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


 
                  CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORTS.

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

   1. Reports and statements printed in the Record. Sections 3298, 
     3299.
   2. The pending question. Section 3300.
   3. Original bill and amendments must be before the House. 
     Sections 3301, 3302.
   4. Effect of rejection of report. Section 3303.
   5. Must be acted on as a whole without amendment. Sections 
     3304-3307.
   6. Amendment of, by concurrent action by both Houses. Sections 
     3308, 3309.
   7. Recommital of. Sections 3310-3328.
   8. Reports of inability to agree. Section 3329.
   9. Custody of papers and report after failure to agree. 
     Sections 3330-3332.

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

  3298. A conference report and the accompanying statement must be 
correctly printed in the Record, and although the original report and 
statement are correct, an error in printing either renders it subject 
to the point of order that it does not comply with the rule.--On April 
25, 1912,\2\ Mr. William Sulzer, of New York, called up the conference 
report on the diplomatic and consular appropriation bill, when Mr. 
Courtney W. Hamlin, of Missouri, made the point of order that the 
statement was not correctly printed in the Record.
  Mr. Sulzer characterized the point of order as a mere technicality 
and explained that the original copy was correct and the discrepancies 
in the printed version appearing in the Record were due to errors on 
the part of the printer.
  The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order and held that the report 
and the statement had not been printed in the Record as required by the 
rule until they were printed correctly.
  3299. When conferees report that they have been unable to agree, the 
report is not acted on, and need not be printed in the Record before 
the amendments in disagreement are again taken up in the House.
  Form of report of conferees on general disagreement.
  On July 14, 1932,\4\ Mr. Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, submitted the 
following:
    conference report
  The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses on the bill (H. R. 9642) to authorize supplemental 
appropriations for emergency highway construction, with a view to 
increasing employment, having met, after full and free conference, have 
been unable to agree.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Supplementary to Chapter CXXXVII.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 5330.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 15378.
                                                            Sec. 3300

                               statement
  The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H. R. 9642) to 
authorize supplemental appropriations for emergency highway 
construction, with a view to increasing employment, submit the 
following written statement:
  The committee of conference between the two Houses have been unable 
to reach any conclusion.

  Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, objected that the conference 
report had not been printed in the Record.
  The Speaker \1\ explained.

  This is the first experience the present occupant of the Chair has 
had in these matters. The Chair thinks that where the conferees report 
that they have been unable to agree it is not necessary to act upon the 
conference report. The Chair is supported in that by a decision made by 
Mr. Speaker Reed, which may be found in Hinds' Precedents, Volume V, 
section 6562. Therefore, the Chair thinks that under these 
circumstances, where there is nothing in the conference report to agree 
to, the rule providing for printing in the Record would not apply and 
that the matter could be disposed of immediately after the reading of 
the report.

  The Clerk having read the report, Mr. Rainey moved that the House 
further insist on its amendment to the Senate amendment numbered 1 and 
insist on its disagreement to Senate amendment numbered 2.
  Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, inquired whether agreement to the 
motion would put the House in any different position than that in which 
it found itself before the conferees reported.
  The Speaker said:

  If the House insists upon its amendment to the Senate amendment, the 
matter will go back to the Senate for such action as they want to take. 
The House acted upon this yesterday, insisting on the House amendment 
and asking a conference. This motion, if agreed to, will send the bill 
back to the Senate and will give the Senate another opportunity to 
consider the House amendment.

  3300. A conference report being presented, the question on agreeing 
to it is regarded as pending.--On September 15, 1922,\2\ the Senate was 
considering the conference report on the bill (H. R. 10874) to provide 
adjusted compensation for veterans of the World War, when the President 
pro tempore \3\ put the question on agreeing to the conference report.
  Mr. Pat Harrison, of Mississippi, objected that no motion to agree to 
the report had been made.
  The President pro tempore overruled the point of order and held that 
when a conference report was taken up for consideration the question on 
agreeing to the report was automatically before the Senate.
  Mr. Harrison having appealed from the decision of the Chair, the yeas 
were 33, the nays were 21, and the decision of the Chair stood as the 
judgment of the Senate.
  3301. A conference report may not be considered when the original 
bill and accompanying papers are not before the House.--On September 
14, 1922; \4\.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John N. Garner, of Texas, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 12683.
  \3\ Albert B. Cummins, of Iowa, President pro tempore.
  \4\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 12566.
Sec. 3302
the President pro tempore laid before the Senate a message from the 
House of Representatives notifying the Senate that the House had 
recommitted the tariff bill to the committee of conference with 
instructions to its managers to agree to the Senate amendments putting 
potash on the free list and striking out the dye embargo.
  Mr. Porter J. McCumber, of North Dakota, made the point of order that 
it was not necessary for the Senate to take action on the message.
  After debate, the President pro tempore \1\ sustained the point of 
order and said:

  A point of order has been made the Chair sustains the point of order.
  Allow the Chair to state the reason why the point of order is 
sustained. It is because there was laid before the Senate merely the 
notice from the House with regard to its action on the conference 
report upon the tariff bill, but there is before the Senate what is 
known as the grain futures bill.
  It is the understanding of the Chair that the House granted the 
conference, that the papers are therefore with the House, and that the 
report must be first made and first acted upon in the House.

