[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT]
[§ 27. Time for Consideration; the Three-day Rule]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 909-921]
House-Senate Conferences
E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT
Sec. 27. Time for Consideration; the Three-day Rule
Prior to the 92d Congress, a conference report was eligible for
consideration once it and the accompanying statement of the managers
had been printed in the Congressional Record. As a practical matter
this meant that a conference report could not be considered until the
day after it had been filed, since the daily edition of the
Congressional Record for a particular day is not printed and published
until the following day. This restriction was not in effect during the
last six days of a session.(15)
The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 amended the rules of the
House in this regard and imposed a three-day layover period before
conference reports could be considered in the House. This qualification
of the privilege of considering conference reports is inapplicable
during the last six days of a session.(16) This provision was perfected
late in the 92d Congress to clarify the method for calculating the
three-day period.(17) However, this three-day layover requirement is
often waived by the House, either by a suspension of the rules,(18) by
unanimous consent,(19) or pursuant to a resolution reported by the
Committee on Rules.(20) Such a waiver may provide for consideration on
the day after the report is
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XXVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 912 (1969).
16. 84 Stat. 1140, Pub. L. No. 91-510, Sec. 125(b)(2) (Oct. 26,
1970), the provisions of which became part of the rules of the House
pursuant to H. Res. 5, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 22, 1971); Rule XXVIII
clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
17. See Sec. 27.1, infra, especially Parliamentarian's Note.
18. Sec. 27.3, infra.
19. Sec.Sec. 27.3, 27.4, 27.7-27.9, infra. See also Sec.Sec. 22.2,
22.6, 22.7, 22.19, supra, for comparable precedents which predate the
three-day rule.
20. Sec.Sec. 27.5, 27.6, infra. See also Sec.Sec. 22.8, 22.18, supra,
for comparable precedents which predate the three-day rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 910]]
filed(1) or at any time after filing,(2) and may be effective for a
specified time period(3) or even for the remainder of a session.(4)
Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(5) does not require separate unanimous consent
for the consideration of numbered Senate amendments reported in
disagreement after unanimous consent has been obtained for
consideration of the conference report.(6)
A rule adopted in the 94th Congress specifies that the availability of
conference reports for two hours is a prerequisite for their
consideration. This requirement may also be waived.(7)
Consideration Three Days After Filing
Sec. 27.1 In the 92d Congress, the House adopted a privileged
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules amending the rules of
the House to permit consideration of conference reports, including
reports in complete disagreement, on the third day following the filing
thereof in the House, provided that such reports had been printed in
the daily edition of the Record for the day on which they had been
filed.
On Oct. 13, 1972,(8) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr.
B. F. Sisk, of California, to call up House Resolution 1153, to amend
the rules of the House. Mr. Sisk explained that the resolution
provided, inter alia, for the following change:
First, it changes the wording of the 3-day rule on conference reports
and the 3-day rule on committee reports to make it clear that what we
mean is 3 days and not 4. As the rules are presently interpreted, a
conference report filed on a Monday is not eligible for floor
consideration until Friday. We think this is unreasonable. So we
suggest changing the language of the rule to make sure that a
conference report filed on Monday could be considered on
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Sec. 27.7, infra.
2. Sec.Sec. 27.7-27.9, infra. See also Sec.Sec. 22.6-22.8, 22.18,
supra, for comparable precedents which predate the three-day rule.
3. Sec. 27.4, infra. See also Sec.Sec. 22.16, 22.18, supra, for
comparable precedents which predate the three-day rule.
4. Sec. 27.11, infra. See also Sec.Sec. 22.19, 22.20, supra, for
comparable precedents which predate the three-day rule.
5. House Rules and Manual Sec. 912b (1997).
6. Deschler's Procedure (93d Cong.), Ch. 33 Sec. 21.7.
7. See Sec. 27.10, infra.
8. 118 CONG. REC. 36014, 36021-23, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 911]]
Thursday. Surely, this should give Members enough time to study the
report.
Mr. Sisk then proposed and the House approved an amendment to the
resolution making its provisions effective immediately before noon,
Jan. 3, 1973, after which the House adopted the resolution as so
amended.
Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 1153 amended Rule XXVIII
clause 2 (applying to conference reports) and added clause 2(b)
(applying to amendments reported from a conference still in
disagreement) to clarify the manner for calculating the three-day
layover period that must precede the consideration of such reports. The
original "three-day rule" was in effect a four-day rule, since pursuant
thereto, a conference report became privileged for consideration three
days after it and the accompanying statement had been printed in the
daily edition of the Congressional Record. However, as a practical
matter, the daily edition of the Record for a given day is not
published until the next day. Hence, a report filed on Monday would be
printed on Tuesday (in Monday's Record), and therefore would not be
eligible for consideration until Friday. House Resolution 1153 took
cognizance of this fact and specified that the three-day layover period
would begin on the day of filing, and that consideration of the report
would be in order only if the report and statement had been printed in
the daily edition of the Congressional Record for the day on which such
report had been filed.
Saturdays, Sundays, and Legal Holidays (Under Rule in Effect in 1974)
Sec. 27.2 Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are not count-ed in
computing the three-day layover period after which conference reports
become privileged for consideration.(9)
On Tuesday, Oct. 17, 1972,(10) Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, called
up the conference report on H.R. 16810 (providing for a temporary
increase in the public debt limitation), which had been filed in the
House the previous Saturday, Oct. 14.(11)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Rule XXVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1972).
10. 118 CONG. REC. 36938, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
11. Id. at p. 36520.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 912]]
MR. MILLS of Arkansas (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(12) The gentleman will state it.
MR. MILLS of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, is it true that this conference
report not having laid over for 3 days cannot be called up except by
unanimous consent?
THE SPEAKER: That is correct.
MR. MILLS of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my request for
consideration of the conference report.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Arkansas withdraws his request for
consideration of the conference report.
Consideration Prior to Expiration of Three Days
Sec. 27.3 Prior to the expiration of three calendar days (not
including Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) from the filing of a
conference report in total disagreement, the report and Senate
amendment in disagreement may be considered by unanimous consent or
under suspension of the rules on suspension days.
On June 29, 1973,(13) the following occurred in the House:
MR. [WILBUR D.] MILLS of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
for the immediate consideration of the conference report and the Senate
amendment reported from the conference in disagreement on the bill
(H.R. 8410) to continue the existing temporary increase in the public
debt limit through November 1973, and for other purposes. . . .
MR. [WILLIAM A.] STEIGER of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right
to object, may I propound a parliamentary inquiry?
THE SPEAKER:(14) The gentleman from Wisconsin may propound a
parliamentary inquiry.
MR. STEIGER of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is
this: that if an objection is heard to the request made by the
gentleman from Arkansas, is it in order for the gentleman from
Arkansas, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means, to move to suspend the rules to bring this to the floor of the
House?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the Chair has the authority to
recognize the gentleman for such a motion.
Sec. 27.4 By unanimous consent, the consideration of a conference
report was made in order during the following week on a day prior to
the expiration of the three cal-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
13. 119 CONG. REC. 22381, 22382, 22384, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 913]]
endar days required by Rule XXVIII clause 2.(15)
On June 24, 1971,(16) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, made the following
request:
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the managers on the part of
the House on the bill (H.R. 7016) making appropriations for the Office
of Education and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1972, and for other purposes, may have until midnight Monday next to
file the conference report and that it may be in order on Wednesday
next to consider the conference report in the House.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(17) Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Sec. 27.5 Resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules have
provided for the consideration of conference reports prior to the
expiration of three calendar days as required by Rule XXVIII clause 2.
(18)
On Feb. 24, 1972,(19) the following occurred in the House:
MR. [JOHN A.] YOUNG of Texas: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 838 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. RES. 838
Resolved, That it shall be in order to consider a conference report on
the bill (H.R. 12067) making appropriations for foreign assistance and
related programs for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and for
other purposes, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2, rule
XXVIII.
THE SPEAKER:(20) The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. YOUNG of Texas: . . . Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 838 merely
provides for consideration of the conference report on H.R. 12067, the
foreign assistance and related programs appropriation bill, 1972,
notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2, rule XXVIII, which is the
so-called 3-day rule. . . .
MR. YOUNG of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.(1)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
16. 117 CONG. REC. 21905, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Hale Boggs (La.).
18. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
19. 118 CONG. REC. 5495, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
1. See also 118 CONG. REC. 29128, 29129, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug.
18, 1972.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 914]]
Sec. 27.6 At the end of a session, the House often adopts a special
order permitting the same day consideration of conference reports and
amendments in disagreement, waiving the necessity for a three-day
layover but retaining the requirement of two-hour availability.
