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



                           Chapter CCLXV.\1\
 
           MANAGERS TO CONSIDER ONLY MATTERS IN DISAGREEMENT.

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

   1. General decisions. Sections 3252-3255.
   2. Speaker may rule out a report. Section 3256.
   3. Managers may not change the text to which both Houses have 
     agreed. Sections 3257-3264.
   4. Broad discretion of managers as to differences over 
     substitute amendments. Sections 3265-3270.
   5. Senate practice in cases wherein managers exceed their 
     authority. Sections 3271-3281.
   6. Time of making points of order. Sections 3282-3290.

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

  3252. Conferees are restricted to the differences between the two 
Houses and may not change the text to which both Houses have agreed or 
incorporate new subjects.
  On August 17, 1912,\2\ the House having under consideration the 
conference report on the naval appropriation bill, Mr. John J. 
Fitzgerald, of New York, raised a question of order against the report 
on the ground that the conferees had exceeded their authority by 
including in the report matters not in disagreement between the two 
Houses.
  Mr. Fitzgerald submitted that the conferees had inserted a provision 
for the mining of coal in Alaska; had extended the provision relative 
to retirement of naval officers to the Marine Corps; had provided for 
the creation of a reserve corps of dental surgeons, and had extended 
provisions for pay and allowances for Medical Corps of the Navy to the 
Dental Corps of the Navy, all of which were in contravention of the 
rule confining conferees to subjects committed to them.
  The Speaker \3\ ruled:

  There is no question at all in the mind of the Chair but that these 
points of order must be sustained. As it is a question which is liable 
to arise several times very soon, the Chair will state his position.
  The rule is this: That the conferees can not go beyond something that 
is in the original bill, that is proposition No. 1; or in the Senate 
amendment, and that is proposition No. 2; or in the House amendment to 
the Senate amendment, and that is proposition No. 3.
  That rule is as old as the 23d day of June, 1812, and it is barely 
possible that it is older. But, on the 23d of June, 1812, Henry Clay 
rendered an opinion of which that is the substance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Supplementary to Chapter CXXXV.
  \2\ Second-session Sixty-second Congress, Record p. 11176.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 3252
  It has been stated variously by various Speakers. Speaker Crisp 
stated the matter with perfect clarity. In Hinds' Precedents, section 
6408, volume, 5, Speaker Crisp said:
  ``The question for the Chair to determine is whether the amendment 
which has been agreed to and reported by the conference committee is 
germane to the amendment of the Senate or to the original bill. The 
amendment may not be germane to the original bill, yet if it is germane 
to the Senate amendment the conference committee might report it.
  The Chair thinks that the practice of enlarging the powers of 
conference committees beyond the strict letter of the rule was wrong; 
that conferees ought to be held to the rule, and that amendments they 
propose in conference reports shall be germane either to the original 
text or to the amendment.''
  Let us apply these principles to the points raised by the gentleman 
from New York. of course, everybody understands that the Chair is not 
ruling the way he would like to see the bill go. The Chair would like 
to see mining operations started in Alaska in a proper way, but this is 
not the proper way to do it.
  Page 51, line 22, the language of the bill was: ``That all officers 
authorized in this act, etc., shall receive.'' The conferees inserted, 
after the word ``officers,'' the words ``of the Dental Corps,'' so that 
it will read ``All officers of the Dental Corps'' shall do so and so.
  Speaker Cannon rendered an opinion involving that precise point. In 
volume 5, Hinds' Precedents, section 6417, the headlines or syllabi 
read as follows:
  ``The managers of a conference must confine themselves to the 
differences committed to them. Managers of a conference may not change 
the text to which both Houses have agreed.''
  Of course that simply states the rule. Here is the case itself:

  The Speaker read the section and continued:

  The conferees inserted the words ``or any other'' before the word 
``act,'' making it read ``this or any other act,'' and also inserted 
the words ``by this or any other act,'' so that it would read ``for the 
personal use of any officer provided for by this or any other act, 
other than the President,'' and so forth.
  Speaker Cannon said.
  ``The managers have inserted between the words personal' and `use' 
the words `or official.' Mr. Mann insisted that this amendment of the 
text, to which both Houses agreed, was beyond the power of either 
House, and, consequently, beyond the power of the conferees, citing the 
precedent of April 23, 1902.''
  After debate, Speaker Cannon withheld his decision, evidently wanting 
to investigate the matter.
  Here is the sum and substance of Speaker Cannon's decision:
  ``This provision in the conference report inserts legislation that 
never was before the House or before the Senate, and it was quite 
competent for the conferees, if they could do this, to have stricken 
out the whole paragraph and inserted anything that was germane. They 
could have stricken out the words `other than the President of the 
United States, the heads of executive departments, and the Secretary to 
the President'; and while there were but two words inserted, the 
provision, if enacted into law, would be far-reaching and would run 
along the line of the whole public service.''
  Now, that is just exactly this case as to this particular amendment.
  Speaker Cannon goes on to say:
  ``As to the wisdom of such a provision, the Chair is not called upon 
to intimate any opinion. It is for the House and the Senate to 
determine upon the wisdom of it, and, as the House and the Senate never 
have considered that proposition, the Chair is of opinion that the 
conferees exceeded their power, and therefore sustains the point of 
order.''
  The second point of order is that on page 30, beginning with line 23, 
and it does not make any difference as far as the parliamentary points 
are concerned how desirable it is to mine coal in Alaska.
  The language of the Senate amendment was:
  ``That $75,000 of said sum, or so much thereof as may be necessary, 
may be used for the survey investigation, and report upon coal and coal 
fields available for the production of coal for the use of the United 
States Navy, or any vessel of the United States.''
                                                            Sec. 3254
  The conferees inserted a proposition for mining coal, and surely 
there is a wide difference in the proposition to survey, investigate, 
and report upon coal and coal fields and a proposition for the mining 
of coal. That point must also be sustained.
  In amendment 7, on page 5 of the bill, line 24, it is provided:
  ``Hereafter any naval officer on the retired list may, in the 
discretion of the Secretary of the Navy, be ordered to such duty as he 
may be able to perform at sea or on shore, and while so employed in 
time of peace shall receive the pay and allowances of an officer of the 
active list of the grade form which he was retired.''
  The conferees inserted into that amendment these words, ``of the Navy 
or Marine Corps.'' And also inserted the words, ``with his consent,'' 
and made some other minor changes. The Chair believes that the Navy and 
Marine Corps are two different institutions, and sustains the point of 
order in that regard. The point of order made against the conference 
report on amendment No. 87 is also sustained.
  So the four points of order made by the gentleman from New York are 
sustained.

  3253. When a bill is sent to conference, matters in disagreement 
between the Houses, and only matters in disagreement between the 
Houses, are before the conferees notwithstanding House or Senate 
messages to the contrary.
  On September 23, 1981,\1\ the House disagreed to all senate 
amendments except one to the bill (H. R. 11945), the agricultural 
stimulation bill, and agreed to the conference asked by the Senate. The 
exception was Senate amendment No. 13, prohibiting the sale of 
distilled spirits during the war, which was agreed to by the House.
  On the following day,\2\ Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, rising 
in the House to a parliamentary inquiry, directed attention to the 
message from the Senate as requesting a conference with the House on 
the bill and amendments and the message of the House agreeing to the 
conference asked by the Senate. Mr. Walsh took the position that in 
view of its concurrence in Senate amendment No. 13 the House should 
have requested conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of 
the two Houses, and that in agreeing to the conference asked by the 
Senate on the bill and amendments, the House had agreed to a conference 
on Senate amendment No. 13, which was not now in dispute.
  The Speaker \3\ held:

  Of course, the conferees have absolutely no control or jurisdiction 
over that amendment whatever.
  Anything in controversy between the two Houses must go to a 
conference. Now, when they go to the conference, simply the matters 
that are left in controversy are considered, and if the conferees 
undertook to modify this amendment 13, the Chair would hold it was out 
of order.

  3254. Conference reports are strictly construed, conferees being 
restricted to the literal difference between the two Houses and the 
insertion of any extraneous matter, however slight its effect on the 
general purport of the bill, is subject to a point of order.
  On June 4, 1920,\4\ the House proceeded to the consideration of the 
conference report on the bill (H. R. 10378) providing for the American 
merchant marine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 10694.
  \2\ Record, p. 10703.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 8576.
Sec. 3254
  The report having been read, Mr. Tom D. McKeown, of Oklahoma, 
presented a question of order against the report on the ground that the 
conferees had inserted language not to be found in either the bill or 
the amendments. Mr. McKeown referred specifically to the following 
proviso inserted by the conferees as being outside the differences 
committed to them.

  And provided further, That whenever the board shall determine, as 
provided in this act, that trade conditions warrant the establishment 
of a service or additional service under Government administration 
where a service is already being given by persons, citizens of the 
United States, the rates and charges for such government service shall 
not be less than the cost thereof, including a proper interest and 
depreciation charge on the value of Government vessels and equipment 
employed therein.

  Mr. George W. Edmonds, of Pennsylvania, explained in rebuttal that 
the conferees had enlisted the services of legislative clerks and 
Treasury experts in order to express the legislation in better form, 
but that no attempt had been made to change the meaning of the 
propositions presented to the conferees and that the proviso objected 
to was merely section 22 of the original bill transposed to a more 
appropriate place in the report.
  The Speaker pro tempore \1\ ruled:

  The Gentleman from Oklahoma makes the point of order against the 
conference report and contends that in amendment 52 the conferees have 
exceeded their authority by inserting the language at the end of the 
Senate amendment. The Chair has examined the amendment and the language 
reported by the conferees, and notes, as was pointed out by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, that substantially the same language was 
carried in section 22 of the bill amended by the Senate. The conferees 
have transferred that language in practically the same form to section 
7 of the bill, and this provision would seem to be germane. But at any 
rate that section was in controversy, and the transfer by the conferees 
was not in excess of their authority.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma also bases his point of order on the 
contention that the conferees have exceeded their authority in 
reporting language, which is amendment No. 128. This contention raises 
a question of considerable more difficulty. Section 25 of the bill as 
amended by the Senate--that amendment being No. 128--provides for 
certain exemptions to owners of documented vessels operating in foreign 
trade from the tax imposed by Title III of the revenue act, and also 
provides that citizens may sell during a certain period vessels 
documented under the United States law and that they should be exempt 
from certain titles of the revenue act of 1913. It also provides a 
board which is to determine the amount to be allowed for annual 
depreciation of vessels and for allowances and deductions to be 
allowed, and in case of disagreement the contention to be referred to 
the President. The conferees have recast that amendment in its entirety 
and instead of providing certain exemptions they have reported an 
amendment to the revenue act which in general language retains the 
features of Senate amendment No. 128, but they incorporate that in a 
new section to the revenue act of 1918, to be known as section 207 with 
subparagraphs. But the conferees have not only retained substantially 
the language of the Senate amendment, but they have added other 
amendments of an administrative character to the revenue act and 
enlarged somewhat and further prescribed the duties of the Commission 
of Internal Revenue. They have also inserted a paragraph known as 
paragraph D, requiring the furnishing of a bond or surety, and in lieu 
of a bond permitting the deposit of the amount of the taxes or 
obligations to be held in trust with the approval of the Secretary. 
This paragraph, as well as the one preceding and the one following, 
would seem to deal in administrative provisions and put restrictions 
on, and also enlarge the scope of, the authority of the Internal 
Revenue Commissioner. The Chair finds nothing in the Senate amendment 
after a very careful reading of the language, neither does he find 
anything in the amendment was reported by the conferees, that part of 
the language which has been
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Speaker pro tempore.
                                                            Sec. 3255
retained, which brings these matters in controversy. They seem to be 
entirely new matter, which the conferees have reported in attempting to 
adjust their disagreement upon the Senate amendments and it would seem 
to the Chair that they have not followed the rules prescribed in 
adjusting differences between the two Houses in conference. The chair 
appreciates that it is a very important matter to rule that a 
conference report at this time should be returned to the conferees, and 
yet the Chair is clearly of the opinion that the conferees have 
exceeded their authority; that if they had retained the Senate 
amendment in the language in which the Senate reported it, and had not 
attempted to amend the revenue act, but had simply added the language 
which has been added in attempting to amend the revenue act, they still 
would have exceeded their authority. The are retaining the language of 
a Senate amendment and in addition are imposing certain administrative 
requirements upon the Commissioner of Internal Revenue which were not 
necessarily involved in the Senate amendment. The administrative 
requirement in the Senate amendment, upon the reading of that 
amendment, could have been left to the Shipping board; but in the 
language which has been reporte4d by the conferees they have proposed 
certain restrictions and have made certain regulations which will have 
the effect of law; and in writing them in as an amendment to a revenue 
law like a new section it seems to the chair clearly that it is not 
within their jurisdiction, because there is nothing in the Senate 
amendment that, in the opinion of the Chair, places those matters in 
conference; and much as the Chair regrets it, he feels constrained to 
sustain the point of order.

  3255. Managers may not include in their report amendments relating to 
propositions not in disagreement between the two Houses.
  On February 27, 1929,\1\ the Clerk read the conference report on the 
bill (S. 1781) to establish load lines for American vessels.
  Mr. Charles L. Abernathy, of North Carolina, raised the question of 
order that the conferees had exceeded their authority by including in 
the report an amendment authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to make a 
study of load-line legislation and prepare bill to be submitted to the 
House.
  The Speaker \2\ ruled:

  The Chair realizes the gravity of outlawing a conference report at 
this stage of the session, but the Chair is called upon to decide 
whether the conferees have exceeded their power in putting in the 
amendment referred to. Section 9 of the House amendment provides:
  ``Sec. 9. this act shall not apply to vessels operating exclusively 
on the Great Lakes or to barges otherwise coming within the provisions 
of this act or to lumber schooners operating to and from territory 
contiguous to the United States.''
  The Senate disagreed to that.
  The conferees have brought in an amendment directing the Secretary of 
Commerce to make a comprehensive study of those lines. The Chair cannot 
see in either the Senate bill or the House amendment any proposition 
that would direct the Secretary of Commerce to make an investigation. 
The House evidently never thought of it, and the Senate evidently never 
though of it. While it might be vaguely germane to the purposes of the 
bill, the Chair thinks it is entirely new matter, never contemplated by 
either body. The Chair thinks the conferees exceeded their authority. 
Therefore the Chair feels constrained to sustain the point of order.

