. After the Clerk read Senate amendment No. 52, 
the following occurred:

MR. ROONEY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recede and concur in the 
Senate amendment with an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Rooney moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 52, and concur therein with an 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     101 CONG. REC. 13051-56, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 994]]



amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment 
insert: . . . 

After the Clerk read his 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. . . . 

After a brief discussion of this motion, the consideration of the 
Senate amendment was concluded in the following manner:

THE SPEAKER:(6) The question is on the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Parliamentarian's Note: During July 1955, the Committee on House 
Administration held hearings on a proposal to authorize increases in 
the salaries of certain House employees. Tentative arrangements were 
made with the legislative subcommittee of the Committee on 
Appropriations to include these recommendations in the legislative 
appropriation bill (H.R. 7117) when such recommendations were referred 
to it by the Committee on House Administration. Leaders of the 
Committee on Appropriations rejected this arrangement. The Committee on 
House Administration then reported its recommendations to the House as 
embodied in H.R. 7440. The legislative appropriation bill passed the 
House, was amended in the Senate to provide for many salary increases 
for its employees, and was sent to conference. The House leadership 
requested that the provisions of H.R. 7440, authorizing raises for 
certain House employees, be inserted in H.R. 7117 in conference (since 
this was the last appropriation bill for the year). The Senate 
conferees refused to do this, so it was decided by the House leadership 
to resort to the resolution referred to above. The procedure outlined 
in the resolution was followed, the Senate agreed to the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment, and the provisions of H.R. 7440, 
authorizing the desired appropriations, became a part of the bill H.R. 
7117, and were enacted into law.

Changing Text Not in Disagreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 995]]

Sec.    29.39 When considering a Senate amendment reported from a 
conference in disagreement, the House may not recede and concur therein 
with an amendment which changes a provision of the bill which is not in 
disagreement.

On Mar. 9, 1939,(7) Mr. Clifton A. Woodrum, of Virginia, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 2868, the deficiency appropriations bill, 
fiscal 1939. After the Clerk read the first amendment in disagreement, 
Mr. Woodrum offered a motion to recede and concur therein with an 
amendment. Speaker Pro Tempore Lindsey C. Warren, of North Carolina, 
recognized Mr. John Taber, of New York, who raised a point of order:

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the amendment on the 
ground that it attempts to amend an item that has not been in 
disagreement.
MR. WOODRUM of Virginia: Will the  gentleman reserve his point of order 
to permit me to make a brief explanation?
MR. TABER: Yes; I will reserve it.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New York reserves a point 
of order against the amendment.
MR. WOODRUM of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly the portion of the 
amendment to which the gentleman objects is subject to a point of 
order; but the situation that confronts the House and the Wage and Hour 
Division of the Department of Labor is that we carry in this deficiency 
bill a deficiency appropriation for the Wage and Hour Division, but 
they are actually out of money now and have been for several days. 
Under the law the deficiency appropriation, when finally signed by the 
President, will be available only from the time of its becoming law; so 
there is a period of some 8, 10, or 12 days during which the 
obligations and expenses of this Bureau have been running which are not 
provided for unless language is put in here or a joint resolution is 
passed. The language, of course, is subject to a point of order if the 
gentleman desires to press it, but if he does that we shall have to go 
through the formality of passing a joint resolution.
I hope with this explanation the gentleman will be willing to withdraw 
his point of order. The amendment does not increase the appropriation 
or do anything except to make the money available to pay the expenses 
which have been incurred during this interim I mentioned.
MR. TABER: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel I can accept the gentleman's 
proposition. I feel that I should insist on my point of order. I do not 
know whether I would insist on it if unanimous consent were asked to 
amend page 5 by itself as the gentleman has suggested, but I shall have 
to insist on the point of order if it is coupled with the census bill.
MR. WOODRUM of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the point of order 
and will reoffer the amendment with the latter part of it stricken.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     84 CONG. REC. 2525, 2526, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 996]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The point of order made by the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Taber] is sustained.

Interruption of Series of Motions on Amendments in Disagreement by 
Other Business

Sec.    29.40 While the House was considering a series of amendments in 
disagreement on one measure, it interrupted the consideration to call 
up amendments in disagreement on another appropriation bill.

Consideration of amendments on two different appropriation bills are 
matters of equal privilege. In this situation,(8) the leadership was 
anxious to complete consideration of H.R. 4781, the Defense 
appropriation bill, where only two amendments remained in disagreement, 
before adjourning for the evening. Unanimous consent to interrupt 
consideration of the various amendments in disagreement and the motions 
pertaining thereto to H.R. 4637, the foreign operations appropriations 
bill, was not required, since in the House, between motions, other 
business of the same or higher precedence can be raised.

MR. [THOMAS S.] FOLEY [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, the reason I sought 
recognition is that there is the possibility of asking unanimous 
consent that the House move out of the present order of debate to 
consider motions to be offered by the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Chappell] with respect to the Department of Defense 
appropriation bill prior to final action with respect to this 
amendment.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(9) Is the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Foley] making a request?
MR. FOLEY: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Chappell].
MR. [WILLIAM V.] CHAPPELL [Jr., of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
request. I ask unanimous consent that we call up from the Speaker's 
table the remaining amendments in disagreement on the bill, H.R. 4781, 
making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 
1989 and for other purposes.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
right to object, I am just trying to figure out what we are doing here.
Do I understand that we are rising on the bill that we are presently 
considering, going to another bill, and then 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     See 134 CONG. REC. 27321, 27322, 100th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 30, 
1988.
 9.     Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 997]]

coming back to the bill that we were considering?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The House is not in the Committee of the 
Whole. We would not have to rise. We are in the House.
MR. WALKER: . . . Can we get some explanation as to why? . . . 
MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, we are going to 
take up the Defense conference report. The Senate is taking it up. They 
have two amendments. We feel we can clean this up in about 5 minutes 
and then get right back onto this bill here. . . . 
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
MR. CHAPPELL: Mr. Speaker, there are two amendments yet to be disposed 
of in this conference. One is amendment No. 89, and the other one is 
amendment No. 252.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Chappell] 
call up the amendments?
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4781, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 
ACT, 1989
MR. CHAPPELL: Mr. Speaker, I call up from the Speaker's table the 
remaining amendments in disagreement on the bill (H.R. 4781) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1989, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENTS IN DISAGREEMENT
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the first amendment in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 89:
Resolved, That the Senate agree to the amendment of the House of 
Representatives to the amendment of the Senate numbered 89 with an 
amendment as follows: . . . 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. CHAPPELL
MR. CHAPPELL: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Chappell moves that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the 
House amendment to the Senate Amendment No. 89.

The motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the remaining amendment 
in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 252:
Resolved, That the Senate agree to the amendment of the House of 
Representatives to the amendment of the Senate numbered 252 with an 
amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by 
the House amendment to the Senate amendment insert: . . . 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. CHAPPELL
MR. CHAPPELL: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Chappell moves that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the 
House amendment to the Senate amendment No. 252.

The motion was agreed to.


[[Page 998]]

A motion to reconsider the votes by which action was taken on the two 
motions was laid on the table.

En Bloc Consideration

Sec.    29.41 The House may grant unanimous consent for the en bloc 
consideration of all but one amendment reported in disagreement from a 
conference, and consider that amendment separately.

On Mar. 1, 1939,(10) the House was considering the conference report on 
the independent offices appropriation bill, fiscal 1940. The Speaker, 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, recognized Mr. John Taber, of New 
York, to pose a parliamentary inquiry:

If the conference report should be voted down, would it be in order to 
ask unanimous consent to dispose of the other amendments than the 
T.V.A. all in one block in accordance with the conference report so 
that they might be disposed of and we might get at the T.V.A. question 
by itself?
THE SPEAKER: In answer to the parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman 
from New York, the Chair will state that if unanimous consent should be 
given by the House to vote on the amendments en bloc, aside from the 
one in dispute, that such action could properly be taken and would 
dispose of all items except the ones in dispute.

Considering Amendments in Disagreement En Bloc

Sec.    29.42 In the consideration of a myriad of amendments reported in 
disagreement from a conference on a general appropriation bill, the 
manager often asks that those amendments to which the House proposes to 
recede and concur be considered (by unanimous consent) as read, and 
disposed of en bloc. 

The procedure used in disposing of the amendments in disagreement to 
the State, Justice, Commerce, and Judiciary appropriation bill, fiscal 
1979, is often employed to expedite consideration  of non-controversial 
amendments.  Note that those amendments in disagreement that were to be 
disposed of by a motion to recede and concur with an amendment were 
also considered as read. When reached in the consideration, the Clerk 
reported the amendments by number, and then the manager offered the 
appropriate motion to dispose of the pending amendment. The proceedings 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     84 CONG. REC. 2085, 2086, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 999]]


in the House of Sept. 28, 1978,(11) are carried below:

So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . . . 
AMENDMENTS IN DISAGREEMENT
MR. [NEAL] SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, there are 65 amendments in 
technical disagreement, and may I inform the Members, if they will bear 
with me, we will be able to take care in about 7 or 8 minutes of all 
except amendments 9 and 123, which we will postpone until tomorrow. . . 
. 
Mr. Speaker, in order to expedite the disposition of these amendments, 
I would like to suggest that all such amendments on which we are asking 
that the House recede and concur be considered en bloc. Accordingly, 
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Senate amendments numbered 1, 
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 26, 27, 
28, 29, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 56, 73, 78, 88, 91, 92, 96, 101, 
102, 103, 104, 105, 110, and 114 be considered as read, printed in the 
Record, and that they be considered en bloc.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection. . . .
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. SMITH OF IOWA
MR. SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Motion offered by Mr. Smith of Iowa:
Mr. Smith of Iowa moves that the House recede from its disagreement to 
the amendments of the Senate numbered 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 
13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 
41, 56, 73, 78, 88, 91, 92, 96, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 110 and 114 
and concur therein.

The motion was agreed to.
MR. SMITH of Iowa: Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
consideration of the amendments 9 and 123 be postponed until tomorrow, 
and be considered the unfinished business for tomorrow.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Reserving the right to object, 
Mr. Speaker, I do so to make in inquiry of the Chair. If this 
postponement is granted, will these be the first order of unfinished 
business in the morning?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
Maryland that as unfinished business, the answer to the question is 
yes. . . . 
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENTS IN DISAGREEMENT
MR. SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remaining amendments in disagreement, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     124 CONG. REC. 32449, 32452, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1000]]


that is, Senate amendments numbered 2, 22, 24, 25, 30, 31, 34, 51, 66, 
67, 90, 100, 106, 109, 111, 113, 115, 116, 117, and 124 be considered 
as read, printed in the Record, and that they be identified by the 
Chair by number so that I may offer motions for their disposition.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.

Sec.    29.43 The House may adhere to its disagreement to certain Senate 
amendments en bloc.

On June 30, 1937,(12) after the House considered the conference report 
and several amendments in disagreement on H.R. 6692, military 
appropriations, fiscal 1938, the following occurred:

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the reading of the remaining amendments in disagreement be 
dispensed with and that they be considered en bloc.
THE SPEAKER:(13) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Missouri?
There was no objection.
MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion, which I send to 
the Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Cannon of Missouri moves that the House adhere to its disagreement 
to the amendments of the Senate to the bill H.R. 6692, the military 
appropriation bill, 1938, nos. 1, 47 to 77, inclusive, and 80, and the 
amendment of the Senate to the title of said bill.

MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a vote on the motion.
The motion was agreed to.

Varying Order of Consideration of Amendments

Sec.    29.44 The disposition of Senate amendments in disagreement 
normally proceeds in the order in which they appear in the House text; 
but the House may vary the order of consideration by a unanimous-
consent agreement.

Where controversy is expected on a particular motion to dispose of a 
Senate amendment in disagreement, its disposition can be postponed 
until a more convenient time on the following day by a proper 
unanimous-consent request.(14) 

MR. [NEAL] SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
amendments numbered 147 and 148 be passed over this evening and that 
they be considered tomorrow, Wednesday, October 20, 1993, immediately 
prior to 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     81 CONG. REC. 6611, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
13.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
14.     See 139 CONG. REC. 25388, 25390, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 
1993 (H.R. 2519).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1001]]

the consideration of amendment No. 171.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(15) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will designate the next amendment in 
disagreement. . . . 
The motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair rules that further consideration of 
this bill will continue tomorrow.

Corrections in Dollar Amounts

Sec.    29.45 The House by unanimous consent authorized the enrolling 
clerk to correct dollar amounts contained in several amendments 
reported from conference in disagreement pursuant to a series of 
motions specifying these corrections.

On June 22, 1939, after the House adopted the conference report on H.R. 
5269, Department of Agriculture appropriations, fis-cal 1940, and 
considered several amendments reported from conference still in 
disagreement, the following occurred:(16) 

THE SPEAKER:(17) The Clerk will report the next amendment in 
disagreement.
MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Clerk be authorized on Senate amendments Nos. 21, 26, 27, 33, 
105, 115, 116, 142, and 148 to correct the totals contained in said 
foregoing amendments and to formulate the proper motions and messages 
in respect thereto in accordance with the action of the House on the 
remaining Senate amendments reported in disagreement, and such motions 
so formulated shall be considered as agreed to by the House.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
There was no objection.

Mr. Cannon then offered and the House adopted motions correcting the 
dollar amounts contained in the amendments mentioned above.

Timing of Message to Senate

Sec.    29.46 House action on amendments reported back in disagreement is 
not messaged to the Senate until final action has been taken on 
adoption of the conference report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     Kweisi Mfume (Md.).
16.     See 84 CONG. REC. 7740, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1002]]

On Sept. 18, 1962,(18) the House deferred the vote on the conference 
report on H.R. 12648, Department of Agriculture appropriations, fiscal 
1963, until the following day,(19) and then immediately disposed of the 
amendments reported from conference still in disagreement. On Sept. 20, 
the Senate received a message from the House which included the 
following:(20) 

The message further announced that the House had agreed to the report 
of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 12648) making 
appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, and for other purposes; that 
the House receded from its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate 
Nos. 4, 25, and 40 to the bill, and concurred therein, that the House 
receded from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 38 to 
the bill, and concurred therein with an amendment, in which it 
requested the concurrence of the Senate, and that the House insisted 
upon its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate Nos. 1, 2, 6, 19, 
44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, and 54 to the bill.

House Recedes From Its Amendment

Sec.    29.47 When a House amendment to a Senate bill is reported back 
from conference in disagreement and the House insists on its amendment, 
the bill returns to the Senate with such message for further action; 
but should the House recede from its amendment the bill retains its 
original form.

On Mar. 16, 1942,(1) the House was considering the amendments reported 
in disagreement from the conference on S. 2208, the second war powers 
bill, 1942. The following occurred:

MR. [HATTON W.] SUMNERS of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House 
insist upon its amendment numbered 32, and yield myself 10 minutes. . . 
. 
MR. [CHARLES F.] MCLAUGHLIN [of Nebraska]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(2) The gentleman will state it.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: If the House votes not to insist upon its amendment, 
then there is nothing before the conferees, because the House will then 
have yielded to the position taken by the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     108 CONG. REC. 19708, 19720, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
19.     108 CONG. REC. 19945, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 19, 1962.
20.     Id. at p. 19992.
 1.     88 CONG. REC. 2508, 2512, 2513, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     Richard M. Duncan (Mo.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1003]]

Senate, as I understand the situation. Am I correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the House recedes from its amendment, then 
there would be no reason to go to conference.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: That is what I intended to ask. So that the situation 
is, Mr. Speaker, if I understand it correctly, we have two 
alternatives-one to insist and one to recede.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is correct.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: If we recede, we vote to pass without further action by 
the conferees the bill in the form in which it was prior to the time 
the Judiciary Committee, by committee amendment, moved that this title 
be stricken out, and prior to the time the House adopted that 
amendment. If we vote to insist, then we send it back to conference for 
action by the conferees. Is that not the situation?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the House adopted the pending motion, then 
it goes back to the Senate for further consideration. It goes to the 
Senate first before it goes to conference.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: If the Senate does not agree with our action in 
accepting the Sumners motion insisting on the House amendment, then the 
matter will have to go to conference?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is correct.

Senate Amendment Reported in Disagreement is One Entity and Not 
Divisible

Sec.    29.48 A Senate amendment reported in disagreement from a 
conference committee is considered in its entirety, and it is not in 
order to consider individually separate items contained therein.

On May 20, 1936,(3) the House was considering a Senate amendment 
reported in disagreement from the conference on the Department of 
Interior appropriation bill, fiscal 1937. The amendment authorized the 
construction of seven separate reclamation projects. Mr. Edward T. 
Taylor, of Colorado, offered a motion to recede and concur in this 
amendment with an amendment which related to one of the seven projects 
contained in the Senate amendment. Mr. Fred Cummings, of Colorado, then 
raised a parliamentary inquiry:

Will a motion be in order to consider these items separately?
THE SPEAKER:(4) No; there is only one Senate amendment.

Requesting a Further Conference

Sec.    29.49 When both Houses have adopted a conference report on a bill 
and amendments 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     80 CONG. REC. 7623, 7624, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1004]]

thereto, but certain amendments are still in disagreement between them, 
a further conference may be asked on these remaining amendments.
On Sept. 24, 1962,(5) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, and the following occurred:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 
the bill (H.R. 12711) making appropriations for sundry independent 
executive bureaus  . . .  and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 
30, 1963, and for other purposes, further insist on disagreement to the 
Senate amendments and agree to the further conference asked by the 
Senate.
May I explain that the other body adopted all of the conference report 
on the independent offices appropriation bill except three items, and 
we are asking unanimous consent to go back to conference on those three 
items.
The Clerk read the title of the bill. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees: 
Messrs. Thomas, Yates, Cannon, Ostertag, and Taber.

Sec.    29.50 A motion to request further conference on an amendment 
reported in disagreement by conferees is not in order as long as 
preferential motions (to recede, recede and concur, insist or adhere) 
are pending.

On Oct. 17, 1967,(6) Mr. Edward P. Boland, of Massachusetts, offered a 
motion to recede and concur in Senate amendment No. 13, which had been 
reported in disagreement from the conference on H.R. 11476, Department 
of Transportation appropriations, fiscal 1968.

MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry, if the gentleman will yield.
MR. BOLAND: I yield to the gentleman.
THE SPEAKER:(7) The gentleman will state it.
MR. YATES: This is a motion to recede and concur in the Senate 
amendment. What would be the effect of voting down such a motion? Will 
it have the effect of sending the conferees back to conference for the 
purpose of ironing out this particular item again?
THE SPEAKER: The amendment would still be before the House subject to 
another form of a motion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     108 CONG. REC. 20489, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     113 CONG. REC. 29044, 29048, 29049, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1005]]

MR. YATES: What would be the nature of that motion, Mr. Speaker?
THE SPEAKER: The motion could be that the House insist on its 
disagreement.
MR. YATES: I thank the Speaker.
MR. [DURWARD G.] HALL [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
yield?
MR. BOLAND: I yield to the gentleman.
MR. HALL: If the gentleman from Massachusetts' motion that the House 
recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 13 and 
concur therein was voted down, then another motion would be in order, 
would it not, I would ask as a parliamentary inquiry, to instruct the 
conferees to maintain the position of the House or that the House 
insist upon its disagreement with the other body?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state in response to the parliamentary 
inquiry propounded to the Chair by the distinguished gentleman from 
Missouri that if the House should insist upon its disagreement, then 
the matter could go back to conference.


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT
 
Sec.    30. Voting; Final Disposition of Report

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


[[Page 1006]]

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

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

Time for Consideration

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

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

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

En Bloc Consideration of Several Reports

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


[[Page 1007]]

ble to consider several conference reports en bloc.

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

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

Acting on Report in Whole or in Part

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 1008]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 1009]]

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

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

Amendment of Report

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

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

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

Effect of Rejection of Previous Question

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

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


[[Page 1010]]

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

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

Postponement of Vote After Ordering Previous Question

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

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

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


[[Page 1011]]

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

Postponement of Vote on Adoption of Conference Report

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

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

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


[[Page 1012]]

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

Procedure for Addressing Senate Amendments Which Are Not Germane

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

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

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


[[Page 1013]]

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

[[Page 1014]]

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

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


[[Page 1015]]

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

Portions of the debate pertaining to House Resolution 998 follow:

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

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

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


[[Page 1016]]

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


[[Page 1017]]

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

Separate Vote on Nongermane Provisions

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

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

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


[[Page 1018]]

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

Mr. Sisk then offered the following amendment:

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 1019]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 1020]]

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

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

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

Addressing a Nongermane Provision in a Senate Amendment in Disagreement

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

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


[[Page 1021]]

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

JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the conference 
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the 
Senate to the bill (H.R. 8217) to exempt from duty certain equipment 
and repairs for vessels operated by or for any agency of the United 
States where the entries were made in connection with vessels arriving 
before January 5, 1971, report that the conferees have been unable to 
agree.
W. D. MILLS,
AL ULLMAN . . . 

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


[[Page 1022]]

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

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


[[Page 1023]]

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

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

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


[[Page 1024]]

Mr. Rostenkowski with Mr. Arends. . . .

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

Timing of Motion To Reject Nongermane Portion

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

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

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


[[Page 1025]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nongermane Provision in Senate Amendment, Motion To Reject

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


[[Page 1026]]

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


[[page 1027]]

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

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

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


[[Page 1028]]

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

So the motion to reject was agreed to.

Consideration of Several Points of Order Against a Conference Report

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

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

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


[[Page 1029]]

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

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

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

Debate on Motion To Reject Nongermane Provision

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

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

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


[[Page 1030]]

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

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

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

Application of Germaneness Rule to Provision in Senate Bill in 
Conference

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


[[Page 1031]]

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


[[Page 1032]]

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


[[Page 1033]]

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


[[Page 1034]]

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

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

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


[[Page 1035]]

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

Use of Motion To Reject Non-germane Conference Provision

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

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

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

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


[[Page 1036]]

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

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

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

I would also like to cite 4.12 reading:

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

Finally I ask you to refer to 4.12 which reads:

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

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


[[Page 1037]]

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

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

Determining Whether Conference Provision Is Germane

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

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


[[Page 1038]]

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


[[Page 1039]]

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

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

Determining Whether Provision in Conference Report Is Germane

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


[[Page 1040]]

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 1041]]

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


[[Page 1042]]

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

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

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

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


[[Page 1043]]

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 1044]]

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

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

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


[[Page 1045]]

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

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


[[Page 1046]]

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

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

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


[[Page 1047]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct.

Where Motion To Reject a Nongermane Provision Is Defeated

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

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

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


[[Page 1048]]


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


[[Page 1049]]

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

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

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

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


[[Page 1050]]

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

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

That this Act may be cited as the "Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act" . . . 

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

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


[[page 1051]]

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

Adoption of Conference Report Under Suspension of the Rules

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[page 1052]]

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

By Adoption of Special Order, House Rejected Conference Report

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

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

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


[[Page 1053]]

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

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

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

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


[[Page 1054]]

tailed in the Record extract included here.

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

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


[[page 1055]]


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

Procedure After Inadvertent Omission of Amendment

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

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

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

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

Concurrent Resolution Deleting Item in Enrollment of Conference Report

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


[[Page 1056]]

the scope of the differences committed to conference.

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 1057]]

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

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

Use of Concurrent Resolution To Place New Matter in Conference

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

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

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


[[Page 1058]]

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

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

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

Reconsideration of Vote

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 1059]]

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

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

Vacating Adoption of Report

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

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

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


[[page 1060]]

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 1061]]

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

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


[[Page 1062]]

There was no objection.

