Chapter 41, Deschler’s Precedents
Chapter 41
Deschler’s Precedents
Volume 18
[pp. 288-314]
F. Reconciliation
§ 21. House Consideration of Reconciliation Bills
—Filed as Privileged
§ 21.1 Pursuant to former Rule XI clause 4(a)[1] the Committee on the Budget files from the floor as privileged the report on a reconciliation bill, which under section 310(b)[2] of the Congressional [p. 289] Budget Act(2) the Committee is required to report when more than one House committee has been directed to submit reconciliation recommendations.
On Oct. 26, 1987,[3] the following privileged report was filed:
report on h.r. 3545, omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1987
Mr. [Thomas] FOLEY [of Washington], from the Committee on the Budget, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 100–391) on the bill (H.R. 3545) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 4 of the first concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1988, which was referred to the Union Calendar and ordered to be printed.
♦
—Considered by Unanimous Consent
§ 21.2 By unanimous consent, the House commenced consideration of an omnibus reconciliation bill reported as privileged pursuant to section 310(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act.[1]
On Oct. 24, 1995,[2] the following occurred:
Mr. [Gerald] SOLOMON [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time for the Speaker, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, to declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2491) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996; that the first reading of the bill be dispensed with; that all points of order against consideration of the bill be waived; that general debate be confined to the bill and the text of H.R. 2517; that general debate be limited to 3 hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget and Representative GEPHARDT, or his designee; that after general debate the Committee of the Whole rise without motion; and that no further consideration of the bill be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.[3] Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
In that same budget cycle, on Oct. 26, 1995,[4] a special order providing separately for: (1) consideration of a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress on a budgetary issue; and (2) completion of consideration of an omnibus budget reconciliation bill begun under the order of the House of Oct. 24, 1995, was considered in the House:
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 245 and ask for its immediate consideration.
[p. 290]
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
h. res. 245
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 109) expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the need for reform of the social security earnings limit, if called up by the majority leader or his designee. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable for twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to final adoption without intervening motion.
Sec. 2. At any time after the adoption of this resolution, the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2491) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996. All time for general debate under the terms of the order of the House of October 24, 1995, shall be considered as expired. Further general debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this resolution and shall not exceed three hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 2517, modified by the amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No further amendment shall be in order except the further amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 2530, which may be offered only by the minority leader or his designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. All points of order against the further amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. After a motion that the Committee rise has been rejected on a day, the Chair may entertain another such motion on that day only if offered by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget or the majority leader or a designee of either. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such further amendment as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The motion to recommit may include instructions only if offered by the minority leader or his designee. The yeas and nays shall be considered as ordered on the question of passage of the bill and on any conference report thereon. Clause 5(c) of rule XXI shall not apply to the bill, amendments thereof, or conference reports thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. SOLOMON] is recognized for 1 hour.
♦
§ 21.3 By unanimous consent, the House considered a bill consisting of the texts of four House-passed bills, with the previous question considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion (precluding the motion to recommit).
[p. 291]
On Aug. 10, 1982,[1] the following occurred:
providing for reconciliation pursuant to first concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1983
Mr. [James] JONES of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration in the House of a bill which I send to the desk, consisting of the texts of the bills H.R. 6892, 6812, 6862, and 6782[2] as passed by the House, and that the previous question be considered as ordered on said bill to final passage without intervening motion.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER.[3] Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
♦
—Considered Under Special Orders of Business
§ 21.4 The House has adopted a special order of business, as amended, providing for the consideration of a ‘‘spending’’ budget reconciliation bill[1] (reported as privileged pursuant to section 310(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act),[2] waiving all points of order against consideration in the House, making in order consideration of a Senate companion measure, and authorizing motions to amend such measure with the House-passed text.
On Nov. 17, 2005,[3] the following special order was adopted by the House:
[p. 292]
providing for consideration of h.r. 4241, deficit reduction act of 2005
Mr. [Adam] PUTNAM [of Florida]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 560 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
h. res. 560
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4241) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006. The bill shall be considered as read. The amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 4241 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker.
Sec. 3. After passage of H.R. 4241, it shall be in order to take from the Speaker’s table S. 1932 and to consider the Senate bill in the House. All points of order against the Senate bill and against its consideration are waived. It shall be in order to move to strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 4241 as passed by the House. All points of order against that motion are waived.
♦
—Rules Committee Recommending Further Changes
§ 21.5 Where section 310(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act[1] required the Committee on the Budget to report to the House, without any substantive revision, recommendations from committees to achieve budgetary savings as mandated by a concurrent resolution on the budget, the Committee on Rules[2] reported a ‘‘modified closed’’ rule self-executing adoption of a group of amendments both inserting additional savings provisions not recommended by committees and striking out other ‘‘extraneous’’ provisions not achieving budgetary savings.
On Sept. 24, 1986,[3] the following occurred:
[p. 293]
providing for consideration of h.r. 5300, omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1986
Mr. [Butler] DERRICK [of South Carolina]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 558 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
h. res. 558
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 5300) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 2 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1987, and the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against the bill and against its consideration are hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 3 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, the bill shall be considered as having been read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The first group of amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules on this resolution shall be considered as having been adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole, subject to amendments made in order by the following sentence. No other amendment to the bill shall be in order except the second group of amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules on this resolution, said amendments shall be considered only in the order listed, and if offered by the Member indicated or his designee, in said report, said amendments shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, each of said amendments shall be debatable for not to exceed the time indicated in the report of the Committee on Rules on this resolution, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent of the amendment and a Member opposed thereto, and all points of order against said amendments are hereby waived. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit, which may not contain instructions. If section 3003 of the bill (incorporating the text of H.R. 1), as inserted by the first group of amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules on this resolution, is not stricken during the consideration of the bill, the clerk shall, in the engrossment of the bill H.R. 5300, strike section 3003 and insert in lieu thereof a new section 3003 containing the actual text of the bill H.R. 1 as passed by the House, with appropriate correction of section numbers, punctuation marks, and cross references.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. NATCHER).[4] The gentleman from South Carolina
[Mr. DERRICK] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. [Delbert] LATTA], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 558 is a modified closed rule providing for consideration of one of the most imperative pieces of budget related legislation that we must consider before the adjournment of this Congress: H.R. 5300, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986.