The special order called up in the House on Sept. 29, 1976,(2) is
illustrative of those often used to facilitate business as sine die
adjournment approaches.
MR. [B. F.] SISK [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1582 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. RES. 1582
Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time during the remainder of
this session to consider conference reports and amendments reported
from conference in disagreement on the same day reported or any day
thereafter notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2, rule XXVIII (but
subject to the two-hour availability requirement of that clause).
THE SPEAKER:(3) The gentleman from California (Mr. Sisk) is recognized
for 1 hour. . . .
MR. SISK: . . . The Rules Committee decided to report three separate
resolutions rather than one omnibus resolution to permit Members a
separate vote on each of the questions.
House Resolution 1582 permits the same-day consideration of conference
reports. It waives the provisions of clause 2, rule XXVIII, the 3-day
layover rule. However, the 2-hour availability requirement of that
clause, adopted by this Congress, is retained.
Consideration on Day After Filing
Sec. 27.7 By unanimous consent, the consideration of a conference
report was made in order on the day after it was filed, notwithstanding
the requirement of Rule XXVIII clause 2(4) that the conference report
be printed in the Record three calendar days prior to its
consideration.
On June 29, 1971,(5) the following occurred in the House:
MR. [GEORGE W.] ANDREWS of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the managers on the part
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 122 CONG. REC. 33518, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
4. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
5. 117 CONG. REC. 22568-70, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 915]]
of the House may have until midnight tonight to file a conference
report on the bill (H.R. 8825) making appropriations for the
legislative branch for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and for
other purposes.
THE SPEAKER:(6) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Alabama?
There was no objection. . . .
MR. ANDREWS of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it
may be in order on tomorrow, June 30, 1971, to consider the conference
report on the bill (H.R. 8825) making appropriations for the
legislative branch for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and for
other purposes.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Alabama? . . .
There was no objection.(7)
Consideration Immediately After Filing
Sec. 27.8 Consideration of a conference report was, by unanimous
consent, made in order at any time following the filing of the report.
On May 20, 1971,(8) the following occurred in the House regarding H.R.
8190, the second supplemental appropriation bill for fiscal 1971:
MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]: . . . My purpose is to ask unanimous
consent that it may be in order at any time after the filing of the
conference report on the second supplemental appropriation bill to call
up the conference report for consideration. . . .
THE SPEAKER:(9) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
Sec. 27.9 By unanimous consent, the House considered a conference
report and Senate amendments in disagreement immediately following
their submission to the House.
On June 30, 1973,(10) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, submitted the
conference report and statement of the managers on House Joint
Resolution 636, and immediately made the following request:
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of
the conference report and of the Senate amendments reported from
conference in disagreement on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 636),
making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1974, and for
other purposes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Carl Albert (Okla.).
7. See also 116 CONG. REC. 24030, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 14, 1970.
8. 117 CONG. REC. 16148, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
10. 119 CONG. REC. 22632, 22633, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 916]]
THE SPEAKER:(11) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
Availability of Conference Report
Sec. 27.10 In the second session of the 94th Congress the House
amended Rule XXVIII clause 2, to require that conference reports and
amendments reported from conference in disagreement to be available to
Members at least two hours prior to consideration, but permitting a
waiver of this rule by a two-thirds vote.
On Feb. 26, 1976, a resolution amending the rules of the House,
reported from the Committee on Rules, was called up for consideration
in the House.(12) The purpose of this rules change was to impose a two-
hour availability on bills reported from standing committees, on
conference reports, and on amendments reported from conference in
disagreement. The new rule also permitted the immediate consideration
of a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules waiving this
requirement but requiring a two-thirds vote for the adoption of such a
waiver.
The resolution was reported with a committee amendment which was
adopted. The text of the resolution, together with portions of the
debate on the new rules, are carried herein.(13)
MR. [CLAUDE D.] PEPPER [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 868 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 868
Resolved, That Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new clause:
"7. It shall not be in order to consider any report of a committee
unless copies or reproductions of such report have been available to
the Members on the floor for at least two hours before the beginning of
such consideration. The provisions of this clause shall not be
construed to supersede any other rule of the House requiring a longer
period of time before such consideration is in order. The provisions of
this clause shall not apply to any report of the Committee on Rules
dealing with the consideration of a bill.".