  3256. The Speaker may rule a conference report out of order, if it is 
shown that the conferees have exceeded their authority.
  Conferees may not include in their report new items even when 
germane, and may not change the text to which both Houses have agreed.
  The managers having appended to a Senate amendment, pertaining to 
charters of national banks, a provision for investigating relations 
between
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Seventieth Congress, Journal, p. 403; Record, p. 
4614.
  \2\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
Sec. 3256
the banking system and commodity prices, the Speaker held they had gone 
beyond the differences committed to them.
  Where the statement is read in lieu of the conference report, points 
of order should be made or reserved before the statement is read.
  When any portion of a conference report is ruled out on a point of 
order the effect is as if the report had been rejected by a vote of the 
House, and motions for disposition of Senate amendments and for 
conference are in order de novo.
  A motion to instruct conferees is in order only after the decision to 
send to conference and before conferees are named.
  A motion to recommit the conference report is in order at any time 
before final action is taken on the report.
  On June 22, 1926,\1\ Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of Pennsylvania, called 
up the conference report on the bill (H. R. 2) to provide for the 
consolidation of national banking associations and asked unanimous 
consent to the reading of the statement in lieu of the report.
  Mr. James G. Strong, of Kansas, announced that he desired to submit a 
point of order and asked when the question should be presented.
  The Speaker \2\ replied:

  The Chair understand the rule to be that if the statement is read in 
lieu of the report it is necessary to reserve points of order before 
the statement is read.

  In response to an inquiry from Mr. Morton D. Hull, of Illinois, as to 
the proper time to move to instruct the conferees, the Speaker 
continued:

  The proper time to instruct the conferees in case the point of order 
against some portion of the report is sustained and the House should 
agree to send the bill back to conference is at that time--before the 
appointment of the conferees and after the decision is made to send it 
back.

  Answering a further parliamentary inquiry from Mr. Otis Wingo, of 
Arkansas, as to the status of the report in event the point of order 
should be sustained, the Speaker ruled:

  In case the Chair should not sustain the point of order the gentleman 
would be in order to move to recommit the report before final action 
was taken upon the conference report.
  If the point of order should be sustained, then the entire report is 
out of order, and it would be necessary to send the bill back to 
conference.
  The House could then take such action as it wished, subject to the 
general rules of the House.
  If the House should decide to send the bill back to conference, it 
would then be in order, before the appointment of the conferees, to 
instruct the conferees at that time.

  The point of order having been reserved, the statement was read in 
lieu of the report. Thereupon, Mr. Strong insisted on the point of 
order. Mr. Edward J. King, of Illinois, also submitted points of order.
  After extended debate, the Speaker held:

  The gentleman from Illinois a day of two ago submitted to the Chair a 
written argument upon this matter relating particularly to amendment 
No. 38. The gentleman from Illinois bases
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 11788.
  \2\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3256
his argument mainly on a decision rendered a good many years ago by 
Speaker Blaine, wherein he held in part as follows:
  ``The power of a conference committee, which, as the gentlemen well 
know, the two Houses have been in the habit of considerably enlarging, 
fairly includes the power to incorporate germane amendments. If the 
gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Holman, makes the point that the amendments 
he specifies are not germane, the Chair will examine the question; but 
the mere fact that the proposition embraced matters which were not 
originally before the House or Senate would not be sufficient to 
require them to be ruled out.''
  That is the one decision that the gentleman from Illinois quotes on 
this precise point. There has been no decision to that effect since 
that time so far as the Chair is aware. On a number of occasions, both 
since he was elected Speaker and therefore, the Chair has had occasion 
to look into the question with respect to the power of conferees. As 
the Chair understands the precedents and the rule today, it is that the 
managers of a conference must confine themselves to the differences 
committed to them and may not include subjects not within the 
disagreements, even though germane to the question in issue. 
Immediately following the decision quoted in Hinds' Precedents to which 
the Chair has referred, in which Speaker Blaine seemed to intimate that 
if an amendment was entirely germane it might be in order, 
notwithstanding the fact that the conferees departed from the 
differences committed to them, there is a decision by Speaker Reed, 
which covers the precise point involved in this case.
  This was in 1898, and the decision of Speaker Blaine was in 1871, 27 
years previously. In this instance the situation was this, and is to be 
found on page 720 of Hinds' Precedents, volume 5:
  ``During the debate it was developed that among the Senate amendments 
was a provision relating to the fishery question between Canada and the 
United States. To this the conferees added a provision for a commission 
to consider the differences between Canada and the United States in 
relation to trade relations.''
  It seems to the Chair that is practically the same situation we now 
find before us. Speaker Reed, in passing upon the question, said:
  ``The Chair dislikes to pass upon such matters as this, but it is a 
well-established principle that no conference committee can introduce a 
new subject, one that was not in dispute between the two Houses; and it 
is evident that everybody in the House realizes that this amendment 
which has been presented is really beyond the power of the committee of 
conference. That being so, and the point being made, there is no other 
course but to sustain the point of order, which the Chair accordingly 
does.''
  From then on through many pages of Hinds' there are a number of 
precedents discussed, all of which hold at least as strongly as did 
Speaker Reed that a committee of conference may not include subjects 
not within the disagreements between either House.
  Later in 1902, Speaker Henderson decided that--
  ``A conference committee may not include in its report new items 
constituting in fact a new and distinct subject not in difference, even 
through germane to questions in issue.''
  In other words, the later precedents of the House go so far as to say 
that the question of germaneness has nothing to do with the question if 
the conferees have exceeded their powers in regard to the action of 
either House.
  The Chair is not aware, certainly since he has been a Member of this 
body and heard this question ruled on repeatedly, of any precedent 
which would go to show that a conference committee might, provided the 
proposition were germane, go beyond the limits set in the decisions 
just referred to. The Chair is not called upon therefore to determine 
the question as to whether this provision as to a commission is germane 
to the bill or not. If he were, he would think it was a matter of very 
grave doubt as to whether to a bill dealing with the Federal reserve 
system and branch banks an amendment providing for the appointment of a 
committee to make an inquiry into the price of commodities in the 
United States affected since the year 1914, if at all, by the Federal 
banking laws could be regarded as germane. But the chair is not called 
upon to determine that. The Chair fails to find in any part of this 
bill a suggestion on the part of either House of the appointment of a 
commission of this kind. The Chair thinks beyond all question that the
Sec. 3257
conferees have exceeded their powers in reporting such an amendment to 
the House. The chair also sustains the points of order with regard to 
two other amendments as presented by the gentleman from Illinois. In 
both cases the conference committee have inserted matter which was not 
in disagreement at all and have changed the text which was identical in 
both the House and Senate bills. The Chair forgot to mention in the 
discussion of the brief of the gentleman from Illinois that the other 
precedents quoted by him were where the Senate had stricken out the 
entire House bill and substituted a different bill, in which case, of 
curse, the powers of the committee are much broader and almost any 
amendment may be in order, provided only it is germane. But that is not 
this case, and the Chair therefore sustains the points of order made, 
both that of the gentleman from Kansas and that of the gentleman from 
Illinois.

  The Speaker also held, in response to an inquiry from Mr. Finis J. 
Garrett, of Tennessee, that the point of order against the conference 
report having been sustained, the situation was as if the report had 
been rejected by a vote of the House, and recognized Mr. McFadden to 
move to disagree to the Senate amendments and ask conference with the 
Senate.
  3257. The managers of a conference may not in their report change the 
text to which both Houses have agreed.
  When a conference report is ruled out of order, the bill and 
amendments are again before the House as when first presented, and 
motions relating to amendments and conference are again in order.
  On May 30, 1924,\1\ the Clerk read the conference report on the bill 
(H. R. 7041) to provide compensation for employees of the United States 
suffering injuries while in the performance of their duties.
  The reading of the report having been concluded, Mr. Louis C. 
Cramton, of Michigan, made the point of order that the conferees had 
modified the text of the bill to which both Houses had agreed.
  Mr. Cramton explained that the conferees had accepted the one minor 
amendment proposed by the Senate, but in addition had inserted an 
amendment of their own in another part of the bill passed by both 
Houses.
  The Speaker \2\ ruled:

  The Senate inserted an amendment of a few words. In conference that 
amendment was accepted, but an additional provision was inserted, not 
as an amendment to the Senate amendment but as an amendment to the 
original text several lines below. Whether it is germane or not, and 
whatever might be the Chair's original opinion if there were no 
precedents, the Chair thinks the precedents abundantly establish the 
fact that conferees are very closely limited and that they must not add 
anything to words which have already been agreed upon by both Houses. 
In this case, it seems perfectly clear to the Chair, the amendment is 
put in at a different place and affects language not connected with the 
Senate amendment. It is put in at a place which is different, and 
therefore changes the language which has already been agreed upon by 
both Houses.
  Therefore the Chair feels obliged to sustain the point of order.

  Thereupon, Mr. Leonidas C. Dyer, of Missouri, offered a motion to 
recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment.
  Mr. Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, objected that motions for the 
disposition of the Senate amendment were not in order for the reason 
that a conference report when ruled out of order was referred to the 
committee of conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 9923.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3258
  The Speaker said:

  No; the sustaining of a point of order against a conference report 
ends the conference, and ends the jurisdiction of the conferees.
  It is as if the conference report has been disagreed to. Therefore, 
the bill with the Senate amendment came up in the House. The House can 
send it back to conference or can act directly on the Senate amendment.
  The Clerk will report the motion of the gentleman from Missouri.

  3258. The managers of a conference must confine themselves to the 
differences committed to them, and may not include subjects not within 
the disagreements, even though germane to a question in issue.
  Conferees, having agreed to a Senate amendment pertaining to Army 
aircraft with an amendment pertaining to naval aircraft, were held to 
have exceeded the differences committed to them.
  A conference report have been ruled out on a point of order, 
consideration was authorized by special order reported from the 
Committee on Rules.
  On June 25, 1926,\1\ Mr. W. Frank James, of Michigan, called up the 
conference report on the bill (H. R. 10827) to increase the efficiency 
of the Army Air Corps.
  The statement having been read in lieu of the report, Mr. Eugene 
Black, of Texas, who had reserved points of order on the report, raised 
the question of order that the conferees had exceeded their authority 
by including in the report provisions relative to the naval aircraft 
not in disagreement between the two Houses.
  The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order and held:

  It may be true, as has been argued, that if this were merely a 
question of jurisdiction, the Committee on Military Affairs might have 
power in the original instance to report a bill such as this; but the 
question that arises is not one of committee jurisdiction, but a 
question purely of the power of the conferees and whether or not they 
have exceeded their power in this instance.
  The rule is very well settled, passed on by a number of Speakers, as 
to the powers of conferees. It is well described in the Manual:
  ``The managers of a conference must confine themselves to the 
differences committed to them and may not include subjects not within 
the disagreements, even though germane to a question in issue.''
  Therefore the question of whether or not this amendment is germane 
has nothing to do with the point of order as raised by the gentleman 
from Texas. The question is solely, Did the conferees go beyond the 
differences between the two Houses?
  The bill is entitled, ``To provide more effectively for the national 
defense by increasing the efficiency of the Air Corps of the Army of 
the United States, and for other purposes.'' There is nothing said in 
the bill, either as it passed the House or as it passed the Senate, 
with relation to aviation for the Navy. The conferees therefore, in 
including in it matter relating to the Navy must have exceeded their 
powers, because they have departed from the exact differences that were 
before them in conference.
  The Chair therefore sustains the point of order made by the gentleman 
from Texas.

  Subsequently, on June 29, 1926,\3\ Mr. Bertrand H. Nell, of New York, 
by direction of the Committee on Rules, presented the following 
privileged resolution:

  Resolved, That notwithstanding previous action of the House relative 
to the conference report on the disagreeing votes of the two House on 
the bill H. R. 10827, immediately upon the adoption
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 11982.
  \2\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \3\ Record, p. 12254.
Sec. 3259
of this resolution the House shall consider said conference report 
without the intervention of points of order against the same.

  The resolution having been adopted; Mr. W. Frank James, of Michigan, 
again called up the conference report which, after consideration, was 
agreed to, yeas 256, nays 12.
  3259. Conferees may not change the text to which both Houses have 
agreed and the mere amendment by one House of an item in a bill of the 
other House does not authorize the elision of the entire item.
  Where an amendment strikes out an entire paragraph and inserts a new 
text, the entire subject is committed to the conferees.
  The ruling out of conference report on a point of order is equivalent 
to its rejection by the House and the bill and amendments are again 
before the House as if they had not gone to conference.
  The stage of disagreement having been reached, the motion to recede 
and concur has precedence over the motion to refer.
  While the Member in charge must yield for preferential motions, a 
Member may not by offering such motion deprive the Member in charge of 
the floor.
  On March 8, 1910,\1\ the House had under consideration the conference 
report on the District of Columbia appropriation bill, when Mr. Herbert 
Parsons, of New York, made the point of order that the conferees had 
eliminated a portion of the text agreed to by both Houses. Mr. Gardner 
submitted that in striking out the item providing an appropriation for 
playgrounds included in the bill as it passed the House and agreed to 
by the Senate with an amendment making the appropriations available for 
supervision, the conferees had exceeded their authority.
  After debate, the Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order and said:

  The Chair calls the attention of the House again to the provision as 
it appeared in the bill as it passed the House.
  ``Playgrounds: For maintenance, repairs, equipment, and supplies, 
$17,000, which sum shall be paid wholly from the revenues of the 
District of Columbia.''
  That provision, as the Chair has read it, went to the Senate. The 
Senate amends first, in amendment numbered 74, after the word 
``equipment,'' by inserting the word ``supervision,'' and again in the 
same provision, by amendment numbered 75, it struck out the words 
``which sum shall be paid wholly from the revenues of the District of 
Columbia.'' Now, the House and Senate were agreed on certain language, 
namely, ``for maintenance, repairs, equipment, and supplies, $17,000.''
  But both Houses agreed to the text, the Senate proposing, however, to 
insert the word ``supervision'' as a change to the text. Now, that 
amendment of the Senate was to the provision of the House. But the 
amount of $17,000 appropriated, with the objects as defined by the 
House, could not be changed, because the Senate had not provided for a 
change by way of amendment. If the Senate had amended by striking out 
the whole paragraph and inserting a new paragraph, then the whole 
question would have been in conference, and it would have been 
admissible in settling the differences between the two Houses to have 
made any germane agreement that would bring the conferees together. 
Now, with the two amendments referred to, the House and the Senate, to 
settle the disagreements, at a part where there was no disagreement, 
strikes out a whole provision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2920.
  \2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3260
  The Chair thinks that is a change of the text to which both Houses 
had agreed, and the precedents, so far as the Chair has been able to 
examine them, are against the exercise of that power even by the House 
itself, without the concurrence of the other body. It could only be 
done by the House and by the Senate by a concurrent action. The Chair 
feels compelled to sustain the point of order.