Debate Following Adoption of Report

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

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

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


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT
 
Sec.    31. Rejection of Report

The rejection of a conference report by either House nullifies the 
agreements reached at the conference, and the legislation returns to 
the status it held immediately prior to conference.(1) The stage of 
disagreement continues, and 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     114 CONG. REC. 14375-96, 14398, 14402-05, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 551 (1997); Sec.Sec. 31.1-31.3, 
infra; and 5 Hinds' Precedents  Sec. 6525.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1063]]

amendments which originally required consideration in the Committee of 
the Whole need not return there.(2) The amendments in disagreement are 
again reported for consideration by the House, and motions for their 
disposition are in order.(3) 
Frequently the House will vote to insist on its disagreement to the 
Senate amendments and request a further conference.(4) If the Houses do 
not reach an agreement on the amendments in disagreement or agree to a 
further conference, the legislation will die.
The rejection of a conference report by one House nullifies the prior 
adoption of the report by the other House. In this event, the 
amendments in disagreement are called up for consideration in the 
second House.(5) 
When a conference report is rejected pursuant to the special procedure 
providing for separate votes on nongermane matter contained therein, 
the question before the House immediately occurs on a motion to recede 
and concur with an amendment containing all of the conference report 
not rejected by those separate votes.(6) 

Proceedings in Order Following Rejection of Conference Report

Sec.    31.1 Pending a vote on the adoption of a conference report, the 
Speaker, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, stated that the 
rejection of the report would leave the Senate amendment in 
disagreement, and that privileged motions to dispose of the 
disagreement would be in order and that a new conference could be 
asked.

During debate on the conference report on H.R. 6096, the Vietnam 
Humanitarian Assistance Act of 1975,(7) the following inquiry was 
directed to the Speaker:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 551 (1997) and 5 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec. 6589 cited therein are awkwardly worded and hence misleading on 
this issue.
 3.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 551 (1997); Sec. 31.1, infra; and 8 
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3303.
 4.     Sec.Sec. 31.9, 31.10, infra.
 5.     Sec.Sec. 31.6, 31.7, infra.
 6.     See Rule XXVIII clause 4(d), House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(b) 
(1997), and Sec. 30.11, infra.
 7.     121 CONG. REC. 12761, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., May 1, 1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1064]]

MR. [RICHARD L.] OTTINGER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(8) The gentleman will state it.
MR. OTTINGER: If we vote this down, would it then be in order for the 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations to go back to 
conference with instructions that we drop out section 4?
THE SPEAKER: . . . When the House disapproves a conference report, the 
matter is left in the position it was in before the conference was 
asked. That is under section 551 found in Jefferson's Manual. In other 
words, the conferees of the Senate have been discharged. The House 
would start all over with the House bill and the Senate amendments, and 
the Chair would recognize the chairman to offer a proper motion to 
dispose of the Senate amendment.
MR. OTTINGER: I have an additional parliamentary inquiry. Could the 
chairman request that a new conference be constituted?
THE SPEAKER: The chairman could do that, yes.

Reporting Amendments in Disagreement After Rejection of Report

Sec.    31.2 When a conference report is rejected, the Senate amendment 
is reported for further action by the House.

On Dec. 10, 1969,(9) the House was considering the conference report on 
H.R. 4292, Export Control Act Amendments of 1969.

MR. [WRIGHT] PATMAN [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The question is on the conference report. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 157, nays 238, not voting 
38. . . . 
So the conference report was rejected. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(11) The Clerk will report the Senate amendment.(12) 

Sec.    31.3 The Speaker has indicated that if a pending conference 
report was rejected, the last amendment between the Houses-in this case 
the Senate substitute for the House amendment in the nature of a 
substitute for the Senate bill-would then be 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 9.     115 CONG. REC. 38102-06, 38108, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
11.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
12.     See also 107 CONG. REC. 19219-21, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 13, 
1961; 84 CONG. REC. 2085, 2086, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 1, 1939; and 
80 CONG. REC. 9743-53, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1936.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1065]]

before the House for further action.

On June 8, 1972,(13) the House was considering the conference report on 
S. 659, the Higher Education Amendments of 1972. After the previous 
question was ordered on the report, Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
answered a series of parliamentary inquiries posed by Mr. Joe D. 
Waggonner, of Louisiana:

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. WAGGONNER: Is it correct to assume that if the House rejected the 
conference report on S. 659, the bill would then be restored to the 
status it occupied when the House asked for a conference on March 8, 
1972?
THE SPEAKER: The last amendment of the Senate would then be pending.
MR. WAGGONNER: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: the gentleman will state it.
MR. WAGGONNER: Am I correct, then, that in the event the House votes 
its disagreement with the conference report, the status of the bill 
would be that it would then be restored to the position it occupied 
before a conference was requested?
THE SPEAKER: The Senate amendment to the House amendment would be 
before the House for further consideration.
MR. WAGGONNER: Would the Speaker please clarify that? Is it the Senate 
amendment which would be before the House, or the House amendment?
THE SPEAKER: The last action would be before the House, which is the 
Senate amendment.

Special Order Limiting Options if Conference Report Rejected

Sec.    31.4 The House has on occasion adopted a special order precluding 
further action on amendments in disagreement if a conference report is 
rejected. 

On Oct. 4, 1990,(14) the House adopted H. Res. 488, providing for 
consideration of the conference report on the concurrent resolution on 
the budget for fiscal years 1991 through 1995. The rule waived points 
of order, waived the requirements for reading the report, divided the 
debate time, and provided that if the report were rejected, any further 
action on   the amendment in disagreement would have to await a further 
order of the House. The rule also provided for putting in place the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     118 CONG. REC. 20339, 20340, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
14.     136 CONG. REC. 27590, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1066]]

budget allocations under 302(a) of the Budget Act and also specified 
that agreement to the resolution would not automatically send to the 
Senate a new debt limit bill under Rule XLIX.
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 
committees 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). . . . 

MR. DERRICK: . . . The rule provides for 2 hours of general debate, to 
be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Budget Committee. After disposition of the conference 
report, no other motion with respect to the disposition of the 
conference report is in order, except by subsequent rule.
The rule also provides that as soon as practicable, the Budget 
Committee chairman will cause to be printed in the Congressional Record 
allocations of spending and credit which will be considered to be the 
allocations required under section 302(a) of the Budget Act.
Finally, the rule provides that rule XLIX will not apply with respect 
to the conference report on House Concurrent Resolution 310. Rule XLIX 
provides that when Congress adopts the conference report on the budget 
resolution which contemplates a level of public debt different than 
that currently allowed by law, the House is deemed to have adopted a 
joint resolution either increasing or decreasing the statutory limit on 
the public debt. Because the House has already passed and sent over to 
the Senate H.R. 5355, a long-term debt limit bill, there is no need for 


[[Page 1067]]

the conference report on the budget resolution to generate another debt 
limit bill.

Special Order Recommitting Rejected Conference Report

Sec.    31.5 Following its rejection of a conference report, the House 
considered and adopt-ed a unique special order providing for the 
recommittal of the report to the committee on conference, 
notwithstanding the prior action. 

When the House defeated the conference report on a concurrent 
resolution on the budget on Oct. 4, 1990, the papers had not been sent 
to the Senate but were still in possession of the House. Since the 
Senate had not acted, adoption of this special order-"deeming" the 
conference report "recommitted"-left the conference in place, obviated 
the necessity to appoint new managers, and precluded any motion to 
instruct. The rule also protected and provided for consideration of any 
subsequent report filed by the conferees and included provisions 
identical to those in the special order which had provided for 
consideration of the rejected conference report. The pertinent 
proceedings of Oct. 6, 1990,(15) follow:

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON HOUSE CONCURRENT 
RESOLUTION 310, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL 
YEARS 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, AND 1995

MR. [JOE] MOAKLEY [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 496 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. RES. 496
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution 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, shall be considered as 
recommitted to conference, notwithstanding the prior action of the 
House on the conference report.
SEC. 2. All points of order against any subsequent conference report on 
House Concurrent Resolution 310 and against its consideration are 
hereby waived. Any such conference report shall be considered as read 
when called up for consideration. Debate on any 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. 3. No motion with respect to disposition of House Concurrent 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     136 CONG. REC. 27919-21, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 1068]]

Resolution 310 shall be in order except pursuant to this resolution or 
a subsequent order of the House.
SEC. 4. The allocations of spending and credit responsibility to the 
committees 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 the managers on House Concurrent Resolution 310 
pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
SEC. 5. Rule XLIX shall not apply with respect to the adoption by the 
Congress of any conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 310).

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(16) The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. MOAKLEY: . . . Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 496 sets the process 
in motion to bring a new budget agreement to the floor. This is a 
procedural matter; it is not an attempt to reconsider the budget we 
recently defeated.
The rule provides that the conference report on the budget will be 
recommitted to conference upon adoption of the rule. The rule waives 
all points of order against any subsequent conference report on H. Con. 
Res. 310 and against its consideration. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has been shut down. The President 
has vetoed the short-term continuing resolution and has vowed to veto 
any other attempt to keep the Government running at full power at least 
until a budget agreement has been reached. . . . 
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. [GERALD B. H.] SOLOMON [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 285, noes 
105, answered not voting 43, as follows: . . . 
So the resolution was agreed to.

House Rejection of Report Following Senate Action

Sec.    31.6 After the Senate adopted a conference report, which 
recommended that the Senate recede from its amendments, the House must 
also act upon the report and, in the event of its rejection, a motion 
to recede and concur in the Senate amendment would be in order.

On Mar. 15, 1956,(17) the Senate adopted the conference report on H.R. 
8320 (amending the Agricultural Acts of 1949 and 1954 to 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     Kweisi Mfume (Md.).
17.     102 CONG. REC. 4797-801, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1069]]

provide for school milk and brucellosis eradication programs) which 
provided that the Senate recede from its amendments to the text and 
title of the bill. On Mar. 21,(18) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [HAROLD D.] COOLEY [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 8320) to amend the Agricultural Act 
of 1949 and the Agricultural Act of 1954 with respect to the special 
school milk program and the brucellosis-eradi-cation program for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1956.

After the Clerk read the report, Mr. Cooley then sought unanimous 
consent that the statement of the managers on the part of the House be 
read also. Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, then rose:

MR. HALLECK: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like 
to submit a parliamentary inquiry at this point.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(19) The gentleman will state it.
MR. HALLECK: Mr. Speaker, if this conference report is voted down, 
would it then be in order immediately thereafter for any Member to 
offer a motion that the House recede and concur in the Senate 
amendments?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the conference report is voted down, the 
Senate amendments would then be before the House for further action, 
and involved in that action a motion to recede and concur would be one 
of the parliamentary steps that could be employed.

Sec.    31.7 The House rejected a conference report, which recommended 
that the Senate recede from its amendments, although the Senate had 
adopted the report. The House then proceeded to agree to the Senate 
amendments to the bill, thus providing for the enrollment of the bill 
with Senate amendments.

On Mar. 15, 1956,(20) the Senate adopted the conference report on H.R. 
8320, amending the Agricultural Acts of 1949 and 1954 to provide for 
school milk and brucellosis eradication programs. On Mar. 21,(1) Mr. 
Harold D. Cooley, of North Carolina, called up this conference report 
in the House.

The Clerk read the conference report.
The conference report and statement are as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     Id. at p. 5268.
19.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
20.     102 CONG. REC. 4797-801, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1.     Id. at pp. 5268, 5277-79.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1070]]

CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 1898)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 8320) to amend the 
Agricultural Act of 1949 and the Agricultural Act of 1954 with respect 
to the special school milk program and the brucellosis eradication 
program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, having met after full 
and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its amendments to the text of the bill and 
to the title of the bill.
HAROLD D. COOLEY,
W. R. POAGE,
T. G. ABERNETHY,
Managers on the Part of the House.
ALLAN ELLENDER,
OLIN D. JOHNSTON,
SPESSARD L. HOLLAND,
MILTON R. YOUNG,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
STATEMENT
The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the 
disagreeing positions of the two Houses on H.R. 8320, providing 
additional authority for the special school milk program and the 
brucellosis eradication program for the current fiscal year, submit the 
following statement in explanation of the effect of the action agreed 
upon by the conferees and recommended in the accompanying conference 
report: . . . 
In view of these considerations, the Senate has receded from its 
position and the bill as agreed upon and reported by the committee of 
conference is identical with the bill passed by the House.
HAROLD D. COOLEY,
W. R. POAGE,
T. G. ABERNETHY,
Managers on the Part of the House 
After the Clerk read the report, Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, 
under a reservation of a right to object to a request by Mr. Cooley 
that the managers statement might also be read, raised a parliamentary 
inquiry.

MR. HALLECK: Mr. Speaker, if this conference report is voted down, 
would it then be in order immediately thereafter for any Member to 
offer a motion that the House recede and concur in the Senate 
amendments?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(2) If the conference report is voted down, the 
Senate amendments would then be before the House for further action, 
and involved in that action a motion to recede and concur would be one 
of the parliamentary steps that could be employed.
MR. HALLECK: Mr. Speaker, if that motion should prevail, would it have 
the effect of sending the bill as amended in the other body to the 
White House for approval?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Assuming that the House was to take such 
action-and I am not passing any opinion on it at this time-there could 
be a definite conclusion of legislative action, and the answer to the 
gentleman's question would be in the affirmative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1071]]

MR. HALLECK: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of further parliamentary inquiry, 
if the conference report is voted up or if it is voted down and such a 
motion to recede and concur should prevail, action on the legislation 
would be finally completed today.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the conference report is agreed to, action 
is concluded legislatively. On the other hand, if the conference report 
is rejected and the necessary motion is made and adopted, why, that 
would also conclude it. The answer to both of the gentleman's questions 
is in the affirmative.

After debate on the conference report the following occurred:

MR. COOLEY: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the conference 
report.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the conference report.
MR. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 195, nays 215, not voting 
23. . . . 
So the conference report was rejected. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the Senate amendments.

After the Clerk read the Senate amendments the Speaker Pro Tempore 
recognized Mr. August H. Andresen, of Minnesota:

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recede and concur.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. August H. Andresen moves that the House recede from its 
disagreement to the Senate amendments to H.R. 8320 and concur therein.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 
1 hour.
MR. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN: Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time and move the 
previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion.
MR. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken and there were-yeas 406, nays 0, not voting 27. 
. . . 
So the motion was agreed to.

Sec.    31.8 Rejection of a conference report on a House bill leaves the 
Senate amendment in disagreement pending for disposition by motion; a 
motion for a further conference is also in order but a motion to 
instruct the managers is in order only if the request for a further 
conference is agreed to.

To a parliamentary inquiry concerning the alternatives available if a 
pending conference report, which had been agreed to by the 


[[Page 1072]]

Senate, were to be rejected in the House, the Chair responded as  
indicated in the following excerpt from the House proceedings of May 1, 
1975:(3) 

MR. [RICHARD L.] OTTINGER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(4) The gentleman will state it.
MR. OTTINGER: If we vote this down, would it then be in order for the 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations to go back to 
conference with instructions that we drop out section 4?
THE SPEAKER: The answer is "no." 
When the House disapproves a conference report, the matter is left in 
the position it was in before the conference was asked. That is under 
section 551 found in Jefferson's Manual. In other words, the conferees 
of the Senate have been discharged. The House would start all over with 
the House bill and the Senate amendments, and the Chair would recognize 
the chairman to offer a proper motion to dispose of the Senate 
amendment.
MR. OTTINGER: I have an additional parliamentary inquiry. Could the 
chairman request that a new conference be constituted?

THE SPEAKER: The chairman could do that, yes.

Motion To Further Insist and Ask for Further Conference

Sec.    31.9 The House may reject a conference report, further insist on 
disagreement to the Senate amendment, and ask for a further conference.

On Sept. 26 (legislative day of Sept. 25), 1961,(5) Mr. John L. 
McMillan, of South Carolina, called up the conference report on H.R. 
258, amending the District of Columbia Sales Tax Act. At the conclusion 
of debate on the report the following occurred:

MR. MCMILLAN: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) The question is on the conference report. . 
. . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 97, nays 173, not voting 
164. . . . 
So the conference report was rejected. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the Senate amendment.

After the Clerk read the Senate amendment, the Chair recognized Mr. 
McMillan:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House further insist on disagreement to 
the Senate amendment and ask for a conference with the Senate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     121 CONG. REC. 12761, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 5.     107 CONG. REC. 21427-40, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1073]]

The motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair appoints the following conferees: 
Messrs. McMillan, Whitener, and Broyhill.(7) 

Sec.    31.10 A conference report having been voted down and a motion to 
further insist on disagreement and appoint conferees being agreed to, 
the bill returns to conference; but if such motion fails of adoption, 
the bill remains on the Speaker's table for further action.

On Oct. 7, 1940,(8) after the House ordered the previous question on 
the conference report on H.R. 960, extending Classified Civil Service, 
the following occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(9) The question is on agreeing to the conference report. . 
. . 
The question was taken; and there were-yes 132, nays 181, not voting 
116. . . . 
So the conference report was rejected. . . . 
Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia] and Mrs. Rogers of Massachusetts 
rose.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
MR. RAMSPECK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House further insist upon 
its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 960) 
extending the classified civil service of the United States and appoint 
conferees.
MR. [EARL C.] MICHENER [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. MICHENER: If the motion made by the gentleman from Georgia 
prevails, then the bill will be back in the same position it was before 
this procedure. Is this correct?
THE SPEAKER: If the motion prevails, the bill goes back to conference.
MR. MICHENER: And if the motion does not prevail, the bill will not be 
in conference and very likely will not be disposed of this session.
THE SPEAKER: It will be on the Speaker's table.

Recognition Following Rejection of Conference Report

Sec.    31.11 Upon rejection of a conference report on a House bill with 
Senate amendments, the manager is entitled to priority in recognition 
to offer a motion to dispose of the amendments; and he may move to 
disagree with all the amendments and request a further conference,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     See also 110 CONG. REC. 20121, 20127, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 
18, 1964; and 88 CONG. REC. 5573-83, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., June 25, 
1942.
 8.     86 CONG. REC. 13333, 13334, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 9.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1074]]

although this motion is not of the highest priority.

On Oct. 20, 1990,(10) the House ordered the previous question on, and 
then rejected, the conference report on H.R. 5311, the District  of 
Columbia Appropriations Act, 1991. After the conference report was 
rejected, the following proceedings occurred:

APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 5311, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1991
MR. [JULIAN C.] DIXON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move to insist on 
the disagreement to all Senate amendments to the bill, H.R. 5311, and 
request a further conference with the Senate thereon.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(11) The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].
The motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Dixon, Natcher, Stokes . . . and Conte.
There was no objection.

Parliamentarian's Note: Chairman Dixon could have been preempted by a 
more preferential motion. The stage of disagreement having been reached 
when the House initially disagreed to the Senate amendments and agreed 
to the conference, the following motions are privileged and have the 
precedence indicated: (1) to recede and concur; (2) to recede and 
concur with amendment; (3) to insist on disagreement and request a 
further conference; (4) to insist on disagreement; and (5) to adhere. 

Recognition of Minority Member for Motion

Sec.    31.12 A conference report was rejected and (when the manager of 
the conference did not seek recognition) the Speaker recognized a 
minority member of the committee to move to concur in the Senate 
amendment with an amendment.

On Dec. 10, 1969,(12) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 4293, the Export Control Act amendments of 
1969. The House rejected the report and the Clerk proceeded to read the 
Senate amendment in disagreement.

MR. [GARRY E.] BROWN of Michigan (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I 
ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be 
dis-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     136 CONG. REC. 31493, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     William H. Gray III (Pa.).
12.     115 CONG. REC. 38077, 38102-06, 38108, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1075]]

pensed with and it be printed in the Record.
THE SPEAKER:(13) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Michigan?
There was no objection.
MR. BROWN of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.(14) 
The Clerk read as follows:

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

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Brown).
The motion was agreed to.

Where Senate Amendment Is Laid on the Table, Effect on Bill

Sec.    31.13 Where a conference report is rejected, and the manager 
moves to insist on its disagreement, a motion to lay the Senate 
amendment on the table is preferential and if adopted, carries the 
amendment and the bill to the table.

When the conference report on the Federal Trade Commission Amendments 
of 1978 (H.R. 3816) was called up on Sept. 28, 1978, the previous 
question was ordered but on the question of the adoption of the report, 
the noes prevailed, 214 to 175. 
The manager's motion that the House insist on its disagreement was then 
preempted by a motion to lay the Senate amendment on the table. 
Proceedings were as indicated below.(15) 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
MR. [BOB] ECKHARDT [of Texas]: 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 PRO TEMPORE: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members. . . . 
So the conference report was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
14.     Mr. Brown, who was the 10th ranking minority member on the 
Committee on Banking and Currency in the 91st Congress, had been 
appointed as a conferee on H.R. 4293 on Oct. 27, 1969, 115 CONG. REC. 
31571, but did not sign the conference report, Id. at pp. 35584, 35585, 
Nov. 24, 1969.
15.     124 CONG. REC. 32334, 32335, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1076]]

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. ECKHARDT
MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Eckhardt moves that the House insist on its disagreement to the 
Senate amendment.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BROYHILL
MR. [JAMES T.] BROYHILL [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Broyhill moves to lay on the table the amendment of the Senate to 
the bill, H.R. 3816.

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the preferential motion to lay on the 
table offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill).
The preferential motion to table was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
So the Senate amendment and the bill H.R. 3816 were laid on the table.

Referred to Standing Committee

Sec.    31.14 A House bill with Senate amendments was by unanimous 
consent referred to the committee which originally reported it after 
the House agreed to a conference report thereon and the Senate rejected 
the conference report.

On Mar. 27, 1945,(16) the House adopted the conference report on H.R. 
1752, to amend the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. On Apr. 
3 of that year(17) the Senate rejected this conference report. On Apr. 
23,(18) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [ANDREW J.] MAY [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1752) to amend the 
Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 and for other purposes, with 
Senate amendments thereto, and ask that the same be referred to the 
Committee on Military Affairs.

THE SPEAKER:(19) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Kentucky?
There was no objection.


