<DOC>
[Cannon's Precedents -- Volume VIII]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:cannon_cclxiv.wais]



                           Chapter CCLXIV.\1\
 
                INSTRUCTION OF MANAGERS OF A CONFERENCE.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

   1. General principles governing. Sections 3230-3240.
   2. Limitations on the power of instructions. Sections 3241-
     3245.
   3. Reports in violition of instructions. Sections 3246-3248.
   4. Senate practice on instruction. Sections 3249-3251.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

  3230. Conference having been agreed to, the motion to instruct 
conferees in preferential.
  While it is unusual to instruct conferees before conference is had, 
it is in order to move instructions for a first conference as for any 
subsequent conference.
  Whether motions to instruct are inconsistent with action previously 
taken by the House, is a question for the House; and the Speaker 
declines to rule such motions out of order on that ground.
  The fact that proposed instructions to House conferees can not be 
incorporated in the bill without cooperation on the part of Senate 
conferees does not subject motions imposing such instructions to a 
point of order.
  Where a substitute has been proposed by one House for the entire bill 
passed by the other House, provisions in either the bill or the 
substitute are germane when offered in motion to instruct managers.
  On June 3, 1924 \2\ Mr. W. W. Griest, of Pennsylvania, proposed to 
take from the Speaker's table the amendments of the Senate to the bill 
(S. 1898) reclassifying postal salaries; insist on the amendments of 
the House and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The motion was agreed to, and pending the appointment of conferees 
Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, offered, as preferential, a motion 
that the managers on the part of the House be instructed to agree in 
conference to a portion of the Senate bill to which the House had 
disagreed and on which disagreement it had just insisted.
  Mr. Everett Sanders, of Indiana, submitted seriatim points of order: 
That it was not in order to instruct conferees for a first conference; 
that the proposed instruction to agree to a part of the Senate bill to 
which the House had disagreed was contradictory and inconsistent; that 
the action desired could not be secured by agreement of the House 
conferees alone but must be supplemented by agreement of the Senate 
conferees, over whom the House had no jurisdiction; and that the 
portion of the Senate bill proposed to incorporated was not germane to 
the House bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Supplementary to Chapter CXXXIV.
  \2\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 10327.
Sec. 3231
  The Speaker \1\ overruled the various points or order and held:

  The first point made by the gentleman from Indiana, that it is very 
unusual to instruct before there has been any conference, is, of 
course, true. The House and the Senate generally allow their conferees 
liberty of action at the first conference. But the Chair is not aware, 
whatever the propriety may be, that it is not within the power of the 
House to instruct at the very outset, and the Chair can not sustain 
that point of order.
  Then, secondly, as to the point that this House is doing something 
which is contradictory to what it has already done. The House has 
rejected the whole Senate bill, has substituted one of its own, and now 
instructs its conferees not to agree unless they put in a part of the 
Senate bill, which it has already stricken out, and that is, of course, 
contradictory. The action of the House in first striking it out and 
then instructing its conferees not to agree unless a part of it is put 
back is contradictory.
  The point is also true, as made by the gentleman from Indiana, that 
the House having already decided to insist, this could not go in by the 
action of the House conferees alone. It requires action by the Senate 
conferees to put back this section. They must recede and concur with an 
amendment.
  Bu the Chair does not see why--granting the extraordinary character 
of it--it is subject to a point of order. It seems to the Chair that, 
if the House wants to do it, no matter how contradictory or how unusual 
or how improper it may be, the House has the right to say to its 
conferees, ``You must not agree until a certain contingency has 
arisen,'' although when the House merely insists on its disagreement 
and sends the bill to conference it gives its conferees authority to 
depart from that insistence and to make an agreement.
  So it seems to the Chair in the present instance, although very 
unusual and contradicting the prevision action of the House, that if 
the House wishes to do it the House has the right to do so. As to the 
point of order that the instruction is not germane to the bill, the 
Chair thinks that as the matter was in the Senate bill in this exact 
form, and the House struck it out and inserted different provisions, 
the whole matter in both bills is in conference and consequently 
germane.
  The Chair overrules the point of order.

  3231. After conference is ordered and before conferees are appointed 
the motion to instruct the House conferees is privileged.
  The proponent of a motion is entitled to the floor against all save 
the Member in charge, who as prior right to recognition and may move 
the previous question at any time during the hour allotted him.
  A motion to instruct conferees is subject to amendment unless the 
previous question is ordered.
  Only one motion to instruct conferees is in order and, having been 
disposed of, may not be supplemented by motions to further instruct.
  On December 20, 1913,\2\ the House had under consideration the Senate 
amendment to the bill (H. R. 7837), the currency bill.
  A motion by Mr. Carter Glass, of Virginia, to concur in the Senate 
amendment having been rejected, Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois inquired 
when it would be in order to offer a motion to instruct the managers on 
the part of the House.
  The Speaker \3\ replied that the motion to instruct would be in order 
after conference was agreed to and before conferees were named.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 1308.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3232
  Mr. Glass moved that the House agree to the conference requested by 
the Senate. The motion was agreed to and Mr. Mann offered, as 
privileged, a motion to instruct the conferees.
  The Speaker held the motion to be privileged and directed the Clerk 
to read it. Following the reading of the motion to instruct, Mr. Asbury 
F. Lever, of South Carolina, demanded the floor to propose a 
substitute.
  The Speaker held that Mr. Mann was entitled to the floor against all 
save the Member in charge of the bill, Mr. Glass.
  Whereupon, Mr. Glass demanded the floor and, being recognized by the 
Speaker, moved the previous question on the motion to instruct.
  Pending the vote on ordering the previous question, Mr. John N. 
Garner, of Texas, inquired whether it would be in order to offer 
amendments to the pending motion, if the demand for the previous 
question was rejected.
  The Speaker replied that if the previous question was not ordered the 
motion to instruct would be open to amendment.
  The question being put and the yeas and nays being ordered, it was 
decided in the negative--yeas 83, nays 259.
  Thereupon, Mr. Lever offered as a substitute a motion to instruct the 
conferees to agree to the provision in the Senate amendments extending 
the time of loans secured by agricultural products and farm lands.
  The amendment was adopted and the motion to instruct as amended was 
agreed to, when Mr. William H. Murray, of Oklahoma, offered a motion to 
further instruct the conferees.
  Mr. Thomas W. Hardwick, of Georgia, having raised a question of 
order, the Speaker ruled.