[p. 294]
This rule provides for 3 hours of general debate on the reconciliation bill and waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and against the bill. Finally, the rule provides for the disposition of some nine separate amendments either by operation of the rule or by making in order amendments by specific Members on specific issues.
All of the amendments made in order under this rule are printed in the report on the rule. The first group of amendments so listed includes those amendments which shall be considered to be adopted upon adoption of the rule. Three of these amendments add language to the text of H.R. 5300, and four amendments strike certain narrow provisions in H.R. 5300.
Included in the three amendments which add provisions to the bill upon adoption of the rule are the Budget Committee perfecting amendment and a Ways and Means Committee substitute. Together, Mr. Speaker, these two amendments represent the results of successful bipartisan House and Senate efforts to put together a package of additional savings to ensure that this reconciliation bill will achieve sufficient savings to meet the fiscal year 1987 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit target. Together, these provisions will achieve more than $15 billion in fiscal year 1987 deficit reduction when scored against the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings baseline. These provisions are the heart of this reconciliation bill.
The third amendment adding language to the bill is a technical amendment requested by the Ways and Means Committee. This amendment refines the provisions dealing with State health insurance risk pools.
Mr. Speaker, in contrast with the amendments I have just discussed, which add all of the new package of savings to the reconciliation bill, this first group of amendments also includes amendments which strike language in the bill. At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I would note that each of the matters stricken from the reconciliation bill by operation of this rule address narrow issues, are provisions which would not reduce the deficit, and are all in fact extraneous to the reconciliation process.
The matters stricken upon adoption of this rule include the following:
Provisions in the Agriculture Committee title granting the Department of Agriculture authority to reduce the frequency of inspections in meat processing plants;
Provisions in the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee title dealing with the national defense reserve fleet;
Provisions in the Public Works Committee title calling for an Army Corps of Engineers study for a hydroelectric dam project in California; and
Provisions in the Public Works Committee title which have the effect of moving several transportation-related trust funds off budget.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I would note that in the case of each matter stricken by operation of this rule, the issues were extraneous to reconciliation, and subject to significant controversy and/or claims of jurisdiction by more than one committee of the House of Representatives.
The fourth amendment which strikes provisions upon adoption of the rule has been the source of some controversy over the last couple years. The provisions in question have the effect of taking the highway trust fund, the airport and airway trust fund and the inland waterways trust fund out of the unified budget. Put another way, Mr. Speaker, these trust funds are moved off budget by these provisions.
As the record of debate on this issue will detail, Mr. Speaker, this Member appreciates the concerns expressed by our colleagues who oversee these trust funds. However, the removal of these items from the budget or their exemption from Gramm-Rudman-Hollings serves only to undermine our overall budget balancing objectives. Following the recommendations of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee opted to delete these provisions by operation of the rule.
[p. 295]
In addition to the seven amendments I have just discussed, which are all deemed to be adopted upon adoption of this rule, Mr. Speaker, this rule also makes in order a second group of two amendments which are made in order during consideration of the bill for amendment.
The first of these two amendments is an amendment by Representative RODINO, of New Jersey, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. The Rodino amendment is not amendable and is debatable for up to 30 minutes, equally divided by
Mr. RODINO and a Member opposed thereto. The Rodino amendment would strike provisions in the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee title of the bill which amend the Ship Mortgage Act. Since the provisions may have the effect of amending the Bankruptcy Code, which is within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, this amendment was made in order.
The other amendment in this second group is an amendment by Representative WYLIE, the ranking minority member on the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, or his designee. The Wylie amendment is not amendable and is debatable for up to 30 minutes, equally divided by the proponent of the amendment and a member opposed thereto. The Wylie amendment would strike from the bill the text of H.R. 1, the Housing Act of 1986, which was passed by this Chamber earlier this year. Mr. Speaker, the housing bill is brought into reconciliation as part of the Budget Committee perfecting amendment which is adopted upon adoption of this rule. Because of the controversy over adding an authorization measure of this size to reconciliation, this amendment is made in order so the membership of the House can have an up-or-down vote on the propriety of including a housing authorization bill in reconciliation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides that after the bill has been considered for amendment and it is reported back to the House, no intervening motion to final passage, other than a motion to recommit, without instructions, shall be in order.
♦
—Considered Before Adoption of a Budget Resolution by both Houses
§ 21.6 The House has adopted a special order of business resolution reported from the Committee on Rules making in order consideration of a bill reported from the Committee on the Budget pursuant to reconciliation directives contained in a House-adopted concurrent resolution on the budget prior to final congressional adoption of a budget resolution.[1]
[p. 296]
On May 10, 2012,[2] the House adopted the following resolution:
h. res. 648
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5652) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 112–21 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
♦
§ 21.7 The House has adopted a special order of business resolution reported from the Committee on Rules discharging several committees from consideration of an unreported bill providing spending savings contemplated by the reconciliation directives contained in a House-adopted concurrent resolution on the budget prior to final congressional adoption of a budget resolution.[1]
On Apr. 12, 1984,[2] the following occurred:
providing for the consideration of h.r. 5394, omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1984
Mr. [Butler] DERRICK [of South Carolina]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 483 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
h. res. 483
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution, the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 5394) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 2 of the first concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1985, as passed the House of Representatives, and the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against the [p. 297] consideration of the bill are hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed six hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, the bill shall be considered as having been read for amendment under the five-minute rule. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except the following: (1) an amendment to insert a new section in title III consisting of the text of section 1006 as recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in italic on page 993, line 19 through page 996, line 10 of H. Rept. 98–432, part 2, on H.R. 4170, and to insert a corresponding reference in the table of contents to title III of H.R. 5394, said amendment shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in Committee of the Whole, and said amendment shall be debatable for not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent of the amendment and a Member opposed thereto, and (2) an amendment printed in the Congressional Record of April 10, 1984, by, and if offered by, Representative Pepper of Florida which shall not be subject to amendment but shall be debatable for not to exceed thirty minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by Mr. Pepper and a Member opposed thereto. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.[3] The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DERRICK) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DERRICK. . . .
The rule makes in order only two amendments, which themselves shall not be amendable:
First, an amendment to insert a new section in title III of the bill, consisting of the text of section 1006 of H.R. 4170 as reported by the Committee on Ways and Means and printed in italic in House Report 98–432, part 2, and to insert a corresponding reference to the table of contents of title III. This amendment is not subject to a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, but it shall be debatable for 1 hour with the time equally divided between the proponent of the amendment and a Member opposed thereto.
