[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14, Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[D. Division of the Question for Voting]
[§ 52. Motions To Recede and Concur]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 11787-11799]
CHAPTER 30
Voting
D. DIVISION OF THE QUESTION FOR VOTING
Sec. 52. Motions To Recede and Concur
The divisibility of the motion to recede and concur may alter the
preferential nature of certain motions following such division. The
motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment, for example, takes
precedence over a motion to recede and concur with an
amendment,(11) since, after the stage of disagreement has
been reached, the motion which most quickly brings the two Houses
together is preferential. But if the House recedes from its
disagreement, then a motion to amend takes precedence over concurring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. It is to be noted that the phrase ``a motion to recede and concur
with an amendment'' is a term of art in parliamentary parlance
and refers to a motion that the House recede from its
disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur therein with a
further House amendment. It must be distinguished from the
``motion to recede and concur''--which refers to a simple
motion that the House recede from its disagreement to a Senate
amendment and decide to concur in that Senate
amendment. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a Senate Amendment
Sec. 52.1 A motion that the House recede and concur in a Senate
amendment is divisible upon request of any Member, and the House
does not vote on whether to divide the motion.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. This precedent is well established. For similar instances, see 109
Cong. Rec. 8506, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., May 14, 1963; 107 Cong.
Rec. 16325, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 10, 1961; 106 Cong. Rec.
14074, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 23, 1960; 91 Cong. Rec. 4492,
79th Cong. 1st Sess., May 11, 1945; and 89 Cong. Rec. 5899,
78th Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11788]]
On June 28, 1972,(13) Mr. Robert R. Casey, of Texas,
called up the conference report on a bill (H.R. 13955) making
appropriations for the legislative branch for the fis-cal year ending
June 30, 1973, and for other purposes. The vote was taken on the
conference report, and it was agreed to.
Thereafter, the Speaker directed the Clerk to report the amendments
remaining in disagreement between the Houses. Among those was Senate
amendment No. 36, as to which the following discussion took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 118 Cong. Rec. 22959, 22974, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (14) The Clerk will report the next
amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment numbered 36: Page 24, line 20, insert:
Extension of the Capitol
Funds available under this appropriation may be used for
the preparation of preliminary plans for the extension of the
west central front: Provided, however, That no funds may be
used for the preparation of the final plans or initiation of
construction of said project until specifically approved and
appropriated therefor by the Congress.
Mr. Casey of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Casey of Texas moves that the House further insist on
its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 36.
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Stratton moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to Senate amendment numbered 36 and concur
therein.
Mr. Casey of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I request a division of the
question.
Mr. Stratton: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Stratton: Is the request for a division of the question
presumably to recede on one part and concur on the other part? Is
this subject to a vote or something?
The Speaker: All of the motion is subject to a vote. The
question is on the matter of receding from disagreement.
Mr. Stratton: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. If
a Member is in favor of accepting the Senate amendment, then he
would oppose the motion to divide on the vote. Is that correct?
The Speaker: This is not a question of voting on the division
but a question of voting on the motion to recede.
Mr. Stratton: A further parliamentary inquiry. My understanding
is that if the motion to divide succeeds and passes, then it is
possible parliamentarily to offer an amendment to the Senate
amendment rather than
[[Page 11789]]
to accept the Senate amendment. Is that not correct?
The Speaker: If the motion to recede from disagreement is
adopted, then a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an
amendment is in order. . . .
Mr. Stratton: Mr. Speaker, I am confused. My original question
was whether the proposal to divide the question into two parts was
subject to a vote.
The Speaker: Division of a question is a right which any Member
of the House enjoys.
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry. At what point is it in order for the
gentleman from New York to offer his motion to recede and concur
with the Senate.
The Speaker: The motion is pending. The gentleman from Texas
asked for a division.
Mr. Yates: Is it in order at this point for the gentleman from
New York to offer his motion to recede and concur?
The Speaker: That motion is pending. The question is shall the
House recede from its disagreement to the Senate amendment.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 52.2 A preferential motion to recede and concur having been
divided, the House agreed first to recede and subsequently to
concur.
On Aug. 10, 1961,(15) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas,
called up the conference report on a bill (H.R. 7851) making
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1962, and for other purposes. The report was agreed to, and
the House then proceeded to consider the Senate amendments remaining in
disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 107 Cong. Rec. 15320, 15325, 15326, 15331, 15336, 87th Cong. 1st
Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of these amendments (No. 26) provided for $207,600,000 to be
utilized for civil defense activities, including the hiring of motor
vehicles and the providing of fall-out shelters in government-owned or
leased buildings. Mr. Mahon moved that the House recede from its
disagreement to this amendment and concur therein.
Mr. John Taber, of New York, requested the question be divided and
upon so doing, the Speaker Pro Tempore (16) put the question
to the House.
The House having decided to recede from its disagreement to Senate
amendment No. 26, Mr. Taber subsequently moved to concur in the
amendment with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After some discussion of the proposed Taber amendment which called
for a reduction in the funding by $93 million, Mr. Mahon moved the
previous question and the House rejected Mr. Taber's motion.
[[Page 11790]]
The motion to concur with an amendment having failed, the
previously offered Mahon motion to concur in the Senate amendment was
then put before the House. The motion was agreed to.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 14081, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 23, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 52.3 A motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment having
been divided, the House receded from disagreement, rejected both a
motion to concur with an amendment and a motion to concur, and
decided thereafter to insist on disagreement.