  The point of order is sustained; you can not have two sets of 
instructions.

  3232. The motion to instruct conferees is in order only after the 
vote to ask for or agree to a conference and before the managers are 
appointed.
  When a bill with Senate amendments is taken up for consideration, the 
amendments must be read before consideration begins.
  The House having disagreed and ordered conferees on Senate amendments 
on which Senate has insisted and ordered conferees, the stage of 
disagreement has been reached.
  The test of disagreement is the ordering of conferees; when both 
Houses have ordered conferees they are in disagreement.
  On May 10, 1917,\1\ Mr. Carter Glass of Virginia, moved to take from 
the Speaker's table the bill (H. R. 3673) amending the Federal reserve 
act, with Senate amendments, disagree to the amendments and agree to 
the conference asked by the Senate.
  The Speaker was proceeding to put the question, when Mr. James R. 
Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that the Senate amendments 
must be read before consideration began.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2078.
Sec. 3233
  The Speaker,\1\ sustained the point of order and directed the clerk 
to read the Senate amendments.
  The reading of the amendments being concluded, Mr. Louis T. McFadden, 
of Pennsylvania, moved that the managers on the part of the House be 
instructed to agree in substance to the proviso in the Senate 
amendments relative to charges by banks for collection of checks.
  Mr. Glass raised a question of order and contended that conferees 
could not be instructed until appointed.
  The Speaker overruled the point of order and held that the motion to 
instruct was not in order until agreement had been reached to send a 
bill to conference but must be offered before confrerees were named.
  Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, submitted the further point of 
order that the stage of disagreement had not yet been reached.
  In controverting the point of order Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, 
said:

  We have disagreed to the Senate amendment and the Senate has 
insisted. The stage of disagreement has been reached.
  On the Phillippine bill, to which the gentleman from New York refers, 
I suggested to him to offer a motion to instruct the conferees before 
the stage of disagreement had been reached. There was a case where the 
House had amended a Senate bill and before the stage of disagreement 
had been reached the conferees were instructed by a motion, which was 
subject to a point of order; but that is not this case. This is a case 
where there is a House bill with a Senate amendment, upon which 
amendment the Senate had made an insistence, and the House has 
disagreed to the Senate amendment, and we have reached the stage of 
disagreement. It is not conferees who disagree; it is the Houses of 
Congress which disagree.
  In the immigration bill some years ago, when the House struck out all 
of the Senate amendments and inserted the House bill, a motion was made 
to instruct the conferees, and I made the point of order that the 
motion was not in order, because the Houses were not in disagreement, 
and that the action of one House would not put the two Houses in 
disagreement. The Speaker sustained the point of order. But here both 
Houses have acted, and they are in disagreement.
  When both Houses have ordered conferees, they are in disagreement. 
Otherwise they could not order a conference.

  The Speaker concurred in the statement by Mr. Mann and overruled the 
point of order.
  3233. It is not in order to instruct conferees after their 
appointment.
  On August 17, 1912,\2\ on motion of Mr. Lemuel P. Padgett, of 
Tennessee the House further insisted on its disagreement to Senate 
amendments to the naval appropriation bill and asked for a conference 
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
  The Speaker appointed as conferees Mr. Padgett, Mr. J. Fred C. 
Talbott, of Maryland, and Mr. George Edmund Foss, of Illinois.
  Thereupon, Mr. John A. Thayer, of Massachusetts, moved to instruct 
the House conferees with reference to a provision for the construction 
of a cruiser.
  Mr. Padgett made the point of order that the motion came too late 
after the appointment of the conferees, and was not in order.
  The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 1051.
                                                            Sec. 3234
  3234. On May 25, 1928,\1\ the Senate had under consideration the 
conference report on the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 46), providing 
for the completion of the Muscle Shoals plant for the manufacture and 
distribution of fertilizer, when Mr. Kenneth McKeller of Tennessee, 
offered a motion to recommit the joint resolution to the conferees with 
instructions to the Senate conferess to insist on an amendment 
subjecting the corporation to the laws of the State in which operated.
  Mr. George W. Norris, of Nebraska, having raised a question of order, 
the Vice President \2\ said:

  The Chair has had ample time during the night for reflection upon 
this question.
  The Chair has caused an investigation to be made into the question of 
recommittal of conference reports with instructions to conferees, and 
has found that there is a practical unanimity of opinion, where a 
conference report is before the Senate for consideration, that a motion 
to recommit with instructions at that stage is not in order. The rule 
appears to be that instructions are only in order after a motion to ask 
or agree to a conference has been agreed to, and prior to the 
appointment of conferees. In the present cast the conferees have 
already been named, and following the rule established by the decisions 
extending over a period of several years, the Chair feels impelled to 
sustain the point of order.