  3302. While a conference report may not be considered when the 
original papers are not before the House, the failure of the Clerk to 
certify to their authenticity may be remedied when the question is 
raised, and does not invalidate proceedings relating to them.
  Members of a committee of conference may not file supplemental 
reports nor submit minority views.
  On January 17, 1913,\2\ Mr. John L. Burnett, of Alabama, called up 
the conference report on the bill (S. 3175), the immigration bill.
  The Speaker \3\ said:

  The Chair is of the impression that a minority Member, under the 
rules or precedents, can not file a minority report, although the Chair 
recollects that he himself, as a member of a conference committee, 
threatened to do it once on a very serious question.
  The Chair will state that he investigated that matter some years ago, 
because he was on a conference and there was a very bitterly contested 
proposition, and the present occupant of the chair then threatened to 
file a minority report. He investigated the authorities as best he 
could at that time and found out that he could not make a minority 
report under the rules and precedents.
  The Chair rules that way. Of course, if the gentleman from Illinois 
does not sign the conference report, that shows prima facie that he is 
against it.

  Thereupon, Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order 
that the conference report could not be received until the original 
papers were in possession of the House, and that there was no evidence 
that all the original papers were before the House for the reason that 
the Clerk had failed to certify the resolution transmitting the House 
amendment to the Senate.
  The Speaker overruled the point of order, saying:

  The House part that is attached to the original Senate bill does not 
seem to have been attested by the House Clerk. If we can get hold of 
him we can have him sign it nunc pro tunc. The Speaker
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Albert B. Cummins, of Iowa, President pro tempore.
  \2\ Third session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 1683.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3303
has never investigated it, but he thinks he would have the same power 
in that kind of a case that a nisi prius judge has.
  This document, purporting to be the conference report, has been read. 
The Chair does not have any doubt the right of the Speaker to order the 
Clerk to sign that document.
  Here is the situation: We have a certified copy of the Senate bill. 
Then we have the conference report sent over by the Senate, with this 
House amendment, striking out all after the enacting clause and 
enacting a new law, so far as the House could make a law, and the Clerk 
failed to sign it. But the fact that the Senate bill has come back here 
attached to the House amendment seems to the Chair to be reasonable 
proof that the document that purports to be the report from the House 
that is included in this bundle of papers it is the same document that 
the Clerk sent over to the Senate.
  Now comes the Clerk of the House and attests it.
  The gentleman from Illinois is a lawyer and has seen a hundred times, 
if not more, orders entered nunc pro tunc in a nisi prius court without 
objection from anybody. If there was any doubt about this being the 
correct paper, of course, we would not tolerate it for a second.

  3303. A conference report having been rejected, motions for 
disposition of matter in disagreement and further conference are 
privileged.--On April 20, 1922,\1\ the House rejected the conference 
report on the independent offices appropriation bill, yeas 140, nays 
154.
  Thereupon, Mr. William R. Wood, of Indiana, asked unanimous consent 
for the immediate consideration of the matters in disagreement.
  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, objected to the request. Mr. 
Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, submitted that unanimous consent was not 
necessary, and the conference report having been rejected, motions for 
the disposition of the Senate amendments in dispute were privileged.
  The Speaker pro tempore \2\ sustained the latter contention and 
recognized Mr. Wood to move for disposition of the Senate amendments 
and further conference.
  3304. A conference report must be acted on as a whole.--On June 26, 
1919,\3\ the Senate was considering the conference report on the 
agricultural appropriation bill.
  Mr. Aisle J. Gronna, of North Dakota, moved to agree to a part of the 
report.
  The President pro tempore \4\ ruled:

  The Chair will state that the only question than can be before the 
Senate is the question of agreeing or disagreeing to the conference 
report as a whole.

  3305. On June 29, 1916,\5\ in the Senate, Mr. Thomas S. Martin, of 
Virginia, submitted the conference report on the sundry civil 
appropriation bill.
  Mr. John E. Martine, of New Jersey, moved to disagree to a portion of 
the report striking out an amendment which he had introduced and that 
the conferees be instructed to insist on the disagreement.
  Mr. Martin raised a question of order against the motion.
  The Vice President \6\ sustained the point of order and said:

  There can be no question but that the report must be agreed to as a 
whole or rejected as a whole.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6301.
  \2\ William J. Graham, of Illinois, Speaker pro tempore.
  \3\ First session Sixty-sxith Congress, Record, p. 1821.
  \4\ Joseph S. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, President pro tempore.
  \5\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 10221.
  \6\ Thomas R. Marshall, of Indiana, Vice President.
Sec. 3306
  3306. A conference report is not subject to amendment, but must be 
considered and disposed of as a whole.--On May 17, 1917,\1\ the Senate 
had under consideration the conference report on the bill (H. R. 3545) 
to authorize the President to increase the Military Establishment.
  In the course of the debate, Mr. William J. Stone, of Missouri, as a 
parliamentary inquiry, desired to know when it would be in order to 
move to amend provisions of the conference report.
  The Vice President \2\ held that a conference report is not subject 
to amendment, but must be considered and acted on as a whole.
  3307. A question of order may not be sustained against a portion of a 
conference report without affecting the entire report, and modification 
can only be effected by rejection of the report and instruction of a 
new conference or, when the managers on the part of the Senate have not 
been discharged, by a motion to recommit with instructions.--On May 15, 
1920,\3\ Mr. Stephen G. Porter, of Pennsylvania, called up the 
conference report on the diplomatic and consular appropriation bill.
  The report having been read, Mr. Isaac Siegel, of New York, made a 
point of order that the conferees had exceeded their authority by 
including in the report matter relating to fees for passports and 
visas, which were not in disagreement between the two Houses.
  After debate, Mr. Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, as a Parliamentary 
inquiry, asked if the point of order was not directed at a certain 
portion of the conference report and not intended to apply to the 
remainder of the report.
  Mr. Siegel dissented, and insisted that the point of order must lie 
against the entire report.
  The Speaker \4\ ruled:

  If any point of order is made, it is made against the whole 
conference report.

