[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[C. Recognition on Particular Questions]
[Â§ 17. As to Conference Reports and Other House-Senate Matters]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9895-9959]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                 C. RECOGNITION ON PARTICULAR QUESTIONS
 
Sec. 17. As to Conference Reports and Other House-Senate Matters

    The chairman of the committee with jurisdiction of the subject 
matter of a bill is ordinarily recognized for requests for a 
conference, motions and resolutions relating to disposition of Senate 
amendments, or calling up conference reports.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. Sec. 17.29 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and 
minority parties, is permitted 
on a conference report; and the Speaker recognizes the Member calling 
up the report to control 30 minutes and a Member from the other party, 
preferably the senior conferee from that party, to control 30 
minutes.(20) Under customary practice, the Members 
controlling the time for debate on a conference report are among those 
who served as House managers in the conference.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 17.9, infra.
 1. For division of debate on a conference report, see Rule XXVIII 
        clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule XXVIII, clause 1(b)(2) provides that the time 
allotted for debate on any motion to instruct House conferees shall be 
equally divided between the majority and minority parties, except that 
if the proponent of the motion and the Member from the other party are 
both supporters of the motion, one third of such debate time shall be 
allotted to a Member who is opposed to said motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the time allotted for debate in the consideration of a

[[Page 9896]]

conference report is equally divided between the majority party and the 
minority party, except that if the floor manager for the majority and 
the floor manager for the minority are both supporters of the 
conference report, one third of such debate time shall be allotted to a 
Member who is opposed to said conference report.(3) A 
similar provision applies specifically to consideration of amendments 
in disagreement.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Rule XXVIII, cl. 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995).
 4. Rule XXVIII, cl. 2(b)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912b (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The offering of a preferential motion does not deprive the Member 
making the original motion to dispose of a Senate amendment of control 
of the floor for debate, and the Chair will recognize the Member 
controlling the floor when the preferential motion is 
offered.(5) For example, where the manager of a conference 
report has offered a motion to insist on disagreement to a Senate 
amendment, a motion to recede and concur therein is preferential and is 
voted on first, but the manager retains control of the majority time on 
the amendment.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See, for example, Sec. 17.44, infra.
 6. See Sec. 17.48, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, where the House rejects a motion by the manager 
of a bill to dispose of a Senate amendment remaining in disagreement, 
recognition to offer another motion is accorded to a Member who led the 
opposition to the rejected motion.(7) Accordingly, where a 
motion by the Member in charge of a conference report to recede and 
concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment is defeated, recognition 
for a motion to further insist on disagreement passes to a Member 
opposed.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 17.54, infra.
 8. See Sec. 17.57, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A motion to concur in a Senate amendment to a House amendment to a 
Senate amendment to a House measure, the stage of disagreement having 
been reached, is preferential to a motion to disagree and request a 
conference and is debatable under the provisions of Rule XXVIII, clause 
2.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See the proceedings of Nov. 6, 1985, discussed in Sec. 24.46, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The prior right to recognition to move to recommit a conference 
report ordinarily belongs to a member of the conference committee, 
although on one occasion, the Chair recognized the ranking minority 
member of one of the two committees which had originally reported the 
bill, even though the member was not a conferee on the 
bill.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 17.62, infra.

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

[[Page 9897]]

                            Cross References
Conferences and disposition of conference reports, see Ch. 33, infra.
Disposition of amendments between the Houses, see Ch. 32, infra.
Distribution and alternation of time on conference reports, see 
    Sec. 25, infra.
Duration of time for debate on conference reports and amendments 
    between the Houses, see Sec. 68, infra.
Yielding time on conference reports, see Sec. 29, 
    infra.                          -------------------

Motion To Send Bill to Conference

Sec. 17.1 The motion to send a bill to conference pursuant to Rule XX 
    clause 1 is privileged at any time the House is in possession of 
    the papers if the appropriate committee has authorized the motion 
    and the Speaker in his discretion recognizes for that purpose.

    On Mar. 20, 1975,(11) the following proceedings 
pertaining to consideration of the foreign assistance appropriations 
(H.R. 4592) occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 7646, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, in 
    accordance with rule XX of the House rules and by direction of the 
    Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's 
    table the bill (H.R. 4592) making appropriations for foreign 
    assistance and related programs for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
    1975, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, 
    disagree to the Senate amendments and agree to the conference asked 
    by the Senate.
        The Speaker: (12) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Passman).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that no objection is in 
    order.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, does this report not have to lay over 
    for a period of time prior to the request being made for conferees?
        The Speaker: Not for the appointment of conferees.
        Mr. Bauman: Then, Mr. Speaker, it is in order today?
        The Speaker: The motion to send the bill to conference is in 
    order today.

Further Debate by Unanimous Consent After Previous Question on Motion 
    To Instruct Conferees

Sec. 17.2 By unanimous consent, further debate may be permitted on a 
    motion to instruct conferees on which the previous question has 
    been ordered.

[[Page 9898]]

    During consideration of a motion to instruct House conferees on the 
conference with the Senate on H.R. 3919 (crude oil windfall profits 
tax) on Feb. 20, 1980,(13) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 126 Cong. Rec. 3322, 3337, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Norman E.] D'Amours [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    offer a motion.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. D'Amours moves that, pursuant to the provisions of 
        clause 1(b) of Rule XXVIII, the managers on the part of the 
        House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
        Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3919 be 
        instructed to agree to the provisions contained in parts 1, 2 
        and 4 of title II of the Senate amendment to the text of the 
        bill.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The gentleman from New 
    Hampshire (Mr. D'Amours) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Benjamin S. Rosenthal (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the 
    motion to instruct.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . . [T]here may have been some confusion 
    on the last vote, given what appeared on the screens in Members' 
    offices. . . .
        This question . . . we will vote on now is a vote on the motion 
    to instruct the conferees?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question that will occur now is on 
    the motion to instruct the conferees.
        (By unanimous consent Mr. Gibbons was allowed to speak out of 
    order.)
        Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I cannot 
    believe the last vote. It is absolutely astounding.
        What my colleagues voted for was to instruct the conferees to 
    throw away $26 billion on some tax credits of doubtful value. . . .
        But, please, do not instruct us. We are about to complete this 
    conference. We are about to get things wound up and get it out here 
    where we can either accept it or reject it.

Special Rule Providing for Debate on Conference Reports Considered En 
    Bloc

Sec. 17.3 Pursuant to a special rule providing for four hours of debate 
    on five conference reports considered en bloc in the House, equally 
    divided between the majority and minority, with one hour to be 
    confined to debate on one of the five reports (natural gas policy), 
    the Speaker recognized the chairman and ranking minority member of 
    the Ad Hoc Committee on Energy for one-half hour each for the first 
    hour, to be confined to debate on the natural gas conference 
    report, and then recognized them for one and one-half

[[Page 9899]]

    hour each on the remaining reports.

    On Oct. 14, 1978,(15) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 124 Cong. Rec. 38349, 38350, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    House Resolution 1434, I call up the conference reports on the 
    bills [H.R. 4018, Public Utility Rates; H.R. 5037, Energy 
    Conservation; H.R. 5146, Coal Conversion; H.R. 5289, Natural Gas 
    Policy; and H.R. 5263, Energy Tax]. . . .
        The Clerk read the titles of the bills.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(16) Pursuant to House 
    Resolution 1434, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley) will be 
    recognized for 2 hours and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Anderson) will be recognized for 2 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley) 
    and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) for 30 minutes to 
    debate the conference report on H.R. 5289. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: May I . . . inquire of 
    the Chair whether the first hour of debate is to be directed to the 
    natural gas conference report and not to the other four conference 
    reports?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Bauman: Only to the natural gas conference report?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Bauman: Would it be out of order to discuss the other parts 
    during that time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the 
    gentleman that the Chair would have to rule as points along that 
    line are brought to the attention of the Chair.
        Mr. Bauman: I thank the Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the 
    gentleman that the resolution provides the first hour of which 
    shall be confined solely to the conference report on the bill H.R. 
    5289.

The House Has, by Use of a Special Order, Deemed a Conference Report, 
    Not Yet Before the House, To Be Adopted

Sec. 17.4 A special order providing for consideration of a bill 
    included an additional provision specifying a contingent order of 
    the House--the adoption of a conference report pending in the 
    Senate, if the Senate notified the House before a date certain that 
    it had agreed thereto.

    On Mar. 28, 1996,(17) the House adopted H. Res. 391, a 
special rule providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3136) to 
provide for consideration of the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 
1996. The rule also provided a ``contingent order'' relating to title 
II which contained the text of the

[[Page 9900]]

``Line Item Veto'' bill previously passed by the House. The text of 
title II was the same as that agreed upon by House and Senate managers 
in the conference on the previously-passed Line Item Veto bill, S. 4. 
If the House were to be informed by a message from the Senate that the 
conference report on S. 4 had been approved by the Senate, then that 
conference report would be ``deemed adopted'' by the House, and the 
Clerk, in enrolling the bill H.R. 3136, would strike the then 
superfluous title II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 142 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rather complicated special order was drafted to make it 
possible for the House to adjourn for its Easter break, scheduled for 
Mar. 29-Apr. 15. Otherwise, there would have been an effort to remain 
in session until the Senate completed action on the conference report.
    The Senate actually informed the House of the adoption of the 
conference agreement later on the same day (Mar. 28), and so the 
contingencies in H. Res. 391 were executed that same day. Title II of 
H.R. 3136, containing the line item veto provisions identical to those 
in S. 4, was stricken in the engrossment of the bill. The conference 
agreement on S. 4 was deemed adopted by the House. S. 4 was enrolled 
and sent to the President. It because Public Law 104-130.

      providing for consideration of h.r. 3136, contract with america 
                          advancement act of 1996

        Mr. [Gerald B. H.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 391 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 391

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
        (except those arising under section 425(a) of the Congressional 
        Budget Act of 1974) to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
        3136) to provide for the enactment of the Senior Citizens' 
        Right to Work Act of 1996, the Line Item Veto Act, and the 
        Small Business Growth and Fairness Act of 1996, and to provide 
        for a permanent increase in the public debt limit. The 
        amendments specified in the report of the Committee on Rules 
        accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 
        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) one hour of 
        debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled 
        by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
        Ways and Means; (2) a further amendment, if offered by the 
        chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, which shall be in 
        order without intervention of any point of order (except those 
        arising under section 425(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974) or demand for division of the question, shall be 
        considered as read, and

[[Page 9901]]

        shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided 
        and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one 
        motion to recommit, which may include instructions only if 
        offered by the Minority Leader or his designee.
            Sec. 2. If, before March 30, 1996, the House has received a 
        message informing it that the Senate has adopted the conference 
        report to accompany the bill (S. 4) to grant the power to the 
        President to reduce budget authority, and for other purposes, 
        then--
            (a) in the engrossment of H.R. 3136 the Clerk shall strike 
        title II (unless it has been amended) and redesignate the 
        subsequent titles accordingly; and
            (b) the House shall be considered to have adopted that 
        conference report.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard Hastings (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
    yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California 
    [Mr. Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
    is for the purpose of debate only.
        (Mr. Solomon asked and was given permission to include 
    extraneous material.)

                      amendment offered by mr. solomon

        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon:
            Page 2, line 9, strike ``one hour'' and all that follows 
        through ``Means'' on line 12, and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following:
            ``80 minutes of debate on the bill, as amended, with 60 
        minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
        ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and 
        20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
        ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform 
        and Oversight or their designees''.

        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    amendment be agreed to.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from New York?
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. Solomon: . . . Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for 
    consideration in the House of H.R. 3136, as modified by the 
    amendments designated in the Committee on Rules report on this 
    resolution. The rule provides for the adoption of two amendments. 
    The first amendment is to title III of the bill relating to 
    regulatory reform, and the second amendment is to title I of this 
    bill relating to the Social Security earnings test limit. Both 
    amendments address specific concerns of the administration and have 
    been included in the bill in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation. 
    It is hoped that the final product will meet the concerns of all 
    parties involved. . . .
        Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides that if before March 
    30, 1996, the House has received a Senate message stating that the 
    Senate has adopted the conference report on S. 4, which is the 
    Line-Item Veto Act, then following House passage and engrossment of 
    H.R. 3136, the Clerk shall be

[[Page 9902]]

    instructed to strike title II unless amended from this bill. This 
    title contains the exact text of the conference report of Senate 
    bill 4.
        Furthermore, upon the actions of the House, it will be deemed 
    to have adopted the conference report on S. 4, which is the line-
    item veto conference report. This final procedure has been included 
    in the rule as part of our continuing efforts to expedite the 
    consideration of this terribly, terribly important piece of 
    legislation.
        The rule also sets up a highly unusual procedure, which the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] described a few minutes ago, 
    for disposing of the Line Item Veto Act. The rule provides that if 
    the other body approves the conference report on this bill before 
    Saturday and the House passes H.R. 3136, the conference report 
    shall be sent to the President as a free-standing bill.
        Because the Senate approved the conference report last night, 
    that part of this bill will in fact be separated upon passage of 
    this legislation. We believe it is unnecessary and unwise to 
    construct final action on the Line Item Veto Act in this convoluted 
    manner. There is no good reason why this matter should not be 
    considered in the same way other conference reports are normally 
    considered; that is, as free-standing legislation and without 
    reference to action by the other body. For that matter, there is no 
    good reason why any of the extraneous legislation included in this 
    increase in the debt limit must be included.

    Later the same day:

                       message from the senate . . .