 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT
 
Sec.    32. Recommittal; Motions To Recommit

A motion to recommit a conference report to the committee of conference 
is in order in the House which first considers the report.(20) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     91 CONG. REC. 2837-57, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Id. at p. 3074.
18.     Id. at p. 3664.
19.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
20.     Sec. 32.1, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1077]]

The adoption or rejection of the report by this House results in the 
discharge of its managers, which dissolves the committee of conference, 
and generally precludes the second House from recommitting the report.
(1) However, a report may be recommitted after one House has acted on 
it, pursuant to a concurrent resolution approved by both Houses;(2) but 
such a resolution is not privileged for consideration in the House and 
must be called up by unanimous consent.(3) 
When a conference produces an agreement, the managers on the part of 
the House which had agreed to the conference are directed by 
Jefferson's Manual to take possession of the official papers from the 
managers of the asking House(4) thereby providing for prior 
consideration of the report in the agreeing House, thereby preserving 
to it the opportunity to recommit. However, if the managers on the part 
of the agreeing House fail to take possession of the papers, the House 
which requested the conference may act first on the report and preclude 
the agreeing House from recommitting it.(5) 
Conference reports may be recommitted by unanimous consent,(6) and in 
one instance a report in total disagreement was by unanimous consent 
recommitted to the committee of conference despite the fact that 
conferees are generally considered to be discharged when they report in 
this manner.(7) They may also be recommitted pursuant to a motion to 
suspend the rules.(8) 
A conference report may not be recommitted to a standing committee.(9) 
The motion to recommit a conference report is not in order until after 
the previous question has been ordered on the report,(10) and comes too 
late once the report has been agreed to.(11) 
Recognition to offer the motion to recommit is reserved for Mem-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Sec.Sec. 32.4-32.6, infra.
 2.     8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3316. See also Sec. 32.46, infra.
 3.     8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3309, and 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 
6554, 6557.
 4.     House Rules and Manual, Jefferson's Manual Sec. 555 (1997). See 
generally Sec. 24, supra.
 5.     Sec. 32.5, infra.
 6.     Sec.Sec. 32.40-32.43, infra.
 7.     Sec. 32.7, infra.
 8.     Sec. 32.45, infra.
 9.     5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6558.
10.     Sec.Sec. 32.10, 32.11, infra.
11.     Sec. 32.13, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1078]]

bers opposed to the conference report,(12) and one opposed to the 
report unequivocally has priority over one merely opposed to the report 
in its present form.(13) Members of the minority party are accorded 
preference in recognition to offer the motion,(14) although the Speaker 
will recognize a member of the majority if no minority member seeks 
recognition.(15) 
Neither the straight motion to recommit a conference report nor the 
motion to recommit with instructions to the House managers may be 
debated.(16) After the motion has been read, the previous question 
thereon is considered pending. However, should the previous question be 
defeated, the motion may be amended(17) to add instructions to the 
House conferees(18) or to modify the instructions proposed in the 
original motion. The motion may not be divided to provide a separate 
vote on the instructions or parts thereof.(19) 
The managers on the part of the House function as agents of the House. 
Therefore, their authority may be no greater than that possessed by the 
House itself. Thus, instructions contained in a motion to recommit may 
not authorize the managers to do something the House itself could not 
do-amend its own bill after its passage.(20) However, a motion to 
recommit may instruct the House managers to agree to a Senate amendment 
containing an appropriation not authorized by law, since the vote on 
this motion satisfies the requirement of Rule XX clause 2(1) that 
specific authority to agree to such amendments be given by the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     Sec. 32.15, infra.
13.     Sec. 32.16, infra.
14.     Sec. 32.17, infra.
15.     Sec.Sec. 32.19, 32.20, infra.
16.     Parliamentarian's Note: Although the third sentence of Rule XVI 
clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1997), states that 10 
minutes of debate may be had on any motion to recommit with 
instructions, it has been held that the second sentence of that clause 
limits its application to bills and joint resolutions. Thus, on Nov. 
15, 1973, the Speaker ruled that there could be no debate on a motion 
to recommit a simple resolution with instructions to a standing 
committee. 119 CONG. REC. 37141, 37142, 37149-51, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. 
This had been construed to preclude debate on a motion to recommit a 
conference report with instructions to the managers on the part of the 
House.
17.     Sec. 32.22, infra.
18.     Sec. 32.23, infra.
19.     Sec.Sec. 32.27, 32.28, infra.
20.     Sec. 32.32, infra.
 1.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1079]]


House before the managers go to conference.(2) Although a motion to 
recommit may instruct the managers to agree to such an amendment or 
other legislative amendments to a general appropriation bill, it may 
not instruct them to concur therein with an amendment which adds 
further legislation.(3) This objective may be accomplished by reporting 
to the House a disagreement to the Senate legislative amendment. When 
this occurs, the House may consider the amendment(4) and may at this 
stage add further legislative provisions thereto, providing they are 
germane to the Senate amendment.(5) 
Recommittal of a conference report places the entire matter before the 
conferees.(6) This is the case even when the report has been 
recommitted with instructions affecting some but not all of the 
provisions sent to conference.(7) The conferees must reach a new 
agreement and file a new report(8) which is given a new number and 
considered as a new and separate report.(9) 
Although only one valid motion to recommit a conference report is in 
order at any particular stage in the proceedings,(10) a subsequent 
report filed upon recommitment of the original report is also subject 
to recommittal.(11) 

When in Order; Effect of Discharge of Managers

Sec.    32.1 A motion to recommit a conference report is in order if the 
other House has not acted on the report and thus discharged its 
managers.

On Mar. 29, 1961,(12) pending a unanimous-consent request to send 
to conference H.R. 5463, to amend the Sugar Act of 1948, Mr. Charles A. 
Halleck, of Indiana, posed a parliamentary inquiry:

MR. HALLECK: When the conference report comes back, would a motion to 
recommit be in order at that time?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     Sec. 32.36, infra.
 3.     Sec. 32.37, infra.
 4.     Sec. 29.33, supra.
 5.     Sec. 29.35, supra, especially Parliamentarian's Note.
 6.     Sec. 32.47, infra.
 7.     Sec. 32.50, infra.
 8.     Sec. 32.49, infra.
 9.     Sec. 32.48, infra.
10.     8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2737, and 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 
5582.
11.     8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3325.
12.     107 CONG. REC. 5288, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1080]]


THE SPEAKER:(13) If the House acts first.
MR. HALLECK: In other words, if the House acts first, when the 
conference report comes back, then a motion to recommit would be in 
order?
THE SPEAKER: If the House acts first, a motion to recommit a conference 
report would be in order.(14) 

Recommittal to Same Conference Committee

Sec.    32.2 Where a conference report is recommitted in the House, the 
same conferees remain appointed; but when a new conference report is 
filed, the managers must again sign the new report and statement. 

The conference report on the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982 
was recommitted, by motion, where it was discovered that a new 
provision had been inserted, not in either version, relating to federal 
pay. Since the Senate had not acted, the conference committee was still 
viable, and the Chair announced to the House that the same conferees 
would continue their deliberations.  He informally advised the managers 
that all conferees on the part of the House must sign the new report 
before it could be received.
The relevant proceedings in the House on Aug. 17, 1982,(15) were as follows:

MR. [JAMES R.] JONES of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
THE SPEAKER:(16) The Chair, without getting into any debate, wants the 
House to be aware of the parliamentary situation. It is understood that 
there will be a motion to recommit. If the motion to recommit prevails, 
then the bill will have to go back to the conference committee and the 
Chair struggles to see how we could possibly bring this bill up again 
before the tax bill. The leadership has scheduled the tax bill for 
Thursday, but this conference committee would have to go back, it would 
have to get unanimous consent to have it brought up when filed; so the 
Chair just wants Members to have in mind the technicality of what is 
happening.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. DERWINSKI
MR. [EDWARD J.] DERWINSKI [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
to recommit.
THE SPEAKER: Is the gentleman opposed to the conference report?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
14.     See also 109 CONG. REC. 25249, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 19, 1963.
15.     128 CONG. REC. 21397, 21398, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
16.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1081]]

MR. DERWINSKI: I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Derwinski moves to recommit the conference report to accompany the 
bill, H.R. 6955, to the committee of conference.

THE SPEAKER: Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the 
motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion to recommit. . . . 
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 266, nays 
145, not voting 23. . . . 
PERMISSION TO FILE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6955
MR. JONES of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
managers have until midnight tonight to file a conference report, and 
that this conference report may be taken up tomorrow or any day 
thereafter, and again that we would waive all points of order.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
THE SPEAKER: For the information of the House, the conferees 
automatically remain appointed to the same conference.

Parliamentarian's Note: The managers were advised that all must sign 
the new report, even though there were "general conferees on the whole 
bill" from the Committee on the Budget, and jurisdictional conferees 
from many House committees. The offending insert was in the portion of 
the report written by the Committee on Government Operations; this was 
the only segment of the complex report actually changed in the new 
report. 
The Senate position, as reflected in the signature sheets, was to 
require signatures only of the general conferees and those from its 
Committee on Governmental Affairs. The signatures affixed to the first 
conference report filed were also attached as part of the official 
papers.(17) 

Where Conference Report Was Recommitted for a Second Time

Sec.    32.3 The House twice recommitted a conference report on a general 
appropriation bill but finally agreed to the third report of the 
conferees.

Both the first and second conference reports were called up under the 
protection of special orders which waived points of 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     See 128 CONG. REC. 21453, 21454, 97th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 17, 1982.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1082]]

order against the reports and their consideration.(18) Such blanket 
protection was required since all amendments in disagreement were 
brought back inside the reports.
The motion offered by the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee 
on the Interior, Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, is shown below in a 
portion of the debate defining the matters of major controversy which 
motivated the motion to recommit.(19) 

MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, 7 weeks ago I offered a motion to recommit this 
conference report in order to improve this dreadful bill and restore 
the mining moratorium. Well, the conference committee reconvened. 
Instead of improving the bill, they made it worse. If my colleagues 
voted for my motion to recommit the Interior appropriations conference 
report in September, they must vote for the motion to recommit that I 
will offer at the appropriate time today for two reasons: one, that the 
mining moratorium has not met the expectations of the House; and, 
second, because of what has been, what is being proposed for the 
Tongass National Forest. . . . 
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. YATES
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(20) Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
MR. YATES: I am, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Yates moves to recommit the conference report on the bill H.R. 1977 
to the committee of conference with instructions to the managers on the 
part of the House to insist on the House position on the amendments of 
the Senate numbered 108 and 158.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. [RALPH] REGULA [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     The first conference report (H. Rept. 104-259) was recommitted on 
Sept. 29, 1995 (141 CONG. REC. 26940, 26941, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.). 
The second report (H. Rept. 104-300) was recommitted on Nov. 15, 1995 
(141 CONG. REC. 32625, 32626, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.). The third and 
final report (H. Rept. 104-402) was agreed to on Dec. 13, 1995 (141 
CONG. REC. 36322, 36323, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.).
19.     See 141 CONG. REC. 32619, 32625, 32626, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., 
Nov. 15, 1995 (H.R. 1977, Interior appropriations for fiscal year 
1996).
20.     Scott McInnis (Colo.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 1083]]

and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: 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 230, nays 
199, not voting 4. . . . 

When Motion To Recommit Is Precluded

Sec.    32.4 A motion to recommit a conference report is not in order 
when the other House has, by acting on the report, discharged its 
managers.

On June 5, 1968,(1) at the end of debate on the conference report on 
H.R. 11308 (amending the National Foundation of Arts and Humanities Act 
of 1965) the following occurred:

MR. [FRANK] THOMPSON [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
previous question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
MR. [WILLIAM J.] SCHERLE [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
MR. THOMPSON of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(2) The gentleman will state the point of 
order.
MR. THOMPSON of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
against the motion to recommit on the ground that the other body has 
already acted.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The point of order is sustained.
The question is on the conference report.(3) 

Sec.    32.5 If the managers on the part of the House, which had agreed 
to a conference, fail to take possession of the papers at the close of 
that conference, the Senate may act first on the conference report and 
thereby preclude a motion to recommit in the House.

On July 3, 1952,(4) the Senate requested a conference with the House on 
the disagreeing votes on S. 3066, to amend the defense housing laws. 
Later that day(5) the Senate agreed to the conference report on S. 
3066. The next day(6) the report was called up in the House. At the 
conclusion of the debate thereon the following occurred:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     114 CONG. REC. 16058, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 3.     See also 102 CONG. REC. 13755, 13764, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 
20, 1956.
 4.     98 CONG. REC. 9048, 9049, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
 5.     Id. at p. 9169.
 6.     Id. at pp. 9379, 9380.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1084]]

MR. [BRENT] SPENCE [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
MR. [ABRAHAM J.] MULTER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER:(7) The Chair will state to the gentleman from New York 
that a motion to recommit is not in order, the Senate having acted on 
the conference report.
MR. MULTER: Mr. Speaker, if they did, they acted improperly, because 
this should have been acted on in the House first.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is not aware that the Senate has acted 
improperly. We have received a message that they agreed to the 
conference report.
The question is on the conference report. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 296, nays 22, not voting 
112.

Sec.    32.6 Where one House has acted first on a conference report 
(notwithstanding the fact that it had requested the conference) and 
thereby discharged its managers, the other House cannot recommit the 
report, but only has the option of accepting or rejecting it.

On Oct. 19, 1965,(8) the Senate agreed to the conference report on S. 
2300, the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965. On Oct. 20, 1965,(9) Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. George H. Fallon, 
of Maryland, to call up this conference report in the House. Mr. 
William C. Cramer, of Florida, noted that although the Senate had 
requested the conference(10) its managers had refused to surrender the 
papers to their House counterparts, contrary to the customary practice 
of the two Houses.

MR. CRAMER: . . . So far as I am concerned, the action taken leaves, in 
my opinion, if the proper rights of the House and the prerogatives of 
this great coequal legislative body, coequal with the Senate, if we are 
to sustain our rights as conferees and as a coequal body, little 
alternative but to vote down the conference report. . . . 
If we thus let them subvert the rules of this House, which are very 
clear, that the party asking for the conference, the other body has the 
right to act first on the conference report-and if that had been done, 
we would have had an opportunity to vote on a motion to recommit, for 
or against the Dickey-Lincoln School project a second time and so 
instruct the conferees-we will 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 8.     111 CONG. REC. 27346-60, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9.     Id. at pp. 27698-717.
10.     Id. at pp. 24841-49.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1085]]

see that the other body is acting to prevent us from acting. . . . 
In conference a member of the conferees asked the chairman the 
question: "Is it not true that the other body, the Senate, having asked 
for this conference, we, the House, have a right to the papers and to 
act first?" The answer was "Yes" by the chairman of the conference, the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. McNamara.

The House adopted the conference report.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate was anxious to act first on this 
conference report so that it could enforce its position with respect to 
the controversial Dickey-Lincoln School project on the St. John's 
River. The House had, on Sept. 22, 1965, rejected this project, but it 
had been restored, at the insistence of the Senate conferees, in the 
conference. Had the House acted first on the report, a motion to 
recommit would have been in order. The House conferees were advised to 
insist on their right to possession of the papers before they signed 
the report. In the conference, however, Senator Patrick V. McNamara, of 
Michigan, insisted on retaining the papers, notwithstanding the 
objections of the House conferees.

Effect of Report in Total Disagreement

Sec.    32.7 By unanimous consent, the House recommitted a conference 
report which had been filed but not called up and in which the 
conferees had reported in total disagreement, although under the usual 
procedure House conferees are discharged upon reporting their inability 
to agree.

On Oct. 19, 1971,(11) Mr. Paul G. Rogers, of Florida (on behalf of Mr. 
Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia), filed the conference report in 
total disagreement on Senate Concurrent Resolution 6, closing Public 
Health Service hospitals and clinics. The House took no action on the 
report until Dec. 1 of that year(12) when the following occurred:

MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the conference 
report on the Senate concurrent resolution, Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 6, be recommitted to the committee of conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     117 CONG. REC. 36867, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     Id. at p. 43835.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1086]]

THE SPEAKER:(13) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from West Virginia?
There was no objection.

Parliamentarian's Note: The usual rule is illustrated at 8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 3240, where Speaker Champ Clark, of Missouri, held that 
the managers on the part of the House had been discharged when they 
filed their report in total disagreement.

No Debate on Motion To Recommit Conference Report

Sec.    32.8 A motion to recommit a conference report with instructions 
is not subject to debate. 

Rule XVI clause 4,(14) relating to the motion to recommit a bill or 
joint resolution after the previous question is ordered, specifies that 
such a motion is subject to limited debate. However, a conference 
report does not fall under this clause, a report not being a "bill or 
joint resolution." The motion to recommit a conference report pending 
the previous question, or after the previous question is ordered, is 
authorized not by Rule XVI but by Rule XVII clause 1.(15) 

There is often confusion about which of these rules is applicable and 
for this reason the Chair sometimes clarifies the matter without 
waiting for an inquiry from the floor:(16) 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(17) Without objection, the previous question 
is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA
MR. [GEORGE] MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
MR. MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, yes; I am.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Miller of California moves to recommit the conference report on the 
bill S. 395 to the committee of conference with instructions to the 
managers on the part of the House to insist on the provisions of the 
House amendment No. 5 which strike title III of S. 395.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: This motion is not debatable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
14.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1997).
15.     Id. at Sec. 804.
16.     See 141 CONG. REC. 31761, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 8, 1995.
17.     Scott McInnis (Colo.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1087]]

Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
There was no objection.

Effect of Debate Subsequent to Adoption of Report; Effect on Motion To 
Recommit

Sec.    32.9 An agreement to permit debate of a conference report, even 
though the report had already been agreed to, and to insert this 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,(18) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, called up the 
conference report on S. 5, the Consumer Credit Protection Act, which 
the House then adopted without debate. Several Members expressed a 
desire to reopen these proceedings so that debate on the report might 
be in order. To accommodate the wishes of these Members, Speaker John 
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized the Majority Leader, Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma.

MR. ALBERT: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 40 minutes of 
debate may be had on this matter, to be equally divided between the 
gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from New Jersey, and that it 
appear in the Record prior to the adoption of the conference report.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
The Chair will always preserve the dignity of the proceedings of the 
House in protecting the rights of the Members.
The question now is: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Oklahoma?
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?
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     114 CONG. REC. 14375-96, 14398, 14402-05, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1088]]


Time For Motion

Sec.    32.10 A motion to recommit a conference report is not in order 
until the previous question has been ordered on the conference report.

On Dec. 15, 1970,(19) the House had debated the conference re- port on 
H.R. 17755, Department  of Transportation appropriations, fiscal 1971, 
and Mr. Edward P. Boland, of Massachusetts, had moved the previous 
question thereon. Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, rose.

MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(20) The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, as I understand, in order to have specific 
instructions given to the conferees it is necessary that the previous 
question be voted down; is that correct? I mean on the motion to 
recommit?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
Illinois is in error. The previous question on the conference report 
has to be ordered before there can be a motion to recommit.

Sec.    32.11 A motion to recommit a conference report is in order after 
the previous question has been ordered on the adoption of the report.

On June 28, 1955,(1) after the House ordered the previous question on 
the conference report on H.R. 3005, amending the Universal Military 
Training and Service Act, Mr. Noah M. Mason, of Illinois, raised a 
parliamentary inquiry.

MR. MASON: When is the proper time to offer a motion to recommit?
THE SPEAKER:(2) The proper time to offer a motion to recommit is after 
the ordering of the previous question.(3) 

Timing of Motion To Recommit

Sec.    32.12 A motion to recommit a conference report is in order after 
debate and the ordering of the previous question and is not affected by 
a special order waiving the reading. 

The Speaker's response to the following parliamentary inquiry 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     116 CONG. REC. 41502, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
 1.     101 CONG. REC. 9379, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 3.     See also 109 CONG. REC. 25409, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 21, 
1963; and 107 CONG. REC. 20533, 20534, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 21, 
1961.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1089]]

made on Aug. 2, 1977,(4) relates to the proper time to make a motion to 
recommit a conference report.

MR. [ELLIOTT] LEVITAS [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(5) The gentleman will state the parliamentary inquiry.
MR. LEVITAS: Mr. Speaker, will it be in order, since the rule waives a 
reading of the conference report, will it be in order to offer a motion 
to recommit and, if so, at what point would it be in order?
THE SPEAKER: It would be in order after the debate on the conference 
report. A motion to recommit is in order after the previous question is 
ordered.

Sec.    32.13 A motion to recommit comes too late after a conference 
report has been agreed to.

On May 22, 1968,(6) the House adopted without debate the conference 
report on S. 5, the Consumer Credit Protection Act, and laid on the 
table a motion to reconsider that action. After several Members 
expressed a desire to reopen these proceedings, the Majority Leader, 
Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, asked unanimous consent that 40 minutes of 
debate be allowed on the report, and that this debate appear in the 
Record prior to the adoption of the report. Speaker John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Richard H. Poff, of Virginia, under a 
reservation of 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?
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.

Recognition To Offer Motion

Sec.    32.14 The mere fact that a Member states he has a motion to 
recommit a conference report does not extend recognition by the Chair 
for such motion.

On June 28, 1955,(7) after the House ordered the previous question on 
the conference report on H.R. 3005, amending the Univer-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     123 CONG. REC. 26105, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
 6.     114 CONG. REC. 14375-96, 14398, 14402-05, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     101 CONG. REC. 9379, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1090]]

sal Military Training and Service Act, the following occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(8) The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
MR. [HOWARD W.] SMITH of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit.
MR. [NOAH M.] MASON [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit. . . . 
MR. SMITH of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. SMITH of Virginia: I offered a motion to recommit and I was 
recognized.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman had not been recognized by the Chair.
MR. SMITH of Virginia: I had been recognized. I was looking at the 
Speaker and the Speaker was looking at me.
THE SPEAKER: The point of order is overruled. The Clerk will report the 
motion to recommit of the gentleman from Illinois.

Sec.    32.15 In recognizing Members to move to recommit a conference 
report the Chair gives preference to Members opposed to the report.

On Sept. 11, 1940,(9) the House ordered the previous question on the 
conference report on S. 3550, prohibiting the transportation of 
convict-made goods in interstate commerce, after which the following 
occurred:

MR. [EARL C.] MICHENER [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
MR. MICHENER: Certainly.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman qualifies.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Michener moves to recommit the conference report to the conference 
committee. . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: . . . The question is on the motion to 
recommit.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Michener) 
there were-ayes 28, noes 94.

Speaker's Discretion

Sec.    32.16 A Member opposed to a conference report in its present form 
qualifies to move to recommit such report, but if another Member 
unequivocally opposed to the report desired recognition to make the 
motion, the Speaker indicated he would be given priority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 9.     86 CONG. REC. 11938, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
10.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1091]]

On Oct. 18, 1949,(11) after the previous question was ordered on the 
conference report on H.R. 5856, Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 
1949, the following occurred:

MR. [A. S. MIKE] MONRONEY [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
to recommit.
THE SPEAKER:(12) Is the gentleman opposed to the conference report?
MR. MONRONEY: I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Monroney moves to recommit the conference report to the conference 
committee with instructions to the managers on the part of the House to 
further insist upon the House provisions for the exemption of employees 
of newspapers of circulation of 5,000 or under.

MR. [WALTER E.] BREHM [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BREHM: If I understood the gentleman from Oklahoma correctly, he 
said he was opposed to the bill in its present form. If I understand 
the rules correctly, that is incorrect. He is either opposed to it or 
he is for it. I wonder if the gentleman will state his position?
THE SPEAKER: If the gentleman is opposed to the bill in its present 
form he would be opposed to it. However, if some other Member had asked 
to qualify to submit a motion to recommit, and said he was absolutely 
opposed to the bill, unequivocally, as a gentleman said the other day, 
then of course the Speaker would recognize him.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.

Sec.    32.17 Members of the minority party have preference in 
recognition for a motion to recommit.

On June 28, 1955,(13) the previous question had been ordered on the 
conference report on H.R. 3005, amending the Universal Military 
Training and Service Act. The following occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(14) The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
MR. [HOWARD W.] SMITH of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit.
MR. [NOAH M.] MASON [of Illinois]:(15) Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: . . . Is the gentleman from Illinois opposed to the bill?
MR. MASON: I am, definitely.
MR. SMITH of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     95 CONG. REC. 14943, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
13.     101 CONG. REC. 9379, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
14.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
15.     Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Smith was a member of the majority 
party, the Democrats. Mr. Mason was a Republican.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1092]]

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. SMITH of Virginia: I offered a motion to recommit and I was 
recognized.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman had not been recognized by the Chair.
MR. SMITH of Virginia: I had been recognized. I was looking at the 
Speaker and the Speaker was looking at me.
THE SPEAKER: The point of order is overruled. The Clerk will report the 
motion to recommit of the gentleman from Illinois.

Recognition for Motion To Recommit Conference Report

Sec.    32.18 The Chair's recognition for a motion to recommit a 
conference report, while guided by precedent, is not subject to 
challenge and there is no appeal from his decision of whom to recognize 
where a choice has to be made between a minority conferee and a more 
senior member of the committee of jurisdiction who is not a conferee.