  The Speaker than overruled the point of order.
  Whereupon, Mr. Tom Connally, of Texas, inquired what steps could be 
taken to eliminate objectionable portions of a conference report.
  The Speaker replied:

  There are two ways. The conference report could be voted down, and 
then everything would be open; or it has been held in recent years that 
a motion to recommit is in oder, if the Senate has not acted on the 
conference report.
  If the Senate has acted, there can not be a motion to recommit. The 
only course would be to vote down the conference report. The question 
is on agreeing to the conference report.

  3308. Conference reports may be amended by concurrent action of the 
two Houses.--On February 27, 1931,\5\ on motion of Mr. George S. 
Graham, of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2435.
  \2\ Thomas R. Marshall, of Indiana, Vice President.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7123.
  \4\ Frederick H. Gillet, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \5\ Third session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 6279.
                                                            Sec. 3309
Pennsylvania, by unanimous consent, the House proceeded to the 
consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 52) reading as 
follows:

  Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes 
of the two Houses on the bill of the House (H. R. 980) entitled ``An 
act to permit the United states to be made a party defendant in certain 
cases,'' heretofore agreed to by the two Houses, be amended by adding 
at the end of the amendment agreed to in the report the following new 
section:
``Sec 7. This act shall not apply to any lien of the United States held 
by it or for its benefit under the Federal reclamation laws.''

  3309. A concurrent resolution providing for recommitment to 
conference is not privileged for introduction from the floor.--On 
August 8, 1912,\1\ during the consideration of the conference report on 
the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill, Mr. 
Augustus P. Gardner, of Massachusetts, offered the following concurrent 
resolution:

  Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That House bill 24023 be recommitted to the committee on conference on 
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.

  Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, raised this question of order:

  Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the resolution, being a 
concurrent resolution, can only be introduced, except by unanimous 
consent, through the basked, as it is not a privileged resolution. This 
rule is well established.

  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair thinks that the point of order is well taken. The Chair 
investigated this matter two or three days ago, not in anticipation of 
any trouble connected with this bill, but in connection with another 
bill, and certainly this resolution is not privileged. Therefore the 
Chair sustains the point of order. The question is on the adoption of 
the conference report.

  3310. It is in order for one body to recommit a conference report, if 
the other body, by action on the report, has not discharged its 
managers. On February 16, 1921,\3\ during consideration of the 
conference report on the bill (H. R. 11984) to increase salaries in the 
Patent Office, Mr. Schuyler Merritt, of Connecticut, moved to recommit 
the report to the committee of conference.
  Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, objected that the motion was not in 
order and, if recommitted, the bill should not go to the committee of 
conference, but to the standing committee of the House having 
jurisdiction.
  The Speaker \4\ dissented and said:

  The Chair overrules the point of order. The conferees are not 
discharged until the conference report is agreed to, or something else 
happens. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from 
Connecticut to recommit the bill with instruction to disagree to 
section 9.

  3311. It is in order to recommit a conference report, if the other 
House by action on the report has not discharged its managers, and 
after the previous question is ordered on agreement, the motion to 
recommit with or without instructions is privileged.--On June 10, 
1929,\5\ the previous question was
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session sixty-second Congress, record, p. 10500.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \3\ Third session sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3268.
  \4\ Frederick H. Gillet, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 2616.
Sec. 3312
ordered on agreeing to the conference report on the bill (S. 312) to 
provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses.
  Whereupon, Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, moved to recommit the 
conference report to the committee of conference with instructions to 
the managers on the part of the House to substitute May, 1930, for 
December, 1929, as the date for taking the census.
  Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, made the point of order that the 
motion was not admissible until the conference report had been disposed 
of.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  The Chair does not think there is any question at all that a motion 
to recommit is in order at this stage of the proceedings. The conferees 
are still in existence, and a motion to recommit can always be made 
after the previous question has been ordered. The question is on the 
motion of the gentleman from Mississippi.

  3312. After the previous question has been ordered on a conference 
report, the motion to recommit with instructions is privileged, if the 
other House has not discharged its conferees.--On November 21, 1921,\2\ 
the previous question was ordered on agreeing to the conference report 
on the revenue bill.
  Thereupon, Mr. John N. Garner, of Texas, moved to recommit the 
conference report to the committee of conference with instructions to 
agree to Senate amendment No. 582, relating to rates of the estate tax.
  Mr. Everett Sanders, of Indiana, raised a question of order against 
the motion and argued that, while the simple motion to recommit was 
privileged, the motion to recommit with instructions was not in order 
after the previous question was operating.
  The Speaker pro tempore \3\ ruled:

  The gentleman from Texas offers a motion to recommit the conference 
report to the committee on conference, with instructions to the 
managers on the part of the House to concur in a certain Senate 
amendment.
  The gentleman from Indiana makes the point of order that, the 
previous question having been ordered on the question of agreeing to 
the conference report, a motion to recommit with instructions is not in 
order. The Chair will state that under the rules of the House the 
adoption of the previous question, or its being adopted by unanimous 
consent, does not shut out one motion to recommit. The rules have been 
careful to preserve a motion to recommit, going to the extent of 
providing that the Committee on Rules may not report a rule which will 
shut out one motion to recommit. The question of recommitting a 
conference report to the committee on conference or to the managers on 
the part of the House is in some respects similar to recommitting a 
bill to one of the standing committees of the House, and while it is 
usual to recommit bills to the standing committees of the House with 
instructions, it is not always necessary that instructions be included 
in the motion to recommit.
  In this instance the conference is, so to speak, still in existence; 
that is, at least until action has been had on the part of the House. 
The House being the body to which the conference report is first 
submitted by action in this particular case, the conferees are still 
subject to action by the House, if the House under a proper motion sees 
fit to instruct them or takes such other action as may be proper for 
their guidance.
  The motion to recommit a conference report with instructions has been 
of comparatively recent origin. It has been permitted several times, 
and on February 16, 1921, the previous ques-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 8085.
  \3\Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Speaker pro tempore.
                                                            Sec. 3313
tion had been ordered on adopting a conference report on a bill to 
increase the salaries in the Patent Office. The gentleman from 
Connecticut, Mr. Merrit, at that time offered a motion to recommit the 
report to the committee on conference, with instructions not to agree 
to section 9 of the Senate bill, which happened to be section 11 in the 
conference report. A point of order was made at that time by the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Blanton, and the Speaker overruled the point 
of order, saying:
  ``The conferees are not discharged until the conference report is 
agreed to or something else happens.''
  In this instance the Chair thinks an analogous situation is 
presented, and he holds that the measure is still in a situation that 
if the House shall see fit to recommit it with instructions the 
conferees would be bound by such instructions.
  The Chair overrules the point of order.
  The question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Texas to 
recommit the conference report to the committee of conference with 
certain instructions.

  3313. A motion to recommit a conference report is not in order, if 
the other House by action on the report has discharged its managers.--
On March 3, 1915,\1\ the Senate was considering the conference report 
on the naval appropriation bill when Mr. Henry F. Lippitt, of Rhode 
Island, moved to recommit the report to the committee of conference 
with instructions.
  Mr. Claude A. Swanson, of Virginia, raised the question of order that 
the motion was not admissible for the reason that the House by agreeing 
to the report had discharged its managers.
  The Vice President \2\ held that the point of order was well taken 
and said:

  The record shows that it has been agreed to in the other House.
  It has been decided that when one House acts and agrees to a report 
and the conferees have been discharged there is no committee of 
conference.
  There is no doubt about this question.

  3314. On March 24, 1928,\3\ on motion of Mr. James E. Watson, of 
Indiana, by unanimous consent, the Senate proceeded to the further 
consideration of the conference report on the bill (S. 2317) continuing 
for one year the powers and authority of the Federal Radio Commission 
under the radio act of 1927.
  After debate, Mr. Kenneth McKellar, of Tennessee, moved to recommit 
the report to the committee of conference of the two Houses with 
instructions to the Senate conferees to insist on an amendment striking 
out a section of the radio act of 1927 and inserting in lieu thereof a 
section relating to equal zones of transmission and reception in radio 
broadcasting.
  The Vice President \4\ ruled:

  The Chair will state that under the precedents governing the 
recommital of conference reports a motion to recommit a conference 
report is not in order where the other House has agreed to the report, 
inasmuch as the conferees on the part of the body agreeing to the 
report have thereby been discharged.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session, Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 5236.
  \2\ Thomas R. Marshall, of Indiana, Vice President.
  \3\ First session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 5304; Senate 
Journal, p. 295.
  \4\ Charles Curtis, of Kansas, Vice President.
Sec. 3315
  3315. On June 15, 1933,\1\ the legislative day of June 14, in the 
course of the consideration of the conference report on the fourth 
deficiency appropriation bill, in the Senate, Mr. Lynn J. Frazier, of 
North Dakota, presented a motion to recommit the report to the 
conferees.
  The Presiding Officer \2\ said:

  The Chair is advised that under the rules where one House has 
approved a conference report, it can not be recommitted.

  3316. Either House having acted on a conference report, it may be 
recommitted only by concurrent action of the two Houses.--On May 3, 
1926,\3\ on motion of Mr. Edward E. Denison, of Illinois, the 
proceedings by which the House had agreed to the conference report on 
the bill (H. R. 8771) to construct a bridge across the Detroit River, 
were vacated.
  Subsequently, on the same day, Mr. Denison proposed to file an 
amended conference report correcting errors discovered by the enrolling 
clerk in the original report.
  The Speaker \4\ held that vacation of the proceedings by which the 
conference report had been agreed to left the report pending and a 
further conference report was not in order.
  Whereupon,\5\ Mr. Denison, proceeding by unanimous consent, offered 
the following:

  Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes 
of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 
8771) to extend the times for commencing and completing the 
construction of a bridge across the Detroit River within or near the 
city limits of Detroit, Mich., be recommitted to the committee of 
conference.