        The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the report 
    of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
    Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 4) ``An act 
    to grant the power to the President to reduce budget authority.''
        (For text of conference report deemed adopted pursuant to 
    Resolution 391, see proceedings of the House of March 21, 1996, at 
    page H2640.)

                        senate enrolled bill signed

        The Speaker announced his signature to enrolled bills of the 
    Senate of the following titles:

            S. 4. An act to give the President line item veto authority 
        with respect to appropriations, new direct spending, and 
        limited tax benefits.

                            title ii--line item veto

            Sec. 201. Short Title.
            This title may be cited as the ``Line Item Veto Act''.

High Privilege of Conference Report

Sec. 17.5 The rules provide that conference reports shall always be in 
    order, except when the Journal is being read, while the roll is 
    being called, or the House is dividing on any 
    proposition;(19) and the Chair may recognize a Member to 
    call up a conference report before pro

[[Page 9903]]

    ceeding to other business mandated by the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Rule XXVIII, cl. 1(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 909 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under a former rule,(20) the call of the Consent 
Calendar was mandatory on the first and third Mondays of the month 
immediately after the approval of the Journal. (The Consent Calendar 
was replaced in the 104th Congress by the Corrections 
Calendar.)(1) The proceedings of May 4, 1970,(2) 
which was Consent Calendar Monday, are illustrative of the high 
privilege of conference reports. On that day, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, first recognized Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of 
Kentucky, to call up a conference report before directing the Clerk to 
call the Consent Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Rule XIII, cl. 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 746 (1993).
 1. See Rule XIII, cl. 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 745a (1995).
 2. 116 Cong. Rec. 13991-95, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chairman of Committee Opposed to Bill

Sec. 17.6 The Speaker recognized the ranking majority member of a 
    committee, and not the chairman thereof, also a conferee, to call 
    up a conference report.

    On July 17, 1967,(3) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Samuel N. Friedel, of Maryland, ranking 
majority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to 
call up a conference report on Senate Joint Resolution 81, providing 
for a railway labor dispute settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 113 Cong. Rec. 19032, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and a 
conferee on the bill, was not recognized to call up the report because 
he was opposed to the bill.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Mr. Staggers' statement at 113 Cong. Rec. 15822, 15823, 90th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., June 14, 1967, cited at Sec. 16.16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Manager Called Up Conference Report Although He Was Opposed

Sec. 17.7 The senior manager on the part of the House at a conference 
    called up for consideration and managed the debate on the 
    conference report, although he had not signed the report and was 
    opposed to it.

    On Dec. 6, 1967,(5) William R. Poage, of Texas, Chairman 
of the Committee on Agriculture and senior manager for the House in

[[Page 9904]]

conference on H.R. 12144, the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1967, 
called up the conference report on that bill and managed the debate 
thereon. Mr. Poage delivered the following remarks when calling up the 
report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 113 Cong. Rec. 35144-55, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Poage: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
        Mr. Speaker, today I find myself in the same position which I 
    occupied when we sent this bill to conference. I have no desire to 
    interfere with or delay consideration of the bill. I full well 
    recognize the very proper desire 
    of every Member of this House to secure and maintain the very best 
    possible meat inspection program for the United States. I join in 
    that desire. The conference report which our committee brings you 
    is intended to achieve that result. I hope it will.
        This report is signed by all of the conferees on the part of 
    the Senate and all but two of the conferees on the part of the 
    House. I am one of those two.

Conference Report Within Jurisdiction of Two Committees

Sec. 17.8 A conference report on a bill with two titles was called up 
    by the chairman of one committee, who controlled one-half hour on 
    one title 
    of the bill, and who then yielded to the chairman of another 
    committee to control one-half hour on the other title and to move 
    the previous question.

    On May 13, 1970,(6) Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West 
Virginia, called up a conference report on H.R. 14465, the Airport and 
Airway Development and Revenue Acts of 1970. The managers on the part 
of the House had been appointed from two House committees, since title 
I of the bill dealt with airport authorizations, within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and 
title II dealt with raising revenue for airport construction, within 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 15291-97, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce had reported the 
bill in the House, and Mr. Staggers, Chairman of that committee, 
therefore called up the conference report for consideration. He 
controlled one-half hour of debate on title I, which was within the 
jurisdiction of his committee. He then yielded to Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, to control one-
half hour of debate on title II of the bill. Mr. Mills moved the 
previous question on the report.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The hour of debate on a conference report 
is now equally divided be

[[Page 9905]]

tween the majority and minority parties. See Sec. 17.9, infra.

Debate on Conference Report--How Divided

Sec. 17.9 One hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and 
    minority parties, is permitted on a conference report; and the 
    Speaker recognizes the Member calling up the report to control 30 
    minutes and a Member from the other party (preferably the senior 
    conferee from that party) to control 30 minutes.

    On Jan. 19, 1972,(7) Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, Chairman of 
the Committee on House Administration, called up the conference 
report on S. 382, the Federal 
Election Campaign Act of 1972. Speaker Carl Albert recognized Mr. Hays 
to control 30 minutes of debate on the report and Mr. William L. 
Springer, of Illinois (ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce and a conferee) to handle the other 30 
minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 118 Cong. Rec. 319, 320, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conferees had been appointed from both the Committees on House 
Administration and Interstate and Foreign Commerce, since the bill was 
the work product of both committees.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVIII, clause 2(a) was amended in the 
92d Congress, 1st Session (H. Res. 5) to require a division of the hour 
for debate on a conference report. Prior to that time, debate on a 
conference report was under the hour rule, with the Member recognized 
to call up the report in control of the time.(8) The rule 
now also provides that if the floor managers for the majority and 
minority both support the conference report, one-third of the debate 
time shall be allotted to a Member opposed.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See, for example, 115 Cong. Rec. 40451, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 
        20, 1969; 108 Cong. Rec. 4247-51, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 15, 
        1962.
 9. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate on Motion To Reject Nongermane Portion of Conference Report

Sec. 17.10 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, 40 minutes for debate on a 
    motion to 
    reject a nongermane portion 
    of a conference report is equally divided between the proponent and 
    an opponent of the motion to reject, and recognition is not based 
    upon party affiliation; and

[[Page 9906]]

    the House conferee who has been recognized for 20 minutes in 
    opposition to a motion to reject a nongermane portion of a 
    conference report is entitled to close debate on the motion to 
    reject.

    H.R. 5247, a bill reported from the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, consisted of one title relating to grants to state and 
local governments for local public works construction projects. A new 
title added by the Senate and contained in a conference report provided 
grants to state and local governments to assist them in providing 
public services. On Jan. 29, 1976,(10) a point of order was 
made in the House, pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, against the title 
added by the Senate. The title was held to be not germane, because it 
proposed a revenue-sharing program within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Government Operations, and because the approach taken in 
the Senate version was not closely related to the methods used to 
combat unemployment as delineated in the House bill.(11) 
After the Speaker had ruled on the point of order, a motion was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 1582, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. For further discussion of the ruling on the issue of germaneness, 
        see Ch. 28, Sec. 4.99, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Brooks moves that the House reject title II of H.R. 
        5247, as reported by the committee of conference.

        The Speaker:(12) The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
    Jones) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Brooks) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume.

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: Do 
    we have 20 minutes on the minority side?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the division of time is 
    between those in favor and those opposed to the motion to reject 
    title II. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Jones) has 20 minutes and 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) has 20 minutes.
        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas, on behalf of Mr. Jones]: 
    Mr. Speaker, I have one other speaker, the majority leader. I do 
    not know what the courtesy is, or the appropriate protocol, in a 
    matter of this kind.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule that the gentleman 
    from Texas [Mr. Wright] may close debate.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For another instance in which the Speaker acknowledged that the 
        House conferee who has been recognized for 20 minutes in 
        opposition to a motion to reject a nongermane portion of a 
        conference report is entitled to close debate on the motion to 
        reject, see Ch. 28, Sec. 26.23, supra.

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

[[Page 9907]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where the House agrees to a motion to 
reject a nongermane portion of 
a conference report pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, the pending 
question, in the form of a motion offered by the manager of the 
conference report, is to recede 
from disagreement to the Senate amendment and concur with an amendment 
consisting of the remaining portions of the conference report not 
rejected on the separate vote, and one hour of debate, equally divided 
between the majority and minority parties, is permitted on that pending 
question.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 68.24, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate on Conference Report After Section Containing Nongermane Senate 
    Matter Agreed to

Sec. 17.11 Pursuant to a special rule and to clause 1 of Rule XX, in 
    effect in the 92d Congress, the House agreed to a section of a 
    conference report (containing nongermane Senate matter) following 
    40 minutes of debate; the House then considered the entire 
    conference report, the Member calling up the report and a Member of 
    the minority party each being recognized for 30 minutes under Rule 
    XXVIII clause 2.

    On Nov. 10, 1971,(15) pursuant to a special rule, a 
separate vote was demanded on a section of a conference report, and the 
House agreed to the section after 40 minutes of debate divided between 
the manager of the report and the Member demanding the separate 
vote.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 40489, 40490, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
16. See Sec. 17.34, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House then considered the entire conference report, and the 
Speaker stated that one hour of debate would be had, the Member calling 
up the report, F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, to be recognized for 30 
minutes, and a Member of the minority party, Leslie C. Arends, of 
Illinois, to be recognized for 30 minutes.

Debate Controlled by Conferees Appointed From Two Committees

Sec. 17.12 One hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and 
    minority parties, is permitted on a conference report; and where 
    conferees have been appointed from two committees of the House, the 
    Speaker

[[Page 9908]]

    recognizes one of the minority committee members (not necessarily a 
    member of the same committee as the Member controlling the majority 
    time) to control 30 minutes of debate.

    On Jan. 19, 1972,(17) Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, Chairman 
of the Committee on House Administration, called up a conference report 
on S. 382, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1972. Conferees on the 
part of the House had been appointed from two House committees with 
jurisdiction over the bill, the Committee on House Administration and 
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 118 Cong. Rec. 319, 320, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. Hays for 30 
minutes of debate to control time for the majority. He recognized 
William L. Springer, of Illinois, ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to control 30 minutes of 
debate for the minority.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Springer controlled the minority time 
although he had resigned as a conferee on the bill, even though Samuel 
L. Devine, of Ohio, ranking minority member of the Committee on House 
Administration and a conferee on the bill, was on the floor and 
participated in debate. Under customary practice, however, the Members 
controlling the time for debate on a conference report are among those 
who served as House managers in the conference.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For division of debate on a conference report, see Rule XXVIII 
        clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule XXVIII, clause 2(a) now provides that if the floor manager for 
the majority and minority both support the conference report, one-third 
of the debate time shall be allotted to a Member 
opposed.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Permitting Additional Debate on Conference Report; Special Order

Sec. 17.13 While debate on a conference report is limited to one hour 
    (20) to be equally divided between majority and minority 
    parties,(1) the House

[[Page 9909]]

    may, by unanimous consent, either extend that time or permit debate 
    by ``special order'' on the conference report prior to actual 
    consideration thereof; thus, on 
    one occasion, by unanimous 
    consent, two Members, the chairman and ranking minority member of 
    the House conferees, were permitted ``special orders'' of one hour 
    each to debate a conference report following adoption of a 
    resolution making in order the consideration of the report but 
    prior to actual consideration of the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 758 (1995).
 1. See Rule XXVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995). 
        The rule also provides that if the majority and minority floor 
        managers both support the conference report, one-third of the 
        debate time shall be allotted to a Member opposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 26, 1975,(2) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House during consideration of a resolution waiving points of 
order against consideration of a conference report not yet filed or 
printed. The manager of the rule, Mr. Matsunaga, during debate on the 
rule, yielded to the chairman of the House conferees (Mr. Ullman) to 
file the conference report. After filing, Mr. Ullman then requested a 
special order to explain the report while awaiting copies to reach the 
floor; the ranking minority member of the House conferees also received 
permission for a special order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 8899, 8900, 8916, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Spark M.] Matsunaga [of Hawaii]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 
    minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman).

         conference report on h.r. 2166, tax reduction act of 1975

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon] submitted the following conference 
    report and statement on the bill (H.R. 2166) to amend the Internal 
    Revenue Code of 1954 . . . to increase the investment credit and 
    the surtax exemption, and for other purposes:

                      Conference Report (H. Rept. 94-120)

            The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
        two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
        2166) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 . . . having 
        met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend 
        and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
            That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
        amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment 
        as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by 
        the Senate amendment insert the following:

                   Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents.

            (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Tax 
        Reduction Act of 1975''. . . .

        Mr. Ullman: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that upon the 
    adoption of the rule I be granted a 60-minute special order.

[[Page 9910]]

        The Speaker: (3) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from 
    Oregon?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Reserving the right to 
    object, Mr. Speaker, we have in the rules of the House an adequate 
    rule for the consideration of conference reports . . . . I have no 
    way of knowing, nor does any Member in this Chamber know, who will 
    control the time during a special order, except the gentleman from 
    Oregon, whether questions, once raised, will be answered, or 
    whether or not debate will deteriorate into partisan debate.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is very effectively but improperly 
    stating the rules. The minority has 30 minutes and the majority has 
    30 minutes on the conference report.
        Mr. Bauman: I am talking about the lack of protection contained 
    in the request for the 1-hour special order that was just made by 
    the gentleman from Oregon.
        The Speaker: Any Member of the House may make a request for a 
    special order.
        Mr. Bauman: I withdraw my reservation of objection.
        Mr. [Herman T.] Schneebeli [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, 
    further reserving the right to object, I also ask for a 60-minute 
    special order following that of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
    Ullman).
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania?
        There was no objection.