The proceedings of June 27, 1980,(16) during consideration of the 
conference report on S. 1308, the Energy Mobilization Board Act, were 
as indicated below.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(17) All time has expired.
MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
previous question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: For what reason does the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Devine) rise?
MR. [SAMUEL L.] DEVINE [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
MR. [MANUEL] LUJAN [Jr., of New Mexico]: Mr. Speaker, I am a member of 
the conference committee, and I am opposed to the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Devine).
MR. DEVINE: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit, and I am opposed 
to the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman qualifies.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. LUJAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. LUJAN: Mr. Speaker, does not a member of the conference committee 
have preference in recognition to the ranking minority member on the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     126 CONG. REC. 17371, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
17.     John P. Murtha (Pa.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1093]]

standing committee working on the bill?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) was on his 
feet at the time of the recommittal motion. Does the gentleman from 
Ohio, the second ranking minority member of the conference committee, 
have a motion?
MR. [CLARENCE J.] BROWN of Ohio: I am unqualified for the motion to 
recommit. I was standing, however, to make sure that the motion to 
recommit was protected for the minority, and when the Chair recognized 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine), the ranking minority member of 
the Commerce Committee, I took my seat.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine) is 
recognized as the senior Member.
MR. LUJAN: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear an answer to my parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: As the gentleman knows, the Chair's control 
over recognition is not subject to challenge and the Chair recognized 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine).
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine) is recognized for a motion.
MR. DEVINE: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
MR. DEVINE: I am opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman qualifies.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Devine moves to recommit the conference report to accompany the 
Senate bill, S. 1308, to the committee of conference.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: 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 PRO TEMPORE: 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 232, nays 
131, answered "present" 1, not voting 69.

Sec.    32.19 Members of the minority have preference of recognition for 
motions to recommit and when such motion is offered by a Member of the 
majority the Speaker inquires as to whether any Member of the minority 
demands recognition.

On June 27, 1947,(18) after the House had completed debate on 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     93 CONG. REC. 7845, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1094]]

the conference report on H.R. 3737, providing revenue for the District 
of Columbia, the following occurred:

MR. [JOSEPH P.] O'HARA [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER:(19) Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
MR. O'HARA: I am, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Does any Member of the minority demand recognition? If 
not, the gentleman is recognized.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.(20) 

Sec.    32.20 The Speaker recognized a majority Member to offer a motion 
to recommit a conference report in the absence of a minority Member 
seeking recognition to offer the motion.

On July 23, 1970,(1) after the previous question was ordered on the 
conference report on H.R. 14705 (providing a federal-state unemployment 
compensation program) the following occurred:

MR. [JAMES G.] O'HARA [of Michigan]:(2) Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
to recommit.
THE SPEAKER:(3) Is the gentleman opposed to the conference report?
MR. O'HARA: I am, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

Sec.    32.21 Where his privilege of offering a motion to recommit a 
conference report was usurped by a designee of the Republican Minority 
Leader, the ranking minority manager voiced his objections during floor 
debate on the conference report. 

The comments carried here were made during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 3345, the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act 
of 1994.(4) 

MR. [JOHN T.] MYERS of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with somewhat mixed feelings and emotions. I 
hope I can express myself, where I stand. This is the third time that 
this same issue has come before this body. The other two times I have 
supported 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
20.     See also 92 CONG. REC. 9776, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 23, 1946.
 1.     116 CONG. REC. 25616, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. O'Hara was a Democrat, the majority 
party in the 91st Congress.
 3.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 4.     See 140 CONG. REC. 6096, 6097, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 23, 
1994.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1095]]

it, without any hesitation. However, the procedure that will probably 
be adopted today makes it very difficult for me to support the 
legislation. . . . 
So reluctantly today I want to see what happens on the motion to 
recommit. And I admit, the procedure being used today is one that has 
been used not too often around here. I am not disagreeing with the 
procedure that the leader's designee will offer the motion to recommit. 
It has not been used too many times around here, but I understand the 
rules of the House and there is no way I can object to it. But it is a 
procedure that should not be used very often, only most reluctantly 
when there is something wrong with the legislation.

Parliamentarian's Note: The rules of the Republican Conference, in 
effect on the date of Mr. Myers' remarks, provided as follows: 
"Whenever more than one Republican Member proposes to offer such a 
motion [to recommit], the Republican leader (or if not present and in 
the absence of a stated position, the most senior elected Member of the 
Leadership available) shall determine the course of action that best 
reflects the position of the Conference and the Leadership. Any 
Republican Member having priority in recognition to offer such a motion 
shall act in accordance with that determination, including if 
necessary, yielding one's rights to offer such a motion to another 
Republican Member."
It should be noted that this conference declaration does not have the 
status of a House rule. The power of recognition, even on a motion to 
recommit, resides in the Speaker, who, where possible,  follows 
precedent in determining which Member to recognize. A conference or 
caucus rule would not bind the Speaker but it is likely that he would 
show deference to the wishes of the Minority Leader in cases where 
there is a conflict among those seeking recognition to recommit. 

Motion as Subject to Amendment

Sec.    32.22 The Speaker has indicated that a motion to recommit a 
conference report may be amended if the previous question is voted down 
on the motion to recommit.

On Dec. 30, 1970,(5) after the previous question had been ordered on 
the conference report on H.R. 18582, amending the Food Stamp Act of 
1964, Mr. George A. Goodling, of Pennsylvania, offered the following 
motion:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     116 CONG. REC. 44169, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1096]]

Mr. Goodling moves to recommit the conference report on the bill H.R. 
18582 to the Committee on Conference.

MR. [WILLIAM R.] POAGE [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
question on the motion to recommit.
THE SPEAKER:(6) The question is on ordering the previous question on 
the motion to recommit. . . . 
MR. [THOMAS S.] FOLEY [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. FOLEY: Mr. Speaker, if the vote on the previous question on the 
motion to recommit does not carry, would it then be in order for a 
Member to seek recognition for the purpose of offering an amendment to 
the motion to recommit?
THE SPEAKER: The answer to that is, it would be under the precedents 
and practices of the House.(7) 

Sec.    32.23 Procedure in the House where the House rejects the motion 
for the previous question on a straight motion to recommit a conference 
report and amends the motion by the addition of instructions.

Where the previous question is rejected on a motion which is not 
subject to debate, the consideration of an amendment to the motion also 
proceeds without debate.     
When considering the conference report on a general appropriation bill,
(8) the House rejected a straight motion to recommit (which is not 
subject to debate) and then when an amendment was offered to add 
instructions that the managers insist on disagreement to a certain 
amendment, debated the amendment under a reservation of the right to 
object to dispensing with the reading of the amendment.(9) 

MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. MYERS OF INDIANA
MR. [JOHN T.] MYERS of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
MR. MYERS of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, in its present form, I am.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 7.     See also 101 CONG. REC. 9379, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., June 28, 
1955; and 96 CONG. REC. 12674, 12684, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 16, 
1950.
 8.     H.R. 2445 (energy and water appropriations for fiscal year 1994).
 9.     See 139 CONG. REC. 25330, 25331, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 
1993.
10.     William J. Hughes (N.J.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1097]]

Mr. Myers of Indiana moves to recommit the conference report on H.R. 
2445 to the committee of conference.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on ordering the previous 
question on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the 
Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
MR. [JIM] SLATTERY [of Kansas]: 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 159, nays 
264, not voting 10. . . . 
So the previous question on the motion to recommit was rejected. . . . 
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SLATTERY TO THE MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY 
MR. MYERS OF INDIANA
MR. SLATTERY: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the motion to 
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Slattery to the motion to recommit offered by 
Mr. Myers of Indiana: Insert before the period at the end the 
following: "with instructions to the managers on the part of the House  
to insist on disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 33".
MR. SLATTERY (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kansas?
MR. [SHERWOOD L.] BOEHLERT [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
right to object, I will not object, but I would ask my colleague from 
Kansas to explain the motion to recommit, because there is some 
question as to whether or not this motion would affect projects other 
than the SSC.
MR. SLATTERY: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kansas?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Slattery] to the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Myers] and on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the amendment to the motion 
to recommit offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Slattery].
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
MR. SLATTERY: 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 282, nays 
143, not voting 8. . . . 
So the amendment to the motion to recommit was agreed to. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to recommit, as 
amended.
The motion to recommit, as amended, was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


[[Page 1098]]

Sec.    32.24 A motion to recommit a conference report may be amended to 
include instructions to the House conferees if the previous question is 
voted down on the motion to recommit.

On Dec. 15, 1970,(11) after the House had completed debating the 
conference report on H.R. 17755, Department of Transportation 
appropriations, fiscal 1971, the following occurred:

MR. [EDWARD P.] BOLAND [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
previous question on the conference report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(12) Without objection, the previous question 
is ordered.
MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I object. I was on my 
feet, and I request a rollcall on ordering the previous question.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Illinois wants a rollcall 
on ordering the previous question?
MR. YATES: I do, Mr. Speaker, on the ground that a quorum is not 
present. I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, as I understand, in order to have specific 
instructions given to the conferees it is necessary that the previous 
question be voted down; is that correct? I mean on the motion to 
recommit?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
Illinois is in error. The previous question on the conference report 
has to be ordered before there can be a motion to recommit.(13) 
MR. YATES: Then, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
The previous question was ordered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     116 CONG. REC. 41502, 41503, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
12.     Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
13.     Parliamentarian's Note: The inquiry posed by Mr. Yates was 
premature. The question before the House at the time of the inquiry was 
on ordering the previous question on the conference report. This 
question required approval before any motion to recommit the conference 
report would have been in order. Mr. Yates attempted to clarify his 
inquiry to indicate that he was concerned with amending the motion to 
recommit if the previous question were voted down on that motion (which 
was still not in order). The Speaker Pro Tempore ignored this attempted 
clarification since the inquiry as clarified was nevertheless still 
premature. However, Mr. Yates' contention is supported at 8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec.Sec. 2695, 2762.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1099]]

MR. [MARK] ANDREWS of North Dakota: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
MR. ANDREWS of North Dakota: I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the gentleman from North 
Dakota has filed a motion to recommit. In view of the fact that the 
previous question has not been ordered--
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The previous question on the conference report 
has been ordered.
MR. YATES: But it has not been ordered on the motion to recommit, Mr. 
Speaker, because I would object to it.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will state that the Clerk has not 
reported the motion to recommit as yet.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Andrews of North Dakota moves to recommit the conference report on 
H.R. 17755 to the Committee of Conference.

MR. BOLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to 
recommit. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 205, nays 185, not voting 
43. . . . 
So the previous question was ordered. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(14) The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.

Sec.    32.25 A motion to recommit a conference report with instructions 
is not subject to amendment after the previous question is ordered on 
the motion.

On Sept. 20, 1962,(15) the House debated the conference report on H.R. 
12391, the Food and Agricultural Act of 1962. After the previous 
question had been ordered on the conference report, Mr. Charles B. 
Hoeven, of Iowa, offered a motion to recommit the report with 
instructions to the managers on the part of the House.

MR. [HAROLD D.] COOLEY [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
previous question on the motion to recommit.
The previous question was ordered.
MR. [THOMAS G.] ABERNETHY [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(16) The gentleman will state it.
MR. ABERNETHY: Mr. Speaker, is it in order to offer a substitute motion 
in the form of a simple motion to recommit the conference report?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
15.     108 CONG. REC. 20094-129, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
16.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1100]]

THE SPEAKER: Not after the previous question has been ordered.
MR. ABERNETHY: Has the previous question been ordered?
THE SPEAKER: The previous question has been ordered.

Special Order Prohibiting Instructions in Motion To Recommit 
Conference Report

Sec.    32.26 The House considered and rejected a special order reported 
from the Commit-tee on Rules which, inter alia, waived points of order 
against a conference report and prohibited instructions in any motion 
to recommit. 

The text of the special order, called up in the House on Apr. 19, 1988,
(17) is carried 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);
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     134 CONG. REC. 7345, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1101]]

"(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.".

Parliamentarian's Note: The reported rule specified that all points of 
order were waived against the conference report and against its 
consideration. One reason for this waiver was that  the conferees 
appointed to consider the nongermane issue, the so-called "dial-a-
porn" provision added in the Senate and modified in conference, never 
actually met.  They evidently conferred among  themselves without 
holding a formal meeting in open session. 
The second rare provision in the rule was the restriction on including 
instructions in the motion to recommit. This was the first instance 
where the Committee on Rules recommended such a limitation on a motion 
to recommit a conference report.

Divisibility of Motion

Sec.    32.27 A motion to recommit a conference report with instructions 
is not divisible.

On June 27, 1947,(18) after the previous question had been ordered on 
the conference report on H.R. 3737, to provide revenue for the District 
of Columbia, Mr. Joseph P. O'Hara, of Minnesota, offered a motion to 
recommit the report with instructions to the managers on the part of 
the House. Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, rose.

MR. DIRKSEN: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
THE SPEAKER:(19) The gentleman will state it.
MR. DIRKSEN: Would not the motion be divisible?
THE SPEAKER: A motion to recommit is not divisible.

Sec.    32.28 On a motion to recommit a conference report with 
instructions, it is not in order to demand a separate vote on the 
instructions or various branches thereof.

On Apr. 11, 1956,(20) Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
offered a motion to recommit the conference report on H.R. 12, to amend 
the Agricultural Act of 1949, with five specific instruc-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     93 CONG. REC. 7845, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
19.     Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
20.     102 CONG. REC. 6157, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1102]]

tions to the managers on the part of the House.

MR. [ARTHUR L.] MILLER of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(1) The gentleman will state it.
MR. MILLER of Nebraska: Since the motion to recommit applies to several 
titles and sections of the bill, is it possible under the rules of the 
House to get a separate vote on the various amendments that seek to 
strike certain matter from the bill?
THE SPEAKER: A motion to recommit is not subject to division.

Restrictions on Motion To Recommit

Sec.    32.29 The Committee on Rules has reported, and the House has 
adopted, a special order restricting the motion to recommit a 
conference report to one offered by the Minority Leader and specifying 
the debate time thereon.

The special order, as excerpted from the Congressional Record of Apr. 
21, 1988,(2) is carried in full here. 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3, TRADE AND INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY 
REFORM ACT OF 1987
MR. [CLAUDE] PEPPER [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 430 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 430
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall 
proceed to consider, without intervening motion, the conference report 
on the bill (H.R. 3) to enhance the competitiveness of American 
industry, and for other purposes, 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 continue 
not to exceed four hours, equally divided between the majority party 
and the minority party. Any motion to recommit the conference report 
with instructions, if offered by Representative Michel of Illinois, or 
his designee, shall be debatable for not to exceed twenty minutes, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and a Member opposed.

THE SPEAKER:(3) The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Pepper] is recognized 
for 1 hour.

Motion To Instruct Not Subject to Demand for Division of  Question

Sec.    32.30 The motion to recommit a bill to conference with various 
instructions is not 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 2.     134 CONG. REC. 8102, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1103]]

subject to a demand for a division of the question under Rule XVI 
clause 6; since only one proper motion to recommit is in order. 
In the 103d Congress,(4) Mr. George W. Gekas, of Pennsylvania, offered 
a motion to recommit the conference report on S. 349, the Lobbying 
Disclosure Act of 1994. The motion included instructions pertaining to 
several sections of the conference agreement. After a series of 
parliamentary inquiries, the proponent of the motion directed the 
following inquiry to the Speaker:

MR. GEKAS: Madam Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(5) The gentleman will state it.
MR. GEKAS: Madam Speaker, is the motion in order insofar as it seeks to 
clarify the ambiguous language that we feel is contained in this 
legislation on grassroots lobbying?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
order of the gentleman from Texas.
MR. GEKAS: Madam Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. GEKAS: Madam Speaker, I think I know the answer to this, but I must 
pose it for the record.
Is the motion that I have made divisible in any way?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman's motion is not divisible. The 
gentleman may offer one, proper motion to recommit.
MR. GEKAS: I understand that. I will yield to the decision of the Chair 
on this matter.

Waiver of Points of Order Against Conference Report Does Not Protect 
Motion To Instruct

Sec.    32.31 A waiver of all points of order against a conference report 
does not protect a motion to recommit the conference report with 
instructions.

The conference report on  S. 349, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1994, 
had been called up after the adoption of a special order(6) waiving all 
points of order against the report and its consideration. The Speaker 
was asked, by way of a parliamentary inquiry, whether the waivers 
granted in the rule 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     140 CONG. REC. 26781, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 29, 1994.
 5.     Nancy Pelosi (Calif.).
 6.     H. Res. 550, adopted by the House on Sept. 29, 1994. See 140 
CONG. REC. 26753, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1104]]

protected the motion to recommit.(7) 
  
MR. [DICK] ARMEY [of Texas]: Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(8) The gentleman will state it.
MR. ARMEY: Madam Speaker, I see by the rule just passed that allows 
this bill to be under consideration that in this rule, it says all 
points of order against conference report and against its consideration 
are waived except the provisions of clause 2. If in fact the majority 
is able to bring the bill to the floor by waiving all points of order 
against the bill, would that waiver not also cover the gentleman's 
motion to recommit?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The waiver does not inure to the motion to 
recommit.
MR. ARMEY: The waiver only applies to the bill brought to the floor by 
the majority, not to the motion to recommit offered by the minority?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: To the conference report.

Scope of Instructions Permitted in Motion

Sec.    32.32 A motion to recommit a conference report to the committee 
of conference with instructions to do something which the House itself 
does not have the power to do-to amend its own bill after its passage-
is not in order.

On Aug. 25, 1950,(9) after the House had finished considering the 
conference report on H.R. 7786, the general appropriation bill for 
fiscal 1951, Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, offered a motion to 
recommit.

THE SPEAKER:(10) The Clerk will report the motion of the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Marcantonio].
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Marcantonio moves to recommit the conference report on H.R. 7786 to 
the committee of conference with instructions to the managers on the 
part of the House to incorporate  in the conference report the 
following provision: At the end of chapter XI, titled "General 
Provisions," add the following:
"None of the funds appropriated in this act shall be paid to any 
person, firm, partnership, or corporation which refuses equality in 
employment to any person because of race, or creed."

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order against the motion.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state the point of order.
MR. CANNON: Mr. Speaker . . . the provision which the gentleman from 
New York seeks to add to the confer-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     See 140 CONG. REC. 26781, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 29, 1994.
 8.     Nancy Pelosi (Calif.).
 9.     96 CONG. REC. 13476, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
10.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 1105]]

ence report does not appear in either the House bill or the Senate 
bill. It is therefore not in conference. It is not in difference 
between the two Houses. . . . [T]he motion to recommit is not in order. 
. . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule. . . . The motion to recommit 
calls upon the committee of conference to do something which the House 
itself does not have the power to do, namely to amend its own bill 
after its passage. This matter, not being in either the House version 
or the Senate version of the bill, the Chair holds that the point of 
order is well taken and sustains the point of order.(11) 

Sec.    32.33 A motion to recommit a conference report with instructions 
to include a matter not in either the House or Senate version of the 
bill is not in order.

On Aug. 25, 1950,(12) the House was considering the conference report 
on H.R. 7786, the general appropriation bill, fiscal 1951. Mr. Vito 
Marcantonio, of New York, offered the following motion to recommit:

Mr. Marcantonio moves to recommit the conference report on H.R. 7786 to 
the committee of conference with instructions to the managers on the 
part of the House to incorporate in the conference report the following 
provision: At the end of chapter XI, titled "General Provisions," add 
the following:
"None of the funds appropriated in this act shall be paid to any 
person, firm, partnership, or corporation which refuses equality in 
employment to any person because of race, color, or creed."

Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, raised a point of order against this 
motion.

MR. CANNON: Mr. Speaker . . . the provision which the gentleman from 
New York seeks to add to the conference report does not appear in 
either the House bill or the Senate bill. It is therefore not in 
conference. It is    not in difference between the two Houses. . . . 
[T]he motion to recommit is not in order. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(13) The Chair is ready to rule. . . . The motion to 
recommit calls upon the committee of conference to do something which 
the House itself does not have the power to do, namely to amend its own 
bill after its passage. This matter, not being in either the House 
version or the Senate version of the bill, the Chair holds that the 
point of order is well taken and sustains the point of order.(14) 

Sec.    32.34 A motion to recommit a conference report may not 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     See also 101 CONG. REC. 5846, 5870, 5871, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., 
May 9, 1955.
12.     96 CONG. REC. 13476, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
13.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
14.     See also 101 CONG. REC. 5846, 5870, 5871, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., 
May 9, 1955.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1106]]

include instructions to report matter beyond the differences committed 
to conference.  
On Nov. 22, 1981,(15) during consideration of a conference report on a 
continuing appropriation bill, Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, 
who was concerned about the expiration date contained in the report, 
asked the following inquiry about how that date could be changed.

MR. CONTE: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my chairman a question.
I do not feel that there is a scope problem. We could offer a motion to 
recommit for a continuing resolution to a date certain, December 15. As 
I see it, under amendment 71, section 140, it says:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint resolution, this 
resolution, other than section 101, 142, 144, shall expire on March 30, 
1982.

Therefore, that is standing there naked and it would be in order to 
amend that to make it December 15 or December 18, 1981. . . . 
MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mississippi]: In the first place, the 
gentleman is asking me about the rules. I am not an expert on the 
rules, but I presume any motion to recommit with instructions could go 
to any part of the instrument we are dealing with. . . . 
MR. CONTE: Listen, I spoke on my feelings on this conference report and 
they have not changed a bit. But I think that we should know, and now I 
ask, in view of the fact that I did not get an answer, Mr. Speaker, I 
ask a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(16) The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) will 
state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. CONTE: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary inquiry is that on a motion 
to recommit can the date for the continuing resolution, the expiration 
date of July 15, be changed to an earlier date before July 15?
THE SPEAKER: That motion could only be considered by unanimous request 
because it would not be within the scope of the differences between the 
two Houses which have been committed to conference regarding 
termination dates.
MR. CONTE: I thank the Chair. That is the answer I want.

Sec.    32.35 A motion to recommit a conference report with instructions 
to the House managers to report back an agreement which would include 
the provisions of the bill as reported by the House committee, rather 
than as passed by the House with changes, was held not in order.

On May 9, 1955, the House was considering the conference report 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     127 CONG. REC. 28747, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
16.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1107]]

on S. 1, the Postal Field Service Compensation Act of 1955.(17) After 
the previous question had been ordered on the conference report, Mr. 
Edward H. Rees, of Kansas, offered the following motion to recommit:

Mr. Rees of Kansas moves to recommit the bill S. 1 as amended to the 
committee of conference with instructions to report back an agreement 
which would include the provisions of H.R. 4644 as reported by the 
House Post Office and Civil Service Committee, with the additional 
provision that the 6-percent increase be retroactive to March 1, 1955.

MR. [THOMAS J.] MURRAY of Tennessee: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order against the motion to recommit. As I understand, the motion 
instructs the conferees to do something less than the House voted. We 
are bound to follow the instructions of the House in the conference. 
That matter is not even in conference. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(18) The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair thinks that this 
question has been passed upon many times in the past. An exactly 
similar question was raised on September 15, 1922, when a very 
distinguished gentleman by the name of John N. Garner made a similar 
motion to recommit with instructions to the conferees to lower the 
rates contained in either the bill or in the amendment. Mr. Edward 
Taylor, of the State of Colorado, made the point of order. Speaker 
Gillette sustained the point of order, and that decision may be found 
in Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, section 3244. It is exactly on all 
fours with this. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Instructions Concerning Legislative Amendments to Appropriation Bill

Sec.    32.36 While a motion to recommit a conference report generally 
may not include instructions which would be inadmissible if offered as 
an amendment in the House, instructions to agree to a Senate amendment 
containing an appropriation not authorized by law is in order since the 
vote on the motion satisfies the separate vote requirement of Rule XX 
clause 2.(19) 

On Dec. 19, 1973,(20) after the previous question had been ordered on 
the conference report on H.R. 11576 (supplemental appropriations, 
fiscal 1974), Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, offered a motion 
to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     See 101 CONG. REC. 5846, 5870, 5871, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
19.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
20.     119 CONG. REC. 42565, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 1108]]

Mr. Conte moves to recommit the conference report on the bill (H.R. 
11576) to the committee on conference with the following instructions 
to the managers on the part of the House: To agree to Senate amendment 
No. 5.