  3235. The ruling out of a motion to instruct conferees does not 
preclude the offering of a proper motion to instruct.
  Instructions to managers of a conference may not direct them to do 
that which they might not do otherwise.
  A motion to instruct conferees may not include directions which would 
be inadmissible if offered as a motion in the House.
  A motion to instruct conferees to concur in a Senate amendment with 
an amendment not germane thereto was ruled out of order.
  To a proposition authorizing loans to farmers in certain areas, an 
amendment authorizing loans with geographical restrictions was held not 
germane.
  On January 13, 1931,\3\ the House agreed to a resolution reported by 
the Committee on Rules sending to conference the joint resolution (H. 
J. Res. 447) making appropriation for the relief of farmers in drought 
and storm stricken areas.
  The resolution having been agreed to, Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of 
New York, moved that the house conferees be instructed to concur in a 
Senate amendment providing for the distribution of food with an 
amendmnent eliminating geographical restrictions.
  Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, raised the question of order that 
the amendment to the Senate amendment was not germane and the motion 
proposed by indirection what would not have been in order if offered as 
a motion when the subject was open to amendment.
  The Speaker \4\ held:

  The Chair agrees with the gentleman from New York, Mr. Snell, that 
the motion of the gentleman from New York, Mr. LaGuardia, is very 
ingeniously drawn and in the opinion of the Chair has
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session, Seventieth Congress, Record p. 9837
  \2\ Charles Curtis, of Kansas, Vice President.
  \3\ Third session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 2086.
  \4\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
Sec. 3236
great merit, but that cannot be considered by the Chair in determining 
the point of order. The Chair must disagree with the gentleman from New 
York, Mr. LaGuardia, in his general proposition that conferees have 
broader powers than the House itself has; in other words, that the 
House may instruct conferees to do a thing which the House could not do 
itself. The Chair thinks that motions to instruct conferees stand on 
exactly the same basis and must be dealt with in the same way as 
motions to recommit to a committee with instructions, and that if the 
House can not authorize a committee to do that which the House itself 
can not do, it follows that it can not instruct conferees to do that 
which the House can not do.
  The motion of the gentleman from New York is that the House conferees 
be instructed to concur in the Senate amendment providing for food 
distribution, and so forth. What is the Senate amendment?
  ``That the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized for the crop 
of 1931 to make advances of loans to farmers in the drought and storm 
stricken areas where he shall find that an emergency for such 
assistance exists, for the purchase of food under such terms as may be 
prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture''
  The motion of the gentleman from New York is not directed against the 
bill as a whole, but only to that one amendment which the Chair has 
just read, which is specifically limited to farmers in the drought and 
storm stricken areas. The gentleman from New York desires to broaden 
that to the extent that it would prevail in cities where there are no 
drought or storm stricken areas and no farmers. The last decision on 
the general subject of whether a motion to broaden a specified area is 
germane was made by the present occupant of the Chair on April 2, 1930. 
A bill was under consideration which provided, among other things, that 
actions brought against a carrier should only be in a State through or 
into which the carrier operates a line of railway. An amendment was 
offered proposing in addition that such action might be brought in the 
district or State where the railroad maintained an agency and the Chair 
held that was not germane, because it broadened largely the area in 
which the proposition was supposed to operate.
  The Chair thinks that the motion of the gentleman from New York seeks 
to do exactly the sort of thing which the present occupant of the chair 
has held to be illegal, and the Chair is constrained to sustain the 
point of order.

  The Speaker having concluded his ruling Mr. James V. McClintic, of 
Oklahoma, inquired if a further motion to instruct conferees would be 
in order.
  The Speaker replied that a proper motion to instruct conferees was in 
order at this stage of the proceedings and as none was pending he would 
recognize Mr. McClintic for that purpose.
  3236. One motion to instruct conferees having been considered and 
disposed of, further motions to instruct are not in order.
  On February 28, 1913,\1\ on motion of Mr. John Lamb of Virginia, the 
rules were suspended and the agricultural appropriation bill with 
Senate amendments was taken from the Speaker's table; the Senate 
amendments were disagreed to and a conference was asked with the 
Senate.
  Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, offered the following resolution:

  Resolved, That it is the opinion of the House that the conferees on 
the part of the House should not agree to Senate Amendment numbered 142 
in form or substance:

  The question of the resolution being taken, on division, there were 
ayes 36, nays 117, and the resolution was not agreed to.
  Whereupon Mr. John W. Weeks, of Massachusetts, proposed this 
resolution:

  Resolved, That it is the opinion of the House that the conferees on 
the part of the House should agree to Senate amendment 142 in form or 
substance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 4344.
                                                            Sec. 3237
  Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, made the point of order that one 
motion to instruct having been considered and disposed of, a further 
motion to instruct was not admissible.
  In debating the point of order, Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, said:

  Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the motion for instruction is itself 
open for amendment unless the previous question be had, but there can 
not be an indefinite number of motions offered in the way of 
instructions. The motion for instructions being made, any gentleman may 
offer an amendment by adding additional instructions, but only one main 
motion for instructions, I think, can be offered. Without a holding to 
that effect, unless the Speaker hastens the naming of the conferees in 
spite of Members demanding recognition, we would be in a position 
whereupon one of these bills in conference with a large number of 
Senate amendments it would be impossible to ever finish.