Conference Report on Budget Resolution--Debate Is Under Hour Rule on 
    Amendments in Disagreement

Sec. 17.14 While under section 305(a)(4) [now section 305 (a)(6)] of 
    the Congressional Budget Act (4) there can be 
    up to five hours of debate 
    on a conference report on 
    a concurrent resolution on 
    the budget equally divided 
    between the majority and 
    minority parties, where the conferees have reported in total 
    disagreement, debate on the motion to dispose of the amendment in 
    disagreement is not covered by the statute and is therefore un-der 
    the general ``hour'' rule in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1007 (1995) at p. 893.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During consideration of the first concurrent resolution on the 
budget for fiscal year 1978 (S. Con. Res. 19) in the House on May 17, 
1977,(5) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 123 Cong. Rec. 15126, 15127, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    the conference report on the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. 
    Res. 19) setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. 
    Government for the fiscal

[[Page 9911]]

    year 1978 (and revising the congressional budget for fiscal year 
    1977), and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The Clerk will read the 
    conference report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the conference report. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the Senate 
    amendment to the House amendment.
        The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment as 
    follows:

            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House 
        engrossed amendment, insert: . . .

        Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Giaimo moves to concur in the Senate amendment to the 
        House amendment.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) for 1 hour.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Since the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment had not been reported from conference in disagreement, but 
had been subsequently added by the Senate after consideration of the 
conference report in that body, the requirement for equal division of 
time on a motion to dispose of a Senate amendment reported from 
conference in disagreement was not applicable.
    On May 13, 1976,(7) the conferees' report on Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 109, the first concurrent resolution on the 
budget for fiscal 1977, was called up in the House. The conferees 
reported in total disagreement on a House amendment in the nature of a 
substitute for the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 13756, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Senate had amended the House amendment to incorporate the 
provisions informally agreed upon in conference but outside the scope 
of the differences with respect to three functional categories. In 
accordance with the procedure applicable when conferees report that 
they are unable to agree, the report was called up in the House but not 
acted upon. The Speaker then directed the Clerk to report the pending 
Senate amendment to the House amendment for disposition by motion.

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 
    109) setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. Government 
    for the fiscal year 1977--and revising the congressional budget for 
    the transition quarter beginning July 1, 1976--and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.

    The conference report stated in part:(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See 122 Cong. Rec. 13026, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., May 7, 1976, for 
        text of conference report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the con

[[Page 9912]]

    ference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment 
    of the House to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 109) 
    setting forth the congressional budget for the United States 
    Government for the fiscal year 1977 (and revising the congressional 
    budget for the transition quarter beginning July 1, 1976), report 
    that the conferees have been unable to agree. This is a technical 
    disagreement, necessitated by the fact that in three instances the 
    substitute language agreed to by the conferees includes figures 
    which (for purely technical reasons) would fall outside the 
    permissible range between the corresponding House and Senate 
    provisions.
        It is the intention of the conferees that the managers on the 
    part of the Senate will offer a motion in the Senate to recede and 
    concur in the House amendment to the Senate-passed resolution with 
    an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) consisting of the 
    language agreed to in conference, and that upon the adoption of 
    such amendment in the Senate the managers on the part of the House 
    will offer a motion in the House to concur therein.
        The Speaker:(9) The Chair lays before the House the 
    Senate amendment to the House amendment, which the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment as 
    follows:

            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
        amendment of the House insert:
        That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to 
        section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that 
        for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1976--

        Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Adams moves that the House concur in the Senate 
        amendment to the House amendment.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Adams) is 
    recognized for 1 hour.
        Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Ohio for purposes of debate only, pending which I yield myself 
    such time as I may consume.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Parliamentarian's Note: Since the Senate amendment to the House 
        amendment had not been reported from conference in 
        disagreement, but had been subsequently added by the Senate 
        after consideration of the conference report in that body, the 
        requirement for equal division of time on a motion to dispose 
        of a Senate amendment ``reported from conference'' [see Rule 
        XXVIII, clause 2(b)] in disagreement was not applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 17, 1978,(11) the conferees' report on Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 80, the first concurrent resolution on the budget 
for fiscal 1979, was called up 
in the House. The conferees reported in total disagreement, and 


[[Page 9913]]

the conference report stated in part: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 14116, 14117, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. See 124 Cong. Rec. 13615, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., May 15, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
    Houses on the amendment of the House to the concurrent resolution 
    (S. Con. Res. 80) setting forth the congressional budget for the 
    United States Government for the fiscal year 1979, having met, 
    after full and free conference have been unable to agree on a 
    conference report because the conference decisions have reduced 
    certain budget figures, including the deficit and the public debt, 
    below the provisions enacted by either House. As set forth in the 
    accompanying Joint Explanatory Statement, the conferees do propose 
    a congressional budget, containing the lower figures, incorporated 
    in a further amendment for the consideration of the two Houses.

    In accordance with the procedure applicable when conferees report 
that they are unable to agree, the report was called up in the House 
but not acted upon. The Senate having added an amendment to the House 
amendment after its consideration of the conference report, the Speaker 
then directed the Clerk to report the pending Senate amendment to the 
House amendment for disposition by motion.

        The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment, as 
    follows:

            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House 
        engrossed amendment, insert:
        That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to 
        section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that 
        for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1978--

            (1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $447,900,000,000 and the amount by which the aggregate level of 
        Federal revenues 
        should be decreased is $24,700,000,-000. . . .

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate amendment to 
    the House amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Connecticut?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, could the gentleman tell us in what 
    parliamentary form this budget comes before us? Are we dealing with 
    a conference report or a motion to agree to the Senate amendment 
    with an amendment?
        Mr. Giaimo: We are in technical disagreement on the conference 
    report, because of the questions of scope, both as to the 
    aggregates and as to the functional categories.
        We have before us an amendment to the House amendment to the 
    original Senate resolution. The amendment to the House amendment is 
    the substitute amendment which was agreed upon in conference by the 
    conferees.
        It is our intention to move to concur in the Senate amendment 
    to the House amendment.

[[Page 9914]]

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, 
    it is my recollection that when the Budget Act was originally 
    passed, the law contemplated bringing before the House a conference 
    report, parts of which could be attacked through the ordinary 
    parliamentary rules of the House, so that individual changes made 
    in the conference report could be dealt with. It appears to me the 
    parliamentary avenue the gentleman has chosen to bring this before 
    us precludes the rights of Members of the House and forces us to 
    swallow the whole thing in one gulp without adequate deliberation 
    and a chance to work our will.
        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Bauman: I yield to the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Conable: Mr. Speaker, does this result in us not having the 
    statutory period of time to debate the conference report?
        Mr. Bauman: The full 5 hours the Budget Act allows.
        Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, not 5 
    hours, we have 1 hour, as I understand the parliamentary situation.
        Mr. Conable: Why is it brought up in this way, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Giaimo: As I understand the rules, this is the only way it 
    can be brought up and it has been done in this way in the past.
        Mr. Conable: Why do we have the 5-hour rule statutorily, if it 
    has been brought up under a 1-hour rule in the past?
        Mr. Giaimo: The 5-hour rule provides where the conference 
    report is not in technical disagreement, because of questions of 
    scope.
        Mr. Conable: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, 
    is it in technical disagreement, because so many of the items in 
    dispute between the House and the Senate were settled outside the 
    parameters set by the two bodies?
        Mr. Giaimo: Either above or below the parameters.
        Mr. Conable: Then when we make such a settlement, we always 
    avoid the statutory requirement of 5 hours of debate; is that the 
    conclusion?
        Mr. Giaimo: The gentleman can draw whatever inference he 
    wishes.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, 
    I think it is still worth making the point. . . . Now we come back 
    and are offered a parliamentary motion that circumvents the rules 
    of the House and does not allow us to attack individual categories 
    of spending or actions of the conferees. This appears to confirm 
    the charges and again calls into question the entire budget 
    process.
        Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVIII clause 2(b), requiring division 
of time for debate on an amendment reported from conference in 
disagreement, does not apply to a motion to dispose of a Senate 
amendment added after consideration of a conference report in 
disagreement in that body.

Recognition To Move Adoption of Part of Conference Report Denied

Sec. 17.15 A Member cannot be recognized to move the adop

[[Page 9915]]

    tion of a conference report only with respect to certain amendments 
    included therein.

    On Aug. 22, 1940,(14) Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, 
called up a conference report on a Senate joint resolution. Mr. Walter 
G. Andrews, of New York, moved the adoption of the report ``insofar as 
amendments numbered 1 to 14 are concerned.'' Speaker William B. 
Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that Mr. Andrews could not be recognized 
for that motion, since conference reports must be acted upon as a 
whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 86 Cong. Rec. 10763, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition for Motion To 
    Recede and Concur With Amendment After Rejection of Nongermane 
    Matter

Sec. 17.16 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, where the House adopts a 
    motion to reject a portion of a conference report containing a 
    modification of a nongermane Senate amendment, the conference 
    report is considered as rejected and the manager is recognized to 
    offer a motion (considered to be the pending question) to recede 
    and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of 
    the remainder of the conference report.

    The proceedings of Dec. 2, 1982, relating to rejection of matter 
found to be nongermane in the conference report on H.R. 2330 (the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorization), are discussed in more 
detail in Ch. 28, Sec. Sec. 26.34 and 26.35, supra. The following 
exchange (15) occurred after adoption of the motion to 
reject a portion of the conference report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 28552, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore [William H. Natcher, of Kentucky]: 
    Pursuant to clause 4, rule XXVIII, a motion to reject section 23 of 
    the conference report having been adopted, the conference report is 
    considered as rejected and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) 
    is recognized to offer an amendment consisting of the remainder of 
    the conference report.
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    clause 4, rule XXVIII, and the action of the House, I move that the 
    House recede from its disagreement and concur in the Senate 
    amendment with an amendment which I send to the desk.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Udall moves that the House recede and concur in the 
        Senate amendment with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate, insert the 
        following.

[[Page 9916]]

Time for Debate Divided Three Ways

Sec. 17.17 In certain instances, under Rule XXVIII, where Members of 
    the majority and minority who would otherwise divide the time for 
    debate do not oppose a proposition, one who does oppose such 
    proposition may be recognized to control one-third of the time.

    Provisions of Rule XXVIII apply to debate on motions to instruct 
conferees, conference reports, and Senate amendments in disagreement. 
Application of these provisions is discussed in Sec. Sec. 17.18-17.20, 
and in Sec. 26, infra.

Sec. 17.18 Pursuant to clause 2(b) of Rule XXVIII, debate on a motion 
    to dispose of an amendment reported from conference in disagreement 
    is equally divided between the majority and minority parties, 
    unless the minority Member favors the motion, in which event one-
    third of the time is allocated to a Member opposed.

    The following exchange occurred in the House on Aug. 1, 
1985,(16) during consideration of the conference report on 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 (the First Concurrent Resolution on the 
Budget for fiscal year 1986):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 131 Cong. Rec. 22638, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker:(17) Under the rules, the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Gray) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Frank: Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) 
    opposed to the bill?
        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed 
    to the bill.
        Mr. Frank: Mr. Speaker, I believe then that under rule XXVIII, 
    a Member in opposition to the bill is entitled to 20 minutes.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct. Under the rule, the 
    gentleman is entitled to one-third of the time.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gray) will be recognized 
    for 20 minutes, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    (Mr. Frank) will be recognized for 20 minutes.

Sec. 17.19 Pursuant to clause 2(a) of Rule XXVIII, where the floor 
    managers for the majority and minority parties on a conference 
    report are both

[[Page 9917]]

    supporters thereof, a Member opposed may be recognized for one-
    third of the debate time and it is within the discretion of the 
    Chair as to which Member is recognized in opposition; such 
    recognition does not depend upon party affiliation, and the time in 
    opposition may be divided by unanimous consent or yielded by the 
    Member recognized.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Dec. 11, 
1985,(18) during consideration of the conference report on 
House Joint Resolution 372 (the public debt limit increase):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 131 Cong. Rec. 36069, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    the order of the House of Tuesday, December 10, 1985, I call up the 
    conference report on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 372), 
    increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) Pursuant to the order 
    of the House of Tuesday, December 10, 1985, the conference report 
    is considered as having been read. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Lawrence J. Smith (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rostenkowski) will be 
    recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
    Duncan) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, did I hear the Speaker say that the time 
    would be divided between the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Rostenkowski) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan)?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman heard correctly.
        Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, [is the gentleman] from Tennessee 
    opposed to the legislation?
        Mr. [John J.] Duncan [of Tennessee] Mr. Speaker, I am not 
    opposed to the legislation.
        Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, that being the case, I ask under rule 
    XXVIII, since the rules provide that those in opposition be 
    entitled to 20 minutes, I would ask that I be assigned that 20-
    minute time block.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair advises that the gentleman 
    is correct, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rostenkowski) will 
    be recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
    Duncan) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
        Mr. Duncan: I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his inquiry.
        Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, did I understand there is to be 
    additional time assigned to those who oppose the conference report? 
    If I understand correctly, we have some people on our side.