  The Speaker having announced his decision, Mr. James A. Tawney, of 
Minnesota, moved that the conference report be referred to the 
Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report it back to the 
House forthwith with an amendment striking out the paragraph.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, objected that the motion was not in 
order.
  The Speaker sustained the point of order and held:

  The Chair calls the attention of the gentleman that under the 
practice of the House the sustaining of a point of order to a 
conference report is equivalent to the rejection, and that the next 
proceeding would be for the House to take such action as it may desire, 
de novo, as if this bill were here for the first time with the Senate 
amendments disagreed to.
  It is in order to make a motion to agree to any of the amendments of 
the Senate.
  The effect of the statement of the Chair, sustaining the point of 
order, is to make the conference report as if it had not been made, and 
the bill stands now upon the House provisions and upon the Senate 
amendments. The House have possession of the bill, it is in order for 
the House to treat it just as it would have treated it if the 
conference report had been voted down.
  This is the condition as the Chair understands it: The House passed 
the bill, the Senate amended it, the House disagreed to the Senate 
amendments, it went to conference, the conference has constructively 
failed, and this bill is now before the House as if it had not gone to 
conference. So that the Senate amendments must be disposed of.

  Mr. Parsons moved that the House recede and concur in the amendment 
of the Senate.
  Mr. Tawney offered a motion to refer as preferential.
  The Speaker cited section 6225 of Hinds' Precedents holding that the 
motion to insist has precedence of the motion to refer, and reasoned 
that inasmuch as the motion to recede and concur takes precedence of 
the motion to insist, therefore, the motion to recede and concur takes 
precedence over the motion to refer.
  The Speaker then recognized Mr. Parsons to move to recede and concur, 
but held that the motion did not entitle him to the floor as against 
the Member in charge of the bill.
  3260. Insertion by managers of new matter in a conference report 
renders it subject to the point of order that the managers have 
exceeded their authority.
  On April 10, 1920 \1\ the conference report on the Post Office 
appropriation bill being under consideration in the House, Mr. L.C. 
Dyer, of Missouri, made the point of order that the managers had exceed 
their jurisdiction.
  In support of this point of order, Mr. Dyer called attention to 
Senate amendment No. 3, making an appropriation for the purchase of 
land immediately available, to which the conferees had attached a 
proviso authorizing the Postmaster General to erect a building on the 
land.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 5504.
Sec. 3261
  The Speaker \1\ ruled:

  The Chair regrets very much to have a conference report go out on a 
point of order, and in any case where he felt justified in doing so 
would overrule the point of order; but the Chair does not see how this 
amendment can possibly be hung on the Senate amendment, and the Chair 
is regretfully obliged to sustain the point of order.

  3261. On June 3, 1910,\2\ the House was considering the conference 
report on the bill (H. R. 10378) to provide for the American merchant 
marine, when Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, made the point of 
order that the conferees had exceeded their authority by incorporating 
matter not in disagreement between the two Houses.
  Mr. Garrett cited the proviso in Senate amendment No. 15, reading as 
follows:

  Provided, That any person dissatisfied with any decision of the board 
shall have the same right to sue the United States as he would have had 
if the decision had been made by the President of the United States 
under the acts hereby repealed.

for which the conferees had substituted the following language:

  And shall have authority to adjust, settle, and liquidate all 
agreements, express or implied, on a fair and equitable basis.

  Mr. Garrett contended that the substitute changed the tenor of the 
original proviso and inserted language used nowhere in either the House 
bill or the Senate amendment.
  The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order and said:

  Although the Chair dislikes to hold a conference report out of order, 
because it sends the report back, yet it seems to the Chair quite clear 
that the conferees in this case exceeded their authority. The only 
difference between the House was as to the right to sue the United 
States. Then they have added a provision of final settlement, and there 
seems to be a difference of opinion by the gentleman who have discussed 
that provision whether that changed section (c) or did not. It seems to 
the Chair that it enlarges the authority, because section (c), as the 
Chair understands, simply applies to those powers which the board 
received from the President, whereas this clause authorizes the board 
to settle all agreements, those which it made of its own right and 
those for which it received jurisdiction from the President. The Chair 
does not think that is necessary for a decision. It seems to the Chair 
very clear that this final amendment was not in dispute between the two 
Houses, and by striking out the Senate provision and putting in this 
provision, which was entirely different from it and not germane, the 
conferees exceeded their authority and therefore the Chair is 
constrained to sustain the point of order.

  Mr. George W. Edmonds, of Pennsylvania, inquired as to the status of 
the conference report after the point of order had been sustained.
  The Speaker held that the report had been rejected and recognized Mr. 
Edmonds to move that the House further insists on its disagreement to 
the Senate amendments and ask further conference with the Senate.
  3262. A germane modification of an amendment in disagreement was held 
not to invalidate a conference report.
  On May 10, 1910,\3\ the conference report on the bill (H. R. 13915) 
was read for consideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachetts, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 8412.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 6037.
                                                            Sec. 3263
  Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, lodged a point of order against 
the conference report on the ground that the conferees had injected new 
matter in Senate amendment No. 15, transferring coal investigations 
from the Geological Survey to the Bureau of Mines.
  In the debate it appeared that the original Senate amendment had 
provided for the transfer of ``clerks'' from the Survey to the Bureau 
and that the conferees had modified the amendment to provide for the 
transfer of ``employees, property, and equipment.''
  The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order and held:

  Section 4 of the House bill reads as follows:
  ``The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to transfer to 
the Bureau of Mines from the United States Geological Survey the 
supervision of the investigation of structural material and the 
analyzing and testing of coal, lignites, and other mineral substances, 
and the appropriation made for any such investigation may be expended 
under the supervision of the Commissioner of Mines in manner as if the 
same were so directed in the appropriation act, and such investigation 
shall hereafter be within the province of the Bureau of Mines.''
  It will be noticed that by the House provision certain matters were 
transferred, as read by the Chair. Now, the Senate amended section 4, 
which the Chair has just read, by inserting at the end of section 4 
these words:
  ``And shall cease and determine under the organizations of the United 
States Geological Survey, and such experts and clerks as are now 
employed by the Geological Survey in connection with the subject herein 
transferred to the Bureau of Mines are authorized to be transferred to 
said bureau by the President.''
  Now, that was a Senate amendment to Section 4. The House disagreed to 
the Senate, amendment. The Conferees met, and having the disagreement 
before them, struck out the words ``and clerks'' of the Senate 
amendment and inserted ``employees, property, and equipment.''
  The only change in the Senate amendment made by the conferees was to 
strike out the words ``and clerks'' and insert ``employees, property, 
and equipment.'' It seems to the Chair that the conferees did not 
exceed their jurisdiction, the main question being whether the 
Geological Survey should cease and determine as to the work specified. 
The other matter is an incident of the settlement of the main question.
  Now, as to the precedent that the gentleman from Minnesota refers to, 
the Chair finds on examination that it is not in point, because in that 
case the House and Senate had agreed to a text and there was no 
difference between them, and the conferees changed that text, which was 
not in disagreement.
  The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

  3263. Conferees may not go beyond the limits of the disagreements 
confided to them, and where the differences involve numbers, conferees 
are limited to the range between the highest figure proposed by one 
House and the lowest proposed by the other.
  Where on House strikes out all of a bill of the other after the 
enacting clause and inserts a new text, conferees have a wide 
discretion in incorporating germane amendments and may even report a 
new bill on the subject.
  On August 14, 1911,\2\ Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, called up 
the conference report on the bill (H. R. 11010) reducing tariff duties 
on wool, and asked unanimous consent that the statement be read in lieu 
of the report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \1\ First session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 3912.
Sec. 3264
  Under reservation of the right to object, Mr. James R. Mann, of 
Illinois, made the point of order that the conferees had exceeded their 
powers by incorporating in their report provisions on subjects not in 
disagreement. Mr. Mann referred specifically to the rates on Brussels 
carpets, which were fixed at 30 per cent in the House bill, at 35 per 
cent in the Senate amendment, but which had been raised to 40 per cent 
in the conference report.
  The Speaker \1\ ruled:

  The desire of the present occupant of the chair is to rule fairly; 
and so far as I am individually concerned, I would rather have it said 
of me, after I have finally laid down the gavel, that I was the fairest 
Speaker that the House ever had, than that I was the greatest.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin last Saturday made a remark which 
deserves the consideration of the House, and that was that no Speaker 
could afford to render a decision for temporary benefit to his party 
fellows without considering the ultimate and general effect of it. That 
is absolutely true.
  The particular matter at bar seems to have been differentiated into 
two classes by previous Speakers: One, where the dispute between the 
who Houses is simply a dispute about rates or about amounts, and the 
other where one House strikes out everything after the enacting clause 
and substitutes an entirely new bill.
  The Chair has no doubt whatever that at least one contention of the 
gentleman from Illinois is correct. That is, that if it is a mere 
dispute about amounts or rates, the conferees can not go above the 
higher amount or rate named in one of the two bills or lower than the 
lower rate named in one of the two bills. But that is not this case. In 
this case the Senate struck out everything after the enacting clause 
and substituted a new bill. Last Saturday there did not seem to be any 
precedents to fit the point under consideration. This time, fortunately 
for the Chair at least, four great Speakers of this House have ruled on 
the proposition involved--Speaker Colfax, who was subsequently Vice 
President; Speaker Carlisle, subsequently Senator and Secretary of the 
Treasury; Speaker Henderson, and Speaker Cannon. The Chair does not 
know anything about the parliamentary clerks to Speaker Colfax and 
Speaker Carlisle, but the Chair is fully persuaded that every Member of 
this House who has served in prior Congresses will agree that Speaker 
Henderson and Speaker Cannon had the advantage of being advised by one 
of the most skillful parliamentarians in this country, the present 
Member from Maine, Mr. Hinds. [Applause.]
  All four of these Speakers, three Republicans and one Democrat, have 
passed on this question, and they have all ruled that where everything 
after the enacting clause is stricken out and a new bill substituted, 
it gives the conferees very wide discretion, extending even to the 
substitution of an entirely new bill. The Chair will have three of 
these decisions read, and will have the decision of Speaker Cannon 
incorporated into this opinion, because the question ought to be 
definitely settled during the life of this Congress at least.

  The Speaker then directed the Clerk to read sections 6421, 6423, and 
6424 of Hinds' Precedents, and concluded:

  In view of this long line of decisions by illustrious Speakers, the 
Chair overrules the point of order of the gentleman from Illinois.

  3264. Where the two Houses fix different periods of time the 
conferees have latitude between the two, but may not go beyond the 
longer nor within the shorter.
  On March 2, 1915,\2\ the conference report on the bill (S. 52059) 
establishing mail lines with foreign countries and known as the ship 
purchase bill, was before the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \2\ Third session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 5208.
                                                            Sec. 3265
House and had been read when Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the 
point of order that it contained matter which was not properly before 
the conferees.
  Mr. Mann pointed out that as originally passed by the Senate the bill 
would have gone into effect immediately on its passage; that in the 
House amendments it was provided that the bill should go into effect 
two years after its passage; but that the conference report provided it 
should become effective three years after passage. Mr. Mann contended 
that the conferees could have designated any time between the passage 
of the bill and two years after its passage, but were not authorized to 
extend the time beyond the limit of two years set by the House 
amendment.
  The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order and ruled:

  If there is anything settled about conferees between the two Houses 
it is this: Where two amounts are named, and the question is referred 
to the conferees, they may oscillate as much as they please between the 
two extremes, but they can not go below the lower amount and they can 
not go above the higher amount. That applies to sums of money in 
appropriation bills. This has been ruled so often that it is as 
familiar as the multiplication table. In tariff bills, where the House 
suggests one rate on any given article and the other House suggests 
another rate, the conferees can not go below the lower, and they can 
not go above the higher rate.
  This happened when the Payne bill was passed: There were certain 
amendments in controversy. The House fixed the rate on shoes at 15 per 
cent, and the Senate fixed it at 20 per cent. President Taft notified 
the conferees that if they did not cut the rate to 10 per cent he would 
not sign the bill, and as the conferees could not go below the minimum 
of 15 per cent, the House had to pass a special resolution in order to 
enable them to cut the rate down to 10.
  As far as the suggestion that where everything after the enacting 
clause is struck out, then the conferees have carte blanche to bring in 
a bill; that is not this case here. The House did not strike out 
everything after the enacting clause in the Weeks bill. It particularly 
agreed to the Weeks bill, which has really been in conference only 
technically. But the limit of time was fixed at two years, and the 
conferees extended it to three years. If they could extent it beyond 
two years, they could extend it until the end of time. Their limit was 
from zero to two. In the nature of things they could not go below zero; 
under the practice of the two Houses they could not go higher.
  The Chair sustains that point of order.

  3265. Where all of a bill after enacting clause is stricken out, the 
conference report may include any germane provision.
  Points of order are properly raised or reserved against a conference 
report after it is read, and before the statement is read, and whether 
the statement is read in lieu of the report or after the report, it is 
too late to raise a question of order after the reading of the 
statement.
  On May 9, 1924,\2\ Mr. Albert Johnson, of Washington, called up the 
conference report on the bill (H. R. 7995) to limit the immigration of 
aliens into the United States, and asked unanimous consent that the 
statement be read in lieu of the report.
  Pending the question, Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, inquired 
when a point of order should be properly presented it the request was 
agreed to.
  The Speaker \3\ replied that points of order should be made or 
reserved in either event before the reading of the statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   \1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
   \2\ First session Sixty-Eighth Congress, Record, p. 8227.
   \3\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 3266
  Mr. Sabath reserved a point of order and, the statement having been 
read, submitted that the conferees had exceeded their jurisdiction by 
including the following provision:

  Provided: That this subdivision shall not take effect as to exclusion 
until March 1, 1925, before which time the President is requested to 
negotiated with the Japanese Government in relation to the abrogation 
of the present arrangement on this subject.