SEC. 2. Rule XXII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new clause:
"7. It shall not be in order to consider any bill or resolution unless
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
12. H. Res. 868. See 122 CONG. REC. 4625, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. 122 CONG. REC. 4625-27, 4629, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 26, 1976.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 917]]
copies or reproductions of such bill or resolution have been available
to Members on the floor for at least two hours before the beginning of
such consideration. The provisions of this clause shall not be
construed to supersede any other rules of the House requiring a longer
period of time before such consideration is in order. The provisions of
this clause shall not apply to any resolution reported by the Committee
on Rules dealing with the consideration of a bill.".
SEC. 3. Rule XXVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new clause:
"7. It shall not be in order to consider any report of a committee of
conference unless copies or reproductions of such report have been
available to Members on the floor for at least two hours before the
beginning of such consideration. The provisions of this clause shall
not be construed to supersede any other rules of the House requiring a
longer period of time before such consideration is in order. The
provisions of this clause shall not apply to any resolution or report
of the Committee on Rules relating to any report of a committee of
conference.".
With the following committee amendment:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu thereof:
That rule XI, clause 2(l)(6) of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended by inserting after the first sentence the
following: "Nor shall it be in order to consider any measure or matter
reported by any committee (except the Committee on Rules in the case of
a resolution making in order the consideration of a bill, resolution,
or other order of business, or any other committee in the case of a
privileged resolution), unless copies of such report and the reported
measure or matter have been available to the Members for at least two
hours before the beginning of such consideration; provided, however,
that it shall always be in order to call up for consideration,
notwithstanding the provisions of clause 4(b), rule XI, a report from
the Committee on Rules specifically providing for the consideration of
a reported measure or matter notwithstanding this restriction."
SEC. 2. The second sentence of rule XXVIII, clause 2(a) of the House
of Representatives is amended by striking all after the word "state-
ment" and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "have been available
to Members for at least two hours before the beginning of such
consideration; provided, however, that it shall always be in order to
call up for consideration, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 4
(b). Rule XI, a report from the Committee on Rules only making in order
the consideration of a conference report notwithstanding this
restriction."
SEC. 3. The second sentence of rule XXVIII, clause 2(b) of the Rules of
the House of Representatives is amended by striking all after the
second comma and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "have been
available to Members for at least two hours before the beginning of
such consideration; provided, however, that it shall always be in order
to call up for consideration, notwithstanding the provisions of clause
4(b), rule XI, a report from the Committee on Rules only making in
order the consideration of such an amendment notwithstanding this
restriction."
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 918]]
THE SPEAKER:(14) The gentleman will state it.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is to be considered in the
House which would preclude an amendment from being offered by any
Member.
THE SPEAKER: It is a rule that comes from the Committee on Rules. It is
under the charge of the gentleman handling the resolution.
MR. BAUMAN: So unless the gentleman yields for the purpose of an
amendment, none would be in order?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct. . . .
MR. BAUMAN: If the gentleman would yield further, I would say that when
we amended the rules the last time I seem to recall the resolution was
considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole and all the
Members had the right to offer amendments. What was the reason for
precluding individuals from offering amendments today?
MR. PEPPER: This resolution comes out from the Rules Committee in the
exercise of its jurisdiction relative to the rules of the House and it
comes out as a closed rule and therefore I have no authority in
handling the rule to yield to Members except for the purposes of
debate. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the able gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Anderson), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 868, as amended by the Committee on
Rules, proposes to amend two rules of the House in order to insure that
Members have an adequate opportunity, no less than 2 hours, to review
reported measures, conference reports, and Senate amendments in
disagreement.
House Resolution 868, as reported, would amend rule XI, clause 2(l)(6),
the 3-day layover rule, to provide that no measure or matter reported
by any committee-except the Committee on Rules with respect to order of
business resolutions, and other committees with respect to privileged
resolutions-may be considered unless copies of the measure have been
available for at least 2 hours prior to consideration. The requirements
of rule XI, clause 2(l)(6) do not apply to measures for the declaration
of war, the declaration of a national emergency by Congress, or to
congressional actions with respect to executive decisions or
determinations which would become or continue to be effective unless
disapproved or otherwise invalidated by one or both Houses of Congress.
The proposed 2-hour availability requirement would likewise not be
applicable to the consideration of such measures.
House Resolution 868 also amends rule XXIII, clause 2 (a) and (b),
relating to conference reports, to prohibit consideration both of
conference reports and of any amendment of the Senate to any measure
reported in disagreement, unless copies of the report and statement of
the managers have been available for at least 2 hours prior to
consideration.