This amendment contains the freeze on physician fees for medicare inpatient services and the mandatory assignment for physicians which were originally reported by the Committee on Ways and Means as an amendment to H.R. 4170, the Tax Reform Act of 1983.
The amendment was not offered when the tax bill was considered since all the medicare provisions were removed from the bill and included instead in the reconciliation bill.
Since the amendment is not subject to a demand for the division of the question, either both the fee freeze and mandatory assignment will be added to the bill or neither will be.
Second, an amendment printed in the Congressional Record of April 10, 1984, by, and if offered by, Representative PEPPER of Florida. This amendment shall be debatable for 30 minutes, with the time equally divided and controlled by Representative PEPPER and a Member opposed to the amendment.
This amendment provides that physicians’ claims for medicare reimbursement should be paid no more than 30 days after the approval of a claim. . . .
[p. 298]
Under normal circumstances no further House action would occur until the Senate acted on a budget resolution and the House and Senate agreed on the final form of a resolution. At that point any reconciliation instructions in the resolution would become binding, and House committees would submit recommendations for achieving savings to the House Budget Committee. The Budget Committee would then package the recommendations—without substantive change—and report a reconciliation bill to the House for consideration. . . .
In this situation we cannot wait for the regular process to run its course. It is imperative that we act now. Because of the need for prompt action the Budget Committee began last week to work with reconciled committees to put together a bill which satisfied the reconciliation directives contained in House Concurrent Resolution 280. These committees responded by providing the Budget Committee with legislative provisions to achieve the directed savings. Some of these provisions had been included in legislation previously reported by the various committees; some had been in earlier stages of committee consideration.
When the provisions from the reconciled committees had been assembled, Chairman JONES of the Budget Committee introduced the reconciliation package as H.R. 5394.
♦
Subject to Rule XXI Clause 4
§ 21.8 The prohibition in Rule XXI clause 4[1] against legislative committees reporting bills containing provisions constituting appropriations applies to the Committee on the Budget in reporting reconciliation legislation to the House, even if the Committee on the Budget is in compliance with the requirement of section 310(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act to report the recommendations of other committees ‘‘without any substantive revision.’’
On Oct. 24, 1985,[2] a provision in an omnibus reconciliation bill making a direct appropriation was ruled out of order by the chair of the Committee of the Whole:
The CHAIRMAN.[3] When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, October 23, 1985, all time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read for amendment under the 5-minute rule, an amendment to strike lines 8 through 10 on page 15 and insert in lieu thereof the following: ‘‘Which become available during fiscal year 1986, the Secretary shall, to the extent approved in appropriations acts, reserve authority to enter into obligations aggregating,’’ shall be considered as having been adopted.
The text of the bill, as amended by an amendment considered as having been adopted pursuant to House Resolution 296, is as follows:
[p. 299]
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
section 1. short title.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985’’. . . .
sec. 4110. rescission.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, all funds appropriated to the Energy Security Reserve are hereby rescinded. Funds so rescinded shall include all funds appropriated to the Energy Security Reserve by the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1980 (Public Law 96–126) and subsequently made available to carry out title I, part B, of the Energy Security Act by Public Laws 96–304 and 96–514, and shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury. This rescission shall not apply to—
(1) $500,000,000 for cost-shared clean coal technology projects for the construction and operation of facilities to demonstrate the feasibility for future commercial application of such technology;
(2) $500,000,000, which is hereby appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for carrying out part B of title 1 of the Energy Security Act, as amended by this subtitle; and
(3) such amounts as may be necessary to make payments for projects or modules for which obligations were entered into under title I of the Energy Security Act before July 31, 1985. . . .
The CHAIRMAN. No amendments to the bill are in order except the following amendments which shall not be subject to amendment:
First, a motion, if offered by Representative FAZIO to strike subtitle B of title VIII, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by Representative FAZIO and a Member opposed thereto;
Second, an amendment printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of October 17, 1985, by, and if offered by, Representative LATTA, as modified by the unanimous-consent order of the House of today, which shall be debatable for 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by Representative LATTA and a Member opposed thereto; and
Third, an amendment printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of October 17, 1985, by, and if offered by, Representative FLORIO, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by Representative FLORIO and a Member opposed thereto.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Sidney] YATES [of Illinois]. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, is it in order at this point to make a point of order to the pending bill?
The CHAIRMAN. It is in order.
point of order
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 4110 of the bill, beginning on page 379, line 20 through page 380, line 17. This section contains the following language: ‘‘$500,000,000, which is hereby appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for carrying out Part B of title I of the Energy Security Act, as amended by this subtitle;’’.
Mr. Chairman, this language is clearly an appropriation, and since this bill was reported by a committee not having jurisdiction to report appropriations, the section is in violation of clause 5(a) of rule XXI of the House of Representatives.
The rule states that ‘‘No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report appropriations, * * *’’. The [p. 300] language in question was a recommendation of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which was included in this omnibus reconciliation bill by the Committee on the Budget, without change, pursuant to reconciliation procedures. Since neither committee has jurisdiction to report appropriations, in my opinion, the language violates rule XXI, clause 5(a).
I make this point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will entertain the gentleman’s point of order.
Does anyone desire to be heard on the point of order?
If not, the Chair will sustain the gentleman’s point of order.
Mr. YATES. I thank the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The section is stricken.
♦
Subject to Rule XXI Clause 5
§ 21.9 The prohibition in Rule XXI clause 5[1] against the reporting of certain tax and tariff legislation by committees other than the Committee on Ways and Means applies to the Committee on the Budget in reporting reconciliation legislation to the House, even if the Committee on the Budget is in compliance with the requirement of section 310(b)(2) to report the recommendations of other committees ‘‘without any substantive revision.’’
On Oct. 24, 1985,[2] the following occurred:
sec. 3113. indebtedness of student loan marketing association.
Section 439(h)(1) of the Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: ‘‘To the extent that the average outstanding amount of the obligations owned by the Association pursuant to the authority contained in subsection (d)(1)(B) of this section and as to which the income is exempt from taxation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 does not exceed the average stockholders’ equity of the Association, the interest on obligations issued under this paragraph shall not be deemed to be interest on indebtedness incurred or continued to purchase or carry obligations for purposes of section 265 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.’’ . . . point of order
Mr. [Daniel] ROSTENKOWSKI [of Illinois]. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 3113 of H.R. 3500.