  Mr. Sabath argued that under the House bill the legislation would 
have gone into effect July 1, 1924; under the Senate bill it would have 
become effective immediately; and that the conferees by delaying the 
date until March 1, 1925, had gone beyond the dates in dispute between 
the Houses.
  Mr. John E. Raker, of California, made the further point of order, 
based on same proviso, that the request that the President negotiate 
with the Japanese Government was not germane to the bill passed by the 
House or to the substitute inserted by the Senate.
  The Speaker in passing on the first point of order differentiated 
between precedents in which individual items were at issue and the 
present case in which all after the enacting clause had been stricken 
out, and said:

  The first point made by the gentleman from Illinois, it seems to the 
Chair, is thoroughly disposed of by the decision of Speaker Clark, 
quoted in the Manual. It says:
  ``And it has been held so often and so far back and by so many 
Speakers that where everything after the enacting clause is struck out 
the conferees have carte blanche to prepare a bill on that subject; 
that it seems to the Chair that question is no longer open to 
controversy.''
  The Chair on that ground overrules the point of order.

  As to the second point of order, involving a question of germaneness 
the Speaker held:

  But it seems to the Chair that inasmuch as this report terminates the 
understanding referred to on July 1, this provision extending it to 
March 1, 1925, and at the same time asking that the President meanwhile 
shall negotiate to abrogate it, which may possible terminate it sooner, 
that makes it clearly germane to the subject, and the Chair overrules 
the points of order.

  3266. Where an entire bill has been stricken out and a new text 
inserted, the conferees exercise broad authority and may discard 
language occurring both in the bill and the substitute.--On January 29, 
1927, \1\ the House proceeded to the consideration of the conference 
report on the bill (H. R. 9971) for the regulation of radio 
communications.
  Mr. Tom D. McKeown, of Oklahoma, made the point of order that the 
conferees had stricken out matter agreed to by both Houses.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair thinks he can simplify this situation by ruling with 
reference to the points of order that inasmuch as the Senate struck out 
the entire House bill and inserted a bill of its own, any amendment 
which was germane is in order. The Chair will quote the precedent from 
Hinds' Precedents, volume 5, section 6421, as follows:
  ``The Chair understands that the Senate adopted a substitute for the 
House bill. If the two Houses had agreed upon any particular language, 
or any part of a session, the committee of conference could not change 
that; but the Senate having stricken out the bill of the House and 
inserted
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   \1\ Second session Sixty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 435; Record, p. 
2557.
   \2\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3267
another one, the committee of conference have the right to strike out 
that and report a substitute in its stead. Two separate bills have been 
referred to the committee, and they can take either one of them, or a 
new bill entirely, or a bill embracing parts of either. They have a 
right to report any bill that is germane to the bills referred to 
them.''
  The Chair thinks that is the better practice, and it has been 
universally followed in the House, that where the Senate strikes out 
the entire House bill and substitutes one of its own, it is in order 
for the conferees to recommend the adoption of any provision that is 
germane. That ruling will cover all amendments.

  On February 8, when the conference report came up for consideration 
in the Senate, Mr. Robert B. Howell, of Nebraska, raised a similar 
question of order and quoted the second section of Rule XXVII of the 
Senate as follows:

  Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not committed to 
them by either House, nor shall they strike from the bill matter agreed 
to by both Houses.

  The Vice President \1\ ruled:

  The Chair would remark that when the amendment of the Senate is a new 
bill in the nature of a substitute instead of various amendments to 
different parts of the bill, the whole status of conference is changed 
under the precedents. Under the line of argument which the Chair 
followed the other day in holding that new matter when germane could be 
put in as an amendment under those circumstances, he would seem to be 
justified now in overruling the point of order. The status of 
conference being changed where the Senate substitutes a bill as an 
amendment, the precedents in effect hold that the restrictions of Rule 
XVII, paragraph 2, do not apply, and he so rules. The point of order is 
not well taken.

  Mr. Key Pittman, of Nevada, having appealed from the decision of the 
Chair, the appeal was laid on the table, yeas 41, nays 34, and the 
decision of the Chair stood as the judgment of the Senate.
  3267. When a section is stricken out and a new text inserted, the 
conferees may incorporate any germane matter.--On March 3, 1915,\2\ the 
conference report on the agricultural appropriation bill was under 
consideration in the House, when Mr. Robert L. Henry, of Texas, 
submitted a point of order that the report contained matter not in 
dispute between the two Houses.
  Mr. Henry based his point of order on the provision for a joint farm-
credits committee incorporated in the conference report in lieu of a 
provision for a rural-credits bureau carried in a Senate amendment 
stricken out by the House.
  The Speaker \3\ overruled the point of order as follows:

  The point of order raised by the gentleman from Texas has been 
repeatedly passed on. In the first place it seems to the Chair that the 
only correct way in which to regard the matter now in controversy is to 
consider this rural-credit amendment offered by Senator McCumber as a 
separate subject, distinct from the bill proper. What happened about 
that was this: The Senate inserted the McCumber amendment, treating the 
whole subject of rural credits, and it was sent over to the House in 
that form. The House struck out the whole of the McCumber amendment. 
That is, it agreed to a substitute for the entire McCumber amendment. 
It did not leave a single line or word of the McCumber amendment. That 
put it exactly in the same situation as if everything after the 
enacting clause of a bill was struck out. And it has been held so often 
and so far back and by so many Speakers that, where everything after 
the enacting clause is struck out, the con-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Charles G. Dawes, of Illinois, Vice President.
  \2\ Third session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 5469.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 3268
ferees have carte blanche to prepare a bill on that subject, it seems 
to the Chair that question is no longer open to controversy. The Chair 
will refer to just one or two of the rulings.
  The ruling on the point made on the shipping bill has nothing to do 
with this bill, because the situations are not the same. The point 
raised there was the matter of time, which had never been passed upon 
before so far as the Chair knows; but it involved the principle of the 
higher and lower rates in a bill, or the larger and smaller amounts in 
a bill. In the shipping-bill contest it happened to be the question of 
time that was in controversy.
  The case as to the immigration bill, which was passed on some three 
or four Congresses ago, is precisely on ``all fours'' with this. In 
paragraph 6424 of Hinds' Precedents, volume 5, the syllabus, to use the 
legal phrase, is this:
  ``Where the disagreement is as to an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute for the entire text of a bill, the managers have the whole 
subject before them and may exercise a broad discretion as to 
details.''
  The only change I would make in that language is to say that they 
have carte blanche on the subject.
  ``A point of order against a conference report should be made or 
reserved after the report is read and before the reading of the 
statement. On February 18, 1907, Mr. William S. Bennet, of New York, 
submitted the report of the managers of the conference on the bill (S. 
4403) entitled `An act to amend an act entitled, ``An act to regulate 
the immigration of aliens into the United States,'' approved March 3, 
1903.' ''
  Before the report was read, Mr. John L. Burnett, of Alabama, proposed 
to reserve a point of order.
  The report having been read, a point of order was made by Mr. 
Burnett, who insisted that the managers had exceeded their authority in 
inserting the following provisions:
  ``Provided further, That whenever the President shall be satisfied 
that passports issued by any foreign government to its citizens to go 
to any country other than the United States or to any insular 
possession of the United States or to the Canal Zone are being used for 
the purpose of enabling the holders to come to the continental 
territory of the United States to the detriment of labor conditions 
therein, the President may refuse to permit such citizens of the 
country issuing such passports to enter the continental territory of 
the United States from such other country or from such insular 
possession or from the Canal Zone.''
  And the Speaker ruled that that provision was in order.
  Section 6425, the syllabus:
  ``A Senate amendment having provided an appropriation to construct a 
road, and conferees having reported in lieu thereof a provision for a 
survey, it was held that the provision was within the differences.''
  The only thing for the Speaker to pass on at this juncture is whether 
or not the conferees exceeded their authority. Not only by the decision 
of the present Speaker on two different occasions, but by half a dozen 
of his predecessors, it beings this provision which the conferees 
brought in here within the rule, and the point of order of the 
gentleman from Texas is overruled.

  3268. On March 15, 1922,\1\ Mr. William R. Wood, of Indiana, called 
up the conference report on the independent offices appropriation bill.
  The report having been read, Mr. Frederick W. Dallinger, of 
Massachusetts, raised the question of order that the conferees had gone 
beyond the differences committed to them, in providing a limitation of 
$100,000 beyond which contracts must be awarded to the lowest bidder, 
whereas the original bill made no limitation and the Senate amendment 
fixed a limit of $5,000.
  The Speaker pro tempore,\2\ ruled:

  The gentleman from Massachusetts makes the point of order that the 
conferees exceeded their authority in agreeing to the language in lieu 
of Senate amendment No. 30. It will be noticed that
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4370.
  \2\ Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Speaker pro tempore.
                                                            Sec. 3269
the original provision of the bill contained no limitation whatever 
providing for the purchase, repair, or reconditioning of any vessel, 
commodity, article, or thing on the part of the Government. The Senate 
struck out all of the language of the original House provision and 
inserted an amendment which required the reconditioning or repairs in 
excess of $5,000 to be done in Government yards under certain 
conditions. The conferees have agreed to substantially that language 
except that they have stricken out ``$5,000'' and inserted 
``$100,000.'' In the view of the Chair the whole controversy before the 
conferees was whether there should be a limitation upon the amount of 
the repairs, and if so, what the limitation should be; in other words, 
it was between $5,000 worth of repairs and no limit whatever.
  This point has heretofore arisen, and a discussion occurred on March 
3, 1915, Sixty-third Congress, third session, Record, page 5469, when 
Speaker Clark ruled, in passing upon a point of order raised against 
the conference report on the agricultural appropriation bill, that 
where the House struck out all of the Senate amendment, not leaving a 
single line or word of that provision, and substituting a new 
amendment, it put it in exactly the same condition as where the Senate 
or House struck out all after the enacting clause of a bill and 
inserted a new bill entirely. The Speaker then ruled that the conferees 
had carte blanche in drafting new language and inserting new 
provisions. He cited as a precedent paragraph 6424 of Hinds' 
Precedents, volume 5, the syllabus of which is, that--
  ``Where the disagreement is as to an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute for the entire text of a bill, the managers have the whole 
subject before them and may exercise a broad discretion as to 
details.''
  It seems to the Chair that this particular case is analogous to that 
situation, and that the conferees were authorized either to agree to 
the provisions without any limitation whatever, or to a limitation of 
$5,000, or to any limitation between that and no limitation whatever, 
and that the point of order that they have exceeded their authority is 
not well taken. The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

  3269. The House provision for the regulation of railway 
capitalization being stricken out by the Senate, which substituted 
nothing in lieu thereof, a provision inserted by the conferees 
authorizing the President to appoint a commission to investigate the 
subject was held to be within the differences between the two Houses.
  On June 18, 1910 \1\ when the conference report on the bill (H. R. 
17536) to create a commerce court, was called up for consideration in 
the House, Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, made the point of order 
that the conferees had exceeded their authority. Mr. Bartlett based his 
point of order on the provision authorizing the President to appoint a 
commission to investigate railway capitalization, which had been 
incorporated in the bill in lieu of a provision to regulate railway 
capitalization, carried in the House bill but stricken out by the 
Senate.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The bill as it passed the House, section 16, provided for a new 
section to the interstate commerce law.
  ``That no railroad corporation which is a common carrier subject to 
the provisions of this act as amended shall hereafter issue for any 
purpose connected with or relating to any part of its business governed 
by the provisions of this act as amended any stocks, bonds, notes, or 
other evidences of indebtedness to an amount exceeding that which may 
from time to time be reasonably necessary
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 8471.
  \2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 3270
for the purpose for which such issue of stocks, bonds, notes, or other 
evidences, of indebtedness may be authorized.''
  Then it continues with provision for the amount of the securities to 
be thus issued, and so forth. That is sufficient to show the House 
provisions. The Senate struck out by way of amendment to the House bill 
all after the enacting clause, and in its substitute made no mention of 
section 16. The House disagreed to the Senate amendment, and the whole 
matter went to conference. The conferees in settlement of the 
differences between the House and the Senate as to this matter agreed 
to the following:
  ``Sec. 16. That the President is hereby authorized to appoint a 
commission to investigate questions pertaining to the issuance of 
stocks and bonds by railroad corporations subject to the provisions of 
the act to regulate commerce.''
  Now, the question arises whether the agreement between the conferees 
was legitimately within the differences between the House and the 
Senate.
  The Chair has a precedent, which he will ask the Clerk to read.

  The Clerk read section 6425 of Hinds' Precedents, and the Speaker 
concluded:

  The Chair believes in principle that the ruling of the Chair in the 
case just read by the Clerk was correct. The greater does include the 
less. The proposition in the House bill to regulate the capitalization 
of railways, their stocks and bonds, constitutes, in this case, the 
greater proposition. The Senate having disagreed, and the whole matter 
being in conference and an agreement having been reached covering and 
setting the differences, the provision for a commission to investigate 
the subject touching stocks and bonds and capitalism of railways, it 
seems to the Chair, is clearly in order and within the differences 
between the two Houses, and therefore the Chair overrules the point of 
order.

  3270. Mere changes in phraseology without material alteration of the 
subject matter are not sufficient to render a conference report subject 
to the point of order that the conferees have exceeded their authority.
  In changing a provision relating to ``grain'' to a provision relating 
to ``nonperishable agricultural commodities'' conferees were held to 
have gone beyond the differences committed to them.
  Instance wherein a conference report rejected on a point of order was 
considered under a special order from the Committee on Rules.
  Form of resolution for consideration of conference report invalidated 
on point of order.
  On May 8, 1933,\1\ Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, called up the 
conference report on the bill (H. R. 3835) to relieve the existing 
national economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing 
power.
  Mr. Edward W. Goss, of Connecticut, made the point of order that the 
conferees had exceeded their powers in that they had modified the 
following provision of Senate amendment No. 17:

  The making of any such legal agreement shall not be held to be a 
violation of any of the antitrust laws of the United States--

to read:

  The making of any such agreement shall not be held to be in violation 
of any of the antitrust laws of the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Seventy-third Congress, Record, p. 3031.
                                                            Sec. 3271
  The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order and said:

  Senate amendment 17 has reference to making legal agreements. The 
conference committee leaves out the word ``legal'' and inserts that 
agreements shall be deemed to be lawful. The Chair does not see any 
difference, and the Chair overrules the point of order.