  The concurrent resolution was agreed to and on the same day was 
adopted by the Senate, and an amended conference report was then filed.
  3317. Conference reports must be adopted or rejected as reported and 
any modifications however slight may be remedied only by recommitment 
\6\ to the committee of conference.--On June 30, 1919,\7\ Mr. Thomas S. 
Butler, of Pennsylvania, called up the conference report on the naval 
appropriation bill, and preferred a request for unanimous consent to 
transpose the words ``House'' and ``Senate,'' as they appeared in the 
report. Mr. Butler explained that in the haste of transcription the 
Clerk had inadvertently used the wrong blank and the report, as 
prepared, indicated that in a number of instances the Senate had 
receded when in fact it was the House which had receded. Mr. Butler 
added that a similar request would be made in the Senate by the Senate 
conferees, and in this way it was hoped to remedy the defect in the 
conference report without further delay.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Seventy-third Congress, Record, p. 6061; Senate 
Journal, p. 300.
  \2\ Royal S. Copeland, of New York, Presiding Officer.
  \3\ First session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 8612.
  \4\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \5\ Record, p. 8617.
  \6\ After conference reports are agreed to modifications may be 
effected by concurrent resolution, V. 6536, 6537.
  \7\ First session sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2101.
                                                            Sec. 3319
  Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, objected and maintained that a 
conference report could not be modified in this manner, however 
immaterial the defect.
  The Speaker \1\ sustained Mr. Walsh's contention and held that the 
proper remedy was to recommit the bill to the committee of conference 
for correction.
  Accordingly, the conference report was recommitted, and being again 
reported with the desired corrections, was agreed to on the same day.
  3318. On September 19, 1918,\2\ Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, 
rising to a question of privilege, called attention to a number of 
clerical errors in the conference report on the bill (H. R. 11283) 
amending the Federal reserve act, agreed to by the House on the 
preceding day.
  The errors having been verified, Mr. Carter Glass, of Virginia, 
preferred a request for unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized 
to make the corrections.
  Mr. Martin D. Foster, of Illinois, objected that it was not in order 
to amend a conference report.
  The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order.
  3319. Recognition to move recommitment of a conference report is due 
Members opposed to the report, regardless of party affiliations, but in 
the absence of other considerations preference is accorded Members of 
the minority--On February 14, 1919,\4\ the House was considering the 
conference report on the bill (H. R. 13274) validating informal war 
contracts, when Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, submitted a 
parliamentary inquiry as to who was entitled to move to recommit the 
report.
  The Speaker \3\ replied:

  The first man who gets up in opposition to the bill is entitled to 
it. The Chair has always given preference in making the motion to 
recommit to the minority. Still, the rule is for the man who qualifies 
to oppose the bill to have that right.
  The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, if he 
qualifies. Is the gentleman from Oklahoma opposed to this bill?

  Mr. Charles D. Carter, of Oklahoma, referred to, replied that he was 
opposed to the report with an amendment which it carried.
  The Speaker said:

  If the gentleman will qualify without any limitation, the Chair will 
recognize him.

  3320. The motion to recommit a conference report to the committee of 
conference is admitted under the Senate practice.--On October 5, 
1914,\5\ the Senate was considering the conference report on the bill 
(H. R. 15657) to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints 
and monopolies, when Mr. James A. Reed, of Missouri, moved to recommit 
the conference report to the committee of conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 10499.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \4\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 3355.
  \5\ Second session Sixty-third Congress Journal, p. 195; Record, p. 
161687.
Sec. 3321
  Mr. Charles A. Culberson, of Texas, objected that the motion was 
unprivileged.
  The Vice President \1\ ruled:

  The pending question was, of course, and has been for days, on 
agreeing to the conference report. The Senator from Missouri now moves 
to recommit the bill to the conferees. The Chair, in the course of a 
week, has examined most of the decisions of the Senate of the United 
States upon the question. There have been some rulings against the 
recommittal of a conference report, but the great majority of the 
rulings are to the effect that if the Senate chooses so to do it can 
recommit a conference report. The Chair holds the motion to recommit 
without instructions to be in order.

  3321. Formerly announcement of the recommitment of a conference 
report was messaged to the Senate, but under the modern practice the 
other House is not notified, and managers on the part of the House 
carry the papers back to conference, and a new report is formulated.--
On June 30, 1919,\2\ a message was received in the Senate announcing 
that the House had recommitted to the committee of conference the Army 
appropriation bill.
  The message was accompanied by the papers.
  The message having been reported in the Senate, Mr. James W. 
Wadsworth, of New York, rising in his place, objected to receipt of the 
message and said:

  Mr. President, I desire to make a statement to the Senate.
  The conferees on the Army bill reached a full and complete agreement 
Saturday midnight. The conferees on the part of the House submitted 
their report to the House to-day. After an extended debate a motion was 
made to recommit the bill to the conference committee, and that motion 
was adopted by the House of Representatives. Apparently, the motion was 
regarded as a message from the House to the Senate, and the papers have 
been sent over here by an official messenger of the House, and the 
Senate has been officially notified that the House has adopted a motion 
to recommit.
  I believe, Mr. President, that this is not a message which can be 
properly sent to the Senate. The situation is this: The Senate 
conferees have not as yet submitted their report to the Senate. 
Therefore, we have not been discharged from the consideration of the 
matters upon which the two Houses are in difference. The Senate 
conferees are still authorized, as it were, to meet with the House 
conferees upon their request; and it occurs to me that these papers 
should be returned to the House. Their motion to recommit the bill to 
the conference committee affects the House Journal alone, not the 
Senate Journal; and upon the invitation or request of the House members 
of the conference committee, the Senate members of the conference 
committee will gladly meet with them.

  The Vice President \1\ ruled:

  The papers should go back.

