[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT]
[§ 30. Voting; Final Disposition of Report]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 1005-1062]
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.