  The Speaker \1\ ruled:

  This is analogous to a motion to recommit, and there can be but one 
motion to recommit that is in order, and it is amendable; anybody could 
have amended it if he got the chance without the previous question 
being ordered; and it has been held by the Chair's predecessors, and 
also by the present occupant of the chair, that when a gentleman makes 
a motion to recommit with instructions and the Chair rules his 
instructions out of order, then another member can make another motion 
that will be in order; but if the first one is in order and disposed 
of, that ends it, because there must be an end to all things some time 
or other. The Chair sustains the point of order:

  3237. Adoption of a motion to disagree or to insist on disagreement 
to a Senate amendment does not preclude consideration of subsequent 
motions instructing conferees to take other action on such amendments 
or parts thereof.
  A motion to instruct conferees when made at the proper time is 
admissible and it is not within the province of the Chair to rule on 
its consistency.
  On May 13, 1920,\2\ the House had under consideration the Senate 
amendments to the agricultural appropriation bill, and had insisted on 
its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 93, and asked a further 
conference with the Senate. Pending the appointment of the conferees, 
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, submitted a motion to instruct the 
managers on the part of the House to concur in amendment No. 93.
  Mr. Ezekiel S. Candler, Jr., of Mississippi, raised a question of 
order on the ground that the conferees had just been instructed to 
insist on the disagreement of the House to the amendment and the motion 
was therefore contradictory and inconsistent.
  After debate, the Speaker \3\ overruled the point of order and said:

  The Chair is informed that there is no exact precedent on the point. 
The Chair thinks that the proper time to make a motion to instruct is 
after the conference has been asked for and before the conferees are 
appointed. The Chair recognizes that there is force in what the 
gentlemen say, that this motion is contradictory to the judgment of the 
House heretofore expressed, but at the same time, inasmuch as 
parliamentary law does allow a motion to instruct, the Chair does not 
see why the mere fact that it is contradictory to what the House has 
done at a former time should prevent it. That is a forcible argument 
against making it. But if the parliamentary rule allows the motion, the 
fact that the House has already expressed itself against it would not 
of itself make
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7025.
  \3\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 3238
it out of order. Of course, this question seldom arises, because the 
motion would generally be recognized as futile. The gentleman from 
Texas has fairly stated the facts in explanation of how it arises now--
that there was confusion and that the issue was not fully understood in 
the House when the vote was taken. It is probable that only under 
similar circumstances would the question arise, although it might arise 
where a Member thought that the House has changed its mind after 
several hours had elapsed. At any rate, the parliamentary rule is that 
before the conferees are appointed a motion to instruct is in order, 
and there being no authority limiting that the Chair rules that the 
motion of the gentleman from Texas is in order.

  3238. On May 19, 1920,\1\ the House was considering the Senate 
amendment to the bill (H. R. 12775), the Army reorganization bill.
  On motion of Mr. Julius Kahn, of California, the House further 
disagreed to the amendment of the Senate and asked further conference.
  Subsequently Mr. Kahn moved that the managers on the part of the 
House be instructed to recede from their disagreement to the National 
Guard section of the Senate amendment and agree to the same with an 
amendment.
  Mr. Louis C. Cranton, of Michigan, made the point of order that the 
House having just voted to disagree further to the amendment, a motion 
to instruct the conferees to recede was an attempt to reopen a matter 
already adjudicated and was not in order.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair had occasion to rule on this question the other day, and 
ruled that at this stage it was proper to instruct the conferees. Now, 
as to the point that the gentleman from Michigan makes that the House 
can not instruct the conferees as to a portion of the Senate amendment, 
because it would be inconsistent with its action of disagreement, the 
House can instruct its conferees in any way it pleases, and inasmuch as 
the House had disagreed to the Senate amendment, any instruction, 
except to insist upon that disagreement, would be in some measure 
inconsistent with its disagreement; but if the House can instruct--and 
the Chair believes there is no doubt about that--the Chair thinks the 
House can instruct as to part of the Senate amendment. That would leave 
the House and the Senate still in disagreement, and the conferees would 
still have jurisdiction to decide as they pleased about the rest. Of 
course, that ruling leaves full freedom to the House to instruct or not 
to instruct, and the Chair overrules the point of order.