I raise a point of order against section 3113 of H.R. 3500 on the grounds that it is in violation of clause 5(b) of House rule 21 which prohibits legislation carrying a tax or tariff measure from being reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report tax or tariff measures.
[p. 301]
Mr. Chairman, section 3113 of H.R. 3500 attempts to exclude certain interest on the Student Loan Marketing Association from application of Internal Revenue Code section 265. Code section 265 denies an income tax deduction for certain expenses and interest incurred to purchase tax-exempt obligations. Section 3113 of H.R. 3500 deems certain interest of the Student Loan Marketing Association not to come under code section 265.
The allowance or denial of an interest deduction against income taxes is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that section 3113 is a tax measure and, as such, violates clause 5(b) of rule 21.
The CHAIRMAN.[3] Is there any Member who desires to be heard on the point of order?
The Chair sustains the point of order.
That section is stricken from the bill.
♦
§ 21.10 A section of a reconciliation bill reported from the Committee on the Budget, directly amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow tax deductibility of contributions to a multiemployer pension constitutes a tax in violation of former Rule XXI clause 5(b)[1] since not reported from the Committee on Ways and Means.
On Oct. 4, 1989,[2] the following occurred:
chapter 3—amendments relating to the omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1987 (including the pension protection act)
sec. 3131. amendments relating to the pension protection act and full funding limitations provided in the omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1987.
(a) Amendment Related To Section 9203.—Section 202(a)(2) of ERISA is amended by striking the comma.
(b) Amendments Related To Section 9301.—
(1)(A) Subparagraph (C) of section 412(c)(7) of the 1986 Code is amended—
(i) in the heading, by striking ‘‘FOR PARAGRAPH (6)(B)’’; and
(ii) by inserting after ‘‘paragraph (6)(B)’’ the following: ‘‘and in the case of a multiemployer plan’’. . . .
sec. 3156. termination fee.
(a) In General.—Part 5 of subtitle B of title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
‘‘termination fee
‘‘Sec. 516. (a) In General.—At the time of filing a notice of intent to terminate a single-employer plan under a standard termination under section 4041(b), the employer maintaining such plan shall pay to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation a fee in the amount determined under subsection (b).
‘‘(b) Amount of Fee.—The amount of the fee under subsection (a) shall be equal to $200, multiplied by the number of participants in the plan immediately before the filing of the notice of intent to terminate.
‘‘(c) Crediting of Fees.—Fees collected under this section shall be deposited as offsetting receipts in the applicable fund established under section 4005.’’.
(b) Conforming Amendment.—The table of sections for part 5 of subtitle B of title I of such Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new item:
[p. 302]
Sec. 516. Termination fee.’’.
(c) Effective Date.—Section 516 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as added by subsection (b), shall apply with respect to notices of intent to terminate filed after July 13, 1989. . . .
point of order
Mr. [William] FRENZEL [of Minnesota]. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 3156 of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN.[3] The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 3156 on the grounds that it is a tax measure which is in violation of paragraph b, clause 5 of House rule 21.
Mr. Chairman, section 3156 of the bill provides that an employer who terminates a pension plan in a standard termination must pay a $200 per-participant fee to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation [PBGC], the Federal insurance agency established to insure defined benefit pension plans against insolvency.
The authors of this provision argue that the charge is a deferred premium to reflect the fact that ongoing the fact that ongoing insurance premiums are too low. This catchup fee, they argue, merely imposes on employers the true cost of the risk they imposed on the system before exiting.
This fee is in no way a user fee in return for ongoing insurance. When an employer makes a standard plan termination, the plan must be fully funded and assets used to purchase annunities. The plan benefits are no longer insured by the PBGC. The employer poses no further risk on the system, and receives no further protection from it.
By paying this one-time fee, employers would pay neither for ongoing risk nor for the past risk they imposed. Rather, they would pay a fee to finance the continuing risk imposed by the employers who remain in the system. This is a tax, an amount paid by a class of taxpayers for no benefit, past or future, but rather to finance a broader—and in this case, totally different—class of beneficiaries.
Mr. Chairman, this provision is clearly a tax and I urge the Chair to sustain my point of order.
◊ 1630
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. [Charles Arthur] HAYES of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order raised by my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. FRENZEL].
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will recognize the gentleman.
Mr. HAYES of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, section 3156 provides that single-employer pension plans terminating in a standard termination must pay a final premium of $200 per participant. This represents a deferred premium, not a tax.
Pension plans are covered under the termination insurance system established under title IV of ERISA and administered by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The insurance program is funded entirely by premiums paid by covered plans, not by general revenues or taxes.
Each covered plan pays an annual per-participant premium. When ERISA was first enacted, this premium was set at $1. Over the years, the premium has been substantially [p. 303] increased, but has never adequately reflected the true cost of the insurance protection received by participants in defined benefits plans. Congress has deliberately kept the actual premium charged artificially low in order to encourage employers to continue their defined benefit plans.
The $200 termination premium, paid by the plan, is merely a continuation or extension of the premium to recapture a portion of this premium subsidy. Even at $200, the termination premium continues to be substantially less than the benefits the plan and its participants have received while covered under the insurance system.
Despite the fact that neither the annual premiums themselves nor this new termination premium are taxes, there is no dispute that setting of PBGC premiums is within the joint jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor and the Committee on Ways and Means. This has been true since ERISA was enacted because the statute specifically provides for consideration of any resolution to raise premiums by both committees. In light of the past history regarding treatment of premium increases under title IV, we fully expect that members of both committees will be conferees on this provision.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that a statutory grant of joint jurisdiction transforms the premium paid by covered plans to fund the termination insurance program into a tax.
I urge you not to sustain the gentleman’s point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. FRENZEL. May I be heard further, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, the argumentation in support of this fee as a premium would make more sense if it were absorbing any risk or buying any protection. It obviously does not, for those who are terminating their plan, and it buys protection for others. It, therefore, has to be considered a tax and not a premium.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HAYES] wish to be heard further on the point of order?
Mr. HAYES of Illinois. No. Mr. Chairman, I have completed my presentation.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MAVROULES) The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. FRENZEL] makes a point of order against section 3156 of H.R. 3299 on the ground that it carries a tax measure in a bill reported by a committee—the Committee on the Budget—not having jurisdiction to report tax measures, in violation of clause 5(b), rule XXI.
Section 3156 of the bill would impose certain fees incident to terminations of employee benefit plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 [ERISA].