  3322. On February 22, 1921,\3\ on a motion of Mr. George Holden 
Tinkham, of Massachusetts, modified by an amendment of Mr. Alben W. 
Barkley, of Kentucky, the House recommitted the conference report on 
the first deficiency appropriation bill with instructions to the 
managers on the part of the House to concur in Senate amendment No. 30 
increasing the appropriation for enforcement of the national 
prohibition act.
  However, the messages transmitted to the Senate on this and 
subsequent days do not announce the recommitment of the report. Prior 
to this time it was the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Thomas R. Marshall, of Indiana, Vice President.
  \2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2074.
  \3\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3645.
                                                            Sec. 3323
custom of the House to notify the Senate of such action, but from this 
time the practice was discontinued and the other House is no longer 
informed of the recommitment of conference reports. When recommitted, 
managers on the part of the house carry the papers back to conference 
and a new report is formulated.
  3323. In an exceptional instance the Senate transmitted a message to 
the House announcing recommitment of a conference report, but did not 
transmit the papers.--On May 23, 1928,\1\ a message was transmitted to 
the House announcing that the Senate had recommitted to the committee 
of conference the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 46) providing for the 
utilization of the Muscle Shoals plant in the manufacture of 
fertilizer.
  On receipt of the message \2\ in the House, Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of 
Illinois, submitted a parliamentary inquiry as to the parliamentary 
situation and inquired whether a report had been made by the House 
conferees.
  The Speaker \3\ replied that the managers on the part of the House 
had not reported and therefore had not been discharged and that the 
committee of conference was still in existence and has jurisdiction of 
the report as recommitted.
  In response to a question from Mr. John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, 
the Speaker explained that the papers properly remained with the 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Answering a further inquiry by Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
the Speaker held that no action on the message would be taken by the 
house, as the matter was in the hands of the committee of conference, 
and no action was in order in the House until report of the conference 
was received.
  3324. Overruling a decision of the Chair, the Senate held it was not 
in order to request the House to return papers in possession of the 
conferees.--On April 12, 1918,\4\ in the Senate, Mr. Wesley L. Jones, 
of Washington, proposed to enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which the Senate on the previous day had rejected the conference report 
on the bill (S. 383) to punish the willful destruction of war material 
and to request the House to return the papers to the Senate.
  Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massachusetts, said he had been informed 
that the House had agreed to the request of the Senate for a 
conference, and made the point of order that the motion was not in 
order, for the reason that the papers were no longer in possession of 
the House, but were in the custody of the committee of conference.
  The Presiding Officer \5\ held that inasmuch as the Senate had not 
been notified of the action of the House in agreeing to conference, the 
motion to request the return of the papers was in order and should be 
decided by the Senate without debate.
  Thereupon, Mr. Jacob H. Gallinger, of New Hampshire, appealed from 
the decision of the Chair.
  The question being submitted to the Senate, and the yeas and nays 
being ordered the yeas were 29 and the nays were 35, and the decision 
of the Chair was not sustained.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 9606.
  \2\ Record, p. 9664.
  \3\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 5013.
  \5\ Andrieus A. Jones, of New Mexico, Presiding Officer.
Sec. 3325
  3325.  The fact that a conference report has been previously 
recommitted to the committee of conference with instructions, does not 
precluded a motion to recommit the amended report.--On September 13, 
1922,\1\ the House recommitted to the committee of conference the 
conference report on the tariff bill with instructions pertaining to 
duties on potash and dyes.
  On September 15,\2\ the conference report modified to conform to the 
instructions imposed on the conferees was again taken up for 
consideration.
  The previous question having been ordered, Mr. John N. Garner, of 
Texas, moved to recommit the report to the committee of conference with 
instructions relating to the rates of the sugar schedule.
  Mr. Horace M. Towner, of Iowa, cited paragraph 4 of Rule XVI, 
reading--

  After the previous question shall have been ordered on the passage of 
a bill or joint resolution, one motion to recommit shall be in order.

and made the point of order that one motion to recommit having been 
previously entertained it was not in order to now offer a second motion 
recommit.
  The Speaker \3\ ruled:

  If this were a novel question the Chair would be disposed to give 
more consideration to the points raised by the gentleman from Iowa, but 
the right to a motion to recommit after the previous question has been 
ordered is of many years' standing. This very question, whether when 
the House had recommitted a bill and it came back another motion to 
recommit could be offered, arose under Speaker Carlisle, who, in answer 
to the claim that there having been one motion to recommit which 
succeeded, there could not be another, said:
  ``This is not the same proposition at all. At the time the House 
recommitted the bill to the Committee on Appropriations, with 
instructions to report it back after striking out a certain clause, 
there was in the bill a provision to pay certain employees of the 
Government a month's extra compensation. The bill being then on its 
passage, it was recommitted to the Committee on Appropriations under 
these instructions. It now comes back under a rule of the House, and is 
on its third reading, and open for further amendment. The bill does not 
now contain that clause. It is an entirely different report from the 
Committee on Appropriations from that upon which the House was acting 
an hour or so ago. * * *
Under the rule there can be but one motion to recommit the bill when 
the question is on its passage, and no other motion can be made. But 
this is a different bill, a different report from the committee, and 
the motion is in order.''
  It seems to the Chair the principle then enunciated covers this case. 
This is a different report from the one which the motion to recommit 
was made yesterday, for the conferees have changed it. If the Chair 
should rule in acordance with the suggestion of the gentleman from 
Iowa, it would never be possible to have the motion to recommit on any 
conference report, if when the bill was on its passage there had been 
one motion to recommit, because under that logic, there having been one 
motion to recommit, there could never be another. The House is well 
aware of the constant practice to the contrary. The case which the 
Chair referred to once before to-day, of the Army bill at the beginning 
of the war, is in point. If the Chair remembers correctly it went back 
to the conference committee several times under new motions to 
recommit. The Chair is constrained by the continuous practice of the 
House and by the precedents to overrule the point of order.