  Mr. Goss submitted the further point of order that, while Senate 
amendment No. 14 provided--

  Under regulations of the Secretary of the Interior requiring adequate 
facilities for the storage of grain on the farm, inspection--

the conference report read:

  Under regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture requiring adequate 
facilities for the storage of any nonperishable agricultural commodity 
on the farm.

  The Speaker sustained the point of order and held:

  It seems to the Chair that the striking out of the word ``grain'' and 
the substitution therefor of the words ``nonperishable agricultural 
commodities'' by the conferees broadens the scope of the Senate 
amendment. The Chair thinks that the conferees did not confine 
themselves to the matter in disagreement but attempted to incorporate 
new matter into Senate amendment 14. Therefore the Chair sustains the 
point of order against the conference report.

  On the following day,\2\ Mr. Arthur H. Greenwood, of Indiana, called 
up the following resolution from the Committee on Rules:

  Resolved, That notwithstanding the previous action of the House 
relative to the conference report on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses on the bill H. R. 3835, immediately upon the adoption of this 
resolution the House shall consider said conference report without the 
intervention of points or order against the same.

  The resolution was agreed to, and thereupon Mr. Jones again called up 
the conference report ruled out on the previous day, and after 
consideration it was agreed to in the form in which originally 
presented.
  3271. The practice of the House does not countenance the reservation 
of points of order against a conference report when presented for 
printing, and questions of order are not entertained until the report 
has been read for consideration.--On April 15, 1920,\3\ Mr. William R. 
Wood, of Indiana, submitted the conference report on the legislative, 
executive, and judicial appropriation bill for printing under the rule.
  Mr. John N. Garner, of Texas, being recognized to submit a 
parliamentary inquiry, said that recently a number of Members had risen 
when conference reports were presented for printing and reserved all 
points of order as when appropriation bills were reported. Mr. Garner 
inquired if it was necessary to rise and make such reservation of 
points of order when conference reports were filed.
  The Speaker \4\ held that the practice of reserving points of order 
against conference reports when presented for printing was unwarranted, 
as the proper time to raise a question of order against a conference 
report was after the report had been read for consideration and before 
the reading of the statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \2\ Record, p. 3060.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 5688.
  \4\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 3272
  3272. Under the former Senate practice, a conference report was not 
subject to the point of order that the conferees had exceeded their 
authority.
  Instance wherein the Vice President expressed the opinion that the 
practice of the Senate should be amended by making conference reports 
subject to the point of order that conferees had exceeded their 
authority by incorporating matters not in disagreement between the two 
Houses.
  The adoption of the present rule \1\ and practice of the Senate 
requiring conferees to limit their reports to matters in disagreement 
between the two Houses.
  On February 12, 1917,\2\ in the Senate on motion of Mr. Henry F. 
Ashurst, of Arizona, by unanimous consent, the conference report on the 
Indian appropriation bill was taken up for consideration.
  Mr. Charles Curtis, of Kansas, raised the question of order that the 
conferees had inserted in the conference report matter not in 
disagreement between the two Houses.
  The Vice President \3\ declined to entertain the point of order and 
said:

  The Chair has been observing these conference reports for four years, 
and it is not an unfair statement to say that quite a good deal of the 
important legislation of the Congress of the United States is 
transacted in the conference committees, and not in the Senate and the 
House of Representatives of the United States. The Chair understands 
the rule to be that the conferees have no right in conference to insert 
in the report which they make or in the agreement into which they enter 
anything except matters which were in dispute between the two Houses. 
Nevertheless, it is constantly being done by conference committees. It 
has, however, been the settled rule of the Senate that a point of order 
could not be made to a conference report, the sole question being 
whether the report shall be concurred in or whether it shall be 
rejected and sent back to conference again, with or without 
instructions.
  Vice President Hobart did not decide the point of order, but 
submitted it to the Senate, and said that the Senate should settle it 
by either agreeing or disagreeing to the conference report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ On March 8, 1918, Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 
3180, the Senate adopted the following rule:
  ``Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not committed to 
them by either House, nor shall they strike from the bill matter agreed 
to by both Houses. If new matter is inserted in the report, or if 
matter which was agreed to by both Houses is stricken from the bill, a 
point of order may be made against the report, and if the point of 
order is sustained, the report shall be recommitted to the committee of 
conference.''
  This amendment to the rules was introduced by Mr. Charles Curtis, of 
Kansas, and adopted on March 8, 1918.
  It became necessary to make this change in the Senate's rules in 
order to control legislation by conference committees.
  The requirement that a conference report be accepted in its entirety 
or rejected led to the practice by conference committees of rewriting 
legislation in conference. Often important changes in existing law or 
new legislation proposals which had not been debated, considered, or 
voted upon in either the House or Senate were incorporated in 
conference reports. The Senate or the House could by a majority vote 
reject a conference report in which the conferees had attempted to 
write new legislation, but frequently near the end of a session it was 
a choice of accepting the conference report or of having no legislation 
at all. The rule was adopted to remedy this defect. With the adoption 
of this rule the practice of the two Houses became identical.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 5064.
  \3\ Thomas R. Marshall, of Indiana, Vice President.
                                                            Sec. 3273
Senator Lodge, when he occupied the chair, said that the point of order 
should be decided by the Senate, but it was not ruled upon, the Senate 
having rejected the conference report.
  This is not a full and complete conference report. If the report be 
disagreed to, as it has been reported, the question can then go back to 
conference, either with or without instructions on the part of the 
Senate.

  The Vice President added:

  The Chair believes, however, that at some time, if the insertion of 
new matter does not stop, it will be the duty of a Presiding officer to 
sustain a point of order; and, although it is opposed to all the 
precedents of the United States Senate, the Chair proposes to reserve 
the right at some time in the future to sustain the point of order and 
test the opinion of the Senate upon that practice; but in view of the 
condition of this particular case, and in view of the fact that the 
Chair believes he is ruling in accordance with the precedents, he is 
now overruling the point of order of the Senator from Kansas.

  3273. Under a recent rule of the Senate, a conference report ruled 
out of order on the ground that it inserted matter not committed to the 
conference and omitted matter agreed to by both Houses, was recommitted 
to the committee of conference.
  On August 25, 1922,\1\ the Senate resumed consideration of the 
conference report on the bill (H. R. 9103) for the appointment of 
additional district judges for certain courts of the United States.
  The Presiding Officer \2\ invited further discussion of the point of 
order previously made by Mr. John K. Shields, of Tennessee, that the 
conferees had eliminated matter agreed to by both Houses and had 
inserted matter not committed to them by either House.
  Ater debate, the Presiding Officer rules:

  The rule that is invoked reads as follows:
  ``Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not committed to 
them by either House, nor shall they strike from the bill matter agreed 
to by both Houses. If new matter is inserted in the report or if matter 
which was agreed to by both Houses is stricken from the bill, a point 
of order may be made against the report, and if the point of order is 
sustained, the report shall be recommitted to the committee of 
conference.''
  This rule was adopted to meet a practice of the Senate that had 
become an abuse and to which objection had often been made. It is clear 
and definite in the limits which it imposed upon the action of the 
conferees. It has not been often invoked since its adoption, but when 
invoked it is controlling upon the Senate. Whether the objection made 
is technical or substantial, if it comes within the terms of the rule, 
no discretion is left in the Presiding Officer.
  The first objection to this conference report is based upon the 
provision in the House bill that reads:
  ``The Attorney General shall, upon request of the Chief Justice, 
report to said conference on matters relating to the business of the 
several courts of the United States, with particular reference to 
causes or proceedings to which the United States may be a party, 
together with such recommendations or requests as may be deemed proper. 
The Attorney General shall not be a member of said conference.''
  That is the provision placed in the bill by the House. As the bill 
passed the Senate it contained this provision:
  ``The Attorney General shall, upon request of the Chief Justice, 
report to said conference on matters relating to the business of the 
several courts of the United States, with particular reference to 
causes or proceedings in which the United States may be a party.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 11766.
  \2\ Mr. Wesley L. Jones, of Washington, Presiding Officer.
Sec. 3274
  That language is identical with the language of the House, as far as 
it goes, and the Chair thinks that it states a distinct matter, or 
proposition, and that the further provisions in the House bill--
``together with such recommendations or requests as may be deemed 
proper'' and ``the Attorney General shall not be a member of said 
conference''--are in substance and statement two additional matters, 
and it seems to the Chair that the first matter stated in the House 
provision was adopted in the bill as it passed the Senate and comes 
clearly within the prohibition of the rule against omitting matter 
adopted by both Houses.
  The next objection is based upon this language. The House bill 
provided:
  ``Said judges shall be residents of the districts for which appointed 
and shall receive the same salary and allowances and shall possess, 
exercise, and perform the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as is 
now provided by law.''
  The Senate provision is:
  ``Every judge shall reside in the district or circuit or one of the 
districts or circuits for which he is appointed and shall devote his 
time to the duties of his office and shall not engage in any other 
employment for which he receives compensation, and for offending 
against the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a high 
misdemeanor.''
  The Chair thinks there are several independent matters contained in 
each one of these provisions. There is the provision, ``Said judges 
shall be residents of the districts for which appointed.'' That is a 
distinct matter. The Senate bill provided:
  ``Every judge shall reside in the district or circuit or one of the 
districts or circuits for which he is appointed.''
  These two propositions are identical in substance and almost in 
language. They have nothing to do with the qualifications of the judge 
or with the salary which he shall receive. In other words, both Houses 
provided that each judge should reside in his district or circuit.
  The point is made that this is covered by existing law. That may be 
true, and yet the Senate and the House both seemed to think that a 
provision of this sort was necessary, and inserted it. The rule says 
that a matter passed upon by both Houses shall not be eliminated. No 
discretion is left to the conferees as to whether it is covered by 
existing law or not.
  It seems to the Chair that the point of order on that matter must be 
sustained.
  The next proposition is with reference to the provision relating to 
the middle district of Tennessee. The House made provision for an 
additional judge for this district. It was conceded that under existing 
law the present judge is the judge for the eastern and the middle 
districts of Tennessee. The Senate made no provision for an additional 
judge for the middle district. The provision as finally agreed to and 
submitted by the conferees takes away the jurisdiction given to the 
present judge by existing law in the middle district and limits his 
jurisdiction to the eastern district.
  The question of limiting the jurisdiction of the existing judge was 
not submitted to either House; neither House gave it any consideration 
whatever; and the Chair believes it to be new matter in the conference 
report and prohibited by the rule.
  The Chair sustains the point of order on all three grounds.

  The Presiding Officer having concluded his ruling, Mr. Albert B. 
Cummins, of Iowa, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked what disposition 
would be made of the conference report.
  The Presiding Officer replied:

  The rule says that when a point of order is sustained, the report 
shall be recommitted to the conference.
  The Chair is informed that the House has not yet acted upon the 
conference report. If that is the case, there is still a conference 
committee. The clerk at the desk informs the Chair that the House has 
not yet acted on the report.
  The Chair is of the opinion that the conference committee is still in 
existence and that this report will go back to the conference 
committee.

  3274. A question being raised in the Senate as to whether conferees 
had exceeded their authority, it was held that conferees might include 
in
                                                            Sec. 3274
their report provisions from either the Senate or House bills, and the 
Chair in passing on points of order was not authorized to take into 
consideration the effect of such provisions in conjunction with 
provisions inserted from the bill passed by the other House.--On 
September 16, 1922,\1\ on motion of Mr. Porter J. McCumber, of North 
Dakota, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the conference 
report on the bill (H. R. 7456), the tariff bill.
  Mr. F. M. Simmons, of North Carolina, made the point of order that 
the conferees had exceeded their jurisdiction. He submitted that the 
House bill prescribed rates on a basis of American valuation, and 
conferred on the President no powers to proclaim or modify valuation; 
that the Senate provision provided rates on a basis of foreign 
valuation and gave the President power to increase or decrease duties; 
and therefore the conferees in adopting foreign valuation but 
conferring on the President power to proclaim American valuation, had 
exceeded the limits imposed by the disagreement of the two Houses.
  The President pro tempore \2\ took the question under advisement, and 
on September 18,\3\ delivered his opinion as follows:

  The point of order made by the Senator from North Carolina is as 
follows:
  ``I wish to make a point of order against the report. I think the 
conferees have exceeded their authority in the matter of authorization 
to the President to proclaim the so-called American valuation.''
  The Record shows that the House bill adopted what is known as the 
American valuation as the basis for its ad valorem duties, and gave no 
authority to the President to change the duties prescribed in the bill. 
The Senate bill adopted what is known as the foreign valuation as the 
basis of ad valorem duties and conferred upon the President the power 
to increase or decrease them 50 percent, if found necessary, in order 
to equalize the difference in the cost of production in this country 
and in foreign countries.
  Under the Senate bill, paragraph (a), section 315, and with respect 
to ad valorem duties, the effect of establishing a foreign valuation 
necessarily required the President to use that plan in reaching his 
conclusions. But paragraph (b) of section 315 enlarged his power and 
permitted him to use the American valuation upon two paragraphs, if he 
found that such valuation was necessary in order to make the duties 
measure the difference in the cost of production at home and abroad.
  As already stated, the House bill adopted American valuation and the 
Senate bill foreign valuation as the basis for ad valorem duties. It is 
in this difference, if at all, that the jurisdiction of the conferees 
to make the change respecting the powers of the President must be 
found. Disregarding for the moment the sections giving authority to 
increase or diminish duties under certain conditions, it will not be 
questioned that the conferees could lawfully have agreed that the 
American valuation should apply to certain of the paragraphs in the 
dutiable list and the foreign valuation to other paragraphs. Nor can it 
be doubted that the Senate conferees would have been within their 
jurisdiction had they receded from the Senate amendment to the Senate 
bill with regard to valuations and accepted the House plan of 
valuation. Furthermore this could have been done even though the Senate 
percentages of duties had been retained throughout.
  It is commonly believed that if this course had been pursued the 
duties actually to be paid would, in many instances, be much higher 
than would be paid under either the Senate or the House bill, and this 
may be true even though paragraph (b) of section 315 of the conference 
bill forbids an increase in the rate; but in ruling upon a point of 
order the Chair can not take judicial notice of that fact, if it be a 
fact. For aught the Chair knows from the record upon which its
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session, Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 12753.
  \2\ Albert B. Cummins, of Iowa, President pro tempore.
  \3\ Record, p. 12795.
Sec. 3275
ruling must be founded, if the proposed enactment becomes a law, the 
foreign valuation of any given article may be as high than the American 
valuation of the same article. As a Senator I may entertain a certain 
belief upon the matter and vote accordingly, but as the Presiding 
Officer of the Senate, acting in a judicial capacity, I am without 
knowledge upon the subject.
  With these preliminary observations, which seem to the Chair 
indisputable, we approach the vital inquiry which may be thus 
concretely stated: In order to reach a settlement of the differences 
respecting the plan of valuation, could the House conferees rightly say 
to the Senate conferees, ``We will recede from the American-valuation 
plan, accept the foreign-valuation plan, and accept the authority of 
the President to modify duties, provided you will agree to extend the 
authority of the President so that he may employ our plan upon the 
whole dutiable list whenever he finds it necessary in order to equalize 
the difference in the cost of production in this country and in foreign 
countries''; and could the Senate conferees, acting within their lawful 
powers, accept the proposal?
  The Chair appreciates the consequences which follow an affirmative 
answer to this question, but these consequences inhere in the nature 
and extent of the difference between the two Houses relating to the 
plan of valuation. If the Senate conferees could accept American 
valuation as a whole--and this is not denied--it seems clear that they 
could accept a qualified and limited use of that plan by the President. 
Moreover, if the Senate conferees had accepted American valuation 
throughout and made no change whatever in section 315, the Chair is of 
the opinion that the President would have had precisely the same power 
that he will have under the conference bill.
  It is quite impossible to separate valuation from presidential 
authority in this measure, and the Chair firmly believes that the 
change which the conferees have wrought in the bill, so far as the 
question we are discussing is concerned, was within their jurisdiction 
and that it must be dealt with by the Senate in its action upon the 
question of agreeing or disagreeing to their report. The point of order 
is overruled. The question is upon agreeing to the report of the 
conferees.