Funds so received would be deposited as offsetting receipts in the applicable fund established under section 4005 of ERISA. Amounts in that fund are available for expenditure for various purposes specified in section 4005(b)(2).
The basis of the point of order is that the payers of the fees in question would not merely be providing recompense for some Government activity that they occasion. Rather, the revenues gathered by such fees would be applied to more general Government activity of broader benefit. As was stated in argument on the point of order, a terminating plan poses no further risk on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation; thus the only risk financed by the termination fee would be the continuing risk posed by the plans remaining in the system.
[p. 304]
The Chair believes that such a provision is properly characterized as a tax within the meaning of clause 5(B), rule XXI. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained against section 3156 and that section is stricken from the bill.
point of order
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 3131(B) on the grounds that it is a tax measure which is in violation of paragraph b, clause 5 of House Rule 21.
Mr. Chairman, section 3131 of the bill exempts multiemployer pension plans from the full funding limits of the Internal Revenue Code section 412(c)(7).
This provision directly amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow the deductibility of contributions to a multiemployer pension plan in excess of the full funding limit. I would argue that this provision which provides a specific exemption from the full funding limitations for multiemployer pension plans is a tax because a deduction would be allowed for amounts which are not deductible under current law.
I urge the Chair to sustain my point or order.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. HAYES of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order raised by my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. FRENZEL].
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. HAYES of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, section 3131(b) contains parallel amendments to both title I of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code relating to the full funding limitation governing pension plans. The gentleman from Minnesota is seeking to strike the portion of that subsection that amends the Code on the ground that this is a tax and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Chairman, as we know, ERISA is a unique statute. Many of its requirements are implemented through parallel provisions in both title I and the Internal Revenue Code.
The provision at issue here is a provision that has been subject to this parallel treatment under ERISA since its enactment. When the section was amended most recently in the 1987 Budget Reconciliation Act, parallel changes were made and members of both the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Education and Labor were appointed conferees on those provisions. . . . I urge you not to sustain the gentleman’s point of order.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MAVROULES). Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. FRENZEL] makes a point of order against section 3131(b)(1)(A) of H.R. 3299 on the ground that it carries a tax measure in a bill reported by a committee—the Committee on the Budget—not having jurisdiction to report tax measures, in violation of clause 5(b), rule XXI.
For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. FRENZEL], the provision in section 3131(b)(1)(A) constitutes a tax in that it directly relates to deductibility under the Internal Revenue Code.
The point of order is sustained and section 3131(b)(1)(A) is stricken from the bill.
[p. 305]
♦
Conference Reports on Reconciliation Bills
—Appointment of Conferees
§ 21.11 By unanimous consent, the House has authorized the Speaker to appoint an additional conferee on an Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, and in exercising such authority, the Speaker appointed a conferee from one legislative committee solely for consideration of one portion of the Senate amendment.[1]
On July 15, 1981,[2] the following occurred:
Mr. [Leon Edward] PANETTA [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker be permitted to appoint an additional conferee on the bill (H.R. 3982) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 1982.
This is because of an error that was committed in the names that were forwarded. Four members were presented for the Science and Technology Committee, and we need an additional conferee.
The SPEAKER.[3] Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
The Chair hears none, and appoints Mr. DYMALLY from the Committee on Science and Technology solely for consideration of sections 1101–1112 of the Senate amendment.
♦
—Consideration of Conference Reports
§ 21.12 The House has adopted a special order of business resolution reported from the Committee on Rules making in order consideration of a conference report on a reconciliation measure and waiving all points of order against such conference report.
On Dec. 21, 1987,[1] the following occurred:
after recess
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the Speaker at 8 o’clock and 1 minute p.m. conference report on H.R. 3545, Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
Mr. [Butler Carson] DERRICK [Jr., of South Carolina]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 341 and ask for its immediate consideration.
[p. 306]
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 341
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3545) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 4 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1988, and all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are hereby waived, and the conference report shall be considered as having been read when called up for consideration.
The SPEAKER.[2] The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. DERRICK] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LATTA], and pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 341 is a rule providing for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 3545, the Reconciliation Act of 1987. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and provides that the conference report shall be considered as having been read. . . .
♦
—Re-filing of Conference Report
§ 21.13 The House has adopted a special order of business vacating the filing of a conference report on reconciliation legislation, authorizing conferees to file a corrected conference report, printing the correction in a separate section of the special order, and providing for the consideration of the conference report.[1]
On Nov. 17, 1995,[2] the following occurred:
Mr. [David] DREIER [of California]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 272 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 272
Resolved, That the proceedings of the legislative day of November 15, 1995, by which the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2491) to provide for reconciliation [p. 307] pursuant to section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996 was presented to the House and ordered printed, are hereby vacated, to the end that the managers on the part of the House may immediately present the conference report in the form actually ordered reported to the House as a product of the meeting and signatures of the committee of conference and actually to be presented in the Senate, in pertinent corrected part as depicted in section 3 of this resolution. The existing signatures of the committee of conference shall remain valid as authorizing the presentation of the conference report to the House in corrected form.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider the conference report presented to the House pursuant to the first section of this resolution. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read. The conference report shall be debatable for two hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. After such debate the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the conference report to final adoption without intervening motion except one motion to recommit, which may not contain instructions and on which the previous question shall be considered as ordered. After disposition of the conference report, no further consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.
Sec. 3. The correction described in section 2 of this resolution is to insert between subtitles J and L of title XII a subtitle K (as depicted in the table of contents) as follows:
‘‘Subtitle K—Miscellaneous
‘‘sec. 13101. food stamp eligibility.
‘‘Section 6(f) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2015(f)) is amended by striking the third sentence and inserting the following: ‘The State agency shall, at its option, consider either all income and financial resources of the individual rendered ineligible to participate in the food stamp program under this subsection, or such income, less a pro rata share, and the financial resources of the ineligible individual, to determine the eligibility and the value of the allotment of the household of which such individual is a member.’
‘‘sec. 13102. reduction in block grants for social services.
‘‘Section 2003(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397b) is amended—
‘‘(1) by striking ‘and’ at the end of paragraph (4); and
‘‘(2) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
‘(5) $2,800,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1990 through 1996; and
‘(6) $2,240,000,000 for each fiscal year after fiscal year 1996.’’’.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.[3] The gentleman from California [Mr. DREIER] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Woodland Hills, CA [Mr. BEILENSON], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. . . .