  3326.  When a conference report is recommitted to the committee of 
conference, it is not subject to further action in the House until 
again reported by the managers.--On May 12, 1917,\4\ the House agreed 
to a motion by Mr.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 12531.
  \2\ Record, p. 12717.
  \3\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2216.
                                                            Sec. 3327
Daniel R. Anthony, of Kansas, that the conference report on the bill 
(H. R. 3545) to increase the Military Establishment be recommitted to 
the committee of conference with instructions providing for the 
organization of four infantry divisions.
  The vote having been announced, the Speaker \1\ held, in response to 
a parliamentary inquiry from Mr. S. Hubert Dent, Jr., of Alabama, that 
the bill was thereby returned to the jurisdiction of the conferees to 
await their report.
  3327. On February 14, 1919,\2\ the conference report on bill (H. R. 
13274) to validate informal war contracts, was under consideration in 
the House, when on motion of Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, it 
was recommitted to the committee of conference with instructions.
  Mr. Otis Wingo, of Arkansas, inquired as to the status of the report 
after recommitment.
  The Speaker replied that it had been returned to the conferees.
  3328. A conference report having been recommitted to the committee of 
conference, the papers are no longer before the House, and no motion 
for disposition of the amendments in disagreement is in order.--On 
April 3, 1922,\3\ the House recommitted to the committee of conference 
the conference report on the independent offices appropriation bill 
with instructions to the managers on the part of the House not to agree 
to any proposition involving the payment of salaries under the Shipping 
Board in excess of $25,000.
  Thereupon, Mr. William R. Wood, of Indiana, proposed to secure the 
opinion of the House on a number of Senate amendments in disagreement.
  Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that the 
conference report having been recommitted, the bill and papers were no 
longer before the House.
  The Speaker \4\ sustained the point of order and said:

  The Chair is disposed to think inasmuch as the bill has to go back to 
the conferees with the conference report, that would carry with it the 
whole subject matter.
  The House has disagreed to all of the Senate amendments that are not 
yet disposed of, and these amendments have already been sent to 
conference. The House just recommitted the conference report, and all 
of those amendments are now in the hands of the conferees.
  The Chair thinks that it would undoubtedly save time if we could vote 
on these amendments now, but the Chair finds it difficult to see how 
the House can legally do it.
  The Chair does not see, inasmuch as the bill and report go back to 
conference, how you can separate the matters in disagreement from the 
bill.
  The Chair rules that the matter has all gone to conference.

  3329. When conferees report that they have been unable to agree, the 
report is not acted on by the House.--On February 5, 1919,\5\ Mr. S. 
Hubert Dent, Jr., of Alabama, called up the conference report on the 
bill (H. R. 13274) for the validation of informal war contracts, 
reporting that the conferees of the two Houses had been unable to 
agree.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2397.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4943.
  \4\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \5\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2757.
Sec. 3330
  The Clerk having read the report, Mr. Dent moved that the House agree 
to the report as read.
  The Speaker declined recognition for that purpose.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, submitted that the conference report 
must be disposed of before action could be taken on the amendment in 
disagreement.
  The Speaker \1\ held that as the conferees had reported no action 
there was nothing, to which the House could agree, and recognized Mr. 
Dent to move to insist on disagreement and to agree to the conference 
asked by the Senate.
  3330. At the close of an effective conference the papers change hands 
and the managers on the part of the House agreeing to the conference 
submit the papers and the report to their House, which acts first on 
the report, but in exceptional cases where managers on the part of the 
house agreeing to conference have surrendered the papers, inadvertently 
or otherwise, the report has been first received by the other House.
  The House is governed by the rules of Jefferson's Manual in all cases 
where they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with 
the standing rules and orders of the House.
  On August 12, 1911,\2\ the Senate agreed to the conference asked by 
the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H. R. 
11019) revising the tariff rates of the wool schedule.
  The committee of conference agreed to a report, but at the close of 
the conference, through inadvertence or otherwise, the papers were 
surrendered to the House conferees, who submitted them with their 
report to the House before the report had been submitted to the Senate.
  When the report was presented in the House by Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, 
of Alabama, for printing under the rule, Mr. James R. Mann, of 
Illinois, made the point of order that the report could not be 
considered in the House until disposed of in the Senate.
  In debating the point of order, Mr. Mann said:

  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Alabama is mistaken when he 
says that the House now has physical possession of the papers which lie 
on the Speaker's desk. In the first place, they are not on the 
Speaker's desk; and in the second place, when the gentleman from 
Alabama presented the papers, I made the point of order that he had no 
right to present them. If the Speaker determines that he has no right, 
they are not in the possession of the House; they are in the possession 
of the gentleman from Alabama, and he should give them into the 
possession of the Senate conferees, where they belong. If they had been 
presented to the House without a point of order being raised, the House 
would then have been in physical possession of the papers, and would 
have to determine what its course should be.
  Mr. Speaker, this question goes way beyond the question as to which 
body shall act first upon the wool tariff bill. If the Speaker 
determines that the House conferees in possession of the papers can 
keep them after the conference report is agreed upon, no one can ever 
tell in the House, except the conferees, which body will be called upon 
to act first upon any conference report. Orderly procedure is necessary 
to preserve a fair consideration and an honest consideration of 
measures. We know now that under the rules, as they have been made and 
construed, the body asking for the conference acts last upon the 
conference report, and that the body agreeing to the conference
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 3872.
                                                            Sec. 3330
acts first upon the conference report. But if the contention of the 
gentleman from Alabama is agreed to, it rests solely within the will of 
the conferees of one body. It will hardly do to say that the Senate 
consented to this; the Senate has had nothing to do with it.
  The Senate conferees can have nothing to do with it. The house 
conferees were in possession of the papers and retained them. If they 
could retain them at all, they could retain them under any conditions. 
It is not sufficient to say that the Senate conferees permitted the 
papers to be retained. He who has possession of the papers can retain 
possession, if he is acting within his rights; and if the gentleman 
from Alabama has the right to ask the House to act first, because he 
presents physical possession of the papers, then any House conferees 
will have the same rights in the future, regardless of whether the 
Senate conferees want the papers or do not want the papers.
  Will we follow the precedent? Rule XLIII provides:
  ``The rules of parliamentary practice comprised in Jefferson's Manual 
shall govern the House in all cases to which they are applicable and in 
which they are not inconsistent with the standing rules and orders of 
the House and joint rules of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives.''
  There being no special standing rule and order of the House on this 
subject, Jefferson's Manual controls. It is one of the rules of the 
House, and Jefferson's Manual plainly states that the conferees of the 
House asking for the conference are to leave the papers with the 
conferees of the other body. It has not been a matter of dispute, as 
suggested by the gentleman from Alabama. I have searched the 
precedents. There is no case where anyone has ever contended that in 
case the conferees reached an agreement, it was not necessary to 
transfer the papers. There has been some controversy where the 
conferees reported that they could not reach an agreement as to which 
set of conferees was entitled to the papers, but there is no case in 
the books, there is no case in the records, where anyone has ever 
before contended that when a conference committee reached an agreement 
this rule of Jefferson's Manual was not binding and did not require the 
physical possession of the papers to go to the conferees representing 
the body which agreed to the conference--in this case, the Senate.
  I hope the exigencies of the case in this instance are not so 
strenuous that we are to violate the invariable practice of 100 years 
and the rules of the House.

  Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, addressed the Chair in support of 
the position taken by Mr. Mann.
  The Speaker \1\ ruled:

  The point of order raised by the gentleman from Illinois seems never 
to have been raised hitherto; that is, in any case where the conferees 
agree.
  There is no question about this rule in Jefferson's Manual being a 
part of the rules of the House, and there is no question about what the 
procedure would be, if nothing had been done to vary it. The papers 
under that rule, without anything else being done or said to influence 
it would go to the Senate. The situation here is that the gentleman 
from Alabama undoubtedly had physical possession of the papers. As 
suggested by the gentleman from Illinois there are two or three ways of 
getting physical possession of the papers. One is by violence. If that 
is to be the method of procedure, the Speaker could discreetly and 
judiciously, if he thought there was going to be any trouble abut it, 
pick the conferees on account of their physical strength. But the 
gentleman from Alabama states, and until it is controverted, of course, 
his statement stands, that the Senate conferees voluntarily gave to him 
these papers, and he came into the House in physical possession of them 
and offers them to the House. Being in possession of the papers carries 
with it the presumption of right of possession.
  There is still another remedy. If the House does not indorse the 
action of the conferees in agreeing among themselves for the gentleman 
from Alabama to have physical possession of these papers and to bring 
them in here, the House can correct the action of the House conferees 
by the simple process of passing a resolution and sending the papers to 
the Senate. The distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Cannon, says 
correctly that it is the law that where an agent exceeds his authority, 
his principal is not bound, which is true; but he states only half the 
legal proposition,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 3331
the other half being that where the agent exceeds his authority and the 
principal indorses his action, the principal by the agent's act. The 
point of order is overruled.
  3331. On August 1, 1921;\1\ Mr. Burton E. Sweet, of Iowa, in 
submitting for printing under the rule, the conference report on the 
bill (H. R. 6611) to establish a veterans' bureau, informed the House 
orally that the conferees of the other House had insisted on retaining 
the papers notwithstanding the House had agreed to the conference.
  Whereupon, Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois said:

  Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose it is possible to teach the Senate 
parliamentary law by any action we take in the House. They used to know 
in the Senate that the papers were transferred when a conference 
agreement was reached. The Senate having in its possession the papers 
when the conference report was signed, the papers should have been 
delivered by the Senate conferees to the House conferees. The House 
that agrees to the conference, acts on it first. Several times lately 
the Senate conferees, ignorant to parliamentary procedure, have 
insisted where they had the papers that they should retain them after 
the conference agreement had been reached.
  I know that when the Underwood tariff bill was up and this question 
was raised the House that was not entitled to the papers had possession 
of the papers and brought the tariff-conference report into the House. 
The Speaker held--I will not say incorrectly--that while they had 
violated parliamentary procedure the question was who actually had the 
papers, and as we had them, we proceeded to dispose of the conference 
report.

  No action was taken and there is no further reference to the matter 
in the proceeding of either House.
  3332. A conference having failed to reach a result, the papers are 
not surrendered, but remain with the managers of the House asking 
conference and that House first receives the report and first takes 
action on the matters in disagreement.
  A report that conferees have been unable to agree is not acted on by 
the House and is therefore exempted from the requirement that it be 
printed in the Record before action can be taken on matters in dispute.
  On May 19, 1930,\2\ the House disagreed to the amendments of the 
Senate to the District of Columbia appropriation bill, and requested a 
conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
  The Senate having agreed to conference, and the conferees having met, 
Mr. Robert G. Simmons, of Nebraska, from the committee of conference, 
on June 17,\3\ returned the papers to the House with a report 
announcing that the conferees had been unable to reach any conclusion.
  Thereupon, and before the report had been printed in the Record, the 
Speaker recognized Mr. Simmons to move that the House further insist on 
its disagreement to the matter in dispute.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4485.
  \2\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 9145.
  \3\ Record, p. 11016.