[[Page 9918]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Obey) is opposed, and he will control the 20 minutes time.
        Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Crane is also opposed. We would 
    expect equal time, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Crane is on the committee, and 
    he would expect equal time.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise that the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin is also on the conference committee.
        Mr. Duncan: No, Mr. Speaker, he is not on the Committee on Ways 
    and Means. Mr. Crane is.
        We would expect, and I am for the proposal, and he is in 
    opposition.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rule, 60 minutes is 
    allotted: 20 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, 20 minutes to 
    the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), and 20 minutes to one 
    Member opposed, in this case the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Obey).
        Mr. [Philip M.] Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Crane: Mr. Speaker, I am on the committee; I rose, 
    registered my objection, and I do not know whether that was heard 
    in the din of the crowd here tonight, but I would at least ask the 
    Speaker to permit a division of that time. I am opposed to the 
    bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise that the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin was on his feet and was recognized, in the 
    Chair's discretion and was granted the 20 minutes of the 60.
        Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, I think 
    that the gentleman would be entitled to half of that; otherwise, I 
    think everyone wants to be fair; that I would ask unanimous consent 
    that he be granted that.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise that the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) can yield whatever time that he 
    may desire.
        Mr. Duncan: Would Mr. Obey yield half of that to our side?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Tennessee poses a 
    question to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
        The gentleman from Wisconsin has the 20 minutes; the gentleman 
    from Tennessee wishes to know if he would grant half of that to the 
    minority.
        Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the rule requires that 
    those who are opposed grant the time to the opposition party. I 
    will certainly make certain that people are recognized, but I would 
    appreciate it if they could come to me and let me know that they 
    want to speak.
        Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Crane 
    have the same amount of time that the majority has and that he may 
    control that time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Tennessee?
        Mr. Obey: I object, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Rostenkowski).

Sec. 17.20 Pursuant to clause 2(a) of Rule XXVIII, it is within

[[Page 9919]]

    the discretion of the Speaker as to which Member is recognized to 
    control 20 minutes of debate in opposition to a conference report 
    (where the minority manager is not opposed), and such recognition 
    does not depend on party affiliation.

    On Dec. 16, 1985,(20) after the conference report on 
House Joint Resolution 456 (making further continuing appropriations 
for fiscal 1986) was called up in the House, the Speaker Pro Tempore 
allocated time for debate in support and in opposition, as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 131 Cong. Rec. 36716, 36717, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to the order of the House of today, I call up the conference report 
    on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 456) making further continuing 
    appropriations for the fiscal year 1986, and for other purposes, 
    and ask for its immediate consideration. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) This conference report 
    is being considered pursuant to the unanimous consent request 
    granted earlier today, which the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten asked unanimous consent that it shall be in 
        order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, 
        at any time on Monday, December 16, or any day thereafter, to 
        consider the conference report and amendments in disagreement 
        and motions to dispose of said amendments on House Joint 
        Resolution 456 subject to the availability of said conference 
        report and motions to dispose of amendments in disagreement for 
        at least 1 hour, that all points of order be waived against the 
        conference report and amendments in disagreement and motions to 
        dispose of said amendments, and that said conference report and 
        amendments in disagreement be considered as having been read 
        when called up for consideration. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten) will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for 
    20 minutes recognition in opposition because the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) is for the bill. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman from Massachusetts is for the 
    bill, under the rule I ask for the 20 minutes to be allotted to a 
    Member in opposition, when both the chairman and the ranking 
    minority Member are in support of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has that right.
        The time will be divided in this fashion: The gentleman from 
    Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) will be recognized for 20 minutes; the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) will be recognized for 20 
    minutes; and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 9920]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the minority has just been effectively 
    frozen out of controlling any of the time, when I was seeking 
    recognition to take the 20 minutes. The Chair has denied, then, the 
    minority the opportunity to control our portion of the time.
        Can the Chair explain why Members on this side were not 
    recognized? I, too, am opposed to the bill and should have been 
    entitled to the 20 minutes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that recognition 
    of one Member who is opposed is in the Speaker's discretion, and 
    the Speaker tries always to be fair.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) may yield time as 
    he wishes. . . .
        The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte), the minority 
    side, will 
    be recognized for 20 minutes; the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who is opposed, will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes; and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
        The procedure under which we are proceeding was agreed upon 
    earlier today, and the Chair will be guided by the will of the 
    House, which was stated earlier today.

Division of Time Under Former Practice

Sec. 17.21 Under the former practice, the offeror of a motion to 
    instruct conferees controlled one hour of debate and could yield 
    half of that time to an opponent.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 372 (public debt 
limit increase) in the House on Oct. 11, 1985,(2) a motion 
was made by Robert H. Michel, of Illinois, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 131 Cong. Rec. 27366, 27367, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct 
    conferees.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Michel moves that the managers on the part of the House 
        at the conference on the disagreeing votes on the two Houses on 
        the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 372, be instructed to promptly 
        report amendments to the Budget Control and Impoundment Act 
        which provide mechanisms for deficit reductions, including 
        specific and mandatory budget goals for achieving a balanced 
        budget within the next 6 years.

        The Speaker: (3) The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Michel) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I would not expect to use the complete 
    hour.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman yield a half hour to the 
    Democratic side?
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 15 minutes for 
    the moment and 15 minutes for our side and let us see where we go.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman want to ask unanimous consent 
    that the debate be 30 minutes instead of 1 hour?
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to do anything that is 
    going to upset some Members here, but if we can put a little bit of 
    restraint----

[[Page 9921]]

        The Speaker: Does the gentleman intend to yield equal time to 
    the opponents of the motion, if there is opposition?
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly intend that the time 
    be equally divided.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) is 
    recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Rostenkowski) is recognized for 30 minutes.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVIII, clause 1(b) (4) now 
provides that the time allotted for debate on any motion to instruct 
House conferees shall be equally divided between the majority and 
minority parties, except that if the proponent of the motion and the 
Member from the other party are both supporters of the motion, one 
third of such debate time shall be allotted to a Member who is opposed 
to said motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.22 Under the former practice, a motion to instruct conferees 
    was debatable for one hour within the control of the proponent of 
    the motion, and another Member could not obtain recognition from 
    the Chair to speak in opposition, unless yielded time by the 
    proponent (or unless the previous question was rejected).

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under a rule adopted in the 101st Congress, 
time for debate on a motion to instruct conferees is divided. (H. Res. 
5, Jan. 3, 1989).
    During consideration of H.R. 12930 (the Treasury, Postal Service, 
general government appropriation bill) in the House on Sept. 7, 
1978,(5) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 124 Cong. Rec. 28362, 28363, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 12930) 
    making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United 
    States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and 
    certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 
    30, 1979, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments therefor, 
    disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference 
    asked by the Senate.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker: (6) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Brown of Ohio moves that the managers on the part of 
        the House, at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
        two Houses on the bill, H.R. 12930, the ``Treasury, Postal 
        Service, and General Government Appropriations, 1979,'' be 
        instructed

[[Page 9922]]

        to agree to the amendment of the Senate numbered 7.

        The Speaker: Under the rules, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Brown) is recognized for one hour.
        For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Vanik) rise?
        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to be 
    heard in opposition to the motion.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the time is under the 
    control of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for one hour. 
    . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Vanik), for the purpose of debate only.

Senate Amendments--Actively Seeking Recognition

Sec. 17.23 A Member desiring to offer a motion in the House to dispose 
    of a Senate amendment must actively seek recognition from the Chair 
    before another motion to dispose of the amendment has been adopted, 
    and the fact that he may have been standing at that time is not 
    sufficient to confer recognition.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 357 (further 
continuing appropriations) in the House on Nov. 22, 1981,(7) 
the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 127 Cong. Rec. 28751, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (8) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 37 . . . .

        Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Fazio moves that the House insist on its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 37.

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio). All those in favor say 
    ``aye,'' opposed ``no.''
        The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
        The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    motion at the desk. I have a motion. I was standing, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: To what amendment does the gentleman have a 
    motion?
        Mr. Conte: Senate amendment No. 37.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the House has already 
    disposed of that amendment.
        Mr. Conte: I was standing here seeking recognition, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, what was the decision?
        The Speaker: The gentleman may have been standing, but he was 
    not seeking recognition, in the opinion of the Chair.
        Mr. Conte: What was the outcome of that, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: Senate amendment No. 37 was disagreed to.

[[Page 9923]]

        Mr. Conte: And I was standing with a motion, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognized that there were three or four 
    others standing, and the gentleman was in a conversation with one 
    of his colleagues, and was not asking for recognition.

--Full Committee Chairmen

Sec. 17.24 Where the Member calling up a conference report in 
    disagreement does not seek recognition to offer a motion to dispose 
    of the matter in disagreement, the majority Member recognized to 
    offer a motion controls one-half the time thereon, and the minority 
    the other half, pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 2; 
    thus, in the present instance, where the chairman of the 
    subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations calling up a 
    conference report in disagreement on a Senate amendment to a House 
    amendment to a Senate amendment to a House bill did not seek 
    recognition to offer a motion, the Chair recognized the chairman of 
    the Committee on Appropriations to offer the preferential motion to 
    concur in the Senate amendment and divided the time between the 
    majority and minority.

    On Nov. 3, 1977,(9) the proceedings relating to the 
consideration of H.R. 7555 (the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriations) in the House were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 123 Cong. Rec. 36959, 36966, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The Chair recognizes 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. K. Gunn McKay (Utah).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to the resolution just agreed to, I call up the conference report 
    on the amendment of the Senate to the amendment of the House to the 
    amendment of the Senate numbered 82 to the bill (H.R. 7555) making 
    appropriations for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, 
    and Welfare, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
    September 30, 1978, and for other purposes. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendment in 
    disagreement.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 28: Sec. 209. None of the funds 
        contained in this Act shall be used to perform abortions except 
        where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus 
        were carried to term . . . .

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas] [Chairman of the Committee on 
    Appropriations]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mahon moves that the House concur in the amendment of 
        the Sen

[[Page 9924]]

        ate to the amendment of the House to the amendment of the 
        Senate numbered 82.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) 
    will be recognized for 30 minutes, 
    and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) will be recognized for 
    30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon).

--Manager of Conference Report Recognized

Sec. 17.25 Where a conference report in disagreement, which has been 
    available for three days as required by clause 2 of Rule XXVIII, is 
    called up, the conference report and the Senate amendment in 
    disagreement are considered as having been read, and the Chair 
    recognizes the manager of the conference report to offer a motion 
    to dispose of the Senate amendment; the motion is debatable for one 
    hour, equally divided 
    between the majority and minority parties.

    On May 29, 1980,(11) during consideration of the 
conference report on a House concurrent resolution, the following 
proceedings took place in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 126 Cong. Rec. 12678, 12680, 12684, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    the conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 
    307) setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. Government 
    for the fiscal years 1981, 1982, and 1983 and revising the 
    congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal year 
    1980, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
        The Speaker: (12) The Clerk will read the conference 
    report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the conference report. . . .
        The Speaker: Pursuant to the rule, the Senate amendment is 
    considered as having been read.
        The Senate amendment reads as follows:

            Strike out all after the resolving clause, and insert:
        ``That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to 
        section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that: . 
        . .

        Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Giaimo moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the Senate amendment and to concur therein with 
        an amendment, as follows: . . .

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) will 
    be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Latta) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
    Giaimo).
        Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 2 hours of 
    debate on my motion.

[[Page 9925]]

        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Connecticut?

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.

--Manager of Conference Report May Defer to Another To Offer Motion To 
    Dispose of Amendment

Sec. 17.26 The manager of a conference report and amendments reported 
    from conference in disagreement may defer to another member of the 
    committee to offer the initial motion to dispose of an amendment 
    reported in disagreement.

    On May 24, 1984,(13) during consideration of the 
conference report on House Joint Resolution 492 (urgent supplemental 
appropriations for the Department of Agriculture) in the House, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 130 Cong. Rec. 14254, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 34 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will designate amendment No. 
    14.
        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 14: Page 2, after line 17, insert:

                          CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

            For activities of the Central Intelligence Agency . . . not 
        to exceed $21,000,000. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten).
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, on this amendment I yield to the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland).
        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Boland moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 14 and 
        concur therein with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter inserted by said amendment, insert the following:
            No funds are appropriated herein for the Central 
        Intelligence Agency in fiscal year 1984 for the purpose . . . 
        of supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary 
        operations in Nicaragua. . . .

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 
    our time to my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Robinson).
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Boland) will be recognized for 30 min

[[Page 9926]]

    utes and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Robinson) will be 
    recognized for 30 minutes.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Whitten technically could not ``yield'' 
to Mr. Boland in this instance, since he did not have the floor between 
motions, but simply defer and not seek recognition.

--When Preferential Motion To Dispose of Senate Amendment May Be 
    Offered

Sec. 17.27 Where a Member offering a motion to dispose of a Senate 
    amendment in disagreement controls one-half hour of debate, a 
    preferential motion to dispose of the Senate amendment may not be 
    offered while he has the floor unless yielded for that purpose, but 
    may be offered pending recognition of a Member from the other 
    political party to control one-half the time on the initial motion; 
    moreover, the previous question may not be moved by the Member 
    first recognized so as to prevent the Member from the other party 
    from controlling half the debate and from offering a proper 
    preferential motion to dispose of the Senate amendment.

    On July 2, 1980,(15) during consideration of the 
supplemental appropriations and rescission bill for fiscal year 1980 
(H.R. 7542) in the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 126 Cong. Rec. 18357, 18359-61, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long), to concur 
    with the Senate amendment numbered 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was rejected.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bauman moves to recede and concur in the amendment of 
        the Senate (No. 95) with an amendment as follows: . . .

        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    preferential motion.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have been recognized, I believe. . . 
    .
        Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet for a 
    preferential motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: On this motion the gentleman from 
    Maryland (Mr. Bauman) has the time. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: . . . I offer 
    a preferential motion that is at the desk. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Well, I did not yield for that purpose, Mr. 
    Speaker. I control the time, do I not?

[[Page 9927]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Bauman) has 30 minutes, the majority side has 30 minutes. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: For what purpose does the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill) seek recognition?
        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I moved the previous 
    question on the pending motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The motion for the previous question 
    does not rule out a preferential motion, if moved while time is 
    remaining to the opposite party. The previous question is not yet 
    in order.