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, due to a technical error committed during the filing of the conference report on H.R. 2491, this rule vacates the proceedings by which the conference report on H.R. 2491, the Seven-Year Balanced Budget Act, was filed. The rule authorizes the managers to immediately refile the report in the form actually signed and ordered reported, with the corrected part printed in section 3 of the rule. The rule further provides that the existing signatures of the conferees shall remain valid as authorizing the presentation of the conference report to the House in its corrected form.
The rule then provides for the consideration of the newly filed conference report to accompany H.R. 2491. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and [p. 308] against its consideration. The rule provides for two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee.
The rule provides for one motion to recommit the conference report which may not contain instructions. Finally, the rule provides that following disposition of the conference report, no further action on the bill is in order except by subsequent order of the House.
Mr. Speaker, this is it. We are beginning, over the next 3 hours, the debate on the most important change in decades. . . .
Mr. [Anthony] BEILENSON [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. DREIER] for yielding me the customary half hour of debate time.
Mr. Speaker, we strongly oppose this rule and the legislation it makes in order, the conference report on the 1995 Budget Reconciliation Act.
By waiving all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration, this rule enables the Republican leadership to bring this measure to the floor without worrying about whether or not it violates any of our standing House rules. One rule that this legislation most certainly violates is the 3-day layover rule, the rule designed to give Members 3 days to review legislation before having to vote on it. It is the layover that protects the very basic right of Members to have a sufficient opportunity to evaluate legislation before voting on it.
It is also very likely the conference report violates the rule against exceeding the scope of the conference, preventing conferees from inserting legislation in the conference report that was not passed by either the House or the Senate. . . .
We also object to this rule’s denial of a motion to recommit with instructions. As our Republican friends always and vigorously argued when they were in the minority, that motion to recommit is virtually meaningless if it cannot be used to amend a measure.
Disallowing instructions on a motion to recommit tramples on one of the most important rights the minority party has under the rules of the House of Representatives.
♦
Post-Passage Matters
§ 21.14 The House has passed a joint resolution, considered by unanimous consent, waiving the statutory requirement of printing on parchment[1] for certain bills (including reconciliation legislation) for the remainder of a session of Congress, and authorizing enrollment in such form as certified by the Committee on House Administration[2] to be truly enrolled.
On Oct. 8, 1986,[3] the House considered by unanimous consent a joint resolution waiving the printing on parchment requirement for certain bills.
[p. 309]
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That the requirement of sections 106 and 107 of title I, United States Code, that the enrollment of the following bills and joint resolutions be printed on parchment be waived during the remainder of the second session of the Ninetyninth Congress, and that the enrollment of said bills and joint resolutions be in such form as may be certified by the Committee on House Administration to be truly enrolled: H.R. 2005; H.R. 3838; H.R. 5300; H.R. 5484; and H.J. Res. 738, or any other measure continuing appropriations.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
♦
§ 21.15 By unanimous consent, the House has considered a concurrent resolution directing the Clerk to make certain corrections to the enrollment of a reconciliation bill.
On July 31, 1981,[1] the following occurred:
Mr. [James] JONES of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for immediate consideration in the House of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 167) directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 3982, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 1982.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.[2] Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
h. con. res. 167
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 3982), to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1982, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the corrections specified in the succeeding sections of this concurrent resolution. . . .
(c)(1) If the Secretary determines under subsection (b) that there is an agreement between a profitable railroad in the Region (as defined in section 102 of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973) which received a loan under section 211(a) of such Act and a prospective purchaser for the sale of such railroad, the Secretary shall limit the interest of the United States in any debt of such a railroad to an interest which attaches to such debt in the event of bankruptcy, substantial sale, or liquidation of the assets of the railroad. The Secretary shall substitute for the evidence of such debt contingency notes conforming to the limited terms set forth in this subsection. . . .
Sec. 13. In section 1199A, strike out ‘‘July 31, 1981’’ and insert in lieu thereof ‘‘August 4, 1981’’.
[p. 310]
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
♦
310(f) Points of Order
§ 21.16 Section 310(f) of the Congressional Budget Act formerly[1] prohibited the consideration of a resolution providing for an adjournment sine die of either House before completion of the second budget resolution[2] and any required reconciliation legislation, and such a prohibition was ruled to apply to an adjournment resolution ostensibly conditioned on the completion of the required legislative actions (sustained by tabling of appeal).
On Oct. 1, 1980,[3] the following occurred:
providing for sine die adjournment of the congress after completion of second concurrent resolution on the budget
Mr. [Kenneth] KRAMER [of Colorado]. Mr. Speaker, I send a privileged concurrent resolution to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER.[4] The Clerk will report the concurrent resolution.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
concurrent resolution
Providing for the sine die adjournment of the Congress after completion of the second concurrent resolution on the budget and any required reconciliation legislation
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That when the two Houses of Congress adjourn on October 2, 1980, they shall stand adjourned sine die, unless Congress has not completed action on the second concurrent resolution on the budget respecting the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1980, and any reconciliation legislation which may be required in accordance with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, in which event the two Houses shall adjourn sine die in accordance with section 2 of this resolution.
Sec. 2. In the event such second concurrent resolution on the budget has not been adopted by the Congress in accordance with section 310(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by October 2, 1980, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
[p. 311]
President pro tempore of the Senate shall notify the Members of the House and Senate, respectively, that they shall remain assembled until Congress has completed action on such second concurrent resolution on the budget and, if required, reconciliation legislation, at which time, the two Houses shall adjourn sine die.
Mr. [Thomas] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that the concurrent resolution is not debatable.
point of order
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the concurrent resolution that the Budget Act requires the adoption of the second budget resolution prior to the the [sic] sine die adjournment of the House, and the resolution is contrary to the Budget Act.
Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point of order?
The SPEAKER. The Chair will hear the gentleman on the point of order.
Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Speaker, the intent of section 310(f) of the Budget Act was obviously to act as a forcing mechanism to insure completion of the congressional budget process before adjournment. The language prohibiting consideration of an adjournment sine die resolution prior to the completion of the budget resolution was designed to provide a specific mechanism in recognition of the procedures of the House to assure budget completion before adjournment.
A careful reading of this resolution will show that it is not inconsistent with section 310(f) of the Budget Act but is in fact designed to fulfill the intent of section 310(f). It is in effect a restatement of the requirements of the Budget Act with respect to completion of the Budget Act before adjournment and, therefore, cannot be said to be in contradiction of those requirements.