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
against the motion to recommit on the ground that it is legislative, it 
is not authorized in law. Under the precedents of the House a motion to 
instruct conferees or to recommit a bill to conference under 
instructions may not include instructions directing the House conferees 
to do that which would be inadmissible if offered as an amendment in 
the House, Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, section 3235.
THE SPEAKER:(1) The point of order is not in order at this time.
Under clause 2 of rule XX, a motion to recommit a conference report 
with instructions to House conferees to agree to a Senate amendment 
which violates clause 2, rule XXI is in order. The motion to recommit 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts does not instruct the 
conferees to add additional legislation or an additional unauthorized 
item, but merely to concur in Senate amendment 5.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion to recommit. . . . 
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 216, nays 
180, not voting 36. . . . 
So the motion to recommit was agreed to.

Sec.    32.37 A motion to recommit a conference report on a general 
appropriation bill may not, under Rule XX clause 2,(2) include 
instructions which would add legislation to that contained in a Senate 
amendment.(3) 

On Nov. 13, 1973,(4) the House had just ordered the previous question 
on the conference report on H.R. 8877, appropriations for the 
Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare, when Mr. 
Albert H. Quie, of Minnesota, offered the following motion to recommit:

Mr. Quie moves to recommit the Conference Report on H.R. 8877 to the 
Committee of Conference with the following instructions to the Managers 
on the part of the House:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
Senate numbered 32 and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, 
insert the following: "That the aggregate amounts made available to 
each State under title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act for 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 2.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
 3.     Contrast Sec. 29.24, supra.
 4.     119 CONG. REC. 36847, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1109]]

grants to local education agencies within that State shall not be more 
than 120 per centum of such amounts as were made available for that 
purpose for fiscal year 1973, and the amount made available to each 
local educational agency under said title I-A shall not be less than 90 
per centum of the amount made available for that purpose for fiscal 
year 1973".

MR. [DANIEL J.] FLOOD [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order against the motion to recommit.
THE SPEAKER:(5) The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the motion to 
recommit on the ground that it instructs the conferees to include 
matter in the conference report which is not otherwise in order. This 
provision described in the instructions we just heard is clearly 
legislation on an appropriation act. Therefore, it is not eligible for 
inclusion in a conference report under provisions of clause 2, rule 20 
and clause 2, rule 21.(6) . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . . 
The motion to recommit directs the House conferees to recommend that 
the House recede from its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 32 and 
concur therein with an amendment. Senate amendment No. 32 was reported 
from conference in disagreement because, under clause 2 of rule XX, the 
House conferees had no authority to agree to that amendment, since it 
contained legislation on an appropriation bill and would have been 
subject to a point of order. The Chair notes that on June 26, 1973,(7) 
Chairman Holifield sustained a point of order against an amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Quie), on the grounds that 
the amendment added additional legislation to legislative language 
which had been permitted to remain in the bill by a resolution waiving 
points of order.
Under the precedents of the House, a motion to instruct conferees, or 
to recommit a bill to conference with instructions, may not include 
instructions directing House conferees to do that which would be 
inadmissible if offered as an amendment in the House-Cannon's 
Precedents, volume VIII, section 3235.
The Chair would like to point out two of the syllabi in section 3235:

Instructions to managers of a conference may not direct them to do that 
which they might not do otherwise.
A motion to instruct conferees may not include directions which would 
be inadmissible if offered as a motion in the House.

In the instant situation the Chair is of the opinion that the 
instructions included in the motion to recommit would, if offered in 
the House as an amendment to the language of the Senate amendment, add 
legislation thereto. As was the case in Chairman Holifield's ruling of 
June 26, 1973, the language would constitute a change in the allotment 
formula contained in the language of the Senate amendment. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 6.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1997).
 7.     119 CONG. REC. 21388, 21389, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1110]]

The Chair therefore holds that the motion to recommit is not a 
permissible motion within the meaning of clause 2, rule XX, and 
sustains the point of order.

Recommittal of Appropriation Bill

Sec.    32.38 Following remarks made by the Chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, a conference report on an appropriation bill was 
recommitted with instructions to the managers on the part of the House 
to insist on disagreement to certain Senate amendments.

On Oct. 4, 1967,(8) Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of Pennsylvania, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 10196, appropriations for the Departments of 
Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare, fiscal 1968. During the 
debate on the report, George H. Mahon, of Texas, Chairman of the full 
Committee on Appropriations, took the floor to criticize spending 
increases contained therein. However, Mr. Mahon added,

I do not condemn the report. I am going to vote for the conference 
report, because I think it is the best job that can be done at the 
moment. I am, however, telling the House that we are escalating 
spending and it is going to make it more and more difficult to lead the 
fight to rescind.

After the previous question had been ordered, the following occurred:

MR. [FRANK T.] BOW [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(9) Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
MR. BOW: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the conference report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bow moves to recommit the conference report on H.R. 10196 to the 
committee on conference with instructions to the managers on the part 
of the House to insist upon its disagreement to Senate amendments which 
exceed the budget request therefore.

MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to 
recommit.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to recommit. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 226, nays 174, not voting 
32. . . . 
So the motion to recommit was agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     113 CONG. REC. 27727-30, 27734-38, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9.     Hale Boggs (La.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1111]]

Recommittal Motion Instructing Conferees Not To Meet

Sec.    32.39 Example of a motion to recommit a conference report with 
instructions to the conferees not to meet again until subsequently 
directed to do so by the House. 

H.R. 1854, the legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1996, was the first to be considered in the budget cycle. The motion to 
recommit (which was rejected) was intended to delay final action on 
this appropriation bill until others had progressed through the 
process.(10) 
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. OBEY
MR. [DAVID R.] OBEY [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
MR. OBEY: At the present time, Mr. Speaker, yes.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Obey moves to recommit the conference report on H.R. 1854 (H. Rept. 
104-212) to the Committee on Conference with instruction that the 
conferees not meet until subsequently instructed to do so by the House 
pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XXVIII.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.

Recommittal by Unanimous Consent

Sec.    32.40 A conference report may by unanimous consent be recommitted 
to the committee of conference.

On June 30, 1965,(11) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York.

MR. CELLER: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the conference 
report on Senate Joint Resolution 1, concerning the amendment involving 
Presidential inability, be referred to the committee on conference 
because of a technical error in copying. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
There was no objection.(12) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     See 141 CONG. REC. 23747, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 6, 1995.
11.     111 CONG. REC. 15212, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     For other illustrations involving recommittal by unanimous 
consent, see 113 CONG. REC. 17738, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 28, 1967; 
104 CONG. REC. 12113, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., June 24, 1958; and 81 CONG. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1112]]

Sec.    32.41 A conference report was recommitted by unanimous consent to 
permit the conferees to make certain changes and to file a new report.

On Nov. 7, 1973,(13) Mr. John Melcher, of Montana, submitted the 
following request in relation to the conference report on S. 1081, the 
Alaska pipeline authorization:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the conference report on S. 
1081, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to grant rights-of-way 
across Federal lands where the use of such rights-of-way is in the 
public interest and the applicant for the right-of-way demonstrates the 
financial and technical capability to use the right-of-way in a manner 
which will protect the environment, be recommitted to the committee of 
conference for the purpose of directing the committee to make technical 
corrections.
THE SPEAKER:(14) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Montana?
There was no objection.

Sec.    32.42 On one occasion, a Member was granted unanimous consent to 
recommit a conference report on a bill and immediately submitted 
another on the same bill.

On Oct. 10, 1949,(15) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, and the following occurred:

MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to recommit the 
conference report on the bill (S. 2115) to authorize payment by the 
Administrator of Veterans' Affairs on the purchase of automobiles and 
other conveyances by certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes.
THE SPEAKER: Without objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. Rankin submitted the following conference report and statement on 
the bill (S. 2115) to authorize payment by the Administrator of 
Veterans' Affairs on the purchase of automobiles and other conveyances 
by certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes, for printing in 
the Record: . . . 

Sec.    32.43 Parliamentarian's Note: Where conferees had exceeded their 
authority in reporting new subject matter not in disagreement between 
them and had been advised that a point of order would be made against 
the report, the chairman of the House 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
REC. 5462, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 8, 1937.
13.     119 CONG. REC. 36222, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
14.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
15.     95 CONG. REC. 14163, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1113]]

conferees obtained unanimous consent for its recommittal.

On June 28, 1967,(16) Emanuel Celler, of New York, the Chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, made the following request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the conference report on the 
bill (H.R. 2508) to require the establishment, on the basis of the 18th 
and subsequent decennial censuses, of congressional districts composed 
of contiguous and compact territory for the election of 
Representatives, and for other purposes, be recommitted to the 
committee of conference.
Mr. Speaker, this has been cleared by the minority leader, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Gerald R. Ford], and by the ranking Member 
on the minority side, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch].
THE SPEAKER:(17) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New York?
There was no objection.

Conference Action Where Report Is Recommitted

Sec.    32.44 Where the House had rejected a special order waiving points 
of order against a conference report, the House later, by unanimous 
consent, recommitted the report, thus requiring the conferees to meet 
and file a new conference report, complete with new signatures by the 
conferees.

On Aug. 11, 1994, the House rejected a special order waiving all points 
of order against the conference report on the Violent Crime Control and 
Law Enforcement Act of 1993.(18) On Aug. 19, 1994, the House, by 
unanimous consent, recommitted the bill to the existing conference. The 
Speaker did not have to reappoint the conferees, but did supplement his 
original appointment by adding three general conferees (raising the 
number of general conferees to 13, in a ratio of eight majority to five 
minority).(19) On Aug. 21, 1994, a new conference report was filed, and 
on the same day the Committee on Rules reported, and the House passed, 
another resolution protecting the new conference 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     113 CONG. REC. 17738, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
18.     H. Res. 517 waived all points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration, as well as the reading of the 
voluminous report. See 140 CONG. REC. 21541-69, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
19.     See 140 CONG. REC. 23316, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 19, 1994.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1114]]

report. This new rule (20) contained the same waivers that were in the 
rejected special order but did increase the debate time and permitted 
one motion to recommit, which could contain instructions only if 
offered by the Minority Leader. The new rule and the conference report 
were adopted on this date.

The recommittal, the appointment of conferees, and the form of the rule 
finally adopted are carried below.
RECOMMITTAL OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3355, VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL 
AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1993
MR. [RICHARD A.] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the conference report on the bill, H.R. 3355, to amend the 
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow grants to 
increase police presence, to expand and improve cooperative efforts 
between law enforcement agencies and members of the community to 
address crime and disorder problems, and otherwise to enhance public 
safety, be considered and recommitted to conference.
THE SPEAKER:(1) The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] asks 
unanimous consent that the bill, H.R. 3355, be recommitted to 
conference.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection. . . . 
APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL CON-FEREES ON H.R. 3355, VIOLENT CRIME 
CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1993
THE SPEAKER: Pursuant to rule X, the Chair appoints as additional 
conferees to the bill (H.R. 3355) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control 
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow grants to increase police 
presence, to expand and improve cooperative efforts between law 
enforcement agencies and members of the community to address crime and 
disorder problems, and otherwise to enhance public safety, the 
following Members: Mrs. Schroeder, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, and Mr. 
Castle.
The Clerk will notify the Senate of the change in conferees.

On Aug. 21, 1994,(2) the new conference report on H.R. 3355 was filed 
and a rule was then adopted waiving points of order.
FURTHER CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3355, VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW 
ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1993
Mr. Derrick, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
privileged resolution (H. Res. 526, Rept. No. 103-713), which was 
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     H. Res. 526. See 140 CONG. REC. 23567, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
 1.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
 2.     140 CONG. REC. 23567, 23568, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1115]]

H. RES. 526
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider a further conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3355) 
to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
allow grants to increase police presence, to expand and improve 
cooperative efforts between law enforcement agencies and members of the 
community to address crime and disorder problems, and otherwise to 
enhance public safety. 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 80 minutes, with 20 minutes controlled by the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, 40 minutes controlled by the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and 20 minutes 
controlled by Representative Castle of Delaware. 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 contain instructions only if offered by Representative Michel 
of Illinois or his designee.

MR. [BUTLER] DERRICK [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 526 and ask for its 
immediate consideration. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 526 waives all points of order against 
the conference report on H.R. 3355, the Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act, and against its consideration. The rule further 
provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
This rule will allow the House to consider the conference report for 
H.R. 3355, the omnibus crime control bill. The rule also allows for one 
motion to recommit. The motion to recommit may contain instructions, 
but only if offered by Representative Michel or his designee. The 
motion to recommit may not contain instructions under any circumstances 
unless offered by Representative Michel or his designee.

Recommittal Under Suspension of the Rules

Sec.    32.45 A conference report was recommitted to a conference 
committee under a motion to suspend the rules.

On Apr. 1, 1935,(3) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, recognized 
Mr. James P. Buchanan, of Texas, and the following occurred:

MR. BUCHANAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the conference 
report on House Joint Resolution 117, making appropriations for relief 
purposes, be recommitted to the Committee of Conference.
MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, will the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Buchanan], explain why he 
wants to have the joint resolution recommitted?
MR. BUCHANAN: Mr. Speaker, there are several reasons.
MR. [CLIFTON A.] WOODRUM [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
regular order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     79 CONG. REC. 4761, 4765, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1116]]

MR. TABER: Then I shall object, Mr. Speaker. . . . 
MR. BUCHANAN: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and recommit the 
conference report on House Joint Resolution 117, making appropriations 
for relief purposes, to the committee of conference.
THE SPEAKER: Is a second demanded?
MR. TABER: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
MR. BUCHANAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a second be 
considered as ordered.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
There was no objection. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Buchanan] to suspend the rules and recommit the conference report 
to the committee of conference. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 257, nays 110, not voting 
64. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to.

Recommitting Bill in Enrollment Stage to Conference

Sec.    32.46 The House, by a motion to suspend the rules, agreed to a 
concurrent resolution (1) rescinding the signatures of the Speaker and 
the President Pro Tempore of the Senate on an enrolled bill, (2) 
vacating the adoption of the conference report in the two Houses, and 
(3) then recommitting the matter to a conference committee.

Where congressional action had been completed on a major railroad bill, 
the delivery of the enrolled Senate bill was delayed pending 
consultations with the White House regarding changes in the bill which 
might prevent a Presidential veto. The concurrent resolution considered 
under suspension of the rules on Jan. 20, 1976,(4) was the mechanism 
used in the House to re-create the conference committee so the 
modifications could be made.(5) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     H. Con. Res. 527, vacating certain actions of the Senate and the 
House on S. 2718, the Rail Services Act of 1975. See 122 CONG. REC. 
281, 282, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5.     The bill had been enrolled by the Senate before the sine die 
adjournment of the two Houses on Dec. 19, 1975 (121 CONG. REC. 42014, 
94th Cong. 1st Sess.). Hearing of an anticipated veto, the Senate held 
the bill until the second session convened on Jan. 20, 1976, when 
action could be taken to send the bill back to conference to make 
necessary modifications. The concurrent resolution considered in the 
House vacated the conference proceedings in both Houses in the reverse 
order to the actual actions in adopting the report in the two Houses, 
thereby returning to the stage of the bill prior to consideration of 
the conference report, thereby re-
---------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1117]]

MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 
527) vacating certain actions of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives with respect to the bill S. 2718, relating to railroad 
revitalization and regulatory reform, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. CON. RES. 527
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That 
the action of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
acting President pro tempore of the Senate in signing the enrolled bill 
(S. 2718) to improve the quality of rail services in the United States 
through regulatory reform, coordination of rail services and 
facilities, and rehabilitation and improvement financing, and for other 
purposes, is hereby rescinded; the proceedings by which the House 
adopted the conference report on such bill and laid on the table a 
motion to reconsider the vote thereon on December 19, 1975, are hereby 
vacated; the proceedings by which the Senate adopted the conference 
report on such bill and laid on the table a motion to reconsider the 
vote thereon on December 19, 1975, are hereby vacated; and the 
conference report on such bill is hereby recommitted to the committee 
of conference.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) Is a second demanded?
MR. [JOE] SKUBITZ [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, a second will be considered 
as ordered.
There was no objection.
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is necessary to resolve a situation which 
has arisen because of the rejection by the administration of some of 
the provisions contained in the bill, S. 2718, relating to railroad 
revitalization and regulatory reform, agreed to by both Houses on 
December 19, 1975.
The administration indicated that the bill would be vetoed because of 
the amount of money involved and because of the lack of administration 
control over the funding of ConRail, the corporation created to operate 
the bankrupt northeast railroads.
Because of this certain veto, the Senate did not send the bill to the 
White House in the usual manner. During the recess period over 
Christmas, the leadership of the two committees involved, the Committee 
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and the Senate Commerce Committee, 
authorized representatives of both committees to sit down with 
representatives of the administration and discuss the possibility of 
developing a recommendation for modification of this legislation which 
might be acceptable to both the House and the Senate, as well as the 
administration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
constituting the original conference to which the bill was then 
recommitted by action of H. Con. Res. 527. New conferees were therefor 
not named and no motion to instruct was available.
 6.     John J. McFall (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1118]]


The negotiations have been completed and this resolution is necessary 
to vacate the actions of both Houses in agreeing to the bill and to 
recommit the legislation to the conference committee where the 
conferees can examine the recommended proposal and file a new 
conference report with both Houses.

The Senate on the following day(7) adopted House Concurrent Resolution 
527 and under the terms thereof the matter was recommitted to 
conference. When the House received a message from the Senate informing 
it of the Senate's concurrence, the Speaker appointed one conferee to 
fill a vacancy on the conference committee which had been caused by the 
resignation of a Member from the House.

A message from the Senate by Mr. Sparrow, one of its clerks, announced 
that the Senate had passed without amendment a concurrent resolution of 
the House of the following title:

H. Con. Res. 527. Concurrent resolution vacating certain actions of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives with respect to the bill S. 
2718, relating to railroad revitalization and regulatory reform, and 
for other purposes. . . .
The message also announced that the Senate vacates its adoption of the 
conference report on S. 2718 and recommits the same to the committee of 
conference, pursuant to the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 
527. 
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE ON S. 2718
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(8) The  Chair announces, without objection, 
the appointment of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill) as 
a conferee on the Senate bill (S. 2718) to fill the existing vacancy on 
the committee of conference on that bill.
There was no objection. 

Effect of Recommittal

Sec.    32.47 When a conference report is recommitted to the committee of 
conference the entire matter is again before that committee for 
consideration.

On Sept. 11, 1940,(9) the House was considering the conference report 
on S. 3550, prohibiting the transportation of convict-made goods in 
interstate commerce. Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, offered a 
motion to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Michener moves to recommit the conference report to the conference 
committee.

MR. MICHENER: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     122 CONG. REC. 526, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 21, 1976.
 8.     John J. McFall (Calif.).
 9.     86 CONG. REC. 11938, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1119]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The gentleman will state it.
MR. MICHENER: If this motion should carry, the conferees would then be 
permitted to go back and cut out all the exemptions which they have 
included here if they wanted.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The whole matter would be before the 
conferees.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Michener) 
there were-ayes 28, noes 94.

Filing and Numbering of Second Conference Report

Sec.    32.48 Where a conference report is recommitted to the committee 
of conference, and a second report is then filed by the conferees, this 
second report is numbered and otherwise treated as a new and separate 
report.

On June 28, 1962,(11) the following entry appeared in the portion of 
the Record regarding reports of committees in the House:

MR. PATMAN: Committee of conference. S. 3161. An Act to provide for 
continuation of authority for regulation of exports, and for other 
purposes (Rept. No. 1949). Ordered to be printed.

However that same day(12) this conference report was filed in and then 
recommitted by the Senate. On June 29, 1962,(13) Mr. Wright Patman, of 
Texas, made the following request:

MR. PATMAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the managers on 
the part of the House of the Banking and Currency Committee have until 
12 o'clock tonight to file a report on S. 3161.
THE SPEAKER:(14) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
There was no objection.

The Record for June 29, 1962,(15) carried this entry regarding reports 
of committees:

MR. PATMAN: Committee of conference. S. 3161. An Act to provide for 
continuaqtion of authority for regulation of exports, and for other 
purposes (Rept. No. 1955). )rdered to be printed.

On June 30, 1962, Mr. Patman called up the new conference report on S. 
3161, House Report No. 1955.

MR. PATMAN: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill 
(S. 3161) to provide for continuation of authority for regulation of 
exports, and 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
11.     108 CONG. REC. 12135, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
12.     Id. at pp. 12192, 12196, 12197.
13.     Id. at p. 12297.
14.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
15.     108 CONG. REC. 12343, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1120]]

for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
managers on the part of the House be read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
The conference report and statement are as follows:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 1955)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 3161) to provide for 
continuation of authority for regulation of exports, and for other 
purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to 
recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: . . . 

Sec.    32.49 Where a conference report is recommitted with instructions 
relating to certain items in such report, the managers at the 
conference are not discharged and it is necessary for them to arrive at 
a new agreement and file a new report.

On June 8, 1942,(16) the Senate was discussing the conference report on 
S. 2025 relating to pay allowances for certain service personnel. 
Senator Warren R. Austin, of Vermont, made the following statement:

In view of the statement by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin 
[Mr. La Follette] that he raised a question only as to one point in the 
conference report, and did not raise any question as to the remainder 
of it, but wished the remainder to be left undisturbed as reported, I 
should like to have the Record show the parliamentary status of the 
report of the conferees on Senate bill 2025.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(17) The Chair understands that the conferees 
have not been discharged by the action of either House on the 
conference report. Therefore the motion recently agreed to by the 
Senate recommits the conference report and the bill to the same 
conferees, with instructions to the Senate conferees. As the Chair 
understands the instructions, they deal with specific items. The Senate 
conferees are instructed only with respect to the items dealing with 
the seventh and sixth grades.
MR. AUSTIN: Mr. President, another parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator will state it.
MR. AUSTIN: Is it true that the present parliamentary status makes it 
necessary to have a new agreement and a new conference report?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Chair so holds.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     88 CONG. REC. 4995, 4996, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
17.     Joel Bennett Clark (Mo.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1121]]

Effect of Instructions on Specified Item(s)

Sec.    32.50 If a conference report is recommitted with instructions on 
one item, the managers are not confined, in their new conference, to 
the subject matter of the instructions but may negotiate and report on 
all matters that have been in disagreement.

On Dec. 20, 1969,(18) as the House concluded its consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 15149, foreign assistance appropriations 
fiscal 1970, Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, posed a parliamentary 
inquiry concerning a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. If the motion to recommit reads 
as follows, will it limit the conference to the consideration of this 
particular issue, or will the conference as a whole be open for the 
consideration of all issues in the conference? Let me read the motion 
to recommit, Mr. Speaker, that will be as follows:

I move to recommit the conference report on the bill H.R. 15149 with 
instructions to the managers on the part of the House to agree with the 
amendment of the Senate No. 25.

Mr. Speaker, if that is offered and does prevail, is the conference as 
a whole free to discuss and decide issues involving the whole bill or 
all issues within both the House and Senate versions?
THE SPEAKER:(19) In response to the parliamentary inquiry, if the 
motion to recommit with instructions on one item should prevail, then 
all items in disagreement are open for further consideration by the 
conference committee.

Notification to Senate

Sec.    32.51 Where a conference report is recommitted to conference, the 
Senate is not notified and the House managers carry the original papers 
back to conference.

On Dec. 1, 1971,(20) the following occurred concerning the conference 
report on Senate Concurrent Resolution 6 (closing Public Health 
Service hospitals and clinics) which had been reported in total 
disagreement:(1) 

MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the conference report on the Senate concurrent 
resolution, Senate Concurrent Resolution 6, be recommitted to the 
committee of conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     115 CONG. REC. 40454, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
19.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
20.     117 CONG. REC. 43835, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     117 CONG. REC. 36867, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 1971.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1122]]

THE SPEAKER:(2) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
There was no objection.