Recognition for Unanimous-consent Request To Dispose of Senate 
    Amendment

Sec. 17.28 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair announced 
    guidelines for recognition for unanimous-consent requests to 
    dispose of Senate amendments to House-passed bills on the Speaker's 
    table, indicating that the Chair will entertain a unanimous-consent 
    request for the disposition of a Senate amendment to a House-passed 
    bill on the Speaker's table, only if made by the chairman of the 
    committee with jurisdiction, or by another member of the committee 
    where the Chair has been advised by the chairman of the committee 
    that such member has been authorized formally or informally by the 
    committee to make the request.

    The following exchange occurred in the House on Apr. 26, 1984: 
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 130 Cong. Rec. 10193, 10194, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: . . . Mr. Speaker, 
    since we have moved with such dispatch on the question dealing with 
    the labor unions' concern, I would like to direct to the Chair a 
    parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, it deals with a piece of legislation 
    that has come out of the same committee and is a variation of H.R. 
    3635, the Child Protection Act of 1983, which we passed 400 to 1 on 
    November 11, 1983.
        There was an agreement worked out between the Members of the 
    House and the Senate for a compromise. That went to the Senate. 
    They passed our version, with an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and it is my information that H.R. 3635 was sent to the 
    Speaker's desk from the Senate on April 2 or 3 of this year.
        My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is: Is H.R. 3635 
    presently at the Speaker's desk?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.

[[Page 9928]]

        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, does that mean that the Senate 
    amendment, H.R. 3635, has not yet been referred to a committee?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.

        Mr. Lungren: And can the Chair inform me at this time and 
    inform the House as to what procedure might be available to us at 
    this time to allow for immediate consideration of that Senate 
    amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    that the Chair would only recognize for a request by the chairman 
    or another member if authorized by the committee.
        Mr. Lungren: Authorization of the committee, that means 
    authorization of the Democratic leadership?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Authorization of the committee.
        Mr. Lungren: Does the Chair mean that it takes an official vote 
    of the committee or an agreement by the chairman of the committee 
    itself?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Speaker would look to the chairman 
    of the committee.

Sec. 17.29 The Speaker, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, 
    indicated that only the chairman of the committee having 
    jurisdiction of the subject matter of a bill would be recognized to 
    ask unanimous consent to take it from the Speaker's table, disagree 
    to a Senate amendment, and ask for a conference.

    On Sept. 1, 1960,(19) Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of 
Indiana, raised a parliamentary inquiry on the disposition of a House 
bill with a Senate amendment which had been returned to the House and 
was on the Speaker's table. Mr. Halleck inquired whether it would be in 
order to submit 
a unanimous-consent request to take the bill from the table, disagree 
to the Senate amendment, and send the bill to conference. Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, responded that such a request could only be made by 
Chairman Harold D. Cooley, of North Carolina, of the committee with 
jurisdiction over the bill, the Committee on Agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 106 Cong. Rec. 18920, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Unanimous-consent Request To Call House Bill With Senate Amendments 
    From Speaker's Table

Sec. 17.30 House bills with Senate amendments may be called from the 
    Speaker's table 
    by unanimous consent for disposition of the Senate amendments or 
    for a request to go to conference, and the Speaker recognizes the 
    Member in charge of the bill for that purpose.

[[Page 9929]]

    On July 11, 1932,(20) Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, 
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 75 Cong. Rec. 15034, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair asks the attention of the House for a moment. Where a 
    House bill has been passed, has gone to the Senate, and the Senate 
    has amended it, the Chair thinks it is the duty of the Chair to 
    recognize the Member in charge of the bill to ask unanimous consent 
    for its present consideration either to go to conference or concur 
    in the Senate amendment. If any of the gentlemen have bills under 
    such circumstances, the Chair will recognize them for the purpose 
    of asking unanimous consent for the consideration of the Senate 
    amendment at this time.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. The disposition of House bills with Senate amendments on the 
        Speaker's table is governed by Rule XXIV clause 2, House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 882 (1995) and Rule XX clause 1, House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 827 (1995). Generally, see Chs. 32, 33, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: A privileged motion to disagree with 
Senate amendments or insist on House amendments, and request or agree 
to a conference, is in order (at the Speaker's discretion) if 
authorized by the reporting committee, under clause 1 of Rule XX, and 
may be offered by the chairman of the committee or another member 
designated by the committee. Otherwise, Senate amendments requiring 
consideration in Committee of the Whole are not subject to disposition 
by privileged motion under clause 1, Rule XX before the stage of 
disagreement has been reached.

Sec. 17.31 The Speaker declined to recognize a Member for 
    a unanimous-consent request to take a bill from the Speaker's table 
    and concur in the Senate amendments, where such a request was made 
    without the authorization of the chairman of the committee with 
    jurisdiction and where Members had been informed there would be no 
    further legislative business for the day.

    On July 31, 1969,(1) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, refused to recognize Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, for a 
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 21691, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boggs: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from 
    the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 9951), to provide for the 
    collection of the Federal unemployment tax in quarterly 
    installments . . . and for other purposes, with Senate amendments 
    thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that at this time the Chair 
    does not recognize the gentleman from Louisiana for that purpose.

[[Page 9930]]

        The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means is at present 
    appearing before the Committee on Rules seeking a rule and Members 
    have been told that there would be no further business tonight.

--Committee Chairman Moves To Suspend Rules

Sec. 17.32 The Speaker recognizes the chairman of the committee with 
    jurisdiction of a bill to move to suspend the rules and agree to a 
    resolution taking the bill with Senate amendments from the 
    Speaker's table, disagreeing to Senate amendments, and requesting a 
    conference.

    On Oct. 1, 1962,(2) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, Chairman of 
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to suspend the rules 
and agree to House Resolution 818:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 108 Cong. Rec. 21528, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the bill H.R. 7927, with the Senate amendment thereto, be, and the 
    same hereby is, taken from the Speaker's table, to the end that the 
    Senate amendment be, and the same hereby is, disagreed to and a 
    conference is requested with the Senate upon the disagreeing votes 
    of the two Houses thereon.

    Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 7927, the Postal Rate and Postal Pay 
Act of 1962, was within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Post 
Office and Civil Service.

Sec. 17.33 The Speaker recognizes the chairman of the committee with 
    jurisdiction over the subject matter of a bill to move to suspend 
    the rules and agree to a resolution taking the bill with Senate 
    amendments from the Speaker's table and agreeing to the Senate 
    amendments.

    On Aug. 27, 1962,(3) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Oren Harris, of Arkansas, Chairman of the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to move to suspend the 
rules and agree to House Resolution 269:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 108 Cong. Rec. 17671, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the bill H.R. 11040, with the Senate amendments thereto, be, and 
    the same is hereby taken from the Speaker's table, to the end that 
    the Senate amendment be, and the same is hereby, agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 11040, the Communications Satellite 
Act of 1962, was within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate 
and Foreign Commerce.

[[Page 9931]]

Debate on Nongermane Senate Amendments

Sec. 17.34 Where a Member opposed to a section of a conference report 
    demanded a separate vote on that section pursuant to a special 
    order permitting such procedure and pursuant to Rule XX, clause 1, 
    that Member and the Member calling up the conference report were 
    each recognized for 20 minutes of debate as required by Rule XX 
    clause 1.

    On Nov. 10, 1971,(4) Mr. F. 
Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, 
called up a conference report on 
H.R. 8687, military procurement authorization. Speaker Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, stated that the special order under which the report was 
being considered, House Resolution 696, provided that a separate vote 
could be demanded on certain sections of the conference report 
(containing nongermane portions of the Senate amendment). Mr. Donald M. 
Fraser, of Minnesota, demanded a separate vote on section 503 of the 
report pursuant to the special order and pursuant to Rule XX clause 1 
of the House rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 117 Cong. Rec. 40483, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker then stated the order of recognition pending the 
separate vote:

        Under clause 1 of Rule XX, 40 minutes of debate are permitted 
    before a separate vote is taken on a nongermane Senate amendment, 
    one-half of such time in favor of, and one-half in opposition to 
    the amendment.
        Pursuant to that rule, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
    Hebert] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Minnesota [Mr. Fraser] will be recognized for 20 minutes.

Debate on Motion To Dispose of Amendment in Disagreement

Sec. 17.35 Debate on a motion to dispose of an amendment reported from 
    conference in disagreement is equally divided between the majority 
    and minority parties under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b),(5) 
    and where the manager of the conference report making the motion 
    does not immediately seek recognition for debate, the Chair 
    nevertheless allocates 30 minutes to him and may recognize 
    a minority Member at that time for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. The rule now makes provision for a three-way division of debate 
        where the majority and minority floor managers support the 
        motion. See Sec. 17.17, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House having under consideration the bill H.R. 7797 (relating 
to foreign assistance appropriations for fiscal year 1978) on

[[Page 9932]]

Oct. 18, 1977,(6) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 123 Cong. Rec. 34112, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Long of Maryland moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 74 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: Restore the 
        matter stricken by said amendment, amended to read as follows:
            ``Sec. 503C. Of the funds appropriated or made available 
        pursuant to this Act, not more than $18,100,000 shall be used 
        for military assistance, not more than $1,850,000 shall be used 
        for foreign military credit sales, and not more than $700,000 
        shall be used for international military education and training 
        to the Government of the Philippines.''. . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) . . . Does the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long) seek recognition?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I do not, at this time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
    Young) desire to be recognized.
        Mr. [C. W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I do.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long) 
    and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will be recognized for 
    30 minutes each.

Sec. 17.36 Where conferees report in disagreement, their report is read 
    but not acted on when called up; the Speaker directs the Clerk to 
    report the (Senate) amendment in disagreement and recognizes the 
    manager of the report for a motion to dispose of said amendment; 
    and said motion is debatable for one hour, equally divided between 
    the majority and minority pursuant to clause 2(b) of Rule XXVIII.

    On Sept. 15, 1977,(8) the procedure for consideration of 
a conference report in total disagreement was demonstrated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 123 Cong. Rec. 29424, 29425, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. Rule XXVIII, cl. 
        2(b) now provides for a three-way division of debate where the 
        majority and minority floor managers support the motion. See 
        Sec. 17.17, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to the order of the House of September 15, 1977, I call up the 
    conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 341) 
    revising the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the 
    fiscal year 1978, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Speaker: (9) The Clerk will read the conference 
    report. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the Senate amendment [in disagreement]. . 
    . .
        Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

[[Page 9933]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Giaimo moves to recede from disagreement to the Senate 
        amendment and to concur therein with an amendment as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed by the Senate, insert the 
        following: . . .

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) and 
    the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be recognized for 30 
    minutes each.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
    Giaimo).

    During consideration of the first concurrent resolution on the 
budget for fiscal year 1980 (H. Con. Res. 107) in the House on May 23, 
1979,(10) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 12469, 12471, 12472, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to the order of the House of May 22, 1979, I call up the conference 
    report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 107) setting 
    forth the Congressional Budget for the U.S. Government for the 
    fiscal year 1980 and revising the Congressional Budget for the U.S. 
    Government for the fiscal year 1979. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The Clerk will read 
    the Senate amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

            Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:
        That the Congress hereby determines and declares [that]

            (a) In order to achieve a balanced budget in fiscal year 
        1981, the following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
        fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1979, October 1, 1980, and 
        October 1, 1981-- . . .

        Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Giaimo moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the Senate amendment and to concur therein with 
        an amendment, as follows: . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
    Giaimo) will be recognized for 30 minutes [and] the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
    Giaimo).

Former Practice as to Debate on Amendments in Disagreement

Sec. 17.37 Prior to the amendment to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b) in the 
    92d Congress (providing that debate on an amendment in disagreement 
    be divided between the majority and minority parties), debate on an 
    amendment reported from conference in disagreement was under the 
    hour rule and the Member calling up the conference report was in 
    control of the debate thereon.

[[Page 9934]]

    On Aug. 1, 1962,(12) Mr. John E. Fogarty, of Rhode 
Island, called up a conference report together with certain Senate 
amendments in disagreement. During consideration of the amendments, 
Speaker Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, answered a parliamentary 
inquiry put to him by Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 108 Cong. Rec. 15294, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Is the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Fogarty] 
    going to explain any of these amendments?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is within the discretion of the 
    gentleman.
        Mr. Gross: A further parliamentary inquiry. Does not the 
    gentleman have an hour on each of these amendments?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has if he desires to use 
    it.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also 108 Cong. Rec. 23432-43, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12, 
        1962.
            For consideration of amendments in disagreement, see Rule 
        XXVIII, cl. 2(b)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912(b) (1995), 
        and Chs. 32, 33, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 1153, which was adopted on 
Oct. 13, 1972, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., to become effective at the end of 
the 92d Congress, amended Rule XXVIII by requiring that 
debate on amendments reported from conference in disagreement be 
equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority parties. 
Thus the hour of debate on a motion offered to dispose of an amendment 
in disagreement is equally controlled by the Member calling up the 
report and a Member of the minority, typically the senior conferee of 
that party. Language in Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b)(1) now provides 
further that if the managers for the majority and minority both support 
a motion to dispose of an amendment one-third of the debate time shall 
be allotted to a Member opposed to the motion.

Recognition for Motions To Dispose of Amendments in Disagreement

Sec. 17.38 As each amendment in disagreement is reported, the Chair 
    recognizes the Member handling the conference report to offer a 
    motion relating to that amendment; and even though another Member 
    offers a preferential motion relating to that amendment, the Member 
    handling the report remains in control of the debate under the hour 
    rule (subject to the division of time required by clause 2(b) of 
    Rule XXVIII).