  3239. On June 22, 1926,\3\ the Speaker sustained a point of order 
raised by Mr. Edward J. King, of Illinois, against the conference 
report on the bill (H. R. 2) providing for the consolidation of 
national banking associations.
  Thereupon, Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of Pennsylvania, moved that the 
House insist on its disagreement to all Senate amendments save one and 
recede from its disagreement to that one with an amendment, and asked 
for further conference.
  Mr. Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked 
whether, after the House had agreed to the pending motion, it would be 
in order to instruct conferees with respect to the Senate amendment to 
which an amendment was proposed.
  The Speaker \4\ held that under such circumstances a motion to 
instruct the House conferees would be in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7300.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 11789.
  \4\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3240
  In response to a further inquiry by Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
the Speaker held that a motion for such instructions would be in order 
even though in contravention of action taken by the House in agreeing 
to the pending motion.
  3240. Instructions to conferees expire when their report is submitted 
to the House and if further conference is had such former instructions 
do not obtain and a motion for new instructions is in order.
  Conferees reporting inability to agree are thereby discharged and if 
a new conference is ordered conferees must again be appointed and new 
instructions are in order.
  A motion to instruct conferees is in order after conference is agreed 
to and before conferees are named.
  The motion to instruct conferees is subject to amendment and is 
debatable under the hour rule unless the previous question is ordered.
  On February 25, 1919,\1\ Mr. S. Hubert Dent, jr., of Alabama called 
up the conference report on the bill (H. R. 13274) validating informal 
war contracts.
  The Clerk having read the conference report announcing that the 
conferees had been unable to agree, Mr. Dent moved that the House 
further insist on its disagreement to the Senate amendment and ask 
further conference.
  Mr. Martin D. Foster, of Illinois, proposed a motion to instruct 
conferees.
  Mr. William Gordon, of Ohio, submitted that the conferees had been 
instructed previous to the conference just reported.
  The Speaker \2\ held that the conferees had been discharged and their 
instruction invalidated when they presented their report, and if the 
pending motion for a new conference was agreed to, it would be 
necessary to appoint conferees again and a motion to instruct them 
would again be in order after the conference was agreed to and before 
the conferees were named.
  Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, submitted a parliamentary 
inquiry as to whether it would be in order to amend the motion to 
instruct.
  The Speaker held that the motion to instruct was subject to 
amendment, and in response to a further inquiry from Mr. S. Hubert 
Dent, jr., of Alabama, held the motion to be debatable, and recognized 
Mr. Foster for one hour to debate it.
  3241. Where the purport of a motion to instruct was clear, the form 
in which submitted was held not to be subject to a point of order.
  Action \3\ on a conference report by either House discharges the 
committee of conference and precludes a motion to recommit, but until 
one House has acted on the report the motion to recommit to the 
conferees, with or without instructions, is in order.
  The House may at the proper time instruct its own conferees, but 
having no jurisdiction over the managers on the part of the Senate may 
not instruct the committee of conference as a whole.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4257.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \3\ Action on a conference report is limited to agreement, 
disagreement or recommitment (F. 6546.)
Sec. 3241
  The motion to recommit a conference report with instructions to the 
House conferees is subject to amendment unless the previous question is 
ordered.
  On May 9, 1924,\1\ the House was considering the conference report on 
the bill (H. R. 7995), the immigration bill, reporting a new bill in 
lieu of the substitute for the House bill proposed by the Senate 
amendment.
  Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, moved to recommit the conference 
report to the committee of conference.
  Mr. Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, having demanded the previous 
question on the motion, Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, as a 
parliamentary inquiry asked if it would be in order to offer an 
amendment in event the previous question was refused.
  The Speaker \2\ replied in the affirmative, and the pending motion 
for the previous question having been rejected, recognized Mr. John E. 
Raker, of California, to offer the following:

  To recommit the bill to the committee of conference with instructions 
on the part of the House not to agree to the proviso reported in the 
bill submitted by the conference committee, reading as follows: ``That 
this subdivision shall not take effect as to exclusion until March 1, 
1925, before which time the President is requested to negotiate with 
the Japanese Government in relation to the abrogation of the present 
arrangement on this subject.''

  Mr. Everett Sanders, of Indiana, raised a question of order on the 
ground that the motion proposed to instruct the conferees against 
agreement to a mere proviso, whereas the Senate amendment incorporating 
an entire bill was pending, and the proper way to effect such purpose 
would be to instruct conferees to agree to the pending Senate amendment 
with an amendment.
  During debate on the point of order, the Speaker, in response to 
inquiries from Mr. Charles R. Crisp, of Georgia, held that when either 
House acted on the conference report, such action discharged the 
committee of conference, and a motion to recommit was no longer in 
order; but that until action was taken on the report by one of the two 
Houses, it was in order to move to recommit to the managers on the part 
of the House with or without instructions.
  The Speaker further held that while the House had no jurisdiction 
over Senate conferees and therefore could not instruct the committee of 
conference as a whole, it was in order at the proper time to move to 
instruct the House conferees.
  The Speaker then passed on the question raised by Mr. Sanders as 
follows:

  There is no doubt that the House has a perfect right to instruct the 
House conferees, but the technical point of order is made whether the 
gentleman from California has gone about it in the right way. This 
proviso is just one part of the general conference report, and why 
should they not be instructed, if in a further conference with the 
Senate conferees they agree at all, to agree to an amendment striking 
out that proviso? Something of that kind, in the Chair's opinion, would 
be a proper motion.
  However, inasmuch as it is purely technical and easily reached, the 
Chair would take the chance that the conferees will be able to act in 
accordance with the will of the House, and overrules the point of 
order. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixth-eighth Congress, Record, p. 8248.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3242
  3242. One House has no jurisdiction over conferees appointed by the 
other, and instructions to conferees may apply only to managers on the 
part of the House giving the instructions.
  On August 23, 1921,\1\ the House had under consideration the 
conference report on the bill (H. R. 8117) to supplement the national 
prohibition act.
  Mr. Meyer London, of New York, moved to recommit the conference 
report to the committee of conference with instructions to amend it to 
restrict the right to search dwellings and personal effects.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that it was 
beyond the province of the House to instruct a committee of conference 
including managers on the part of the Senate over whom the House had no 
jurisdiction.
  The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order.
  3243. The jurisdiction of conferees is limited to the differences 
between the two Houses and conferees may not be instructed to act on an 
amendment not in disagreement.
  On June 1, 1917, \3\ the House ordered the previous question on the 
adoption of the conference report on the urgent deficiency 
appropriation bill.
  Thereupon, Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, moved that the bill 
be recommitted to the committee of conference, with instructions to the 
managers on the part of the House to insist on an amendment which did 
not appear in the original bill or in the Senate amendments.
  Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, made the point of order that the 
proposed amendment was not a matter in disagreement between the two 
Houses.
  The Speaker \4\ sustained the point of order.
  3244. Instructions to managers of a conference may not direct them to 
do that which they might not otherwise do.
  Instructions may not require conferees to report back amendments 
outside the subjects in disagreement between the two Houses.
  On September 15, 1922, \2\ in the House, during the consideration of 
the conference report on the tariff bill of 1922, Mr. John N. Garner, 
of Texas, moved that report be recommitted to the committee of 
conference with instructions to the House conferees to recede from 
their disagreement to Senate amendment No. 667 relating to the sugar 
schedule and agree to the same with an amendment reducing the duty to 
seventy-one one-hundredths of a cent.
  Mr. Edward T. Taylor, of Colorado, made the point of order that the 
rate proposed was lower than the rate fixed by the House in the bill 
and lower than that fixed by the Senate in its amendment, and was 
therefore without the limits of the disagreement between the two 
Houses.
  The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 5568.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 3189.
  \4\ Champ Clark of Missouri, Speaker.
  \5\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 12716.
Sec. 3245
  3245. Instances wherein special provision was made for consideration 
of instructions in compliance with assurances that the House would be 
afforded opportunity to vote on a Senate amendment.
  Form of a special order reported from the Committee on Rules 
providing for consideration of a resolution instructing conferees.
  On November 17, 1921, \1\ Mr. Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, submitted as privileged the 
following:

  Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it 
shall be in order to consider and to vote upon the following resolution 
without amendment. There shall be three hours of debate on such 
resolution, the time to be controlled, one-half by the gentleman from 
Michigan, Mr. Fordney, and one-half by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Garner. At the conclusion of the debate the previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the resolution.
  Resolved, That the managers on the part of the House in the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H. 
R. 8245) entitled ``Act act to revise and equalize taxation, to amend 
and simplify the revenue of act of 1918, and for other purposes,'' now 
in conference, be, and they are hereby, instructed to recede from the 
disagreement of the House to the amendment of the Senate No. 122, and 
to agree to the same.

  In presenting the resolution Mr. Campbell explained:

  Mr. Speaker, this resolution does what was agreed would be done when 
this bill was sent to conference. At that time it was stated by the 
gentleman in charge of the bill that an opportunity would be given to 
vote upon the proposition as to whether or not the House would concur 
to the Senate amendment relating to the surtax. This resolution brings 
the question squarely before the House, and will enable the House to 
express its judgment upon this question.

  After brief debate the resolution was agreed to.
  3246. Although managers may disregard instructions, their report may 
not for that reason be ruled out of order.
  On December 22, 1913, \3\, Mr. Carter Glass, of Virginia, called up 
the conference report on the bill (H. R. 7837), the currency bill.
  Mr. William H. Murray, of Oklahoma, made the point of order that the 
managers had violated their instructions and that their report was not 
in compliance with the direction imposed on them by the House at the 
time the bill was sent to conference.
  The Speaker \3\ declined to entertain the point of order on the 
ground that the question as to whether conferees had exceeded their 
powers was for the House, and, while it might affect the acceptance or 
rejection of the report, it was not competent for the Chair to rule on 
it.
  3247. A conference report is not subject to the point of order that 
it is in violation of instructions given the managers.
  On September 15, 1922,\4\ the House resumed consideration of the 
conference report on the bill (H. R. 7456), the tariff bill.
  After debate (Mr. John N. Garner, of Texas, moved that the conference 
report be recommitted to the committee of conference with instructions 
to the House conferees
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 7860.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 1430.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 12531.
                                                            Sec. 3247
to agree to the Senate amendment putting fertilizer potash on the free 
list, and to strike out the provision containing the dye embargo.
  The yeas and nays being demanded and the vote being taken, the motion 
was agreed to, yeas 177, nays 130, and the conference report was 
recommitted to the committee of conference.
  On September 15,\1\ Mr. Joseph W. Fordney, of Michigan, called up the 
second conference report on the bill, when Mr. Henry A. Cooper, of 
Wisconsin, made the point of order that the conferees had exceeded 
their authority in changing the rates in the chemical schedule. Mr. 
Cooper read the instructions imposed by the House on the conferees 
confining them to the provisions for the return of fertilizer potash to 
the free list and the elimination of the dye embargo, and contended 
that in reporting changes in other unrelated rates in the chemical 
schedule the conferees had gone beyond the powers delegated to them.
  In support of his contention Mr. Cooper cited sections 4404 and 5526 
of Hinds' Precedents relating to the recommitment of bills to 
committees of the House.
  The Speaker \2\ differentiated between the recommitment of a 
conference report to a committee of conference and the recommitment of 
a bill to a committee of the House, and said:

  The Chair thinks that the argument of the gentleman from Wisconsin is 
based on a failure to distinguish the difference between the reference 
of a bill to a committee with instructions and the reference to the 
conferees with instructions. The case which the gentleman cited was the 
reference of a bill to a committee with instructions to report the bill 
back, and it is well established, as the gentleman states, that in that 
case the committee is bound and limited by the orders of the House, and 
immediately it reports the bill back without any meeting of the 
committee at all. It is really a technical performance. But if the 
House will consider for a moment, there is a great difference between 
sending a bill back to a committee of the House, which is under the 
control of the House, and sending a conference report back to conferees 
who are not subject to the will of the House, because the Senate 
conferees have equal power and are quite independent.
  This case does not rest simply on the Chair's opinion, but there is a 
decision by a Speaker whose opinion carries as much authority, 
probably, as that of anybody who has ever been in the chair, Speaker 
Carlisle. In a decision cited in Hinds' Precedents, volume 5, section 
6395, he went even further than it is necessary for the Chair to go 
now. He went so far as to say that if the House conferees disobeyed the 
instructions of the House, still the report is not on that account 
subject to a point of order. Of course, the House is not bound to agree 
to it and probably would not agree with its conferees if they so acted, 
but, as Speaker Carlisle said, the conferees are partly from the House 
and partly from the Senate. They are there to come to an agreement, and 
the House conferees, of course, are subject, and feel themselves 
subject to the orders of the House, but if they disobey the House and 
come back, with a report which disregards its instructions, the report 
is not subject to a point of order, but is subject to review by the 
House. In the present instance, of course, it is not necessary to go as 
far as that, because the conferees have strictly obeyed the orders of 
the House and have made the changes which the House commanded and have 
made other changes as to which they had no directions. When the House 
referred the bill back to the conferees, the whole bill went again to 
conference. Speaker Clark in the case of a bill which the Members who 
were then here will well remember, the great Army bill at the beginning 
of the war, answered a parliamentary inquiry on this very point, that 
when the bill went back to the conferees with instructions the whole 
bill was then before the conferees. Here there is no difference between 
the two Houses. The House has nothing at all on the question. it is
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Record, p. 12710.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 3248
an entirely new provision put in by the Senate. The Chair thinks any 
provision which is germane is permissible. The Chair overrules the 
point of order.
  3248. The Speaker may not rule out of order a conference report as in 
contravention of instructions imposed on the managers.
  Where one House has amended a bill of the other by striking out all 
after the enacting clause and substituting a new text, the conferees 
have the entire subject before them and may report any germane bill.
  On June 12, 1917,\1\ the House was considering the conference report 
on the bill (H. R. 3673) amending the Federal reserve act, when Mr. Pat 
Harrison, of Mississippi, made the point of order that the conferees 
had violated instructions imposed on them on May 10, as follows:

  ``That the managers on the part of the House be instructed to agree 
in conference to the substance of the following provision in the Senate 
amendment:
  `` `Provided, Such nonmember bank or trust company maintains with the 
Federal reserve bank of its district a balance sufficient to offset the 
items in transit held for its account by the Federal reserve bank: 
Provided further, That nothing in this or any other section of this act 
shall be construed as prohibiting a member or nonmember bank from 
making reasonable charges, in no case to exceed 10 cents per $100 or 
fraction thereof based on the total of checks and drafts presented at 
any one time, for collection or payment of checks and drafts and 
remission therefor by exchange or otherwise.' ''

  Mr. Harrison charged that the conferees instead of reporting the two 
provisos in the form in which directed had substituted for them this 
provision--

  That nothing in this or any other section of this act shall be 
construed as prohibiting a member or nonmember bank from making 
reasonable charges to be determined and regulated by the Federal 
Reserve Board. But no such charges shall be made against the Federal 
reserve bank--

thus changing the Federal Reserve Board from an agency of 
administrative capacity to one of judicial capacity and giving them 
power to determine the reasonableness of rates.
  After debate, the Speaker \2\ ruled:

  The situation is this: The Senate struck our everything after the 
enacting clause of the House bill. It has been decided so many times 
that it is hardly necessary to repeat it, that where that is done a 
very wide discretion is given to the conferees, even to the bringing in 
of an entirely new bill. Of course such new bill would have been to be 
on the same subject.
  The transactions in regard to conference reports are divided into two 
parts--what the House can do and what the Speaker can do. On the 23d 
day of June, 1812, 105 years ago, Mr. Speaker Henry Clay laid down the 
limits of what conferees can do so clearly that his ruling has been 
followed ever since. The conferees can not go outside of what is 
submitted to them and lug in entirely new matter and new questions. 
They are always trying to do it. As the gentleman from Wyoming, Mr. 
Mondell, suggests, it is a very serious proposition for the Speaker to 
refuse to rule out a conference report in the last days of the session, 
and it is a very serious question for him to rule it out. The Chair did 
so twice in the last days of a session on very important bills, but 
both were clear cases. The Chair did it with a great deal of 
reluctance, but it had to be done under the universal practice.I32The 
Speaker has not a thing to do in passing upon the question of whether 
the conferees did or did not comply with the instructions of the House. 
That question is for the House to decide. That has been decided. I do 
not know how many times, but several times, and the Chair decided
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 3529.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3249
it once himself. That was the reason my opinion in that case was so 
short. The Chair did not elaborate it, for the House was busy, and it 
had been decided that way several times, and he simply followed the old 
ruling.
  The leading case is found in section 6395 of Hinds' Precedents. The 
opinion was written by Mr. Speaker Carlisle. He was a great man and a 
great Speaker. The headline of Mr. Speaker Carlisle's decision was 
written by Asher C. Hinds, construing Mr. Speaker Carlisle's opinion. 
It is not any secret with people who have been around here any 
considerable length of time that Mr. Hinds probably knew more about 
parliamentary law than any other man that ever lived. He knew more than 
Speakers whom he advised, and they were great Speakers. He had made it 
the study of his life. Here is what Mr. Hinds said, and then I will 
read what Mr. Speaker Carlisle said.