Immediately after this request was granted the House proceeded to 
consider other business.

Rejection of Motion

Sec.    32.52 If a motion to recommit a conference report is voted down, 
the question before the House is on the adoption of the conference 
reports.

On Sept. 20, 1962,(3) after the House had ordered the previous question 
on the conference report on H.R. 12391 (the Food and Agricultural Act 
of 1962) Mr. Charles B. Hoeven, of Iowa, offered a motion to recommit 
the report. Mr. Thomas G. Abernethy, of Mississippi, posed a 
parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, if the motion of the gentleman from Iowa is voted down, 
would it then be in order for the House conferees to return to 
conference upon the making of a proper motion?
THE SPEAKER:(4) If the motion to recommit is defeated, then the 
question comes on adoption of the conference report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 3.     108 CONG. REC. 20099, 20105, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------




 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT
 
        INDEX TO PRECEDENTS

[[Page 1123]]

Adjournment, appointment of conferees after, see Conferees
Amendment to motion to go to conference, see Motion to agree to or 
 request conference
Amendments in disagreement, see Disagreement, amendments in
Anticipating Senate action
adjournment, unanimous-consent agreement concerning Senate bill 
 expected to be received during, Sec. 2.23
 agree to conference and authorize Speaker to appoint conferees on 
 anticipated Senate bill, unanimous-consent agreement to, Sec.Sec.
 2.23- 2.26
 "deeming" certain action to have been taken by House in response to 
 anticipated Senate action, Sec.Sec. 2.24-2.27, 22.24
 special order permitting House to consider motion to dispose of Senate 
 amendments before stage of disagreement, Sec. 5.19
Authorization by committees for motions to go to conference, see 
 Committee authorization for motions to go to conference
Blue-slipping measure containing amendment in violation of House 
 prerogative to originate revenue measures, Sec. 1.12
Closed or open conference
 instructions to conferees may permit closed sessions, Sec. 12.11
 Intelligence, Select Committee on, may close meetings without floor 
 vote, Sec. 5.4
 Members of Congress, only, were permitted to attend, Sec.Sec. 5.3, 5.5
 motion to close conference
 forms of motion, Sec. 5.5
 privileged, Sec. 5.3
 time for making, Sec.Sec. 5.5, 5.6
 Closed or open conference-Cont.
 motion to close conference-Cont.
 vote requirement, Sec.Sec. 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 5.18
 vote, time for, reduced to five minutes, Sec. 5.18
 open conference
 point of order based on alleged violation of rule, Sec.Sec. 5.7, 5.13
 requirement generally, Sec.Sec. 5.7, 5.8, 5.12, 5.13
 vote on motion to close, reducing time for, Sec. 5.18
 vote required to close conference, Sec.Sec. 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 5.18
 vote requirement to close meeting not applicable to Select Committee 
 on Intelligence, Sec. 5.4
Committee authorization for motions to go to conference
 dilatory motions, prevention of, Sec. 2.40
 joint referral of bill, authorization by committees in cases of, 
 Sec.Sec. 2.10-2.12, 2.32, 4.6
 jurisdiction of bill, committee or committees having, Sec.Sec. 2.10-
 2.12, 2.32, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6
 recognition for motion, see Motion to agree to or request conference
 referrals of bill, joint, Sec.Sec. 2.10-2.12, 2.32, 4.6
 repetition of motion, authorization for, Sec. 2.13
 reporting committee, motion to send bill to conference is privileged     
 if  
 offered at direction of, Sec.Sec. 2.12, 4.6
 rule, applicable, Sec.Sec. 2.1, 2.40
 subcommittee chairman acted at direction of full Committee on 
 Appropriations, Sec. 4.7
 unanimous-consent request to ask for conference, motion in order after 
 objection to, Sec.Sec. 2.5, 2.7, 4.4


[[Page 1124]]

Committee of conference (see also Conferees)
joint committee, considered to be, Sec. 1.7
quorum for meeting, Sec. 5.8
select committee, compared to, Sec. 6.50
Conferees
absence of conferee, Sec. 6.10
appointment of, by Speaker
additional conferees, appointment of, Sec.Sec. 6.12, 6.16, 6.19, 6.20, 
6.29-6.31, 6.49
additional conferees, appointment of, by Speaker Pro Tempore, Sec. 6.16
adjournment, after, Sec.Sec. 2.23, 6.21, 6.22
alternate conferees to serve in lieu of absent conferees, Sec. 6.10
amendment, assignment of portions of, to Members from different 
subcommittees, Sec. 6.38
amendment, sponsor of, as conferee, Sec.Sec. 6.4, 6.29-6.31
authority with respect to portion of Senate amendment, conferees 
appointed to exercise, Sec. 6.18
committee chairman, recommendations by, Sec. 6.2
committee jurisdiction as basis of appointments, Sec.Sec. 6.23, 6.24, 
6.26-6.28, 6.32-6.36, 6.40-6.44
committees, multiple, conferees from, Sec.Sec. 6.23-6.28, 6.37, 6.39-
6.41
"core group," authority of, to report disagreement, Sec. 6.37
criteria for selection of, Sec. 6.3
death of conferee, appointment of replacement after, Sec.Sec. 6.11, 8.8
delayed appointment of conferees, Sec.Sec. 6.17, 6.18
discretion of Speaker, Sec.Sec. 6.1, 6.3, 6.4, 6.8
appointment of, by Speaker-Cont.
"exclusive" conferees, appointment of, on specified provisions, 
Sec.Sec. 6.34, 6.45, 6.47
further conference, reappointment of conferees for, Sec. 6.7
"general" and "limited" conferees, Sec. 6.48
intervening motion, without, Sec.Sec. 2.29, 2.30
"issue clusters," subconferences on, Sec.Sec. 6.39, 6.46
jurisdictional balance, Sec.Sec. 6.17, 6.23-6.28, 6.35, 6.36, 6.40-6.42
jurisdictional claims of committees, future, not to be based on 
appointment of conferees on particular measures, Sec. 6.50
leadership, representatives from, appointed where party has taken 
policy position on measure, Sec. 6.49
"limited" and "general" conferees, Sec. 6.48
majority and minority, numbers of, Sec.Sec. 6.9, 6.25
meeting informally prior to appointment, effect on validity of 
conference report of, see Reports, conference
number of conferees, Sec. 6.8
papers, official, appointment of conferees before receipt from Senate 
of, Sec. 22.24
political affiliation of, Sec.Sec. 6.9, 6.25
positions taken by conferees with respect to bill, Sec. 6.3
rank of additional conferees, Sec. 6.12
reappointment of conferees for further conference, Sec. 6.7
referrals of measures, future, not to be based on appointment of 
conferees on particular bill, Sec. 6.50


[[Page 1125]]

appointment of, by Speaker-Cont.
replacement of conferee who resigned or was excused, Sec.Sec. 8.3-8.6, 
8.9, 8.11, 8.15, 8.16
replacement to fill vacancy caused by death of conferee, Sec.Sec. 6.11, 
8.8
report, appointment and meeting as prerequisites to filing, see 
Reports, conference
rescinding appointment of House and Senate conferees by concurrent 
resolution, Sec. 8.18
rules regarding, Sec. 6.3
Senate amendment, subject matter of, as basis for appointment, Sec.Sec. 
6.32-6.34
Senate bill, conferees appointed with reference to specified portions 
of, Sec. 6.44
Senate, notification to, of appointment of additional conferees, Sec. 
6.13
Speaker Pro Tempore, designated or appointed, appointment by, Sec.Sec. 
6.6, 6.12, 6.15, 6.43
Speaker Pro Tempore, elected, may appoint conferees, Sec. 6.14
Speaker Pro Tempore was authorized by unanimous consent to appoint 
replacement for conferee who resigned, Sec. 8.11
special order providing that House request conference and that Speaker 
immediately appoint conferees, Sec.Sec. 6.51, 6.52
subcommittees, assignment of portions of amendment to Members from 
different, Sec. 6.38
subcommittees, assignment of portions of bill to Members from 
different, Sec. 6.46


Conferees-Cont.
appointment of, by Speaker-Cont.
subconferences where nucleus of conferees must resolve complex issues, 
Sec. 6.39
appointment of, in Senate, Sec. 6.5
appropriation on legislative bill, rule prohibiting conferees from 
agreeing to, applies only to provisions in Senate amendments, Sec.Sec. 
19.15-19.19
authority of
appropriation bill, conferees authorized by unanimous consent to agree 
to Senate legislative amendment, Sec. 7.24
appropriation on legislative bill, conferees must have specific 
authority in order to agree to Senate amendment providing for, Sec.Sec. 
7.19, 7.21
appropriation on legislative bill, rule prohibiting conferees from 
agreeing to, applies only to provisions in Senate amendments, Sec.Sec. 
19.15-19.19
appropriation on legislative bill, separate vote on, in House, Sec. 
7.20
appropriations in Senate bill with House amendments did not violate 
rule applicable to Senate amendments, Sec. 7.30
concurrent resolution used to expand authority, Sec. 30.31
"core group," authority of, to report disagreement, Sec. 6.37
defining authority, language used in, Sec.Sec. 6.35, 6.36, 6.42, 6.43
designation by Speaker of subject matter on which conferees authorized 
to confer, manner of, Sec. 6.47
disagreement, authority of "core group" to report, Sec. 6.37


[[Page 1126]]

Conferees-Cont.
authority of-Cont.
exceeding authority, see "scope" topics below and under Reports, 
conference
expanding authority by concurrent resolution, Sec.Sec. 7.14, 7.15, 
13.3, 30.31
expanding authority by unanimous-consent agreement, Sec. 2.37
expanding authority, resolution as, Sec. 2.30
"issue clusters," authority related to, Sec.Sec. 6.39, 6.46, 6.47
scope of conference, matters within, see below
Senate amendments, granting specific authority to act on, Sec.Sec. 
2.30, 2.37, 6.18, 6.34, 13.1
specific and general authority of, Sec.Sec. 6.18, 6.20, 6.37, 6.40-
6.46, 6.48, 7.19, 7.21
specific authority of proponent of amendment, Sec.Sec. 6.29-6.31
subject matter on which conferees authorized to confer, manner of 
designation by Speaker of, Sec. 6.47
unanimous consent, authority expanded by, Sec. 2.37
waiving restrictions on, Sec.Sec. 2.30, 2.37
closing conference, vote required for, see Closed or open conference
death of conferee, appointment of replacement upon, Sec.Sec. 6.11, 8.8
discharging conferees (see also Instructions to conferees)
Senate unilaterally discharged conferees and acted on amendments in 
disagreement where conference was in progress, Sec. 24.11
twenty days, failure to report within, after appointment, see 
Instructions to conferees
discharging conferees where they report in total disagreement, Sec. 
32.7
excusing conferee from service or accepting resignation, House as, 
Sec.Sec. 8.2-8.7, 8.9-8.16
failure to report within twenty days, see Instructions to conferees
instructions to conferees, see Instructions to conferees
intent, legislative, as disclosed by transcript of conference inserted 
in Record, Sec. 5.17
meeting
adjournments, during, Sec. 5.9
defined, Sec. 5.12
informal discussions as "meeting," Sec. 5.12
points of order against conference report as based on failure to meet, 
see Reports, conference
procedures for complex conference were listed in Record, Sec. 5.16
public meeting, requirement of, see Closed or open conference
quorum, Sec. 5.8
recesses, during, Sec. 5.9
report, conference, prerequisite to filing, see Reports, conference
telephone conference insufficient, Sec. 5.15
validity of, requirements for, Sec.Sec. 5.12, 5.14, 5.15
votes, five-minute, meeting during, Sec. 5.8
proxy voting, Sec. 5.10
quorum requirements for valid meeting and report, Sec. 5.8
Record, transcript of conference inserted in, legislative intent as 
disclosed by, Sec. 5.17
removal of conferees, Sec. 8.1


[[Page 1127]]

Conferees-Cont.
removal of conferees by Speaker Pro Tempore, Sec. 6.15
removal of conferees, rule governing, Sec. 6.15
removal of conferees under former practice, Sec. 6.12
resignation following conviction of felony, Sec. 8.12
resignation, letter of, acceptance by House of, Sec.Sec. 8.7, 8.13, 
8.14, 8.16
resignation of conferee, Sec.Sec. 8.2-8.7, 8.9-8.16
resignation of House or Senate conferee, notification to other body of, 
Sec.Sec. 8.16, 8.17
resignation, statement on floor by conferee after, Sec. 8.10
resignation submitted by telegram, Sec. 8.15
scope of issues committed to conference, authority to be exercised 
within (see also Reports, conference)
adding language not found in House or Senate measures, Sec. 7.4
appropriations in Senate bill with House amendments committed to 
conference did not violate rule applicable to Senate amendments, Sec. 
7.30
authorization stricken by House was retained but reduced, Sec. 7.1
compromise between diametrically opposed House and Senate measures, 
discretion of conferees in reaching, Sec. 7.8
concurrent resolution as expanding authority, Sec. 13.3
dates, Sec.Sec. 7.2, 7.12



Conferees-Cont.
scope of issues committed to conference, authority to be exercised 
within (see also Reports, conference)-Cont.
differences, determining scope of, to ascertain whether new matter is 
included in report, see Reports, conference
disagreement, determining range of, Sec. 7.1
enacting clause stricken and new text inserted by one House, discretion 
of conferees where, Sec. 7.2
federal official, discretion of, compromise between limited and 
unlimited, Sec. 7.8
formula and fixed sum in bill, issues relating to reconciliation as 
between, Sec. 7.6
instructions to conferees, effect of, see Instructions to conferees
language, adding new, Sec. 7.4
limits of disagreement discussed, Sec. 7.6
new matter committed to conference by concurrent resolution, Sec. 13.3
point of order where conferees have exceeded authority, Sec.Sec. 19.1, 
19.5, 19.12, 25.22
rule defining "scope" of conference, Sec. 7.3
Senate, appointment of conferees by, Sec. 6.5
Senate, bill returned to, for further action after appointment of 
conferees was rescinded by concurrent resolution, Sec. 8.18
Senate conferees, proxy voting by, Sec. 5.10


[[Page 1128]]

Conferees-Cont.
Senate motion to further insist on amendment, agreement to, as 
discharging conferees and sending papers to House for disposition, 
Sec.Sec. 24.8, 24.9
Speaker Pro Tempore, designated or appointed, appointment of additional 
conferees by, Sec. 6.16
Speaker Pro Tempore, designated or appointed, may by unanimous consent 
appoint conferees, Sec.Sec. 6.6, 6.12, 6.15, 6.43
Speaker Pro Tempore, elected, may appoint conferees, Sec. 6.14
Speaker Pro Tempore, removal of conferees by, Sec. 6.15
twenty days, failure to report within, see Instructions to conferees
votes, five-minute, meeting during, Sec. 5.8
voting, proxy, Sec. 5.10
Conference reports, see Reports, conference
Conference, requesting or agreeing to, see, e.g., Motion to agree to or 
request conference; Resolutions from Rules Committee agreeing to or 
requesting conference; Request for conference
"Deeming" certain action to have been taken in response to anticipated 
Senate action, Sec.Sec. 2.24-2.27
Disagreement, amendments in (see also Disagreement, stage of)
adoption of report, amendments remaining in disagreement after, may be 
subject of further conference, Sec. 1.3
amend text not in disagreement, House motion to recede and concur may 
not, Sec. 29.39

Disagreement, amendments in (see also Disagreement, stage of)-Cont.
amendment to Senate amendment contained provisions which had been 
included in conference report and which had been determined to be 
beyond scope of differences, Sec. 25.22
appropriation bill, legislation on, point of order does not lie against 
Senate amendment in disagreement which contains, Sec. 7.23
availability of amendments on floor, requirement of, waived under 
suspension of the rules, Sec. 29.6
Committee of the Whole, amendment in disagreement not considered in, 
Sec. 29.34
Committee of the Whole, amendments in disagreement do not require 
consideration in, when conference report is ruled out on a point of 
order, Sec. 25.4
conference, further, amendments remaining in disagreement after 
adoption of report may be subject of, Sec. 1.3
conference report ruled out on point of order, status of amendments in 
disagreement where, Sec.Sec. 3.3, 25.4, 25.22, 25.24
conference report, waiver of points of order against, where inclusion 
of amendments in disagreement precludes separate consideration of such 
amendments, Sec. 26.17
considered following action on conference report, Sec. 29.3
correction of dollar amounts, Sec. 29.45
debate
budget resolution, amendments to, Sec. 28.14
division of time, Sec.Sec. 29.22, 29.23, 29.27
hour rule, under, Sec. 28.1


[[Page 1129]]

Disagreement, amendments in (see also Disagreement, stage of)-Cont.
debate-Cont.
one-third of debate time on amendment in disagreement, timely demand 
for, Sec. 29.25
preferential motion, control of time on, when offered to pre-empt 
manager's motion, Sec. 29.26
previous question, Member who is yielded time for debate may not move, 
Sec. 29.26
divisible, Senate amendment reported in disagreement is not, Sec. 29.48
en bloc consideration, Sec.Sec. 29.41-29.43, 29.8
further conference may be requested, Sec. 29.49
further conference, motion to request, not in order while preferential 
motions to dispose of amendments in disagreement are pending, Sec.Sec. 
3.4, 29.50
germane, defeat of motion to reject provision that is not, effect of, 
Sec. 30.24
germaneness rule, application of
House amendment to Senate amendment must be germane, Sec.Sec. 7.16, 
25.22, 29.31, 29.32
procedures for consideration of Senate amendments that are not germane, 
Sec.Sec. 30.10-30.25
test of germaneness of motion to recede and concur with amendment where 
Senate amendment strikes House text, Sec. 7.17
test to determine whether motion to recede and concur in Senate 
amendment with amendment is germane, Sec. 30.12


Disagreement, amendments in (see also Disagreement, stage of)-Cont.
germaneness rule, application of-Cont.
test to determine whether provision in conference report is germane, 
Sec.Sec. 30.18, 30.20, 30.23
interruption of series of motions on amendments in disagreement by 
other business, Sec. 29.40
legislation on appropriation bill, consideration of Senate amendment 
including, Sec.Sec. 29.33-29.36
legislation on appropriation bill, special rule making in order motions 
to recede and concur with amendments adding, Sec. 29.38
message informing Senate of action on amendments, final action on 
adoption of conference report as preceding, Sec. 29.46
motions to dispose of
budget resolution, Sec. 28.14
combined with motion to go to conference, Sec. 3.2
debate, control of, on preferential motion offered to pre-empt 
manager's motion, Sec.Sec. 29.26, 29.27
debate time, division of, Sec.Sec. 29.22, 29.23
preferential, as, Sec.Sec. 3.4, 29.26, 29.27
recede and concur, motion to, with amendment containing provisions 
which had been included in conference report and which had been 
determined to be beyond scope of differences, Sec. 25.22
request further conference, motion to, not in order while preferential 
motions to dispose of amendments are pending, Sec. 3.4


[[Page 1130]]

Disagreement, amendments in (see also Disagreement, stage of)-Cont.
motions to dispose of-Cont.
Senate recedes and concurs in House amendments with an amendment after 
conference report reported in disagreement, motion to dispose of Senate 
amendment made after, Sec. 29.28
motion to disagree to Senate amendments need not be separate from 
motion to go to conference under present rule, Sec. 3.2
multiple Senate amendments amalgamated in conference report, see 
Reports, conference
order of consideration, varying, Sec. 29.44
papers, transfer of, where the only matter in disagreement requires 
action by other House, Sec. 24.13
partial adoption of conference report, see Reports, conference
perfecting Senate amendment containing legislation by germane 
amendment, Sec. 29.36
point of order against amendments, time for making, Sec. 29.8
preferential motions to dispose of, Sec. 3.4
privilege, equal, of amendments on two different bills, Sec. 29.40
reading of, waived where amendment printed in Record for three days, 
Sec. 25.7
receding from House amendment, effect of, Sec. 29.47
recommendations by conference committee as to proposed action not 
required, Sec. 29.7
recommit, motion to, does not apply to particular amendment in 
disagreement, Sec. 29.29

Disagreement, amendments in (see also Disagreement, stage of)-Cont.
reconciled, matters in disagreement must be, before bill can become 
law, Sec.Sec. 1.4, 1.5
reconsider action taken on particular amendments, motion to, Sec.Sec. 
30.35, 30.36
reconsider action taken on particular amendments, motion to, effect of 
tabling, Sec. 30.36
rejection of conference report after other House had concurred in 
amendments, effect of, on subject matter of further conference, Sec. 
1.6
report, conference, voted on before action on amendments in 
disagreement, Sec. 30.1
revenue measures, constitutional prerogative of House to originate, 
Senate modified amendment which was in violation of, Sec. 1.12
scope of disagreement, House amendment may include matters beyond, 
Sec.Sec. 29.31, 29.32
Senate discharged conferees and insisted on disagreement, motion in 
House to recede and concur in Senate amendment with an amendment where, 
Sec. 24.9
Senate insisted upon its amendment and refused to agree to conference, 
Sec. 1.10
Senate unilaterally discharged conferees and acted on amendments in 
disagreement where conference was in progress, Sec. 24.11
separate consideration of, precluded by including amendments in 
conference report, point of order waived by special rule where, Sec. 
26.17


[[page 1131]]

Disagreement, amendments in (see also Disagreement, stage of)-Cont.
special order may protect nongermane motion while not precluding 
preferential motion, Sec. 30.22
special rule making in order motions to recede and concur with 
amendments adding legislative provisions, Sec. 29.38
special rule "self-executing" adoption of motion to dispose of 
amendment in disagreement, Sec. 26.26
special rule waiving points of order against amendments offered as part 
of motions to recede and concur with amendment, Sec.Sec. 26.20-26.23, 
26.25
stage of disagreement, see Disagreement, stage of
tabling motion to reconsider action taken on amendment, effect of, Sec. 
30.36
"technical disagreement," Sec.Sec. 29.9, 29.10
three-day layover rule (see also Reports, conference)
generally, Sec. 29.1
two-hour availability rule, Sec.Sec. 27.6, 27.10
waiver by special rule, Sec. 27.6
waiver by unanimous consent, Sec.Sec. 27.9, 29.2
total disagreement, House does not act on conference report in, but 
rather proceeds to consider amendments in disagreement, Sec.Sec. 29.11, 
29.12
vote on conference report precedes action on, Sec. 30.1
voting on
conference report, consideration of, occasions on which voting on 
amendments in disagreement preceded, Sec.Sec. 29.4, 29.5

Disagreement, amendments in (see also Disagreement, stage of)-Cont.
voting on-Cont.
conference report, consideration of, voting on amendments in 
disagreement normally follows, Sec. 29.3
Senate, in, Sec. 29.5
Disagreement, stage of
Committee of the Whole, amendment in disagreement not required to be 
considered in, see Disagreement, amendments in
Committee of the Whole, requirement certain that Senate amendments be 
considered in, applies only before stage of agreement reached, Sec. 
29.34
en bloc disposition of Senate amendments, motion for, before stage of 
disagreement, Sec. 5.19
motion to send bill to conference, stage of disagreement need not be 
reached prior to, Sec. 3.2
Disagree to conference requested by House, Senate may, Sec. 1.10
Executive sessions in conference, see Closed or open conference
Instructions to conferees
adhere to House position, instructions to, Sec. 2.32
adoption of resolution asking for conference does not inherently 
preclude motion to instruct, Sec.Sec. 2.28, 10.7
advisory in nature, instructions as, Sec.Sec. 12.2-12.7
amend Senate amendment, instructions to, may not contemplate such 
action being taken in manner that would violate House rules, Sec. 12.19
amendment to motion, effect of, in adding to or replacing original 
instructions, Sec. 9.7