    On Oct. 24, 1967,(14) Mr. Joseph L. Evins, of Tennessee, 
was han

[[Page 9935]]

dling a conference report being considered by the House on H.R. 9960, 
an appropriation for fiscal year 1968. As each amendment 
in disagreement was reported, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Evins to make a motion in regard to that 
amendment. On amendments 58 and 59 (considered en bloc by unanimous 
consent), Mr. Evins moved that the House insist on its disagreement. 
Mr. Robert N. Giaimo, of Connecticut, then made the preferential motion 
that the House recede and concur in those amendments. The Speaker 
recognized Mr. Evins as the Member in control of the report to control 
one hour of debate on both motions, and the preferential motion was 
rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 29837, 29838, 29842, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.39 Where a Senate amendment reported from conference in 
    disagreement remains in disagreement following subsequent action by 
    the House and Senate, a further motion to dispose of the Senate 
    amendment in the House is privileged and subject to one hour of 
    debate, equally divided, under Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b), between 
    majority and minority parties (subject to the division of time 
    required by Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b) when the majority and minority 
    floor managers support the motion).

    On Feb. 22, 1978,(15) during consideration of H.R. 9375 
(supplemental appropriations for 1978) in the House, the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 124 Cong. Rec. 4061, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to take 
    from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 9375) making supplemental 
    appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, and 
    for other purposes, with the remaining amendment in disagreement 
    thereto, and that the House recede from its disagreement to Senate 
    amendment numbered 43 and concur therein.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 43: Page 14, after line 4, insert:
            Appropriations provided under this heading in the 
        Department of Defense Appropriation Act, 1977, are rescinded in 
        the amount of $462,-000,000.

        The Speaker: (16) The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Mahon) is recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Cederberg) is recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proponent of Motion To Recede and Concur Did Not Seek Recognition

Sec. 17.40 Where the proponent of a motion to recede and con

[[Page 9936]]

    cur in a Senate amendment failed to seek recognition to debate the 
    motion, the Chair recognized the Member handling the conference 
    report (who did not then have a motion pending).

    On May 14, 1963,(17) the House was considering a 
conference report and Senate amendments in disagreement, called up and 
managed by Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas. Mr. Robert R. Barry, of New 
York, offered a preferential motion that the House recede and concur in 
a certain amendment in disagreement (after a motion to recede and 
concur with an amendment offered by Mr. Thomas was ruled out on a point 
of order). A division of the question was demanded and Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that the question was on receding 
from disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 109 Cong. Rec. 8506, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Thomas then raised a parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Speaker, is it in order for the chairman of the House 
    conferees to make a short statement at this time on it?

    The Speaker answered that the motion was debatable, and since Mr. 
Barry did not seek recognition, the Speaker recognized Mr. Thomas on 
the motion. In answer to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Barry, the 
proponent of the motion, the Speaker stated that Mr. Thomas had control 
of time on the motion since he had been recognized.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Where the manager of a conference report 
with amendments in disagreement has offered a proper motion on an 
amendment in disagreement, he controls the time even where a 
preferential motion is offered (see Sec. 17.38, supra).

Motion To Dispose of Amendment Was Preferential in Form Only--Chair 
    Recognized for Subsequent Preferential Motion

Sec. 17.41 Where a motion, already offered and under debate, to dispose 
    of a Senate amendment appeared to be in form a preferential motion, 
    but was in fact a motion merely re-inserting House text stricken by 
    the Senate amendment (and therefore in effect a motion to insist 
    on disagreement), the Chair could consider the substance of the 
    motion and was not prohibited from recognizing for a subsequent 
    proper preferential motion and putting the question first thereon, 
    a point of order against the

[[Page 9937]]

    initial motion having been reserved.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on July 2, 
1980,(18) during consideration of H.R. 7542 (supplemental 
appropriations and rescission bill for fiscal year 1980):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 126 Cong. Rec. 18357, 18359, 18360, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bauman moves to recede and concur in the amendment of 
        the Senate (No. 95) with an amendment as follows: In lieu of 
        the matter stricken and inserted by said amendment insert the 
        following:

                                   CHAPTER VI

                               FOREIGN OPERATIONS

                      Funds Appropriated to the President

                       international disaster assistance

            For an additional amount to carry out the provisions of 
        Section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 
        $43,000,000 to remain available until expended. . . .

        Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania reserves a point of order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    preferential motion. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor and I do not yield. . 
    . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: On this motion the gentleman from 
    Maryland [Mr. Bauman] has the time. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: My parliamentary inquiry is that the Chair stated a 
    moment ago that the time on a preferential motion to concur with an 
    amendment is divided between the majority and the minority. Is it 
    not controlled by the maker of the motion? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The practice of the House is clearly 
    on a motion of this type after an initial motion has been rejected 
    on an amendment reported from conference in disagreement that the 
    time is divided between the majority and the minority parties.
        Mr. Bauman: The second question I have is, has not the 
    gentleman from Maryland made a preferential motion which is now 
    pending?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
    Bauman] made a motion which was in form a preferential motion. Upon 
    examination by the Chair, it is in fact a motion to insist upon the 
    original House position rather than a motion to amend the Senate 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Well, is not the gentleman from Maryland's motion a 
    preferential motion under the rule?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In form it is but upon examination it 
    is in fact a motion to insist upon the House position.
        Mr. Bauman: Well, does not the Chair have to be subjected to a 
    point of order at an appropriate time in order to make that ruling? 
    Does the Chair on

[[Page 9938]]

    its own inquire behind the form of motion? . . .

        Well, but the Chair made a statement a few moments ago, 
    unsolicited by anyone that my motion was not a preferential motion. 
    This gentleman would like to ask upon what authority the Chair is 
    able to rule a preferential motion offered in proper form is 
    nonpreferential when no one has raised the issue.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has not ruled out the motion 
    of the gentleman from Maryland. It is still pending. The 
    parliamentary inquiry was whether it was a preferential motion. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    offer a preferential motion. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The Clerk will read the 
    preferential motion.

            The Clerk read as follows: Mr. O'Neill moves that the House 
        concur in the amendment of Senate numbered 95 with an amendment 
        as follows:
             In lieu of the matter deleted and inserted by said 
        amendment, insert the following: . . .

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that this 
    motion is not a preferential motion. It is, in fact, an amendment 
    to the pending motion of the gentleman from Maryland, which sought 
    to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is trying to be fair to all 
    Members, but the fact remains that the motion to concur with an 
    amendment takes precedence over a motion to insist on the House 
    petition, and the point is not well taken.
        Mr. Bauman: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
        The gentleman from Maryland has offered a motion to concur in 
    the amendment of the Senate with an amendment, and now another 
    motion to concur in the amendment of the Senate with an amendment 
    is being offered. That additional motion is not in order at this 
    point.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland has 
    offered an amendment which in form was a motion to concur with an 
    amendment. In fact, it is a motion to insist on the original House 
    language.

Proponent of Preferential Motion Does Not Control Debate

Sec. 17.42 Where amendments have been reported from conference in 
    disagreement, the motion to recede and concur with an amendment has 
    preference over a motion to insist on disagreement, but the 
    proponent of the preferential motion does not thereby gain control 
    of the time for debate.

    On May 14, 1975,(20) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 4881 (21) in the House, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 121 Cong. Rec. 14385, 14386, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
21. The emergency employment appropriations for fiscal year 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (22) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Carl Albert (Okla.).

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

[[Page 9939]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 61: Page 41, line 9, insert:

                       ``Federal Railroad Administration

                ``rail transportation improvement and employment

            ``For payment of financial assistance to assist railroads 
        by providing funds for repairing, rehabilitating, and improving 
        railroad roadbeds and facilities, $700,000,000. . . .''

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mahon moves that the House insist on its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 61.

                  preferential motion offered by mr. conte

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Conte moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to Senate amendment number 61 and concur therein with an 
        amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be 
        inserted by the Senate, insert the following:

                                 ``CHAPTER VIII

                         ``Department of Transportation

                       ``federal railroad administration

            ``For payment of financial assistance to assist railroads 
        by providing funds for repairing, rehabilitating, and improving 
        railroad roadbeds and facilities, $200,000,000. . . .''

        Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Shuster: Mr. Speaker, how is the time divided?
        The Speaker: The time is divided equally between the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Mahon), who has 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Michel) who has 30 minutes or such small fraction 
    thereof as he may decide to use.

Sec. 17.43 The stage of disagreement having been reached on a Senate 
    amendment to a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House 
    bill, the motion to concur in the Senate amendment takes precedence 
    over a motion to disagree and request a conference, but the Member 
    offering the preferential motion does not thereby obtain control of 
    the time which is controlled by the manager of the bill and is 
    equally divided between the majority and minority.

    On Oct. 13, 1977,(1) the House had under consideration 
H.R. 7555 (Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare 
appropriation bill for fiscal 1978) when the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 123 Cong. Rec. 33688, 33689, 33693, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    take

[[Page 9940]]

    from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 7555) making appropriations 
    for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare, 
    and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, 
    and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment to the House 
    amendment to Senate amendment numbered 82, disagree to the 
    amendment of the Senate, and request a conference with the Senate 
    on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker: (2) The Clerk will report the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                          motion offered by mr. flood

            Mr. Flood moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
        H.R. 7555, making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, 
        and Health, Education, and Welfare, and related agencies for 
        the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, and for other 
        purposes, with a Senate amendment to the House amendment to 
        Senate amendment numbered 82, disagree to the amendment of the 
        Senate, and request a conference with the Senate on the 
        disagreeing votes of the two Houses.

        Mr. [Newton I.] Steers [Jr., of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Steers of Maryland moves that the House concur in the 
        Senate Amendment to the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment 
        No. 82.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) is in 
    control of the time, and the gentleman is recognized for 30 
    minutes.
        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Steers) made the motion which is being considered by the House, 
    does the gentleman from Maryland not have control of the time?
        The Speaker: In response to the parliamentary inquiry, the 
    preferential motion made by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Steers) does not take the time from the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee, who previously had the 
    time under his original motion. The motion was in order. The vote 
    will come first on the preferential motion.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Flood).

Sec. 17.44 The offering of a preferential motion cannot deprive the 
    Member making an original motion (to dispose of a Senate amendment) 
    of control of the floor for debate, and the Chair will recognize 
    the Member controlling the floor when a preferential motion is 
    offered.

    During consideration of the foreign assistance appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7797) in the House on Oct. 18, 1977,(3) the following 
motions were offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 123 Cong. Rec. 34112, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 9941]]

        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Long of Maryland moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 74 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: Restore the 
        matter stricken by said amendment, amended to read as follows:
            ``Sec. 503C. Of the funds appropriated or made available 
        pursuant to this Act, not more than $18,100,000 shall be used 
        for military assistance, not more than $1,850,000 shall be used 
        for foreign military credit sales, and not more than $700,000 
        shall be used for international military education and training 
        to the Government of the Philippines.''. . .

        Mr. [C. W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Young of Florida moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 74 and 
        concur therein.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The Chair recognizes 
    the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although during the above proceedings Mr. 
Young moved the previous question on his preferential motion, 
ordinarily the maker of a preferential motion should not be permitted 
to move the previous question thereon, since he does not gain the floor 
for any purpose other than to offer the motion. The manager of the bill 
should be the one recognized to move the previous question on the 
motion.
    Although, as in the above instance, the minority Member controlling 
half the time on a motion on an amendment in disagreement may make a 
preferential motion during his time for debate, the more usual practice 
is that the preferential motion be made either before or after the hour 
of debate on the initial motion.

Sec. 17.45 A motion to concur in a Senate amendment (the stage of 
    disagreement having been reached) takes precedence over a motion to 
    disagree, but the proponent of the preferential motion does not 
    gain control of the time for debate, which remains in the control 
    of the Member calling up the bill and offering the initial motion.

    On Oct. 14, 1978,(5) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House during consideration of H.R. 12929 (Departments of Labor 
and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriations):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 124 Cong. Rec. 38230, 38231, 38236, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I again 
    move to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 12929) making 
    appropriations for

[[Page 9942]]

    the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare, and 
    related agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979, 
    and for other purposes, with Senate amendment No. 103 thereto and 
    disagree to the Senate amendment.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Clerk read Senate amendment No. 103 as follows:

            Page 40, strike out lines 1 to 4, inclusive, and insert:
            Sec. 210. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
        perform abortions except . . . where medically necessary . . . 
        .

        Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, I have moved to disagree to the Senate 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: (6) That motion is now pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mahon moves that the House concur in the amendment of 
        the Senate.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) is 
    recognized for 1 hour. . . .
        Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the preferential 
    motion.
        The previous question was ordered.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Member calling up a bill which has been 
reported from conference and which remains in the stage of disagreement 
controls one hour of debate on a motion to dispose of an amendment 
adopted by the Senate after consideration of the conference report in 
both Houses (and not reported from conference in disagreement), and the 
division of time between the majority and minority under clause 2(b) of 
Rule XXVIII does not apply.

Sec. 17.46 Although the motion to concur in a Senate amendment takes 
    precedence over the motion to disagree where the stage of 
    disagreement has been reached, the Member offering the preferential 
    motion does not thereby gain control of the time for debate, which 
    remains in the control of the manager of the bill under the hour 
    rule.

    On Nov. 29, 1977,(7) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 123 Cong. Rec. 38033, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 7555) making 
    appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, 
    and Welfare, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
    September 30, 1978, and for other purposes, with the amendment of 
    the Senate to the amendment of the House to the amendment of the 
    Senate No. 82, and disagree thereto.