  3275. A conference committee may not include in its report new items, 
constituting in fact a new and distinct subject not in difference, even 
though germane to questions in issue.
  A conference report being ruled out in the Senate on a point of 
order, was recommitted under the Senate rules to the committee of 
conference.
  Interpretation of the term ``new matter'' as used in the Senate rule.
  On February 17, 1925,\1\ the Senate resumed consideration of the 
report of the committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
two Houses on the bill (H. R. 518) to authorize and direct the 
Secretary of War, for national defense in time of war and for the 
production of fertilizers and other useful products in time of peace, 
to sell or lease to Henry Ford certain plants owned by the Government 
at Muscle Shoals, Ala.
  During debate, Mr. George W. Norris, of Nebraska, raised the question 
of order that the conferees had included in their report a new item 
relating to the employment by the President of agents to carry out 
purposes of the act; a new item relative to the rental to be paid for 
Dam No. 2; a new item relating to the production of nitrogen; and a new 
item relative to construction work on Dam No. 3.
  Subsequently, on the same legislative day,\2\ but on the calendar day 
of February 20, the President pro tempore \3\ ruled:

  The Chair recognizes that the points of order made by the Senator 
from Nebraska present questions, which are not only exceedingly 
important but exceedingly difficult and upon which
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-eighth Congress, Senate Journal, p. 210; 
Record, p. 4123.
  \2\ Journal, p. 215; Record, p. 4244.
  \3\ Albert B. Cummins, of Iowa, President pro tempore.
                                                            Sec. 3275
there is an opportunity for wide differences of opinion. These 
differences will never be settled finally until they are settled by a 
decisive vote of the Senate itself. In the ruling the Chair is about to 
make, the text of the House bill is entirely disregarded, for, in the 
opinion of the Chair, it can not be fairly claimed that the two House 
in their original action agreed upon any point or upon any thing. There 
were, of course, some features of similarity, but these features of 
similarity were so connected with other consideration and so influenced 
by other provisions that the Chair is forced to the conclusion that the 
jurisdiction of the conference committee was neither expanded nor 
limited by anything contained in the original House bill as compared 
with the Senate bill. This means that, in the judgment of the Chair, 
the points of order must depend upon a comparison of the Senate bill 
with the report of the conference committee. It is urged on the one 
hand that when so compared ``now matter'' will be found in the 
conference report and that, therefore, the report is objectionable 
under Rule XXVII. It is urged upon the other hand that the phrase ``new 
matter'' does not prohibit the incorporation in a conference report of 
matter which is germane to the subject or subjects of the bill.
  The subjects of the Senate bill were--
  First. The disposition by lease of certain specified property 
belonging to the Government situated at or near Muscle Shoals, Ala.
  Second. In the event of a failure to lessee or in the event of a 
cancellation of the lease, the operation of the property so leased 
together with other property by a Government-owned corporation.
  There can be no doubt that the changes made in the Senate bill in 
conference are germane in a broad, general sense to the subjects dealt 
with in the Senate bill, and if that is the test to be applied the 
points of order must be overruled.
  The Chair, however, finds itself unable to interpret the second 
paragraph of Rule XXVII with the breadth contended for by those who 
seek to sustain the conference report. This paragraph of Rule XXVII to 
which reference has been made is as follows:
  Second. In the event of a failure to lease or in the event of a 
cancellation of the lease,
  ``Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not committed to 
them by either House, nor shall they stricken from the bill matter 
agreed to by both Houses. If new matter is inserted in the report of if 
matter which was agreed to by both Houses is stricken from the bill, a 
point of order may be made against the report, and if the point of 
order is sustained the report shall be recommitted to the committee of 
conference.
  The Chair has already observed there was nothing agreed upon by both 
Houses, and that part of the rule will not be further considered. There 
remains to be considered the prohibition that ``conferees shall not 
insert in their report matter not committed to them by either House'' 
and the requirement that ``new matter'' must not be inserted in a 
report. What is ``new matter'' ? It is quite impossible to define this 
phrase with that accuracy and precision which will make any rule 
announced applicable to the infinite variety of cases that will arise. 
It may be remarked, however, that some three of four years after the 
adoption of paragraph 2 of Rule XXVII the Senate amended Rule XVI 
relating to the consideration of appropriation bills, and the amendment 
provided:
  ``The Committee on Appropriation shall not report an appropriation 
bill containing amendments proposing new or general legislation, and if 
an appropriation bill is reported to the Senate containing amendments 
proposing one or general legislation a point of order may be made 
against the bill, and if the point is sustained the bill shall be 
recommitted to the Committee on Appropriations.''
  It has seemed to the Chair that the words ``new matter'' as found in 
Rule XXVII and ``new legislation'' as found in Rule XVI must mean 
practically the same thing. The fact of the identity of these two 
phrases makes it all the more important that the ruling upon the points 
of order now before the Senate shall be correct. Without attempting to 
define ``new matter,'' the Chair is of the opinion that it was 
intended, when this paragraph of the rule was adopted, to restrict the 
general parliamentary law as frequently announced by the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives. The House knew, when it sent the bill to 
conference, that the rule of the Senate forbade the insertion of ``new 
matter'' in a conference report, and the Chair assumes it adopted that 
plan for bringing the House into agreement with full understanding of 
the limitation placed upon the Senate conferees.
Sec. 3276
  The Chair does not desire to be understood as holding that every 
change made in the Senate bill by the conference report constitutes 
``new matter.'' It is of the opinion that in order to bring the change 
within the spirit of Rule XXVII ``new matter'' must be of substantial 
import; that is to say, a change affecting in a substantial way the 
plan proposed in the Senate bill.
  It is the judgment of the Chair that many such changes appear in the 
conference report. The Chair has been in some doubt with respect to the 
propriety of pointing out these changes which, in the judgment of the 
Chair, bring the conference report under the prohibition of the rule. 
He has, however, concluded not to name the specific instances in which, 
as viewed by the Chair, the rule has been violated.
  The Chair has been in grave doubt with regard to that matter. He has 
before him at the present moment a half dozen or more instances in 
which, in his judgment, Rule XXVII was violated in the conference 
report. The points of order is so far as they challenged the insertion 
of new matter in the conference report are sustained.

  From the decision of the Chair, Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, 
appealed to the Senate. On February 23,\1\ (Legislative day of February 
17) the question was taken:

  Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?

when there were yeas 45, nays 41, and the question was decided in the 
affirmative. So the decision of the Chair was sustained, and the 
conference report was referred to the committee of conference.
  3276. Where one House strikes out all of a bill of the other after 
the enacting clause and inserts a new text and the differences over 
this substitute are referred to conference, the managers have a wide 
discretion in incorporating germane mattes.
  While the practice of both House and Senate prohibits the elimination 
of provisions agreed to by both Houses, the language must be identical 
and any deviation of the two texts abrogates the rule.
  On February 27, 1919,\2\ the Senate took up the consideration of the 
conference report on the bill (H. R. 13274) providing for the 
validation of war contracts.
  The report being read, Mr. Kenneth D. McKellar, of Tennessee, made 
the point of order that the conferees had exceeded their authority of 
eliminating matter passed by both Houses.
  In support of his contention, Mr. McKellar cited Rule XXVII of the 
Senate, reading:

  ``Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not committed to 
them by either House, nor shall they strike from the bill matter agreed 
to by both Houses.''

  Mr. McKellar then called attention to the proviso in the bill, as 
passed by the House, reading as follows:

  ``And provided further, That the names of such contractors and the 
amounts of such partial or final settlements shall be filed with the 
Clerk of the House, for the information of Congress, and printed in the 
Congressional Record or in the Official Bulletin or as a public 
document 10 days before confirmation and payment is authorized upon 
such contracts.''

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Journal, p. 224; Record, p. 4403.
  \2\ Third session, Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4412.
                                                            Sec. 3277
  This provision, he contended, was substantially similar to the 
following proviso incorporated in the bill as it passed the Senate:

  And provided further, That the names of such contractors and the 
amounts of such partial or final settlements shall be filed with the 
Clerk of the House, for the information of Congress, and final 
settlements shall be filed with the Clerk of the House, for the 
information of Congress, and printed in the Congressional Record or as 
a public document within 10 days after such confirmation.

  The Vice President \1\ overruled the point of order as follows:

  The Chair has heretofore gone to great lengths in sustaining the rule 
of the Senate with reference to the insertion of new matter and the 
omission of matter agreed to by the two Houses. In an early opinion 
after this rule was adopted, the point of order was sustained where 
there was a section in the original bill of the House and a section on 
the original bill of the Senate which were identically the same. That 
ruling went further than the precedents than the precedents of the 
House of Representatives have been from the days of Speaker Colfax 
down. Those rulings are uniformly to the effect that where the Houses 
passes a bill and the Senate strikes out all after the enacting clause 
and passes another bill, when it goes to conference the matter is 
practically in the hands of the conferees to report such a bill, 
germane to the subject of the conference, as the conferees may think 
proper, and then it is for the two Houses to say whether or not they 
will adopt the conference report. As heretofore stated, however, the 
Chair, being extremely desirous of sustaining this rule of the Senate, 
did sustain a point of order under circumstances of a bill enacted by 
the House, all after the enacting clause stricken out, and a new bill 
inserted in the Senate, where in both bills there was a section 
identical in language.
  Now, let us see where we are.
  This is a proviso contained in each bill. It is not identical in the 
two bills at all, beyond the fact that each required the names of the 
contacts and the amounts of partial or final settlements to be filed 
with the House for the information of Congress. There it ends, so far 
as the terms are identical in the two bills. After that, in the House 
bill it is to be printed in the Congressional Record or in the Official 
Bulletin or as a public document 10 days before confirmation and 
payment as authorized upon such contract. The Chair is inclined to 
think that the important thing in the bill was the requirement that it 
be printed somewhere 10 days before confirmation and payment. In the 
Senate bill it is to be printed in the Congressional Record or as a 
public document within 10 days after such confirmation.
  The Chair thinks there were just about 20 days in controversy before 
the conferees, and that they had a right to strike the proviso out. The 
Chair overrules the point of order. If Senators desire either provision 
retained, they can vote to reject the conference report for that 
reason.

  3277. Under the later practice of the Senate, the Chair rules out of 
order a conference report incorporating matter not in disagreement 
between the two Houses.
  When held to be in violation of the Senate rule prohibiting the 
incorporation of new matter, a conference report is automatically 
recommitted to the committee of conference.
  On March 13, 1918,\2\ on motion of Mr. Ellison D. Smith, of South 
Carolina, the Senate resumed consideration of the conference report on 
the bill (S. 3752) to provide for the operation of transportation 
systems while under Federal control.
  Mr. Joseph S. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, made the point of order 
that the conferees, in contravention of the recently adopted rule of 
the Senate, had inserted new matter in the conference report.
  In debate it developed that the original Senate bill carried this 
proviso:

  That nothing in this act shall be construed to amend, repeal, impair, 
or affect the existing laws or powers of the States in relation to 
taxation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Thomas R. Marshall, of Indiana, Vice President.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 3418.
Sec. 3278
  The bill substituted by the House included the proviso as drafted by 
the Senate and added this language:

or the lawful police regulations of the several States, except wherein 
these regulations may affect the transportation of troops, war 
materials, or Government supplies, the regulation of rates, the 
expenditure of revenues, the addition to or improvement of properties, 
or the issue of stocks and bonds.

  The conference report included the proviso as it appeared in the 
House substitute, but also incorporated this additional proviso:

  Provided, however, That no State or subdivision thereof or the 
District of Columbia shall levy, assess, or collect an amount of taxes 
from railroad property within the State or subdivision thereof or the 
District of Columbia, while under Federal control, in excess of the 
ratio which the taxes derived from railroad property bore to the total 
taxes of such State or subdivision thereof or the District of Columbia 
for the year previous to Federal control.

  Mr. Frelinghuysen contended that the additional proviso carried new 
matter not in dispute between the two Houses and was in violation of 
the Senate rule prohibiting the incorporation of matter no in 
disagreement.
  The Vice President \1\ held:

  The bill going to conference, the House having stricken out the 
Senate bill, the entire subject of taxation was before the conferees, 
and they could change it in any way they pleased, so long as it was 
germane to the bill. But, there is no doubt that the proviso added 
totally changed both the Senate and House text and limited the power of 
the State to impose taxation. The Chair sustains the point of order.