Since the intent of the Budget Act, as expressed in section 310(f) is to force completion of the budget prior to adjournment sine die, we might logically conclude that the framers of that resolution did not intend that the language that was included to require all matters to be reported by the Budget Committee before they may be considered by the House and to require final action on the budget prior to consideration of the adjournment sine die resolution would be used to delay completion of the budget beyond the date specified in the act. Yet this is what happened.
The intent of the act is to require action on the budget in timely fashion, and it has been subverted by the failure to report the budget resolution in timely fashion. The literal terms of the Budget Act have already been violated by the failure of Congress to act on the budget by the date specified in the act.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is literally consistent with the requirements of the Budget Act by requiring completion of the budget prior to adjournment sine die, and in fact the resolution is a complement to the Budget Act providing a sure means of fulfilling the terms of the act.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further on the point of order?
The SPEAKER. The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, section 310(f) of the Budget Act prohibits the consideration of a resolution of adjournment until the adoption of the second budget resolution. The resolution is clearly inside the scope of the prohibition of the Budget Act, and it is, therefore, out of order.
[p. 312]
Mr. Speaker, I renew my point of order.
◊ 1320
The SPEAKER. Section 310(f) of the Congressional Budget Act provides:
Congress may not adjourn until action is completed.—It shall not be in order in either the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any resolution providing for the adjournment sine die of either House unless action has been completed on the concurrent resolution on the budget required to be reported under subsection (a) for the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of such year, and, if a reconciliation bill or resolution, or both, is required to be reported under subsection (c) for such fiscal year, unless the Congress has completed action on that bill or resolution, or both.
In the opinion of the Chair, the point of order is well taken. Since the provision of the Budget Act—which is a rule of the House—prohibits the consideration of a sine die resolution at this time, the Chair does not recognize the gentleman for that purpose.
Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman insist upon his appeal?
Mr. KRAMER. I insist upon my appeal, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair on the table.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. FOLEY).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 382, nays 11, not voting 39, as follows: . . .
So the motion was agreed to.
♦
§ 21.17 By unanimous consent, the House waived the prohibitions contained in sections 309 and 310(f) of the Congressional Budget Act,[1] which would have precluded consideration in the House of a concurrent resolution adjourning for more than three days in July before the House had completed initial consideration of all general appropriation bills and any required reconciliation legislation.
On June 19, 1986,[2] the following occurred:
Mr. [Butler] DERRICK [of South Carolina]. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous-consent request, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. WRIGHT].
[p. 313]
making in order consideration of any resolution providing for a certain adjournment
Mr. [James] WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider any resolution providing for an adjournment period of more than 3 calendar days during the month of July, notwithstanding any provision of Public Law 99–177.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.[3] Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
♦
§ 21.18 The House by unanimous consent considered (and adopted) a Senate concurrent resolution providing for the adjournment of both Houses for the July 4th recess, implicitly waiving sections 309 and 310(f) of the Congressional Budget Act.[1]
On July 1, 1999,[2] the following occurred:
providing for conditional adjournment of the senate and house
Mr. [Thomas] REYNOLDS [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up from the Speaker’s table the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 43) providing for conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and a conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:
s. con. res. 43
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of business on Thursday, July 1, 1999, Friday, [p. 314] July 2, 1999, or Saturday, July 3, 1999, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Monday, July 12, 1999, or until such time on that day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, July 1, 1999, or Friday, July 2, 1999, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 1999, for morning-hour debate, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of the Senate and House, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. . . .
The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER.[3] Without objection, House Resolution 236 is laid on the table.
[1] Now Rule XIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual § 853 (2011).
[2] 2 USC § 641(b)(2); Rule XIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual § 853 (2011).
[3] 133 Cong. Rec. 29195, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
[1] 2 USC § 641(b)(2); Rule XIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual § 853 (2011).
[2] 141 Cong. Rec. 29156, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
[3] Gilbert W. Gutknecht (MN).
[4] 141 Cong. Rec. 29463, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
[1] 128 Cong. Rec. 20216, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
Parliamentarian’s Note: Four committees of the House that had received reconciliation directives reported measures carrying out those directives directly to the House, rather than submitting such recommendations to the Committee on the Budget. Those four measures had each passed the House individually. The unanimous-consent request here combined the texts of those four measures into a single ‘‘omnibus’’ reconciliation bill for House consideration.
[2] This was considered a compilation of reconciliation bills.
[3] Thomas O’Neill (MA).
[1] The term ‘‘spending reconciliation bill’’ refers to legislation designed to accomplish a change in the amount of new budget authority, new entitlement authority, and new credit authority pursuant to the reconciliation directives of the concurrent resolution on the budget. See 2 USC § 641(a)(1). This is to be contrasted with a ‘‘revenue reconciliation bill’’ which refers to reconciliation legislation designed to achieve a certain level of revenues (see 2 USC § 641(a)(2)) or a ‘‘debt reconciliation bill’’ which refers to reconciliation legislation effectuating a change to the statutory limit on the public debt (see 2 USC § 641(a)(3)).
[2] 2 USC § 641(b)(2).
[3] 151 Cong. Rec. 26581, 109th Cong. 1st Sess. For other examples of reconciliation legislation considered pursuant to special orders of business, see, e.g., 127 Cong. Rec. 14065, 14078, 14079, 14081–84, 97th Cong. 1st Sess., June 25, 1981; and 126 Cong. Rec. 21184–94, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 4, 1980.
[1] 2 USC § 641(b)(2).
[2] Pursuant to section 310(d)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act, the Committee on Rules in the House is authorized to make in order amendments to achieve the goals of reconciliation directives contained in a concurrent resolution on the budget when the committees to which such directives were given fail to submit their recommendations to the Committee on the Budget.
[3] 132 Cong. Rec. 25883, 25884, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
[4] William Natcher (KY).
[1] Parliamentarian’s Note: Congress would not ultimately complete action on a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013. See § 17.1, supra. Because a final budget had not been adopted by both Houses of Congress, the procedures for reconciliation legislation of section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act were not triggered, nor did the bill responding to the reconciliation directives in the House-adopted budget resolution qualify as privileged for consideration under Rule XIII clause 5 (House Rules and Manual § 853 (2011)). Instead, the Committee on the Budget reported a bill responding to such directives as if Congress had adopted a final budget, and the Committee on Rules made in order its consideration by special order. For more on the sequestration issues surrounding the reconciliation legislation at issue here, see § 26, infra.