[[Page 9943]]

        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment to 
    the Senate amendment No. 82, as follows:

            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
        amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate numbered 
        82, insert the following:
            Sec. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be 
        used to perform abortions: . . .

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mahon moves that the House concur in the amendment of 
        the Senate to the amendment of the House to the amendment of 
        the Senate numbered 82. . . .

        The Speaker: (8) The gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
    recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under the former practice, debate on a 
motion to dispose of a Senate amendment which had not been reported 
from conference in disagreement but which was otherwise before the 
House, the stage of disagreement having been reached, was under the 
control of the manager of the bill under the hour rule and was not 
divided between the majority and minority parties. The custom has since 
developed of equally dividing between majority and minority parties the 
time on all motions to 
dispose of amendments emerging from conference in disagreement, whether 
reported in disagreement, or before the House upon rejection of a 
conference report by a vote or on a point of order.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 17.52, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.47 During consideration of Senate amendments reported from 
    conference in disagreement, a preferential motion to recede and 
    concur in 
    a Senate amendment takes precedence over a motion offered by the 
    manager of the report to insist on disagreement to the Senate 
    amendment; but the offeror of the preferential motion does not 
    thereby gain control over the time for debate, which continues for 
    one hour equally divided and controlled by the majority and the 
    minority manager of the conference report.

    On Aug. 1, 1979,(10) the following proceedings took 
place in the House during consideration of Senate amendments reported 
from conference on H.R. 4388 (energy and water development 
appropriations):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 21994, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).

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

[[Page 9944]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 30: Page 31, line 8, strike out ``: 
        Provided, That notwithstanding the provisions of 16 U.S.C., 
        chapter 35 or any other law, the Corporation is authorized and 
        directed to complete construction of, operate and maintain the 
        Tellico Dam . . . .

        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bevill moves that the House insist on its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 30.

                 preferential motion offered by mr. breaux

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Breaux moves that the House recede and concur in the 
        amendment of the Senate numbered 30.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Alabama wish 
    to debate this amendment?
        Mr. Bevill: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe I am allotted 1 hour; 
    is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The rule would provide 30 minutes on 
    the side. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bevill) is recognized for 
    30 minutes.

Sec. 17.48 The manager of a conference report with Senate amendments 
    reported from conference in disagreement having offered a motion to 
    insist on disagreement to a Senate amendment, a motion to recede 
    and concur therein is preferential and is voted on first, but the 
    manager retains control of the thirty minutes of majority time on 
    the amendment.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 637 (further 
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1981) on Dec. 13, 
1980,(12) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 126 Cong. Rec. 34087, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House insist on its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 40.

            preferential motion offered by mr. duncan of oregon

        Mr. [Robert] Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Duncan of Oregon moves that the House recede and concur 
        with the amendment of the Senate numbered 40.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) Does the gentleman 
    from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) desire recognition?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if 
    the

[[Page 9945]]

    gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Duncan) would explain precisely what his 
    amendment does?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten) has the time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) for 30 minutes.
        Mr. Whitten: I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Duncan).

--When Proponent of Preferential Motion May Control Time

Sec. 17.49 While the manager of 
    a conference report controls the majority time on all motions with 
    respect to an amendment in disagreement where he has offered an 
    initial motion and sought recognition to control time for debate, 
    he does not necessarily control the majority time on a motion to 
    concur with an amendment offered after the House has voted to 
    recede (a motion to recede and concur having been divided), if (1) 
    the manager's original motion was to insist, which has been 
    preempted by adoption of the motion to recede, and (2) the manager 
    did not seek recognition to control debate time on the motion to 
    recede and concur when it was offered, but allowed the Chair to 
    immediately put the question on receding; in such case, the 
    proponent of the preferential motion to concur with an amendment 
    may be recognized to control one-half the time and a Member of the 
    other party one-half the time under the hour rule as 
    required by Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b).

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Oct. 1, 
1982,(14) during consideration of House Joint Resolution 599 
(continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 128 Cong. Rec. 27295-97, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 83: Page 19, after line 2, insert:
            Sec. 151. (a) Section 4109 of title 5, United States Code 
        is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        subsection:
            ``(c) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1) of this section, 
        the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, may pay an 
        individual training to be an air traffic controller . . . at 
        the applicable rate of basic pay for the hours of training 
        officially ordered or approved in excess of forty hours in an 
        administrative workweek.''. . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.

[[Page 9946]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House insist on its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 83.

        Mr. [Lawrence] Coughlin [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Coughlin moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 83 and 
        concur therein.

        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    division of the question.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question will be divided.
        The Chair will state that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten) has the time. Does the gentleman wish to use his time for 
    debate now?
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Coughlin).
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the gentleman from Mississippi does 
    not seek to control debate time, the Chair will put the question on 
    receding.
        The question is, will the House recede from its disagreement to 
    Senate amendment No. 83?
        The House receded from its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 
    83.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: For what purpose does the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Ford) seek recognition?
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Ford moves that the House concur in Senate amendment 
        numbered 83 with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter 
        proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, insert the 
        following: . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Since the House has receded, the 
    gentleman from Mississippi's original motion has been preempted and 
    he did not seek to control time therefore the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Ford) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coughlin) will be recognized for 
    30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford).

Recognition After Rejection of Conference Report

Sec. 17.50 Where a conference report was rejected and the manager of 
    the report did not seek further recognition, the Speaker recognized 
    a minority member of the committee with legislative jurisdiction to 
    move to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment.

    On Dec. 10, 1969,(16) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, the 
manager of a conference report on an export control bill, moved the 
previous question. When the House rejected the report, and when Mr. 
Patman did not seek further recognition, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Gary E. Brown, of Michigan,

[[Page 9947]]

a minority member of the Committee on Banking and Currency which had 
reported the bill. Mr. Brown was recognized to offer a motion to concur 
in the Senate amendment with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 38102-06, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.51 Where a conference report on a House bill with a Senate 
    amendment is rejected, the Chair directs the Clerk to report the 
    Senate amendment; and if the manager of the report does not seek 
    recognition to offer a motion to dispose of the Senate amendment 
    the Chair recognizes the Member who had led the opposition to the 
    conference report to offer a motion to dispose of the amendment.

    On Sept. 16, 1977,(17) during proceedings relating to 
the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 5262 (international 
financial institutions), the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 29597, 29599, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the conference report was rejected.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Madam Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Harkin moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate to the text of the 
        bill (H.R. 5262) to provide 
        for increased participation by the United States in the 
        International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the 
        International Development Association, the International 
        Finance Corporation, the Asian Development Bank and the Asian 
        Development Funds, and for other purposes, and agree to the 
        same with an amendment as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment insert the following: . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The gentleman from 
    Iowa (Mr. Harkin) will be recognized for 30 minutes in support of 
    his motion, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stanton) will be 
    recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin).

Sec. 17.52 Following rejection of a conference report on a point of 
    order, debate on a motion to dispose of the Senate amendment 
    remaining in disagreement is evenly divided between the majority 
    and minority parties under the rationale contained in clause 2(b) 
    of Rule XXVIII requiring such division of time on motions to 
    dispose of amendments reported from conference in disagreement.

    On Sept. 30, 1976,(19) Mr. Jack Brooks, of Texas, made 
the fol

[[Page 9948]]

lowing motion with respect to a Senate amendment to H.R. 13367, 
extending the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, the 
Speaker having ruled out the conference report on a point of order and 
directed the Clerk to report the Senate amendments remaining in 
disagreement for disposition by motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 122 Cong. Rec. 34080, 34085, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Brooks moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement and concur in the Senate amendment to the House 
        bill (H.R. 13367) to extend and amend the State and Local 
        Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 and for other purposes, with an 
        amendment as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment insert the following: . . .

                    Sec. 5. Extension of Program and Funding

            (a) In General.--Section 105 (relating to funding for 
        revenue sharing) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or (c)'' immediately after ``as provided 
        in subsection (b)'' in subsection (a)(1): . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: (20) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask what the 
    allocation of time is on this particular motion.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the rule provides, of 
    course, for 30 minutes on a side under consideration of a 
    conference report but the practice has been followed, if the Chair 
    recalls correctly, of allotting 30 minutes to a side on a motion 
    when a conference report is ruled out on a point of order.
        Under that procedure, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) 
    will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair would inquire who will be handling the matter on the 
    minority side?
        Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, I will be handling time on this side.
        The Speaker: And the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) will 
    be recognized for 30 minutes for debate only.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) for 
    30 minutes.

Rejection of Motion To Dispose of Amendment in Disagreement

Sec. 17.53 Where a motion to dispose of an amendment reported from 
    conference in disagreement, offered by the manager of the 
    conference report, is rejected, the Speaker recognizes a Member 
    leading the opposition to offer another motion to dispose of the 
    amendment; debate on the motion offered by the manager of the 
    conference report is equally divided between the majority and 
    minority parties (pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause

[[Page 9949]]

    2(b)); under a former practice, after rejection of such motion, 
    recognition to offer another motion having passed to the 
    opposition, debate on the opposition motion was under the hour rule 
    and within the control of the Member recognized to make such 
    motion.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The custom has developed of equally 
dividing between majority and minority parties the time on all motions 
to dispose of amendments emerging from conference in disagreement, 
whether reported in disagreement or, for example, before the House upon 
rejection of a conference report by a vote or on a point of 
order,(21) or upon rejection of an initial motion to dispose 
of the amendment.(22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. See Sec. 17.52, supra.
22. See the proceedings of July 2, 1980, at Sec. Sec. 17.27 and 17.41, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 7554 (Housing 
and Urban Development and independent agencies appropriations for 
fiscal year 1978) in the House on July 19, 1977,(1) the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 123 Cong. Rec. 23668, 23669, 23678, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Clerk will report 
    the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 24: Page 17, line 11, strike out 
        ``$2,943,600,- 000'' and insert ``$3,013,000,000''.

        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts] [manager of the 
    conference report]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Boland moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 24 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        sum proposed by said amendment insert ``$2,995,300,000''.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Boland) is recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Coughlin) is recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Boland).
        Mr. Boland: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume. . . .
        Mr. [Don] Fuqua [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition 
    to amendment No. 24. . . .
        [After debate, the motion was rejected.]
        Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Fuqua moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 24 and concur therein.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua) 
    is recognized for 60 minutes. . . .
        Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion.

[[Page 9950]]

        The previous question was ordered.
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 17.54 Where the House rejects a motion by the manager of a bill to 
    dispose of a Senate amendment remaining in disagreement, 
    recognition to offer another motion is accorded to a Member who led 
    the opposition to the rejected motion.

    On Sept. 30, 1976,(3) Mr. Jack Brooks, of Texas, made 
the following motion with respect to a Senate amendment to H.R. 13367, 
extending the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, the 
Speaker having ruled out the conference report on a point of order and 
directed the Clerk to report the Senate amendments remaining in 
disagreement for disposition by motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 34080, 34085, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Brooks moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement and concur in the Senate amendment to the House 
        bill (H.R. 13367) to extend and amend the State and Local 
        Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 and for other purposes, with an 
        amendment as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment insert the following: . . .

                    Sec. 5. Extension of Program and Funding

            (a) In General.--Section 105 (relating to funding for 
        revenue sharing) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or (c)'' immediately after ``as provided 
        in subsection (b)'' in subsection (a)(1): . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
    ask what the allocation of time is on this particular motion.
        The Speaker: (4) The Chair will state that the rule 
    provides, of course, for 30 minutes on a side under consideration 
    of a conference report but the practice has been followed, if the 
    Chair recalls correctly, of allotting 30 minutes to a side on a 
    motion when a conference report is ruled out on a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under that procedure, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) 
    will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair would inquire who will be handling the matter on the 
    minority side?
        Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, I will be handling time on this side.
        The Speaker: And the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) will 
    be recognized for 30 minutes for debate only.

    The motion was rejected.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 122 Cong. Rec. 34092, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 30, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Horton moves that the House recede and concur in the 
        Senate amendment to H.R. 13367, with an

[[Page 9951]]

        amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be 
        inserted by the Senate amendment insert the following: . . .

After Rejection of Previous Question on Motion To Concur, Opponents of 
    Motion Recognized

Sec. 17.55 The opponents of a motion to concur in a Senate amendment 
    with an amendment are entitled to seek recognition on the amendment 
    after the House rejects the ordering of the previous question on 
    that motion.

    On May 14, 1963,(6) the House was considering amendments 
reported from conference in disagreement on H.R. 5517, making 
supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1963. The amendments were being 
managed by Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, who had called up the 
conference report. Mr. Thomas moved the previous question (without 
debate) on his motion to concur in a Senate amendment with an 
amendment. The previous question was rejected. Mr. George Meader, of 
Michigan, who was in opposition to the motion to concur, then sought 
recognition. He was recognized by Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, to control debate on the motion. The motion to concur 
with an amendment was rejected, a previously pending motion to concur 
was rejected, and Mr. Meader was then recognized to move that the House 
insist on its disagreement to the Senate amendment, which was adopted 
by the House.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 109 Cong. Rec. 8508-11, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. See Sec. 17.57, infra, for the principle that after defeat of the 
        motion to recede and concur, an essential motion, the right to 
        recognition passes to 
        the opposition to the motion. However, the manager of the 
        conference 
        report retains control over the consideration of the remainder 
        of the amendments in disagreement (see Sec. 17.38, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rejection of Motion To Recede and Concur--Effect on Recognition

Sec. 17.56 Where a vital motion made by the Member in charge of a bill 
    is defeated, the right to prior recognition passes to a Member 
    opposed; thus, where a motion made by the Member in charge of a 
    bill to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment 
    had been defeated, recognition for a motion to recede and concur 
    with another amendment passed to a Member opposed to the defeated 
    motion.