  The Speaker then read section 6395 of Hinds' Precedents, and 
concluded:

  It seems to the Chair that that opinion is as clear as crystal. This 
is a matter for the House to decide. The point of order is overruled, 
and the House has the conference report before it. If the House does 
not like the conference report, it can vote it down. That is its 
remedy.

  3249. The Senate practice admits the motion to instruct conferees.
  A pending conference report must be disposed of before motions are in 
order for disposition of amendments in disagreement.
  On July 24, 1914,\1\ the Senate had under consideration the 
conference report on the Indian appropriation bill.
  Mr. Frank B. Brandegee, of Connecticut, submitted a parliamentary 
inquiry as to when it would be in order to move to instruct conferees 
on amendments remaining in disagreement.
  The Vice President \2\ ruled:

  There is not any doubt at all about the parliamentary situation. 
Certain items in disagreement between the two Houses have been agreed 
to by the conferees. Certain items--six of them--are still in dispute. 
As to the items that have been agreed to, there is not any question 
that the uniform rulings of the occupants of this chair have been that 
is the first motion that comes up, and that it is the duty of the 
Senate either to concur in or to refuse to concur in the items which 
have been agreed upon, and that must be as a whole. If the Senate 
refuses to concur they go back, of course, for reconsideration and then 
it is possible for instructions to be given to the conferees by the 
Senate. After the question of agreeing to the conference report has 
been determined by the Senate, the motion of the Senator from Montana 
will be in order, to instruct the conferees with reference to the items 
that are yet in dispute between them.

  3250. On May 18, 1920,\3\ the Senate was considering the conference 
report on the agricultural appropriation bill, when Mr. Pat Harrison, 
of Mississippi, inquired when it would be in order to move to instruct 
conferees.
  The Vice President \2\ said:

  The Chair took occasion in 1914 to investigate the question and then 
expressed the opinion that anything could be done that had been done in 
accordance with decisions of preceding presiding officers, but it was 
the opinion of the Chair at that time that the way to reach it was to 
point out what the objections were to the conference report, and if the 
objections met with the views of the Senate, and they wanted the 
conferees to stand by the Senate amendments, not to withdraw it, but 
reject the conference report and then instruct the conferees to insist 
on the amendments of the Senate and send the bill back to conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 12609.
  \2\ Thomas R. Marshall, of Indiana, Vice President.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7211.
Sec. 3251
  3251. Instance in which it was held that while the Senate might not 
instruct conferees, it might request conferees to take designated 
action on propositions in disagreement between the two Houses.
  On May 27, 1920,\1\ the Senate was considering amendments to the 
agricultural appropriation bill in disagreement between the two Houses.
  Mr. George W. Norris, of Nebraska, proposed the following motion:

  Mr. President, I move that the Senate further insist upon its 
amendment numbered 93, ask for a further conference with the House, and 
that the conferees on the part of the Senate be instructed in 
accordance with the language which I sent to the clerk's desk.

  Mr. Pat Harrison, of Mississippi, having raised a question of order, 
the Vice President ruled:

  The Chair thinks the Senate can amend its amendment if it chooses to 
do so, but the present occupant of the chair has never believed that 
you can instruct conferees. That is equivalent to saying to the House 
conferees ``You have got to take the amendment.'' It does not leave it 
open to a full and free conference if you tell the conferees that they 
have got to take it.
  It is the opinion of the Chair that whenever that is done the Senate 
conferees ought to withdraw immediately from the conference. The Senate 
conferees should immediately withdraw from a conference whenever the 
House of Representatives undertakes to tell the Senate that it has to 
accept an amendment.
  The Chair is going to rule, and then an appeal can be taken, and the 
matter settled.
  The Chair holds that it will be in order for the Senate, if the 
chooses, to adopt the amendment as presented by the Senator from 
Nebraska.
  The Chair holds, secondly, that it is not in order to instruct the 
conferees to insist upon this amendment; that that is in violation of 
the principle of the rule with reference to a full and free conference 
between the two Houses. An appeal from either or both rulings can be 
taken.
  The Chair thinks it would be proper, if the Senator wishes to adopt 
it, to say that the conferees be not instructed, but requested to agree 
upon a compromise with the House conferees upon the proposed basis. 
That can be done, but the Chair does not think the Senate can instruct 
the conferees.

  Thereupon, Mr. Norris modified his motion to read that the conferees 
on the part of the Senate be requested in accordance with the language 
sent to the Clerk's desk.
  The Vice President said:

  The Chair thinks that can be done.

  The question being taken, and the yeas and nays being ordered, the 
yea were 39, nays 24, and the motion was agreed to.
  The entry in the Journal is as follows:

  Mr. Norris moves that the Senate request a further conference with 
the House of Representatives on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on Senate amendment numbered 93, and that the conferees on the part of 
the Senate be appointed by the Chair, and that they be requested, if 
possible, to compromise the disagreement upon the said amendment upon 
substantially the following basis:
  In lieu of the matter proposed to be stricken our insert:
  ``For the purchase, testing, and distribution of valuable seeds, 
bulbs, trees, shrubs, vines, cuttings, and plants, $75,000. Said seeds, 
bulbs, trees, shrubs, vines, cuttings, and plants shall be sent only to 
such persons as shall make request therefor: Provided, That all such 
requests made of Senators, Representatives, and Delegates in Congress, 
if transmitted to the Department of Agriculture, shall be complied with 
by said department.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7717.