  To this ruling Mr. Smith excepted and, the question being taken on 
the appeal, the yeas were 51, the nays were 23, and the ruling of the 
Chair was sustained.
  The result of the vote being announced to the Senate, the Vice 
President said:

  The conference report is rejected on the point of order and 
recommitted to the committee of conference.
  Mr. Smith questioned whether under the rule the recommitment of 
conference reports ruled out on point of order was automatic.
  The Vice President read the rule \2\ to the Senate and announced:

  The report is automatically recommitted to the committee of 
conference.

  3278. On April 18, 1918,\3\ the Senate, on motion of Mr. Henry F. 
Ashurst, continued debate on the conference report on the Indian 
appropriation bill under consideration on the previous day.
  Mr. Charles Curtis, of Kansas, resumed discussion of the pending 
point of order which he had submitted when the report was last under 
discussion. He argued that the action of the managers in striking from 
the bill the clause ``except oil and gas leases'' extended the 
authority of the Secretary of the Interior to lease Indian lands to 
include oil and gas lands, a subject which neither the House nor the 
Senate had considered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Thomas R. Marshall, of Indiana, Vice President.
  \2\ Paragraph 2 of Rule XXVII of the Senate.
  \3\ Second session Sixth-fifth Congress, Record, p. 5240.
                                                            Sec. 3279
  The Vice President \1\ held that the point of order was well taken 
and said:

  This is not a question as to what the law is or what the law should 
be, nor is it a question as to what the legislation should or should 
not be; it is a plain question as to what can be done in this 
conference report under the rules of the Senate. The Senate adopted an 
amendment appropriating certain money and providing that no part of 
that money should be used in forwarding undisputed claims to the 
department at Washington for approval, but that they might be approved 
by the superintendent of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma. The 
claims, which the Senate provided should not be forwarded to the 
Interior Department, were agricultural and mineral leases, and the 
provisions specifically excepted oil and gas leases therefrom. The rule 
of the Senate recently adopted is that--
  ``Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not committed to 
them by either House.''
  The conferees have now provided that oil and gas leases shall not be 
sent to Washington for approval by the Secretary of the Interior. That 
is a plain insertion of new matter by the conferees, and the Chair 
sustains the point of order.
  The conference report is recommitted to the committee of conference.

  3279. Where the House had acted on a conference report, thereby 
discharging its conferees, the Senate being unable to comply with its 
rule recommitting invalidated conference reports to committees of 
conference, requested further conference without taking further action 
on the amendments in disagreement.--On February 24, 1919,\2\ in the 
Senate, Mr. Key Pittman, of Nevada, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, 
asked what action would be taken by the Senate on the conference report 
on the bill (S. 2812), the oil leasing bill, which had been ruled out 
on a point of order on the previous legislative day, the house having 
agreed to the report and discharged its conferees, and there being no 
committee of conference to which the report could be referred by the 
Senate under the rule.
  The Vice President \1\ held it would be necessary for the Senate to 
ask further conference with the House in order to secure reappointment 
of the managers on the part of the House and provide a committee of 
conference to which the invalidated conference report could be referred 
under the Senate rule.
  In response to a further inquiry from Mr. Pittman, the Vice President 
also held that no mention of the attitude of the Senate on the 
amendments in dispute and no request for action on the amendments by 
the House should accompany the request for conference.
  Thereupon on motion of Mr. Pittman, the Senate asked further 
conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 
the bill, and the Vice President reappointed the original managers on 
the part of the Senate.
  3280. Conferees having reported tariff rates not in disagreement, the 
Vice President held them subject to a point of order and recommitted 
the conference report to the committee of conference.
  Conferees appointed for a further conference on matters remaining in 
disagreement after the adoption of a first conference report have no 
jurisdiction over differences composed in the previous report.
  Contrary to the practice in the House, questions of order against 
conference reports may be raised in the Senate at any time before the 
report is agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Thomas R. Marshall, of Indiana, Vice President.
  \2\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4114.
Sec. 3280
  In the Senate it was held that an appeal from a decision of the Chair 
should be presented at the time the decision is announced and before 
the intervention of further business.
  Where House conferees have not reported and the House has taken no 
action, recommitment of a conference report by the Senate was held not 
to require reappointment of conferees by the House.
  On May 27, 1930,\1\ the Vice President laid before the Senate the 
second conference report on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 
certain amendments to the tariff bill.
  Mr. Alben W. Barkley, of Kentucky, inquired when it would be 
permissible to submit points of order against the report.
  The Vice President held that questions of order against a conference 
report could be raised at any time before the report was agreed to.
  After further debate, Mr. Barkley made the point of order that the 
managers had exceeded their jurisdiction by writing into their report 
the flexible provisions which had not been considered by either House.
  The Vice President \2\ ruled:

  The Chair recalls that many complaints were made years ago in regard 
to the action of conferees in inserting new matter, legislative in 
character, in reports submitted by them. The present occupant of the 
Chair proposed the following rule to cure the practice then at times 
indulged in, and it was embodied in Rule XXVII of the Standing Rules of 
the Senate:
  ``Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not committed to 
them by either House, nor shall they strike form the bill matter agreed 
to by both Houses. If new matter is inserted in the report, or if 
matter which was agreed to by both Houses is stricken from the bill, a 
point of order may be made against the report, and if the point of 
order is sustained, the report shall be recommitted to the committee of 
conference.''
  The Chair is of the opinion that the following language in the 
conference report is clearly new matter:
  ``In the event the President makes no proclamation of approval or 
disapproval within such 60-day period, the commission shall immediately 
by order publicly declare such fact and the date of expiration of such 
period, and the increased or decreased rates of duty and the changes in 
classification or in basis of value recommended in the report of the 
commission shall, commencing 10 days after the expiration of such 
period, take effect with respect to the foreign articles when so 
imported.''
  The point of order is sustained.

  On June 5,\3\ the Senate resumed consideration of the last conference 
report on the tariff bill, and Mr. Barkley submitted the point of order 
that the conferees had exceeded their authority by inserting in the 
paragraph on cheese, in the paragraph on watches, in the paragraph on 
livestock, and in the paragraph on rayon rates which were not in 
disagreement between the two Houses.
  Mr. Carl Hayden, of Arizona, raised a further point of order against 
the rates inserted by the conferees in the cattle schedule.
  The Vice President sustained the point of order against the rates 
inserted in the cheese schedules. In the watch and clock schedule, he 
overruled the point of order as to movements, but sustained it as to 
unset jewels. He declined to pass on
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 9646.
  \2\ Charles Curtis, of Kansas, Vice President.
  \3\ Record p. 10093.
                                                            Sec. 3280
the point of order against the schedules on cherries, on the ground 
that the Chair was in doubt and it was unnecessary as the report was 
being recommitted to the committee of conference on other schedules. He 
sustained the point of order against the schedule on rayon and the 
point of order against the livestock schedule.
  Thereupon, Mr. Reed Smoot, of Utah, moved that the Senate insist on 
its amendments, ask further conference with the House, and that the 
Chair appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The motion being put and being agreed to, the Vice President 
continued the original conferees.
  On a parliamentary inquiry submitted by Mr. Samuel M. Shortridge, of 
California, the Vice President held that an appeal from a decision of 
the Chair must be made immediately following the decision and before 
further business had been transacted.
  In response to a further inquiry by Mr. Shortridge, the Vice 
President ruled that the decision of the Chair just rendered sustaining 
the point of order recommitted the second conference report only and 
did not apply to the first conference report still on the table.
  On the same day \1\ a message from the Senate was received in the 
House transmitting the following resolution:

  Resolved, That the report of the committee of conference on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the various amendments of the 
Senate to the bill (H. R. 2667) entitled ``An act to provide revenue, 
to regulate commerce with foreign countries, to encourage the 
industries of the United States, to protect American labor, and for 
other purposes,'' upon which the first committee of conference on said 
bill were unable to agree, which report was presented to the Senate on 
May 26, 1930, be recommitted to the committee of conference on said 
bill.

  The message having been read, Mr. John N. Garner, of Texas, inquired 
of the Chair of action on the second conference report affected the 
first conference report previously considered and whether it would be 
necessary to reappoint conferees.
  The Speaker \2\ held conferees appointed for the second conference 
had no jurisdiction over matters committed to the first conference; 
that the matters disposed of in the first conference report were no 
longer in conference so far as the House was concerned, and any attempt 
on the part of the conferees of the second conference to modify 
provisions of the first conference report would be subject to a point 
of order.
  The Speaker continued:

  As the Chair understands the parliamentary situation, it is this: A 
point of order was made in the Senate and sustained, based on the 
flexible tariff provision, in that the conferees had exceeded their 
jurisdiction. The rule in the Senate in such cases is that where a 
point of order is made and sustained, the other House not having acted, 
the conferees remain as conferees, and it is automatically recommitted 
to the conference committee. In the House, however, the rule is 
different. Where a point of order is made and sustained, the conferees 
are retired; but in view of the fact that the House has taken no 
action, the conferees not having reported any action of the second 
conference to the House, the Chair thinks that automatically, this 
action having been taken by the Senate, the existing conferees remain 
in so far as the second conference is concerned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Record, p. 9789.
  \2\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
Sec. 3281
  3281. A conference report proposing duties beyond the range of rates 
provided by either House bill or Senate amendments, a point of order 
was sustained and the report was recommitted.
  Conferees reporting tariff rates higher than those provided by bill 
or amendments were held to have exceeded their authority.
  On June 4, 1930,\1\ the Senate resumed consideration of the 
conference report on the bill (H. R. 2667), the tariff bill.
  In the course of the consideration of the report, Mr. Alben W. 
Barkley, of Kentucky, submitted the point of order that the provisions 
of the report extended beyond the scope of either the bill passed by 
the House or the amendments proposed by the Senate.
  Mr. Barkley pointed out that while in both the bill and the Senate 
amendments a duty of 10 per cent ad valorem was levied on set and unset 
watch movement jewels, in the conference report unset jewels were 
transferred to the clock schedule, where they bore a straight duty of 
20 cents each, a duty in excess of that provided by either the House or 
the Senate.
  Mr. Barley further pointed out that although the House bill provided 
a maximum rate of only 7 cents a pound on cheese, and the Senate 
amendments levied a maximum rate of but 5 cents a pound, the conference 
report fixed a duty of 8 cents a pound.
  Mr. Barkley also called attention to the rate of 40 cents per pound 
on rayon carried both in the bill and Senate amendment No. 657, and the 
increase of the rate in the conference report to 45 cents a pound, a 
rate beyond the limit set by either House.
  Mr. Carl Hayden, of Arizona, submitted the further point of order 
that while the bill and Senate amendments provided uniformly for the 
pasturage of domestic cattle across international boundary lines, and 
agreed on a period of eight months' pasturage without payment of duty 
on return, the conference report differentiated between provisions for 
the northern and southern boundaries, and reduced the period of 
pasturage, without duty on return, to three months.
  The Vice President \2\ ruled as to the first point of order:

  The House provision, subsection (d) reads as follows:
  ``Jewels suitable for use in any movement, etc., 10 per cent.''
  The Senate provision reads:
  ``All jewels for use in the manufacture of watches, etc., 10 per 
cent.''
  The conference provides:
  ``Jewels, unset, suitable for use in any movement''--
  The word ``unset'' does not appear in the measure as it passed the 
House, or as it passed the Senate, but was added in conference, thereby 
creating a new classification of jewels.
  The point of order is sustained.

  As to the point of order against the increase in duty on cheese, the 
Vice President held:

  The rates on cheese as carried in the tariff act are as follows:
  House: Cheese and substitutes therefor, 7 cents per pound.
  Senate: Cheese and substitutes therefor, 8 cents per pound.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 10022.
  \2\ Charles Curtis, of Kansas, Vice President.
                                                            Sec. 3282
  The conference report: Cheese and substitutes therefor, 8 cents per 
pound.
  It will be seen from the above that the duty on cheese is increased 
beyond the rates carried in either the House or Senate provisions, 
therefore this point of order is sustained.

  The Vice President sustained the point of order against the rayon 
schedule, as follows:

  The Chair has had submitted quite a number of briefs on the rayon 
amendments and is thoroughly of the opinion, after most careful 
consideration, that the conferees exceeded their authority in changing 
the rates in that schedule and sustains this point of order.

  The point of order on live stock was also sustained in the following 
language:

  It seems to the Chair that the conferees exceeded their authority by 
separating the boundaries and prescribing different time limits from 
those carried in either the act as it came from the House or as it 
passed the Senate.
  This point of order is sustained.

  Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Reed Smoot, of Utah, the Senate insisted 
on its amendments, asked further conference with the House, and 
authorized the appointment of conferees on the part of the Senate.
  3282. Points of order against a conference report are not entertained 
until the report has been read, and may not be made after the statement 
has been read.
  Managers of a conference are limited to the differences committed to 
them and may not inject subjects not within the disagreements between 
the two Houses.
  On October 4, 1919,\1\ Mr. Gilbert N. Haugen, of Iowa, called up the 
conference report on the bill (H. R. 8624) pertaining to rents in the 
District of Columbia, and the Clerk read the title of the bill.
  Mr. Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, proposing to reserve points of 
order on the bill, the speaker ruled that points of order could not be 
entertained until the conference report had read and could not be 
considered after the reading of the statement.
  The reading of the report having been concluded, Mr. James T. Begg, 
of Ohio, made that point of order that the conferees had gone beyond 
their jurisdiction by including the subject of rents for land when the 
differences committed to them concerned only rents for buildings.
  After extended debate, the Speaker \2\ sustained the point of orders 
as follows:

  The Chair appreciates the importance of sustaining a conference 
report, and the Chair has been anxious from the beginning to be able, 
preserving his mental integrity, to rule that this conference report 
was in order. But preserving the authority of the rules of the House is 
more important than the inconvenience of sending a bill back to 
conference, the Chair stated in the beginning of the discussion the 
difficulty which confronted the Chair, hoping that the difficulty would 
be met and removed by argument. The Chair regrets to say that that 
difficulty still confronts him and seems insuperable. The question at 
issue is whether the conference report has gone beyond the subject 
matter of the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment dealt with rents, 
but at the very beginning it practically stated in a definition the 
precise subject with which it dealt, saying, ``The
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 6381.
  \2\ Frederich H. Gillett of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 3283
term `rental property' means any building or part thereof in the 
District of Columbia.'' That seems to the Chair to be the subject of 
the Senate amendment.
  Now the conferees were limited to that general subject. They might 
diminish it. They might take away from it. But the rule is well settled 
that the conferees can not introduce any new subject. Anything in 
connection in the way of procedure referring to the subject matter 
would be allowed. But the difference between the Senate and the House 
was that the Senate dealt with buildings or parts thereof, and the 
House, by disagreeing, refused to deal with anything, so that the 
conferees were limited in their jurisdiction between legislation 
affecting buildings and no legislation at all. They could introduce any 
matter germane to buildings, but they could not go beyond that. They 
introduced the new subject ``land''. It seems to the Chair that if the 
House had not some distinct purpose in view, the word ``land'' would 
not have been inserted. It broadens the scope of the Senate amendment 
by an entirely distinct subject matter: and so the Chair feels 
constrained to sustain the point of order.