[[Page 9952]]

    During consideration of H.J. Res. 1131, a further continuing 
appropriation for fiscal year 1975, in the House on Oct. 7, 
1974,(8) the proceedings described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 120 Cong. Rec. 34151, 34157-59, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (9) The Clerk will report the first 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 3: On page 2, line 9, strike out: ``to 
        the Government of Turkey until the President certifies to the 
        Congress that substantial progress toward agreement has been 
        made regarding military forces in Cyprus'' and insert ``or for 
        the transportation of any military equipment or supplies to any 
        country which uses such defense articles or services in 
        violation of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or the Foreign 
        Military Sales Act, or any agreement entered into under such 
        Acts.''

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mahon moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 3 and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter stricken 
        out and inserted by said amendment, insert: ``or for the 
        transportation of any military equipment or supplies to the 
        Government of Turkey unless and until the President determines 
        and certifies to the Congress that the Government of Turkey is 
        in compliance with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the 
        Foreign Military Sales Act, or any agreement entered into under 
        such Acts by making good faith efforts to reach a negotiated 
        settlement with respect to Cyprus.''

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) will be 
    recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Cederberg) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon).
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say a word and 
    then I will yield to my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Rosenthal). . . .
        The Speaker: The question pending is on the motion of the 
    gentleman from Texas. Those in favor of it will vote ``yea.''
        Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: Is this vote on the 
    previous question?
        The Speaker: The vote is on the motion.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    69, nays 291, not voting 74 . . . .
        So the motion was rejected. . . .
        Mr. Rosenthal: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Rosenthal moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to Senate amendment numbered 3 and concur therein 
        with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to 
        be inserted by Senate amendment numbered 3, insert the 
        following: ``or for the transportation of any military 
        equipment or supplies to Turkey until and unless the President 
        certifies to the Congress that the Government of Turkey is in 
        compliance with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Foreign 
        Military Sales Act, and any agreement

[[Page 9953]]

        entered into under such Acts, and that substantial progress 
        toward agreement has been made regarding military force in 
        Cyprus.''

        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York is recognized for 1 
    hour.
        Mr. Rosenthal: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the 
    distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. du Pont), pending which 
    I yield myself 5 minutes. . . .
        Mr. Rosenthal: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion.
        The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Rosenthal).
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it. . . .
        So the motion was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b), time 
for debate on a motion to dispose of a Senate amendment reported from 
conference in disagreement is equally divided between majority and 
minority parties. (But see Sec. 17.18, supra, for division of time 
where majority and minority are in agreement on the motion. Provision 
for a three-way division of the hour was added to the rules in 1985.) 
When the Mahon motion was defeated and Mr. Rosenthal was recognized for 
one hour, he yielded one-half of his time to a minority party Member 
pursuant to that rule.

Sec. 17.57 Where a motion is made by the Member in charge of a 
    conference report to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with 
    an amendment and the motion is defeated, recognition for 
    a motion to further insist 
    on disagreement passes to a Member opposed.

    On June 26, 1942,(10) Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, 
the Member in charge of a bill reported from conference in 
disagreement, moved that the House recede and concur with an amendment. 
The motion was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 88 Cong. Rec. 5642, 5643, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, opposed to the amendment, then 
arose to make the motion to further insist on disagreement to the 
Senate amendment, at the same time that Mr. Tarver arose to make the 
same motion. After the question of recognition was discussed, Speaker 
Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Cannon to make the motion:

        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I desire to submit a parliamentary 
    inquiry. It was my purpose to offer a motion as I have done in 
    connection with the same subject matter on previous occasions. I 
    had risen for the purpose of offering a motion to further insist 
    upon the disagreement of the House to Senate

[[Page 9954]]

    amendments Nos. 90 and 91. I wish to inquire whether or not I am 
    privileged, as chairman of the House conferees, to offer that 
    motion?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, my motion is to further 
    insist.
        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet before the gentleman 
    from Missouri rushed over between me and the microphone and offered 
    his motion.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, it is a long-established 
    rule of procedure that when a vital motion made by the Member in 
    charge of a bill is defeated, the right to prior recognition passes 
    to the opposition. That is the position in which the gentleman 
    finds himself. He has made a major motion. The motion has been 
    defeated. Therefore the right of recognition passes to the 
    opposition, and I ask to be recognized to move to further insist.
        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard with regard to that 
    statement?
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Tarver: The question has never been raised so far as I have 
    known in the course of my experience of some 16 years upon an 
    appropriation bill conference report, but if as the gentleman 
    states the right of making the motion passes to the opposition, it 
    should pass to my Republican colleague the gentleman from Kansas 
    [Mr. Lambertson] with whom the gentleman from Missouri has been 
    associated in the defeat of the motion offered by the chairman of 
    the subcommittee. I have desired to offer the motion myself in the 
    absence of the exercise of that privilege by the gentleman from 
    Kansas.
        Mr. [William P.] Lambertson [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for 
    recognition.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia has the floor.
        Mr. Tarver: I have completed all I desire to say except that I 
    desire to offer the motion if it is permissible; otherwise, I 
    insist that the right should pass to the opposition and 
    to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Lambertson].
        The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the gentleman 
    from Missouri has been properly recognized to offer a motion. The 
    gentleman will state his motion.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House 
    further insist on its disagreement to the Senate amendments.
        The motion was agreed to.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 5642, 5643. For the requirement that recognition pass to 
        the opposition after the rejection of an essential motion made 
        by the Member in charge of a proposition, see Sec. 15, supra.
            The opposition is recognized only to offer a motion related 
        to the pending amendment in disagreement; control then passes 
        back to the manager of the conference report (see Sec. 17.38, 
        supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.58 Where a conference report was agreed to and a motion to 
    recede and concur in a Senate amendment was rejected, the manager 
    of the conference report did not seek further recognition and the 
    Speaker Pro Tempore recognized a minority Member who offered a 
    motion to

[[Page 9955]]

    further insist on disagreement.

    On Dec. 3, 1969,(12) Mr. Joseph W. Evins, of Tennessee, 
manager of a conference report and amendments in disagreement, moved 
the previous question and the report was agreed to. Mr. Evins then 
offered a motion that the House 
recede and concur in a Senate amendment. The motion was rejected, and 
Mr. Evins did not seek further recognition on the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 115 Cong. Rec. 36759, 36760, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Pro Tempore Charles M. Price, of Illinois, then recognized 
Glenn R. Davis, of Wisconsin, a minority Member, to offer a motion to 
further insist on disagreement.

Sec. 17.59 Upon rejection of a motion offered by the manager of a 
    conference report in 
    disagreement to recede and concur in the Senate amendment in 
    disagreement with an amendment, the manager may be recognized to 
    offer a motion that the House insist on its disagreement to the 
    amendment with a request for a further conference.

    On May 23, 1979,(13) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House during consideration of the first concurrent resolution on 
the budget for fiscal year 1980:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 12469, 12471, 12489, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to the order of the House of May 22, 1979, I call up the conference 
    report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 107) setting 
    forth the Congressional Budget for the U.S. Government for the 
    fiscal year 1980 and revising the Congressional Budget for the U.S. 
    Government for the fiscal year 1979. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The Clerk will read 
    the Senate amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

            Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:
        That the Congress hereby determines and declares [that]

            (a) In order to achieve a balanced budget in fiscal year 
        1981, the following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
        fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1979, October 1, 1980, and 
        October 1, 1981-- . . .

        Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Giaimo moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the Senate amendment and to concur therein with 
        an amendment, as follows: . . .

        [The motion was rejected.]
        Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Giaimo moves that the House insist upon its 
        disagreement to the

[[Page 9956]]

        Senate amendment and request a further conference with the 
        Senate thereon.

        The motion was agreed to.

Defeat of Motion To Reject Nongermane Portion of Motion To Recede and 
    Concur--Effect on Recognition

Sec. 17.60 Upon defeat of a motion to reject a nongermane portion of a 
    motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with a further 
    amendment, the Member who had moved to recede and concur with an 
    amendment and a minority Member are each recognized for 30 minutes 
    of debate on that motion.

    On July 31, 1974,(15) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized Wilbur Mills, of Arkansas, to call up the conference report 
on H.R. 8217 (exemption from tariff duty of equipment on United States 
vessels) in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 26082, 26083, 26088, 26089, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the 
    bill (H.R. 8217) to exempt from duty certain equipment and repairs 
    for vessels operated by or for any agency of the United States, and 
    ask unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be read in 
    lieu of the report. . . .

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the statement. . . .
        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mills moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the Senate amendment to the text of the bill, H.R. 8217, and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment to the text of the bill (page 2, after line 6), 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 3. The last sentence of section 203(e)(2) of the 
        Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 
        (as added by section 20 of Public Law 93-233 and amended by 
        section 2 of Public Law 93-256 and by section 2 of Public Law 
        93-329) is amended by striking out ``August 1, 1974'' and 
        inserting in lieu thereof ``April 30, 1975''. . . .

        Mr. [J. J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order on section 3 of this bill because it does not conform to the 
    House germaneness rule, rule 28, clause 5(b)(1). . . .
        Section 3 deals with the unemployment compensation program as 
    it relates to extended benefits. This has nothing to do with the 
    ``repair of vessels.'' . . .
        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the point of order is 
    well taken. I cannot resist the point of order.
        The Speaker: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Pickle: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Pickle moves that the House reject section 3 of the 
        proposed amendment to the Senate amend

[[Page 9957]]

        ment to the text of the bill H.R. 8217.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pickle) will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Mills) will be recognized for 20 minutes. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pickle).
        The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote 
    on the ground that a quorum is not present. . . .
        The Speaker: . . . [T]he Chair does recognize the gentleman 
    from Iowa who objects to the vote on the ground that a quorum is 
    not present and makes the point of order that a quorum is not 
    present, and evidently a quorum is not present. . . .
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    63, nays 336, not voting 35, as follows: . . .
        So the motion was rejected. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair desires to state that under the rule the 
    gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Mills) will be recognized for 30 
    minutes and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Schneebeli) will 
    be recognized for 30 minutes.

Motion To Recede and Concur Divided--Effect of Rejection of Motion To 
    Recede

Sec. 17.61 Where a motion to recede and concur with an amendment to an 
    amendment reported in disagreement from conference has been 
    divided, and the motion to recede is rejected, the conferee 
    managing the bill is entitled to recognition to offer a motion to 
    insist on disagreement.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Sept. 24, 1975: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 30081, 30082, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (17) . . . The question is on the 
    motion to recede.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [M. G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    197, nays 203, not voting 33, as follows: . . .
        So the motion to recede was rejected. . . .
        Mr. [John M.] Slack [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Slack moves that the House insist on its disagreement 
        to Senate amendment No. 8.

        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from West Virginia desire time 
    on the motion?
        Mr. Slack: Mr. Speaker, I desire no time.

[[Page 9958]]

        Mr. Snyder: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield just for 30 
    seconds?
        Mr. Slack: I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
        Mr. Snyder: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say I had the same 
    motion.
        The motion was agreed to.

Motion To Recommit Conference Report

Sec. 17.62 On one occasion, the Speaker Pro Tempore recognized the 
    ranking minority member of one of the two committees which had 
    originally reported a bill in the House, who was not a conferee on 
    the bill, to move 
    to recommit a conference 
    report, rather than the second highest ranking minority member of 
    the other committee which had reported the bill, who was a conferee 
    (although the highest ranking minority member of a select committee 
    normally has the right to recognition to move to recommit a bill 
    reported from a select committee).

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on June 27, 
1980,(18) during consideration of the conference report on 
S. 1308 (Energy Mobilization Board):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 126 Cong. Rec. 17371, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    previous question on the conference report.
        The previous question was ordered.

                             motion to recommit

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) For what reason does 
    the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel L.] Devine [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
    to recommit.
        Mr. [Manuel] Lujan [Jr., of New Mexico]: Mr. Speaker, I am a 
    member of the conference committee, and I am opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Ohio (Mr. Devine).
        Mr. Devine: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit, and I am 
    opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman qualifies.
        Mr. Lujan: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Lujan: Mr. Speaker, does not a member of the conference 
    committee have preference in recognition to the ranking minority 
    member on the standing committee working on the bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) 
    was on his feet at the time of the recommital motion. Does the 
    gentleman from Ohio, the second ranking minor

[[Page 9959]]

    ity member of the conference committee, have a motion?
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: I am unqualified for the 
    motion to recommit. I was standing, however, to make sure that the 
    motion to recommit was protected for the minority, and when the 
    Chair recognized the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine), the ranking 
    minority member of the Commerce Committee, I took my seat. . . .
        Mr. Lujan: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear an answer to my 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: As the gentleman knows, the Chair's 
    control over recognition is not subject to challenge and the Chair 
    recognized the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine).
        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine) is recognized for a 
    motion.
        Mr. Devine: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    conference report?
        Mr. Devine: I am opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman qualifies.
        The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Devine moves to recommit the conference report to 
        accompany the Senate bill, S. 1308, to the committee of 
        conference.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Ordinarily, the prior right to recognition 
to move to recommit should belong to a member of a conference committee 
(the committee reporting the bill).(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See 132 Cong. Rec. 26294, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., where Mr. William R. 
        Archer, Jr., of Texas, a conferee and member of the Ways and 
        Means Committee, was recognized for a motion to recommit the 
        conference report on the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (H.R. 3838).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------