[[Page 1132]]

Instructions to conferees-Cont.
amendment to motion to send bill to conference may not include 
instructions to conferees, Sec. 2.18
amendments to motion, Sec.Sec. 9.2, 9.3
argument in motion, use of, Sec. 14.6
binding, instructions are not, Sec.Sec. 12.1-12.7
closed sessions in conference, instructions permitting, Sec. 12.11
debate on motion
amendment to motion, debate on, Sec.Sec. 11.14-11.17
close debate, proponent of motion has right to, Sec.Sec. 11.9-11.12
control of debate time, motions not permitted to be used in derogation 
of Member's, Sec. 11.8
hour rule, under former practice debate was under, Sec.Sec. 11.4-11.7
opposition, Member rising in, may control one-third of time, Sec. 11.9
previous question not ordered, procedures where, Sec.Sec. 11.14-11.18
three-way division of time, Sec. 11.9
yielding for amendment, effect of, Sec. 11.13
discharge under twenty-day rule, see below
forms of motion, Sec.Sec. 9.15-9.19
"free" and "instructed" conferees, discussion of distinction between, 
Sec. 12.7
further instructions, conferees not obliged to seek, if unable to 
comply with original instructions, Sec. 12.4
"general" motion to instruct, Sec.Sec. 9.16-9.19, 9.22, 9.23
germaneness of amendments to motion, Sec.Sec. 9.2, 9.3
House position, instructions to retreat from, Sec. 12.9


Instructions to conferees-Cont.
limitations on scope or nature of instructions
House, action that would not be in order in, Sec. 12.19
scope of issues committed to conference, matters beyond, instructions 
may not direct conferees to take action relating to, Sec.Sec. 12.12-
12.17
Senate ruling, Sec. 12.18
meeting, time and place of, Senate motion was directed toward, Sec. 
9.21
multiple instructions relating to portions of Senate substitute, Sec. 
9.15
number of motions, Sec.Sec. 9.1, 9.2
one motion in order prior to appointment of conferees, Sec.Sec. 9.1, 
9.2
precedence of motion, relative, Sec.Sec. 9.4, 9.5, 9.6
preserving right to make motion   where unanimous-consent agreement 
deems House to have agreed to conference upon receipt of anticipated 
message from Senate, Sec. 2.27
previous question on motion, voting down, effect of, Sec. 9.3
previous question, precedence of motion for, over amendment to motion, 
Sec. 9.6
privilege given to motion, relative, Sec.Sec. 9.4-9.6
procedures in conference, instructions relating to, Sec. 12.11
recognition for amendment, where previous question is not ordered, 
Sec.Sec. 11.14-11.17
recognition for motion
committee having jurisdiction, members of, priority as among, Sec. 11.3
minority members of committee, priority as between, Sec. 11.2
minority, prerogative of, Sec.Sec. 11.1-11.3


[[Page 1133]]

Instructions to conferees-Cont.
recommit, in motion to (see also Reports, conference)
amend bill after passage, instructions may not, Sec. 32.32
amendment of motion to include instructions where previous question 
voted down, Sec.Sec. 32.23, 32.24
bill as reported by House committee rather than as passed, instructions 
may not direct reporting back of provisions of, Sec. 32.35
bill, matter not in House or Senate version of, may not be included, 
Sec. 32.33
divisible, not, Sec.Sec. 32.27, 32.28
division of the question, not subject to demand for, Sec. 32.30
form of motion with "general" instructions, Sec. 9.19
"general" instructions, form of motion to recommit with, Sec. 9.19
insist on disagreement to Senate amendments to appropriation bill, Sec. 
32.38
legislative amendments to appropriation bill, concerned with, Sec.Sec. 
32.36, 32.37
matter not in House or Senate version of bill may not be included, Sec. 
32.33
meet, instructions not to, until directed, Sec. 32.39
scope of differences, instructions may not direct reporting of matter 
beyond, Sec. 32.34
separate vote on instructions not allowed, Sec. 32.28
special rule to prohibit instructions, rejected, Sec. 32.26
subject matter of instructions, conferees not confined to, Sec. 32.50

Instructions to conferees-Cont.
recommit, in motion to (see also Reports, conference)-Cont.
waiver of points of order against conference report does not protect 
motion to recommit with instructions, Sec. 32.31
rejection of conference report, after, see Reports, conference
request for conference does not inherently preclude motion to instruct, 
Sec.Sec. 2.28, 10.7
request for conference may by its form preclude motion to instruct, 
Sec.Sec. 2.29, 2.30, 6.52
resolution asking for conference, adoption of, does not preclude 
subsequent motion to instruct, Sec. 10.7
resolution to send bill to conference, effect of, on motion to instruct
precluded, motion as not necessarily, Sec.Sec. 2.28, 10.7
precluding motion, form of resolution, Sec.Sec. 2.29, 2.30
retreat from House position, instructions to, Sec. 12.9
scope of conference, instructions may not contemplate actions which 
would be beyond, Sec.Sec. 9.19, 9.20, 9.23, 12.12-12.17
scope of issues committed to conference, matters beyond, instructions 
may not direct conferees to take action relating to, Sec.Sec. 9.19, 
9.20, 9.23, 12.12-12.17
Senate conferees, instructions of House do not apply to, Sec. 12.1
Senate motion was directed toward conference procedures and places of 
meeting rather than toward resolution of matters in disagreement, Sec. 
9.21


[[Page 1134]]

Instructions to conferees-Cont.
Senate, ruling in, that instructions to Senate conferees cannot 
contemplate changes to measure that has been adopted by that body, Sec. 
12.18
specific measures or portions of measures, instructions may relate to, 
Sec.Sec. 12.8, 12.10
specific or general instructions, Sec.Sec. 9.16-9.19, 9.22, 9.23
suspension of rules, Speaker may give priority of recognition to motion 
for, rather than for motion to instruct, Sec. 9.5
table motion to instruct, effect of voting down motion to, Sec.Sec. 
9.10, 9.12, 9.13
tabling motion, Sec.Sec. 9.8-9.11
time for offering motion to instruct conferees, 
adoption of motion to go to conference, after, Sec.Sec. 2.18, 10.1-10.5
appointment of conferees, before, Sec.Sec. 10.1-10.4
appointment of conferees, unanimous consent to offer motion after, 
Sec.Sec. 10.6, 10.9
future date, preserving right to make motion on, Sec.Sec. 2.27, 10.6, 
10.9
resolution asking for conference, adoption of, does not preclude 
subsequent motion to instruct, Sec. 10.7
twenty days, failure to report within, after appointment
argument included in motion, Chair overruled point of order against, 
Sec. 14.6
discharge conferees, form of motion to, Sec. 14.2
discharge conferees, motion to, as unfinished business, Sec. 14.13
discharge of conferees by unanimous consent, Sec. 14.20

Instructions to conferees-Cont.
twenty days, failure to report within, after appointment-Cont.
divisibility of motion to instruct, Sec.Sec. 14.11, 14.12
form of motion to instruct, Sec. 14.5
instruct, privileged motion to, is in order, Sec.Sec. 14.1, 14.3, 14.5
notice of intent to offer motion to instruct, Sec.Sec. 14.8-14.10
number of motions, Sec.Sec. 14.14-14.18
privilege of the House, failure of conferees to act does not raise 
question of, Sec. 14.4
recommittal to conference does not suspend twenty-day rule, Sec. 14.7
repetition of motion, Sec.Sec. 14.14-14.18
tabling motion to instruct, Sec. 14.19
unanimous-consent request to agree to conference, granting of, does not 
preclude motion to instruct, Sec. 10.8
violation of or noncompliance with instructions
point of order does not lie against conference report, Sec.Sec. 12.6, 
12.7, 25.1
withdrawal of motion, Sec. 9.14
Managers, see Conferees
Motion to agree to or request conference (see also, e.g., Request for 
conference; Resolutions from Rules Committee agreeing to or requesting 
conference; Unanimous-consent request to send bill to conference) 
amendment to motion to include instructions to conferees is not in 
order, Sec. 2.18
authorization for motion from appropriate committee, see Committee 
authorization for motions to go to conference


[[Page 1135]]

Motion to agree to or request conference (see also, e.g., Request for
conference; Resolutions from Rules Committee agreeing to or requesting 
conference; Unanimous-consent request to send bill to conference)-Cont.
commit motion to another committee, motion to, Sec. 2.4
committee authorization for motions to go to conference, see Committee 
authorization for motions to go to conference
committee chairman recognized to offer, Sec.Sec. 4.3-4.5
conditions of motion, Sec.Sec. 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, 3.2, 3.5
conference report, motion again in order after Chair rules out, Sec. 
3.3
consideration, raising question of, against motion, Sec. 2.2
debatable under hour rule, Sec.Sec. 2.3, 2.14
debate after previous question ordered is by unanimous consent, Sec. 
2.15
debate, Member making motion is in control of, Sec. 2.14
dilatory purposes, use of motion for, precluded, Sec. 2.40
disagreement, stage of, need not be reached prior to motion, Sec. 3.2
further conference, motion to request, not in order while preferential 
motions to dispose of amendments in disagreement are pending, Sec.Sec. 
3.4, 29.50
further conference, request for, where amendments remain in 
disagreement, Sec. 29.49
instructions to conferees, amendment to motion to include, not in 
order, Sec. 2.18
layover period not required, Sec.Sec. 2.17, 3.5
Motion to agree to or request conference (see also, e.g., Request for 
conference; Resolutions from Rules Committee agreeing to or requesting 
conference; Unanimous-consent request to send bill to conference)-Cont.
point of order against conference report, motion again in order after 
Chair sustains, Sec. 3.3
point of order against request to go to conference, Sec. 2.8
previous question, debate after ordering, is by unanimous consent, Sec. 
2.15
previous question on motion, motions after ordering of, Sec. 2.3
privileged, conditions under which motion is, Sec.Sec. 2.12, 2.17, 4.6
receipt of Senate message, in order on same day as, Sec. 3.5
recognition for motion is at discretion of Speaker, Sec.Sec. 2.16, 
2.17, 2.40, 3.5
recognition of committee chairman, Sec. 4.3
repetition of motion to go to conference, Sec.Sec. 2.13, 2.40, 3.3
resolution from Rules Committee making motion in order under specified 
conditions, Sec. 26.15
rule making motion in order, Sec. 2.1
same day as receipt of Senate message, motion in order on, Sec. 3.5
Senate amendments, motion to disagree to, may be combined with motion 
to send bill to conference, Sec. 3.2
Senate amendments to House amendments to Senate bill, motion to 
disagree to, and request conference, Sec. 2.6
single motion to disagree to Senate amendments and to send bill to 
conference, modern rule authorizes, Sec. 3.2


[[Page 1136]]

Motion to agree to or request conference (see also, e.g., Request for 
conference; Resolutions from Rules Committee agreeing to or requesting 
conference; Unanimous-consent request to send bill to conference)-Cont.
table, motion as subject to motion to lay on, Sec. 2.3
time for making, Sec.Sec. 2.9, 2.13, 2.17, 3.5
unanimous-consent request, motion in order after objection to, Sec.Sec. 
2.5, 2.7, 4.3
vote on motion, Sec. 2.19
Open meeting, requirement of, see Closed or open conference
Papers, official
consideration of conference report, possession of papers as 
prerequisite for, Sec.Sec. 24.1-24.4
custody of papers at conclusion of conference, House agreeing to 
conference is given,  Sec.Sec. 24.3-24.5, 24.7
custody of papers, deviating from custom as to which House is first 
given, does not violate specific rule, Sec. 24.7
defined, official papers, Sec. 24.2
destroyed, replacement of papers that have been, Sec. 1.2
lost papers, replacement of, Sec. 1.2
possession of, as prerequisite to agreeing to or requesting conference, 
Sec.Sec. 1.1, 3.1
possession of, at conclusion of conference, House agreeing to 
conference is given, Sec.Sec. 24.3-25.5, 24.7
possession of, failure of House that agreed to conference to take, Sec. 
24.4
possession of papers, deviating from custom as to which House is first 
given, does not violate specific rule, Sec. 24.7

Papers, official-Cont.
rejection by Senate of conference report before official papers were 
received, Sec. 1.11
sufficiency of, Sec. 24.2
transfer of, between Houses
disagreement, where other House must act on the matter in, Sec. 24.13
order of action on conference report as affected by, Sec.Sec. 24.5, 
24.7
recommit, motion to, as affected by, Sec. 24.5
Senate informally given custody of papers although House was scheduled 
to act first, effect where, Sec. 24.6
Senate retained papers and acted first on conference report although it 
had asked for conference, Sec. 24.10
Points of order as affected by unanimous-consent request to send bill 
to conference, see Unanimous-consent request to send bill to conference
Privilege of the House, resolution alleging that action or inaction of 
Senate managers at conference raised question of
Senate managers, refusal by, to consider matter of differences 
committed to conference unless experts and counsel were present did not 
raise question of privilege of the House, Sec. 1.8
Senator, personal reference to, was not permitted during debate on, 
Sec. 1.9
Procedures in conference (see also Conferees)
complex conference, Sec. 5.16
list of procedures and understandings inserted in Record, Sec. 5.16
recommittal of report, following, Sec.Sec. 32.44, 32.47, 32.49, 32.50


[[Page 1137]]

Procedures in conference (see also Conferees)-Cont.
subconferences, Sec. 5.16
Recognition for motion to go to conference, see Motion to agree to or 
request conference
Record (see also, e.g., Reports, conference)
conference, portions of transcript of, inserted in, Sec. 5.17
legislative intent as disclosed by transcript of conference inserted 
in, Sec. 5.17
list of procedures and understandings inserted in, see Procedures in 
conference
procedures for conference listed in, see Procedures in conference
Refusal by Senate to agree to conference, Sec. 1.10
Reports, conference
adjournment
filing during, Sec.Sec. 16.9-16.12
Senate message, receiving, during, Sec. 21.2
adoption of
"considered as agreed" to, conference report was, Sec. 22.14
unanimous consent, by, Sec.Sec. 22.14, 22.15
adoption, vacating, Sec. 32.46
amend text not in disagreement, House motion to recede and concur may 
not, Sec. 29.39
amendment, conference report is not subject to, Sec.Sec. 15.6, 30.6, 
30.7, 30.11
amendments in disagreement, see Disagreement, amendments in
appropriations contained in Senate bills, discussion of procedural 
steps available to House when considering, Sec. 19.18

Reports, conference-Cont.
availability on floor of copies of conference reports in disagreement 
and joint statements, requirement of, Sec. 29.6
calling up conference reports en bloc, Sec.Sec. 22.10, 22.11
calling up, in last six days of session, Sec. 22.5
calling up, recognition for, Sec.Sec. 21.6, 23.1-23.3
Consent Calendar, precedence of conference report over calling of, 
Sec.Sec. 22.26, 22.27
consideration of
amendments in disagreement, conference report considered before action 
taken on, Sec. 21.4
calling up as privileged, see below
calling up, recognition for, Sec.Sec. 21.6, 23.1-23.3
debate, see below
en bloc consideration of reports, Sec.Sec. 22.10, 22.11
immediate consideration by unanimous consent where report not printed, 
Sec.Sec. 22.7, 22.21, 22.22
papers, official, House must be in possession of (see also Papers, 
official), Sec.Sec. 24.1-24.4
privilege of the House, question of, Speaker declined recognition for, 
Sec. 21.5
question of consideration against postponed conference report, Sec. 
22.13
special rule governing, Sec.Sec. 21.8, 22.8, 22.10, 22.11
special rule modifying normal procedures, Sec. 26.13
three-day layover requirement, see below

[[Page 1138]]

Reports, conference-Cont.
consideration of, as preceding action on amendments in disagreement, 
see Disagreement, amendments in
contents of report, discussion as to requirements concerning, Sec. 29.7
corrections
adoption, after or at time of, Sec.Sec. 17.1, 17.2
concurrent resolution adopted under motion to suspend rules by, Sec. 
30.28
concurrent resolution called up by unanimous consent, Sec.Sec. 17.2, 
17.6, 30.30
concurrent resolution correcting enrollment, special rule provided for 
self-executing adoption of, Sec. 26.14
conferees, statement of, corrections relating to, Sec.Sec. 17.4, 17.5
enrollment, deleting provision in, Sec. 30.30
omission of amendment, procedure after, Sec. 30.29
omission of language agreed to, correction of, Sec. 17.6
printing errors, Sec. 17.3
special rule authorizing corrected version of report to be placed 
before House, Sec. 26.18
technical corrections, Sec.Sec. 17.1, 17.3, 17.4
unanimous consent, concurrent resolution called up by, Sec.Sec. 17.2, 
17.6
debate
adoption without debate, forty minutes of debate permitted by unanimous 
consent after, Sec. 28.4
adoption without debate, permitting debate after, does not reopen 
conference report to motions, Sec. 28.5


Reports, conference-Cont.
debate-Cont.
amendments in disagreement, motions to dispose of, see Disagreement, 
amendments in
budget resolution, Sec. 28.14
division of time among conferees from two committees, Sec. 28.6
extending time, Sec. 28.2
forty minutes debate on nongermane Senate amendments, operation of rule 
permitting, Sec.Sec. 28.12, 28.13
hour rule, Sec. 28.1
motion to reject nongermane provision, debate on, Sec. 30.17
opposition, Member who signed report presumed not to be in, Sec. 28.7
opposition, recognition in, Sec.Sec. 28.8, 28.9, 29.24
opposition, time normally allocated in, was abrogated by special rule, 
Sec. 28.3
party affiliation, recognition in opposition not dependent upon, Sec. 
28.9
separate vote on nongermane Senate amendments, operation of rule 
permitting, Sec.Sec. 28.12, 28.13
separate vote on section of report, allocation of time following demand 
for, Sec. 28.11
special rule, set by terms of, Sec.Sec. 22.11, 26.6, 26.25, 28.3
three-way division of time, Sec. 29.24
yielding time, Sec. 28.10
deeming adoption of, Sec. 21.3
disagreement, conference report reported in, not acted on in House 
where Senate recedes and concurs in House amendments with an amendment, 
Sec. 29.28
en bloc consideration of conference reports by special rule, Sec.Sec. 
22.10, 22.11


[[Page 1139]]

Reports, conference-Cont.
en bloc consideration of several conference reports not permitted, Sec. 
30.2
exceptions were inappropriately noted in report, Sec. 15.2
explanation for disagreement included, Sec. 29.9
filing of report
adjournment, during, Sec.Sec. 16.9-16.12
"business," filing of report as, Sec. 16.8
conferee files report, Sec. 16.5
conferee, Member other than, may by unanimous consent submit report for 
printing, Sec. 16.5
conferees from two committees considering separate titles, Sec. 16.6
date, future, authority to file on, Sec. 16.7
debate on special rule waiving layover requirement, conference report 
filed from floor during, Sec. 22.23
late filing, Sec. 16.7
privileged, Sec.Sec. 16.1, 16.2
recess pending preparation and filing, Sec. 16.13
requirements for, Sec. 5.11
second report, filing and numbering of, Sec.Sec. 32.48, 32.49
special orders, during, Sec. 16.8
germane, defeat of motion to reject provision that is not, effect of, 
Sec. 30.24
germane, procedure for consideration of Senate amendments that are not, 
Sec.Sec. 30.10-30.25
germane, test to determine whether provision in conference report is, 
Sec.Sec. 30.18, 30.20, 30.23
meeting of conferees as prerequisite to filing, Sec.Sec. 5.11, 18.4, 
18.5
message informing Senate of action on amendments in disagreement, 
timing of, see Disagreement, amendments in
minority views, Sec.Sec. 15.1, 18.6-18.9
Reports, conference-Cont.
partial adoption not permitted, Sec.Sec. 30.4, 30.5, 30.11, 30.12
points of order against
appropriation bill, legislative item permitted to remain in, Sec. 7.27
appropriation, lump-sum, was limited to "projects authorized by law" 
and was not subject to point of order although funds allocated for two 
specific projects exceeded current authorization, Sec. 19.22
appropriation on legislative bill, conferees agreed to Senate amendment 
providing for, Sec.Sec. 7.21, 7.22
appropriation on legislative bill or amendment, House rule prohibiting, 
point of order against motion to recede and concur in Senate amendment 
with an amendment was based on, Sec. 19.20
appropriation on legislative bill, point of order where conferees 
agreed to, Sec.Sec. 19.15, 19.16
appropriation on legislative bill, rule prohibiting conferees from 
agreeing to, applies only to provisions in Senate amendments, Sec.Sec. 
19.15-19.19
appropriation, point of order based on rule requiring authorization 
for, was overruled where Chair held appropriation authorized by organic 
law, Sec. 7.25
appropriation, unauthorized, was subject of waiver in House so that 
modification of such provision in conference could not be basis of 
point of order, Sec. 7.29
debate, during, not made, Sec. 25.16
entire report, point of order which would vitiate, ruled on before 
those affecting portions of report, Sec. 25.19


[[Page 1140]]

Reports, conference-Cont.
points of order against-Cont.
germane, point of order that portions of report are not, effect of, 
Sec. 25.21
germane, points of order against Senate amendments that are not, 
Sec.Sec. 30.10-30.19
germaneness issue where motion to recede and concur was germane to 
Senate amendment but not to House bill, Sec. 19.20
germaneness rule, special rule was amended to permit point of order 
based on, Sec. 26.13
instructions, failure of conferees to comply with, see Instructions to 
conferees
meeting of conferees, informal, prior to appointment, Sec.Sec. 5.1, 
5.13, 22.25
meeting, open, requirement of, Sec.Sec. 5.7, 5.13
multiple points of order, Sec.Sec. 25.18, 25.19, 25.21, 25.23, 30.16
open conference, alleged violation of rule requiring, Sec.Sec. 5.7, 
5.13
order of consideration of multiple points of order, Sec. 30.16
order of entertaining points of order, Sec. 25.23
postponed, points of order preserved where consideration was, Sec. 
22.12
preserved, points of order as, where consideration postponed, Sec. 
22.12
question of consideration precedes, Sec. 22.13
recede and concur, motion to, point of order against report was not in 
order after manager was recognized to offer, Sec. 25.20
rejection of report resulting from rejection of nongermane portion, 
further points of order against report not in order following, Sec. 
25.20
Reports, conference-Cont.
points of order against-Cont.
rejection of  report where conferees' meeting invalid, Sec. 24.5
reservation of, Sec.Sec. 25.10, 25.12-25.14
ruled out on point of order, proceedings after report has been, 
Sec.Sec. 3.3, 25.4, 25.22, 25.24, 29.16, 29.17
ruling on several points of order, Sec.Sec. 25.18, 25.19
scope of issues committed to conference, point of order that conferees 
acted outside, see "scope of conference" topics below and under 
Conferees
Senate amendments, status of, where conference report is ruled out, 
Sec.Sec. 3.3, 25.4, 25.22, 25.24
subsequent point of order where first overruled, Sec. 25.17
suspension of the rules, consideration of report under, Sec.Sec. 26.27, 
26.28
sustaining, effect of, generally, Sec.Sec. 3.3, 24.5, 25.4, 25.22, 
25.24, 29.16, 29.17
time for making, generally, is after reading of report and before 
reading of joint statement, Sec.Sec. 25.5, 25.6, 25.15, 25.16
time for making, where report considered as read, Sec.Sec. 25.8, 25.9
time for making, where statement of managers is read in lieu of report, 
Sec.Sec. 25.10, 25.11
time for point of order as to consideration in Committee of the Whole, 
Sec. 25.3
time for point of order as to failure of conferees to reflect views of 
Members, Sec. 25.2


[[Page 1141]]