The amendments to these rules contain a proviso which states that the
2-hour requirement may be waived by the Committee on Rules and a
resolution to that effect may be considered on the same day reported
notwithstanding
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 919]]
rule XI, clause 4(b) prohibiting consideration of a resolution from
rules on the same day reported unless so determined by a two-thirds
vote. The requirement could also be dispensed with by unanimous consent
or under suspension of the rules. . . .
MR. [JOHN B.] ANDERSON of Illinois: . . . As the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Pepper) has already explained, the main purpose of these rules
changes is to insure that Members will have advance access to written
copies of bills, reports, and conference reports at least 2 hours
before they are called up for consideration. . . . The only exceptions,
in the case of bills, are if they are: brought up under unanimous
consent, to which any Member may object; under suspension of the rules,
which requires a two-thirds vote; through a waiver of the 3-day rule by
the Committee on Rules, which must first be adopted by a majority vote;
or through a blanket waiver of the 3-day rule applying to all bills
brought up during a certain period of time, again which must first be
adopted by a majority vote. Moreover, the House is doubly protected by
clause 3 of rule XVI which reads, and I quote:
When any motion or proposition is made, the question, Will the House
now consider it? shall not be put unless demanded by a Member. . . .
In other words, Mr. Speaker, even if the House should adopt a special
rule which waives the 3-day rule against a bill or conference report,
any Member may still raise the question of consideration on the motion
to resolve into the Committee of the Whole to consider the bill, and it
takes a majority vote of the House to proceed with consideration.
The same situation applies with respect to the consideration of
conference reports when the 3-day rule has been waived. Even though
conference reports are highly privileged, the precedents are quite
clear, and I quote:
The question of consideration may be demanded against a matter of the
highest privilege.
The only apparent exceptions being veto messages and reports and orders
of business out of the Committee on Rules. So again, any Member who is
not satisfied that the conference report has been available for a
sufficient amount of time prior to consideration, whether 2 hours or 1
day, may force a vote on the question of consideration, and that
conference report cannot be considered until a majority of the House
votes to proceed with consideration.
MR. PEPPER: Mr. Speaker, I would just add this. The Committee on Rules
had 4 days of hearings on this matter and concluded that, after fair
consideration of the measure by the House, it should be adopted.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the committee amendment
and the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the committee amendment.
The committee amendment was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
[[Page 920]]
MR. [WILLIAM A.] STEIGER of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I object to the
vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of
order that a quorum is not present.
THE SPEAKER: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 258, nays
107, not voting 67. . . .
Consideration on Same Day Reported for Remainder of Session
Sec. 27.11 A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules made in
order the consideration of conference reports on the same day reported
during the remainder of the session of Congress.
On Dec. 9, 1971,(15) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr.
William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, to call up and explain House
Resolution 729:
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House
Resolution 729 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. RES. 729
Resolved, That during the remainder of the first session of the Ninety-
second Congress it shall be in order to consider conference reports the
same day reported, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2, rule
XXVIII.
MR. COLMER: . . . Mr. Speaker, I assure the Speaker and the Members of
the House that I do not intend to use anything like the time that is
permitted under the rule.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple resolution.
Under the rules of the House conference reports on bills must lay over,
for a period of 3 days and be printed in the Record.
Now, under the standing rules of the House, for the last 6 days of the
session, the House can take such action.
Mr. Speaker, since we are in the drive for adjournment and since no one
can predict accurately when the 6 days begins, this is a simple
resolution to expedite the consideration of the conference reports.
Otherwise we would be forced to await the joint adoption of a sine die
resolution before this waiver could become effective.(16)
Immediate Consideration for Remainder of Week
Sec. 27.12 The House rejected a resolution reported from the Committee
on Rules which would have provided for the immediate consideration of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 117 CONG. REC. 45873, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
16. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 921]]
conference reports for the remainder of that week.
On Aug. 16, 1972,(17) the following occurred in the House:
MR. [WILLIAM M.] COLMER [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1094 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 1094
Resolved, That during the remainder of this week it shall be in order
to consider conference reports the same day reported, notwithstanding
the provisions of clause 2, rule XXVIII.(18) . . .
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER:(19) The question is on the resolution. . . .
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 159, nays 223, not voting
50. . . .
So the resolution was rejected.