[2] 158 Cong. Rec. H2573 [Daily Ed.], 112th Cong. 2d Sess.
[1] Parliamentarian’s Note: Because the budget resolution containing these reconciliation directives had not yet been adopted by both Houses of Congress, such directives did not trigger the reconciliation procedures of section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act, nor did the bill responding to such directives qualify as privileged for consideration under Rule XI clause 4 (now Rule XIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual § 853 (2011)). Instead, House committees took up such bill as if reconciliation directives had been adopted by Congress and the Committee on Rules made in order its consideration by special order.
[2] 130 Cong. Rec. 9386, 9387, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
[3] Brian Donnelly (MA).
[1] Parliamentarian’s Note: Current Rule XXI clause 4 (formerly Rule XXI clause 5(a)) is the prohibition on reporting measures containing appropriations by a committee other than the Committee on Appropriations. House Rules and Manual § 1065 (2011).
[2] 131 Cong. Rec. 28745, 28791, 28812, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
[3] Eligio de la Garza (TX).
[1] Parliamentarian’s Note: Former Rule XXI clause 5(b) (now clause 5(a)) is the prohibition on reporting certain tax or tariff measures by a committee other than the Committee on Ways and Means. House Rules and Manual § 1066 (2011). While H. Res. 296 waived former Rule XXI clause 5(b) points of order against a subtitle of the bill (ERISA) recommended from the Committee on Education and Labor, it left this section unprotected.
[2] 131 Cong. Rec. 28776, 28826, 28827, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
[3] Eligio de la Garza (TX).
[1] Former Rule XXI clause 5(b) can now be found at Rule XXI clause 5(a)(1). House Rules and Manual § 1066 (2011).
[2] 135 Cong. Rec. 21790, 21797, 23261, 23262, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
[3] Nicholas Mavroules (MA).
[1] At the time of this precedent, unanimous consent was required for the Speaker to appoint the additional conferee because the Speaker lacked unilateral authority to do so. Such authority, however, was made part of the standing rules at the beginning of the 103d Congress (139 Cong. Rec. 49, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1993 (H. Res. 5)). This authority is now found in Rule I clause 11. House Rules and Manual § 637 (2011).
[2] 127 Cong. Rec. 15921, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
[3] Thomas O’Neill (MA).
[1] 133 Cong. Rec. 36759, 36760, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
[2] James C. Wright, Jr. (TX).
[1] The House chose this unusual method of correcting an error in the conference report (vacating the initial filing and authorizing a new filing) over more traditional methods, such as adopting a concurrent resolution correcting the enrollment of the bill or recommitting the conference report to the conference. Both of these alternatives would have engendered some delay by requiring additional legislation actions — Senate action in the case of a concurrent resolution correcting the enrollment, or the signing and filing of a new conference report in case of recommital.
[2] 141 Cong. Rec. 33741, 33742, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. See also Deschler-Brown Precedents Ch. 33 § 26.18, supra.
[3] Ray LaHood (IL).
[1] Enrolled bills and resolutions are to be printed on parchment or other paper of suitable quality as determined by the Joint Committee on Printing. 1 USC §§ 106, 107. Printing on parchment is more time-consuming than other methods and Congress has occasionally authorized certified ‘‘hand enrollments’’ to expedite the presentation of legislation to the President. See 158 Cong. Rec. H7521 [Daily Ed.], 112th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 1, 2013 (H. Con. Res. 147), and Deschler’s Precedents Ch. 24 § 14, supra.
[2] See also 147 Cong. Rec. 28, 107th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 2001 (H. Res. 5, sec. 2(b)) for updated changes in the standing rules on preparation of enrolled bills.
[3] 132 Cong. Rec. 29714, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
[1] 127 Cong. Rec. 18981, 18983, 18985, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. See also Deschler-Brown Precedents Ch. 33 § 17.5, supra.
[2] David E. Bonior (MI).
[1] Parliamentarian’s Note: This section of the Congressional Budget Act was rewritten by Gramm-Rudman-Hollings in 1985 to prohibit instead the adjourning for more than three calendar days in July without completing any required reconciliation legislation. Nevertheless, the general principle encapsulated by this precedent remains sound. The point of order prevents consideration of an adjournment resolution prior to the completion of the required legislative actions.
[2] The revisions to the Congressional Budget Act made by Gramm-Rudman-Hollings eliminated the requirement of a second annual budget resolution.
[3] 126 Cong. Rec. 28575, 28576, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Deschler-Brown-Johnson Precedents Ch. 40 § 11.2, supra.
[4] Thomas O’Neill (MA).
[1] 2 USC §§ 640, 641(f). For more on section 309 of the Congressional Budget Act, see §§ 5.19, 5.20, supra.
[2] 132 Cong. Rec. 14644, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
[3] Thomas Carper (DE).
[1] 2 USC §§ 640, 641(f).
Parliamentarian’s Note: As noted above, sections 309 and 310(f) of the Congressional Budget Act prohibit the consideration of a concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of more than three calendar days in July if the House has not completed action on all appropriation bills and any required reconciliation legislation. By adopting the Senate adjournment resolution by unanimous consent, these sections of the Congressional Budget Act were implicitly waived. The House, also by unanimous consent, tabled the House resolution making in order consideration of an adjournment resolution in July—a procedural step rendered moot by the adoption of the Senate adjournment resolution. Finally, section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000 ostensibly set a deadline of July 16, 1999, for the House Committee on Ways and Means to report reconciliation legislation. Although this date had not yet arrived at the time of the adoption of this adjournment resolution, that procedural provision of the budget resolution operated independently of the requirements of section 310(f)—hence the need to proceed by unanimous consent on the otherwise privileged Senate adjournment resolution.
[2] 145 Cong. Rec. 15106, 106th Cong. 1st Sess.
[3] Dennis Hastert (IL).
§ 21. House Consideration of Reconciliation Bills (pdf)
Deschler’s Precedents: Chapter 41 of Volume 18 (PDF Links)
Deschler-Brown-Johnson-Sullivan Precedents, Chapter 41, Volume 18, (H. Doc. 94-661), 112th Congress, 2013.
§ 20. Reconciliation Directives in Budget Resolutions |
§ 22. Introduction |
Budget Counsel 