Reports, conference-Cont.
points of order against-Cont.
unanimous consent, provisions sent to conference by, are not subject to 
point of order when report is filed that they should have been 
considered in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 25.3
views of House, failure of conferees to reflect, is not basis for point 
of order at time of filing, Sec. 25.2
waiver of points of order, see below
points of order, waiver of
 all points of order, Sec.Sec. 26.1, 26.2, 26.4, 26.5, 26.17, 26.26
Budget Act provisions, Sec. 26.24
en bloc consideration, special rule waived points of order and 
permitted, Sec. 22.11
germaneness rule, special rule was amended to allow point of order 
based on, Sec. 26.13
House, waiver in, carries over to provisions when included in 
conference report, Sec.Sec. 7.28, 7.29, 19.17
meeting of conferees, requirement of, not fulfilled, Sec.Sec. 5.14, 
5.15
procedural motions, rule designed to avoid intervention of, Sec. 26.3
recede and concur with amendments, motions to, Sec.Sec. 26.20-26.23, 
26.25
recommitted, report deemed to have been, and points of order against 
subsequent report waived where conferees had not met in first 
conference, Sec. 5.15
scope of differences, inclusion of matter outside, Sec.Sec. 26.5, 26.6, 
26.9-26.12, 26.28
selective basis, waiver on, Sec.Sec. 7.18, 26.7, 26.8, 26.10-26.12, 
26.15
special rule amended to allow germaneness point of order, Sec. 26.13

Reports, conference-Cont.
points of order, waiver of all points of order-Cont.
special rule, by, Sec.Sec. 5.14, 5.15, 22.11, 26.1-26.14, 26.16-26.26
special rule waiving two-thirds vote requirement for same-day 
consideration of subsequent rule providing for consideration of 
conference report, Sec. 26.16
suspension of the rules, effect of, on points of order, Sec.Sec. 26.27, 
26.28
tax increase, three-fifths vote requirement for, Sec. 26.19
three-day layover rule, see below
portions of report, conferees as signing, Sec.Sec. 18.10-18.12
postponement of vote after ordering previous question, Sec.Sec. 30.8, 
30.9
previous question, effect of rejection of, Sec.Sec. 30.6, 30.7
printed in Record, waiver of reading where report has been, Sec. 25.7
printing of reports
filing of report on day when House not in session, printing of report 
where House permits, Sec.Sec. 16.4, 16.11, 16.12
House acting first, printing version of report of, for action by other 
House, Sec. 24.12
last six days of session, rule requiring printing does not apply 
during, Sec. 22.5
privileged status, effect of printing of report on, Sec.Sec. 22.2, 22.4
Senate, waiver of rule by, Sec.Sec. 15.3, 15.4
three days prior to consideration, see topics under "three-day layover 
rule," below
waiver of rule requiring, Sec.Sec. 16.3, 22.6-22.8, 22.17


[[Page 1142]]

Reports, conference-Cont.
printing of reports-Cont.
waiver of rule requiring, by Senate, Sec.Sec. 15.3, 15.4
privileged status of conference report
Consent Calendar, precedence over calling of, Sec.Sec. 22.26, 22.27
immediate consideration by unanimous consent, Sec.Sec. 22.7, 22.21, 22.22
printing in Record, effect of, Sec.Sec. 22.2, 22.4
printing in Record, requirement of, does not apply during last six days 
of session, Sec. 22.5
requirements for privileged status, Sec. 22.1
rescission bill called up after statutory period, effect on privilege 
where, Sec. 22.3
unfinished business, precedence over, Sec. 22.9
privilege of the House, Speaker declined recognition for question of, 
during consideration of conference report, Sec. 21.5
question of consideration addressed before Chair entertains points of 
order, Sec. 22.13
receded from amendments to Senate bill, form of report and statement 
where House has, Sec. 15.7
recognition
calling up conference report, recognition for, Sec.Sec. 21.6, 23.1, 
23.2
conferees are usually but not invariably recognized for debate (see 
also debate topics above), Sec. 28.8
conference committee, junior member of, was recognized to call up 
conference report, Sec. 23.1



Reports, conference-Cont.
recognition-Cont.
opposed to report, senior manager for House at conference recognized to 
call up conference report even though, Sec. 23.3
opposition, recognition in, Sec.Sec. 28.8, 28.9, 29.24
party affiliation, recognition in opposition not dependent upon, Sec. 
28.9
ranking majority member of committee recognized to call up conference 
report, Sec. 23.2
same-day consideration, unanimous-consent request for revocation of 
proceedings permitting, Speaker Pro Tempore declined to recognize for, 
Sec. 22.20
recommendations as to proposed action not required as part of report, 
Sec. 29.7
recommittal of conference report
action by other House on report, motion in order before, Sec.Sec. 32.1, 
32.4-32.6
agreed to, after conference report has been, motion not in order, Sec. 
32.13
amendment, motion subject to, if previous question voted down, Sec.Sec. 
32.22-32.25
concurrent resolution agreed to by motion to suspend rules rescinded 
signatures on enrolled bill and recommitted matter after vacating 
adoption of conference report, Sec. 32.46
conference action following recommittal, Sec. 32.44
correct procedural error, recommittal to, Sec. 5.13
debate following adoption, agreement to permit, does not reopen report 
to motion, Sec. 32.9


[[Page 1143]]

Reports, conference-Cont.
recommittal of conference report-Cont.
debate, motion to recommit not subject to, Sec. 32.8
"deemed," recommittal was, to have taken place, Sec. 5.15
discharge of conferees, effect of, Sec.Sec. 32.1, 32.4
divisible, motion to recommit with instructions, Sec.Sec. 32.27, 32.28
division of the question, motion to recommit with instructions not 
subject to demand for, Sec. 32.30
effect of, on privilege and status of subsequent report, Sec. 16.2
effect of recommittal, Sec.Sec. 32.47, 32.50
form of motion to recommit with "general" instructions, Sec. 9.19
instructions, "general," form of motion to recommit with, Sec. 9.19
instructions in motion concerned legislative amendments to 
appropriation bill, Sec.Sec. 32.36, 32.37
instructions in motion, conferees not confined to subject matter of, 
Sec. 32.50
instructions in motion may not amend bill after passage, Sec. 32.32
instructions in motion may not direct conferees to report back 
provisions of bill that were reported by House committee where 
different from those finally passed by House, Sec. 32.35
instructions in motion may not direct reporting of matter beyond scope 
of differences, Sec. 32.34
instructions in motion may not include matter not in House or Senate 
version of bill, Sec. 32.33
instructions in motion, no separate vote on, Sec. 32.28
Reports, conference-Cont.
recommittal of conference report-Cont.
instructions in motion, special rule to prohibit, rejected, Sec. 32.26
instructions in motion were not to meet until directed, Sec. 32.39
instructions in motion were to in-  sist on disagreement to Senate 
amendments to appropriation bill, Sec. 32.38
instructions, motion amended to include, where previous question voted 
down, Sec.Sec. 32.23, 32.24
notification to Senate not necessary as House conferees return original 
papers to conference, Sec. 32.51
papers, effect of exchange of official, on motion to recommit, Sec. 
24.5
previous question, motion in order after adoption of, Sec.Sec. 32.10-
32.12
recognition for motion, generally, Sec.Sec. 32.14-32.21
recognition for motion, no appeal from Chair's decision on, Sec. 32.18
recognition for motion, preference in, to Member opposed, Sec.Sec. 
32.15, 32.16
recognition for motion, preference in, to minority, Sec.Sec. 32.17, 
32.19, 32.20
recognition for motion, Speaker's discretion in, Sec.Sec. 32.16, 32.18, 
32.20
recognition for motion was given to designee of Minority Leader, 
objections were voiced by ranking minority manager after, Sec. 32.25
rejection of motion, question is on adoption of report after, Sec. 
32.52
same conference committee, recommitted to, Sec.Sec. 32.2, 32.51
second recommittal, Sec. 32.3
special rule placing restrictions on motion, Sec. 32.29


[[Page 1144]]

Reports, conference-Cont.
recommittal of conference report-Cont.
suspension of the rules, recommittal under, Sec.Sec. 32.45, 32.46
time for making motion, Sec.Sec. 32.1, 32.10-32.13
total disagreement, report in, Sec. 32.7
unanimous consent, recommittal by, Sec.Sec. 32.40-32.43
unanimous consent, submission of another report on bill following 
recommittal of report by, Sec. 32.43
waiver of points of order against conference report does not protect 
motion to recommit with instructions, Sec. 32.31
reconsider vote to reject, motion to, Sec.Sec. 30.32, 30.33
rejection of conference report
concurred in amendments, where other House had, Sec. 1.6
defect not raised in point of order, unusual use of motion to reject to 
cure, Sec. 30.25
instruct, motion to, as precluded where conference report has been 
rejected pursuant to particular points of order, Sec. 24.5
motion to reject, unusual use of, to cure defect not raised in point of 
order, Sec. 30.25
other House had concurred in amendments, where, Sec. 1.6
papers, official, Senate rejected report before receipt of, Sec. 1.11
point of order, rejection of conference report where Chair sustains, 
see "points of order against," supra
portion of report, rejection of, results in rejection of entire report, 
Sec.Sec. 30.4, 30.5, 30.11, 30.12

Reports, conference-Cont.
rejection of conference report-Cont.
reconsideration of rejection, Sec.Sec. 30.32, 30.33
Senate, by, before official papers received, Sec. 1.11
special order, rejection of report by adoption of, Sec. 30.27
vote, reconsideration of, Sec.Sec. 30.32, 30.33
rejection of portion of conference report results in rejection of 
entire report, Sec.Sec. 30.4, 30.5, 30.11, 30.12
same-day consideration, waiver of three-day layover requirement to 
permit, Sec.Sec. 22.16-22.23
scope of conference, rule prohibiting inclusion of matters beyond (see 
also Conferees)
general rule, Sec. 7.3
adding language not found in House or Senate measure, Sec. 7.4
appropriation in Senate amendment, modification of amendment in 
conference eliminated, Sec. 19.21
appropriation, lump-sum, compromise was within range of disagreement as 
to, Sec. 19.22
appropriation, lump-sum, was limited to "projects authorized by law" 
and was not subject to point of order although funds allocated for two 
specific projects exceeded current authorization, Sec. 19.22
appropriation on legislative bill or amendment, House rule prohibiting, 
point of order against motion to recede and concur in Senate amendment 
with an amendment was based on, Sec. 19.20
appropriation on legislative bill, point of order where conferees 
agreed to, Sec.Sec. 19.15, 19.16


[[Page 1145]]

Reports, conference-Cont.
scope of conference, rule prohibiting inclusion of matters beyond (see 
also Conferees)-Cont.
appropriation on legislative bill, point of order will not lie against, 
where special rule had waived point of order against such provision in 
House text, Sec. 19.17
appropriation on legislative bill, rule prohibiting House conferees 
from agreeing to, applies only to provisions in Senate amendments, 
Sec.Sec. 19.15-19.19
appropriations higher than those in House measure, Sec. 7.6
authority, substituting mandatory for permissive, was not related to 
issues committed to conference, Sec. 7.9
authorized by law, compromise measure containing appropriations which 
are not, Sec. 7.5
budget resolution, Sec. 29.9
Chair rules on questions of scope, Sec. 19.2
dates, disagreements with respect to, as affecting issues regarding 
scope, Sec. 7.12
determining whether issue is within scope of conference, generally, 
Sec.Sec. 19.1-19.11
determining whether matter neither contained in amendment by one House 
nor representing existing law is within scope where one House silent on 
issue, Sec. 19.3
differences, determining scope of, to ascertain whether new matter is 
included in report, Sec.Sec. 7.9-7.11
disagreement, provisions modifying text that is not subject of, 
Sec.Sec. 19.5-19.7
Reports, conference-Cont.
scope of conference, rule prohibiting inclusion of matters beyond (see 
also Conferees)-Cont.
duties of executive officials, provision clarifying and limiting, did 
not expand authority conferred, Sec. 19.8
enlarging areas of disagreement by concurrent resolution, Sec.Sec. 
7.14, 7.15
entitlement increased beyond figures in House and Senate measures, Sec. 
7.7
exception to restrictions on executive authority to impound funds, 
expansion of, Sec. 7.26
existing law as representing position of House which is silent on issue 
of proposed changes, Sec.Sec. 7.10, 7.11
existing law, determining scope of conference where one House seeks to 
amend, while other House seeks to retain such law, Sec. 7.10
existing law, interpretation of, where one House is silent on issue, 
Sec. 19.2
expanding authority of conferees by concurrent resolution, Sec. 30.31
funds authorized for different years by respective Houses, reconciling 
provisions where, Sec. 19.14
germane modification of subjects in disagreement where disagreement to 
amendment in nature of substitute has been referred to conferees, Sec. 
19.10
instructions to conferees, effect of, see Instructions to conferees
language, adding new, Sec. 7.4
limitation, language modifying exception to restriction on executive 
authority to impound funds was held to be, Sec. 7.26
limits of disagreement discussed, see Conferees


[[Page 1146]]

Reports, conference-Cont.
scope of conference, rule prohibiting inclusion of matters beyond (see 
also Conferees)-Cont.
new matter not within scope of issues committed to conference, 
determining whether provision contains, generally, Sec.Sec. 19.1-19.11
point of order in House, provisions that had been subject to, were 
incorporated in conference report, Sec. 19.13
point of order where conferees have exceeded authority, Sec.Sec. 19.1, 
19.5, 19.12
precedents applied under former rules governing scope of conference, 
Chair's remarks as to limited applicability of, Sec. 19.9
Senate action, recommendation in report relating to, did not constitute 
Senate amendment that was before House for consideration, Sec. 19.18
Senate practice, see below
silence of one House on issue, effect of, Sec.Sec. 19.2, 19.3, 19.8
substitute, amendment in nature of, rules applicable where disagreement 
referred to conferees relates to, Sec.Sec. 19.10, 19.11
second conference report may include nongermane provision previously 
agreed to by House, Sec. 29.30
Senate amendments, multiple, were amalgamated in report as one motion 
to recede and concur with amendment in order to simplify floor 
procedure, Sec. 15.5
Senate practice
appeal of Chair's ruling, Sec.Sec. 19.24, 19.25, 25.27

Reports, conference-Cont.
Senate practice-Cont.
"Byrd rule," application of, Sec.Sec. 19.24, 19.25, 25.26
Constitution, point of order that portion of report violates, is 
submitted to Senate, Sec. 19.23
discharging conferees and sending papers back to House for disposition, 
Sec.Sec. 24.8, 24.9
"extraneous" portions of reconciliation bills, application of Budget 
Act provisions relating to, Sec.Sec. 19.24, 19.25, 25.26
papers, occasion on which Senate retained, and acted first on report 
although it had asked for conference, Sec. 24.10
point of order, proceedings after report ruled out on, Sec. 25.25
point of order under Budget Act, debate on appeal of ruling on, Sec. 
25.27
"receiving message from House" and "laying before Senate a message from 
House," distinguished, Sec. 24.8
scope of disagreement, point of order that "new matter" in report lies 
beyond, standard applied when ruling on, Sec. 19.4 (including Note)
total disagreement, action on conference report in, Sec. 29.13
voting on conference report, Sec. 29.5
separate views not permitted in report, Sec.Sec. 15.1, 15.2
separate votes on portions of conference report permitted by special 
order, effect of, Sec. 30.5
session, last six days of, calling up conference report during, Sec. 
22.5
signatures
adding signature after filing and printing, Sec. 18.13


[[Page 1147]]

Reports, conference-Cont.
signatures-Cont.
agreement on each area of disagreement, signature sheets must show, 
Sec. 18.14
committees, multiple, conferees from, Sec.Sec. 18.10, 18.11
 "exceptions," signature qualified by, Sec.Sec. 18.6-18.9
exceptions were inappropriately noted on signature sheets, Sec. 15.2
majority of conferees of each House required for report to be received, 
Sec.Sec. 18.1, 18.2
points of order looking behind signatures, Sec.Sec. 5.13, 5.14, 5.15, 
7.13, 18.2-18.5, 22.25
portions of conference report, signatures attached to, Sec.Sec. 18.10-
18.12, 18.14
position in favor of report, signature presumed to show, for purposes 
of allocating debate time, Sec. 28.7
quorum required on signature sheets, Sec. 5.8
validating report, signatures as, Sec.Sec. 5.1, 18.2-18.4, 22.25
waiver of points of order where conferees had failed to hold meeting, 
Sec.Sec. 5.14, 5.15
special order may protect nongermane motion while not precluding 
preferential motion, Sec. 30.22
special order, rejection of conference report by adoption of, Sec. 
30.27
special rule governing consideration, Sec.Sec. 21.8, 22.8, 22.10, 22.11
statements accompanying report
amendment, conditions discussed in statement incorporated in, Sec. 20.6
amendments in disagreement, proposed action on, Sec. 20.1 

Reports, conference-Cont.
statements accompanying report-Cont.
deceased staff member, tribute to, Sec. 20.5
exceptions, Sec.Sec. 15.2, 20.4
joint statement of House and Senate conferees, statement as, Sec. 20.2
law, conditions discussed in statement incorporated into law by way of 
amendment, Sec. 20.6
legislative history on bill and related legislation incorporated by 
reference, Sec. 20.2
minority views, Sec.Sec. 15.1, 18.6-18.9, 20.3, 20.4
reading of, Sec.Sec. 20.7-20.9
tribute to deceased staff member, Sec. 20.5
suspension of the rules, adoption under, Sec.Sec. 30.26, 30.28
suspension of the rules, consideration of report under, Sec.Sec. 26.27, 
26.28
table, lay on the, conference report not subject to motion to, Sec. 
21.1
"technical disagreement," Sec.Sec. 29.9, 29.10
three-day layover rule
defined, three-day period, Sec.Sec. 27.1, 27.2
holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays, Sec. 27.2
immediate consideration, Sec.Sec. 27.8, 27.9
interpretation of "three days," Sec.Sec. 27.1, 27.2
Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, Sec. 27.2
suspension of the rules, Sec. 27.3
two-hour rule, House rules amended to include, to impose requirement of 
availability of report unless waived by two-thirds vote, Sec. 27.10



[[Page 1148]]

Reports, conference-Cont.
three-day layover rule-Cont.
waiver of, by special rule, Sec.Sec. 22.18, 22.23, 27.5, 27.6, 27.11
waiver of, by unanimous consent, Sec.Sec. 22.16, 22.17, 22.19, 22.21, 
22.22, 27.3, 27.4, 27.7-27.9, 29.2
waiver of, for remainder of session, Sec. 27.11
waiver of, for remainder of week, rejection of special rule providing 
for, Sec. 27.12
waiver of, under suspension of the rules, Sec.Sec. 27.3, 29.2
total disagreement, House does not act on report in, but rather 
proceeds to consider amendments in disagreement, Sec.Sec. 29.11, 29.12
total disagreement, reported in, despite partial agreement to amendment 
in nature of substitute, Sec. 30.3
unanimous-consent request to vacate proceedings whereby report agreed 
to, Sec. 30.34
vacate proceedings whereby report agreed to, unanimous-consent request 
to, Sec. 30.34
vacating adoption, Sec. 32.46
voting on
amendments in disagreement normally voted on after consideration of 
conference report, see Disagreement, amendments in
reconsider, motion to, vote on, Sec.Sec. 30.32, 30.33
Senate, in, Sec. 29.5
unanimous consent, vote precluded where conference report was adopted 
by, Sec.Sec. 22.14, 22.15
unfinished business, as, Sec. 30.8
waiver of points of order, see above, "points of order, waiver of"

Reports, conference-Cont.
withdrawal of report, Sec.Sec. 20.9, 21.7
Request for conference (see also, e.g., Motion to agree to or request 
conference)
Committee of the Whole, point of order under rule requiring 
consideration of Senate amendments in, not applicable to request for 
conference, Sec. 2.8
deferred, request is, until completion of action on series of postponed 
votes, Sec. 2.9
motion, see Motion to agree to or request conference
papers, possession of, as prerequisite for request, Sec.Sec. 1.1, 3.1
point of order under rule requiring consideration of Senate amendments 
in Committee of the Whole not applicable to request for conference, 
Sec. 2.8
recognition for request for conference, see, e.g., Motion to agree to 
or request conference; Unanimous-consent request to send bill to 
conference
refusal of, by Senate, Sec. 1.10
resolutions from Rules Committee agreeing to or requesting conference, 
see Resolutions from Rules Committee agreeing to or requesting 
conference
suspension of the rules, see Suspension of the rules to agree to or 
request conference
votes, postponed, request to send bill to conference deferred until 
completion of action on, Sec. 2.9
Resolutions from Rules Committee agreeing to or requesting conference 
(see also, e.g., Request for conference)
agreeing to conference, Sec.Sec. 2.20, 2.21, 2.29, 2.30, 13.1, 26.16


[[Page 1149]]

Resolutions from Rules Committee agreeing to or requesting conference 
(see also, e.g., Request for conference)-Cont.
amending and passing Senate bills and requesting conference, Sec. 2.33
instruct, motion to, not inherently precluded by adoption, Sec.Sec. 
2.28, 10.7, 10.8
instruct, motion to, resolution may by its form preclude, Sec.Sec. 
2.29, 2.30, 6.52
jointly referred bill, Sec. 2.32
referrals of bill, joint, Sec. 2.32
requesting conference, Sec.Sec. 2.28, 2.31-2.33, 6.51, 6.52
two bills, resolution sending, to conference, Sec. 2.33
Revenue measures, constitutional prerogative of House to originate, 
House "blue-slipped" measure containing Senate amendment in violation 
of, Sec. 1.12
Rules Committee, resolutions from, agreeing to or requesting 
conference, see Resolutions from Rules Committee agreeing to or 
requesting conference
Scope of conference, see, e.g., Conferees; Disagreement, amendments in; 
Reports, conference
Senate action, anticipating, see Anticipating Senate action
Senate practice, see, e.g., Reports, conference
Speaker
conferees, appointment of, by, see Conferees
Speaker Pro Tempore
conferees, appointment of, by, see Conferees


Special rules agreeing to or requesting conference, see Resolutions 
from Rules Committee agreeing to or requesting conference
Subconferences, see Procedures in conference 
Suspension of the rules, consideration of conference report under, see 
Reports, conference
Suspension of the rules to agree to or request conference
agree to conference, Sec. 2.35
committee chairman recognized to move to suspend rules and agree to 
resolution to send bill to conference, Sec. 4.2
request conference, Sec.Sec. 2.34, 6.51
Three-day layover rule, see Reports, conference
Title of Senate bill, conferees failed to address House amendment to
adoption of report, House receded from title amendment after, Sec. 1.5
Unanimous-consent request to send bill to conference
adjournment, Senate bill anticipated during, unanimous consent that 
House agree to conference and Speaker appoint conferees on, Sec. 2.23
agree to conference requested by Senate, unanimous consent to, Sec. 
13.2
agree to further conference requested by Senate, unanimous-consent 
request to insist on disagreement to Senate amendments and, was used 
although motion would have been in order, Sec. 2.22
committee chairman is recognized for, Sec. 4.1


[[Page 1150]]

Unanimous-consent request to send bill to conference-Cont.
Committee of the Whole, point of order under rule requiring 
consideration of Senate amendments in, not applicable to unanimous-
consent request for conference, Sec.Sec. 2.8, 2.36
motion in order after objection to, see Motion to agree to or request 
conference
objection, procedures following
motion, Sec.Sec. 2.5, 2.7
referral of bill, Sec. 2.38
resolution reported from Rules Committee was considered by two-thirds 
vote and adopted, Sec. 2.39
Speaker's table, hold bill on, Sec. 2.38
points of order under particular rules, effect on
Committee of the Whole, rule requiring consideration of Senate 
amendments in, Sec.Sec. 2.8, 2.36
legislation on appropriation bill, rule against, Sec. 2.37
recognition of committee chairman for, Sec. 4.1
Voting on conference report, see Reports, conference