  On an appeal from the decision of the Chair by Mr. Ben Johnson, of 
Kentucky, a motion by Mr. Campbell to lay the appeal on the table was 
agreed to without division.
  3283. On May 7, 1920.\1\ the House had under consideration the 
conference report on the diplomatic and consular appropriation bill.
  Mr. Stephen G. Porter, of Pennsylvania, having asked unanimous 
consent that the statement be read in lieu of the report, Mr. Frank 
Gardner, of Indiana, inquired when a point of order should be 
presented.
  The Speaker replied that points of order were properly offered after 
the reading of the report, and in event the reading of the report was 
dispensed with, the should be submitted before the reading of the 
statement, which was in the nature of debate.
  Thereupon, Mr. Tom Connally, of Texas, after Mr. Porter's request had 
been agreed to, and in advance of the reading of the statement, made 
the point of order that the managers had transcended their powers 
including in the conference report the following provision relative to 
the International Boundary Commission:

  Provided, however, That this is to be considered as the final 
appropriation under existing treaties for the maintenance of said 
commission, and the President is hereby requested to notify the 
Republic of Mexico that the United States desires to dissolve the 
commission from and after six months from July 1, 1920.

  The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order.
  3284. A point of order against a conference report is properly made 
after the report has been read and before the reading of the statement.
  Incorporation of new matter, when nonessential, subjects a conference 
report to the point of order that the conferees have exceeded their 
jurisdiction.
  The invalidation of conference report on a pint of order is 
equivalent to is rejection by the House, but does not give the Member 
raising the question of order the right to the floor.
  On January 12, 1917,\3\ Mr. John L. Burnett, of Alabama, called up 
the conference report on the bill (H. R. 10384), the immigration bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 6709.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record p. 1294.
                                                            Sec. 3284
  The Speaker having directed the clerk to read the report, Mr. William 
S. Bennet, of New York, inquired when it would be proper to submit 
points of order.
  The Speaker held that points of order against a conference report 
should be submitted after the report had been read and before the 
reading of the statement, which was in the nature of consideration.
  The reading of the report having been completed, Mr. Bennet made the 
point of order that the conferees had exceeded their authority in 
providing that the act should take effect July 1, 1917, when the dates 
fixed by the House and Senate provisions were July 1, 1916, and May 1, 
1917, respectively.
  Mr. Augustus P. Gardner, of Massachusetts, also made the point of 
order that the conferees in inserting the language--

  And no alien now in any way excluded from or prevented from entering 
the United States shall be admitted to the United States.

had injected new matter not contained in the bill as passed by either 
House.
  Mr. Gardner also raised the point of order that the matter inserted 
giving the Secretary of Labor authority to enter into certain 
negotiations was not within the compass of the matters of difference 
between the two Houses.
  In debating the question of order, Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, 
argued that the date at which the act should take effect was not an 
essential provision and did not constitute the essence of the act and 
should not be permitted to invalidate the entire conference report.
  The Speaker \1\ ruled:

  The Chair is ready to rule on all three of these points. He overrules 
both points made by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Now, on this other point, about this trouble as to time, it is 
unnecessary for the Chair to state that he dislikes exceedingly to rule 
out a conference report on a point of order. But it seems to the Chair 
that it is better to have a rule and stick to it than to have a variety 
of decisions about the very same point.
  This case on the question of time is almost exactly ``on all fours'' 
with the decision the present incumbent of the chair rendered on the 
shipping bill. That was a question about time. In this case the House 
fixed this date of July 1, 1916. The Senate fixed it at May 1, 1917. 
The conferees fix the date as July 1, 1917.
  Well, it may be true, as the gentleman from Illinois states, that it 
is a sort of immaterial matter; but you can not have a ruling one way 
because the Chair or somebody else thinks the matter is immaterial and 
have it the other way when you think it is important.
  Now, on that shipping bill there was this same identical question of 
time, so in rendering that decision I said:
  ``The Chair sustains the point of order as to time.''

  And he gives these reasons:

  ``If there is anything settled about conferences between the two 
Houses it is this: Where two amounts are named and the question is 
referred to the conferees they may oscillate as much as they please 
between the two extremes, but they can not go below the lower amount 
and they can not go above the higher amount. That applies to sums of 
money in appropriation bills. This has been ruled so often that it is 
as familiar as the multiplication table. In tariff bills, where one 
House suggests one rate on any given article and the other House 
suggests another rate the conferees can not go below the lower and they 
can not go above the higher rate.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 3285
  Now, everybody will admit that it is a simple regulation as to a 
tariff bill. If that were not true, the conferees can go out and 
actually make a new tariff bill.
  ``As far as the suggestion that where everything after the acting 
clause is struck out, the conferees have carte blanche to bring in a 
bill, that is not the case here.''
  It is not the case now. There is no use to read the rest of it. The 
Chair sustains the point of order.

  The Speaker then proposed to recognize Mr. Burnett to move 
disposition of the Senate amendments, when Mr. Bennett submitted that 
having preferred a point of order which had been sustained, he was 
entitled to the floor for the purpose of making a preferential motion, 
as when an essential motion by the Member in charge had been decided 
adversely.
  The Speaker dissented and held the sustaining of a point of order was 
not such a proceeding as entitled the opposition to recognition, and 
recognized Mr. Burnett, the Member in charge, to move to send the bill 
to conference.
  3285. Points of order against conference reports should be made after 
the reading of the report and before the reading of the statement, and, 
if the statement is read in lieu of the report, should be made or 
reserved before the reading of the statement.--On April 3, 1992,\1\ the 
House was considering the conference report on the Interior Department 
appropriation bill. In motion of Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, by 
unanimous consent, the statement was read in lieu of the report.
  Following the reading of the statement, Mr. John E. Raker, of 
California, proposed to offer a point of order against the conference 
report.
  Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, objected that it was too late 
to entertain a point of order against the report, as the statement had 
been read.
  The Speaker \2\ stated that while it was well settled that points of 
order could not be entertained after the reading of the statement when 
the conference report was read, he was unable to recall any ruling on 
the question of when points of order must be presented when the 
statement was read in lieu of the report. Mr. James R. Mann, of 
Illinois, recalled that Speaker Clark had ruled on a number of 
occasions that where the statement was read in lieu of the report it 
was necessary to submit points of order before the reading of the 
statement.
  Whereupon, the Speaker announced:

  The Chair is informed by the parliamentary clerk that the Chair has 
never ruled on this question, and no authority is cited for allowing it 
after the statement, and the gentleman from Illinois states that 
Speaker Clark explicitly ruled in such cases that the point of order 
must be reserved. Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

  3286. A point of order as to a conference report should be made 
before debate begins.--On March 3, 1931,\3\ the conference report on 
the bill (H. R. 10672) to amend the naturalization laws with respect to 
notices of petitions for citizenship was taken up in the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4947.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ Third session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 7154
                                                            Sec. 3287
  Debate having begun, Mr. John N. Garner, of Texas, raised the 
question of order that the managers had incorporated in the report 
provisions which were not in disagreement.
  The Speaker \1\ declined to entertain the point of order on the 
ground that it could not be presented after debate had begun.
  3287. Points of order against conference reports should be made 
before the statement is read, and come too late after the reading of 
the statement has been concluded, even where the reading of the report 
has been waived.--On June 24, 1910,\2\ the Clerk concluded the reading 
of the statement of the conferees on the conference report on the 
general deficiency bill.
  Mr. James W. Murphy, of Wisconsin, proposed to lodge a point of order 
against the report.
  Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, submitted that the point of order 
came too late after the reading of the statement.
  The Speaker pro tempore \3\ sustained the point of order and said:

  The statement having been read, the gentleman from Wisconsin, so far 
as the Chair could hear, makes the point of order that in disposing of 
the Senate amendment the conferees have put in something beyond their 
power to insert--something not within their jurisdiction. Now, the 
gentleman from Minnesota makes the point of order that the point of 
order made by the gentleman from Wisconsin comes too late, not having 
been made until after the statement had been read.
  In the Manual, on page 266, section 540, the following appears:
  ``In the House points of order against reports (conference) are made 
or reserved after the report is read and before the reading of the 
statement or consideration begins or the report has been agreed to.''
  That was the ruling made in 1907 by the present Speaker of the House. 
He held that points of order were in time after the reading of the 
report, but out of abundant caution might be reserved in advance of its 
reading, but that after the reading of the statement the point came too 
late, Speaker Henderson ruled to the same effect, as will appear by 
reference to Hinds' Precedents, volume 5, section 6441. The Chair 
thinks that in this case the point of order should have been made or 
reserved before the statement was read. The reading of the report was 
waived by unanimous consent, but that did not prevent the making or 
reserving of a point of order before the statement was read. The Chair 
is of the opinion that at this time it is too late, and sustaining the 
point made by the gentleman from Minnesota, overrules the point of 
order made by the gentleman from Wisconsin.

  3288. When the reading of the conference report is dispensed with, 
points of order must be made before the statement is read.
  Where an amendment of one House proposes to strike out a paragraph of 
a bill of the other, whether a substitute therefor is proposed or not, 
and the amendment has been disagreed to, the conferees have the whole 
subject before them and may report any provision germane thereto.
  To be in order in a conference report a subject must have been 
treated in the bill as it passed the first House, in the amendment of 
the other House, or in an amendment of the first to the amendment of 
the second.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 8963.
  \3\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Speaker pro tempore.
Sec. 3289
  On August 23, 1912,\1\ Mr. John A. Moon, of Tennessee, called up the 
conference report on the Post Office appropriation bill and asked 
unanimous consent that the statement be read in lieu of the report.
  Pending the request, Mr. Victor Murdock, of Kansas, inquired when it 
would be in order to raise a question of order against the report.
  The Speaker informed him that, if the reading of the report was 
dispensed with, points of order, if made at all, should be made before 
the statement was read.
  Thereupon, Mr. Murdock made the point of order that the conferees had 
exceeded their authority by receding from disagreement to Senate 
amendment No. 60 and agreeing to it with an amendment providing an 
appropriation of $35,000 for transporting the mails across the 
Mississippi bridge at St. Louis, not in dispute between the two Houses.
  The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order and said:

  Twice within the last three weeks the Chair has rendered elaborate 
opinions on the very point involved here.
  The rule is clear, and it is a hundred years old, a little more than 
a hundred years, because it was established on the 23d day of June, 
1812, by Speaker Clay. The rule is that a subject that is in a 
conference report must have been treated either by the House, or by an 
amendment of the Senate, or by a House amendment to a Senate amendment. 
It must be germane. That is all that there is in it.
  Now, let us see. Speaker Cannon stated the matter in two or three 
sentences once in a very comprehensive manner, thus:
  ``It is true that if the whole paragraph in the bill as it passed the 
House had been stricken out''--
  And that is practically the case here--
``and a substitute therefor proposed by the Senate, or if the Senate 
had stricken out the paragraph without proposing a substitute, and the 
House had disagreed to the Senate amendment, then the conferees might 
have had jurisdiction touching the whole matter and might have agreed 
upon any provision that would have been germane.''
  That statement can not be improved on as to the rule. Let us see how 
this case fits the rule. The House provision was that--
  ``No part of this appropriation shall be paid for carrying the mail 
over the bridges across the Mississippi River at St. Louis, Mo., over 
and above the regular mileage rates for the transportation of the mail 
by railroad routes.''
  What is the subject of the words I have read? Why, it is carrying the 
mail from East St. Louis, Ill., to the city of St. Louis, Mo. That is 
all there is to that. What does the Senate amendment do? It treats of 
identically the same subject, and nothing else. What does this 
provision which has been put in by the conferees do? It treats of 
identically the same subject, and nothing else. If there ever was a 
case that fits the rule as laid down by Speaker Cannon, in which he 
followed all his predecessors, it is this one, and the point of order 
is overruled.

  3289. It is too late to raise a question of order against a 
conference report after the statement is read, whether after the 
reading of the report or in lieu of the report. On June 12, 1917,\3\ 
the House took up the consideration of the conference report on the 
urgent deficiency appropriation bill.
  On motion of Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, by unanimous 
consent, the statement was ordered read in lieu of the report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Report, p. 11755-11759.
  \2\ Champ Clerk, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 3537.
                                                            Sec. 3290
  The Clerk having completed the reading of the statement, Mr. Chas. 
Pope Caldwell, of New York, raised a question of order against the 
report.
  Mr. Fitzgerald submitted that the objection was not in order at this 
stage of the proceedings.
  The Speaker' sustained the point of order and said:

  The gentleman's point of order comes too late.

  3290. On June 20, 1932,\2\ Mr. John McDuffie, of Alabama, called up 
the conference report on the bill (H. R. 11267), the legislative 
appropriation bill, and asked unanimous consent that the statement be 
read in lieu of the report.
  The Speaker pro tempore \3\ submitted the request and announced there 
was no objection, and directed the Clerk to read.
  In the course of the reading of the statement, Mr. Fiorello H. 
LaGuardia, of New York, interrupted and proposed to reserve all points 
of order on the conference report.
  Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, objected that the reservation 
came too late after the reading of the statement had begun.
  The Speaker pro tempore sustained the point of order and said:

  If the gentleman will permit, the gentleman from Alabama asked 
unanimous consent that the statement be read in lieu of the report, and 
the Clerk began the reading of the statement. Thereupon, after a part 
of the statement had been read, the gentleman from New York sought to 
interpose a reservation of points of order. The request came too late.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 13509.
  \3\ William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, Speaker pro tempore.