On May 14, 1963,(18) the conference report on the
supplemental appropriation bill of 1963 (H.R. 5517) having been agreed
to, Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, moved that the House recede from its
disagreement to a Senate amendment No. 76, and concur therein with an
amendment. Mr. Robert R. Barry, of New York, then offered a
preferential motion to recede and concur in the Senate amendment. Mr.
Thomas having demanded a division of the proposition, the motion to
recede was entertained and subsequently agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 8504, 8505, 8506, 8509-11, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediately thereafter, Mr. Thomas moved that the House concur in
the Senate amendment with the same amendment which had been
incorporated in Mr. Thomas' original motion. Since the House had
already receded, this motion was now preferential to the remaining
portion of the Barry motion. The Thomas proposal was rejected, however.
The question then recurred on the second part of the Barry motion
(i.e., to concur in the Senate amendment) which was also rejected. Mr.
George Meader, of Michigan, then moved that the House insist on its
disagreement to the Senate amendment. This motion was agreed to,
without discussion.
Sec. 52.4 A motion that the House recede from its disagreement and
concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment is divisible only as
between receding and then concurring with an amendment.
On Mar. 21, 1946,(19) the House had under consideration
a conference report pertaining to the independent offices appropriation
bill of 1947. Among those Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 5201)
which remained in disagreement were Nos. 10 and 18. After
[[Page 11791]]
the conference report was agreed to, the aforementioned amendments were
discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 92 Cong. Rec. 2521, 2523, 2525, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first amendment remaining in disagreement was read to the House
at the Speaker's (20) request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 10: Page 4, line 21, insert the
following:
Emergency Fund for the President
Emergency fund for the President: Not to exceed $5,000,000
of the appropriation ``Emergency fund for the President,''
contained in the First Supplemental National Defense
Appropriation Act, 1943, as supplemented and amended, is hereby
continued available until June 30, 1947: Provided, That no part
of such fund shall be available for allocation to finance a
function or project for which function or project a Budget
estimate of appropriation was transmitted pursuant to law
during the Seventy-ninth and Eightieth Congresses and such
appropriation denied after consideration thereof by the Senate
and House of Representatives or by the Committees on
Appropriations of both bodies.
Mr. Joseph E. Hendricks, of Florida, then moved to recede and
concur in the Senate amendment with the following amendment:
After the word ``Senate'' in line 12 of said amendment
strike out the remainder of the line and all of lines 13 and 14
and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``or House of
Representatives or by the Committee on Appropriations of either
body.''
Mr. Richard B. Wigglesworth, of Massachusetts, asked for a division
of the question. Mr. Hendricks having risen to a point of order that
the question could not be divided, the Speaker ruled to the contrary.
Thereafter, the motion, as divided, (i.e., to recede) was put to the
House and agreed to.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See also 80 Cong. Rec. 7616, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., May 20, 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect of Division on Determining the Question
Sec. 52.5 The motion to recede and concur having been divided, the
first vote applies only to the motion to recede.
On May 14, 1963,(2) Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, called
up the conference report on a bill (H.R. 5517) making supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, and for other
purposes. Following adoption of the report, the House considered Senate
amendment No. 76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 109 Cong. Rec. 8502, 8505, 8506, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was a proposal to authorize the payment of some $73 million to
the Government of the Republic of the Philippines in accordance with
previously passed legislation dealing with war dam
[[Page 11792]]
age claims and in conjunction with certain newly proposed conditions.
Mr. Thomas moved that the House recede from its disagreement with the
amendment and concur with an amendment.
Mr. Robert Barry, of New York, then offered a preferential motion
that the House recede from its disagreement and concur in the Senate
amendment. This motion, in turn, was followed by a demand from Mr.
Thomas that the question be divided. The Speaker (3) then
indicated that the first concept in the motion, that is, whether the
House would recede from its disagreement to the Senate amendment, was
the question under consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 52.6 Where both the motion to adhere and the motion to recede and
concur are pending, and a division of the latter motion is
demanded, the vote comes first on the motion to recede.
On June 23, 1960,(4) Mr. J. Vaughan Gary, of Virginia,
called up a bill (H.R. 10569) making appropriations for the Treasury
and Post Office Departments, and the Tax Court of the United States for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, and for other purposes, with a
Senate amendment thereto. Immediately after so doing, the stage of
disagreement having been reached, Mr. Gary moved that the House adhere
to its disagreement to the Senate amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 106 Cong. Rec. 14074, 14081, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, then offered a preferential
motion that the House recede from its disagreement and concur therein.
Mr. Gary sought a division of the question on the preferential motion,
and the Speaker Pro Tempore (5) recognized him for an hour
to control the debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Wilbur Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After some discussion of the matter, which pertained to how the
franking privilege was to be used, Mr. John Taber, of New York,
initiated the following exchange:
Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The gentleman will
state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: Is not the parliamentary situation this: The
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] has offered a motion to
recede and concur. The gentleman from Virginia asked for a division
of the question. The parliamentary situation is this: We first vote
on the question of receding, and if that carries we can vote on the
other part of the motion?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: On the question of concurrence?
[[Page 11793]]
Mr. Taber: Yes.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is correct.
Mr. Taber: If the motion to recede is not agreed to, then that
is the end of it?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: No. The vote then would be on the
motion to adhere.
The motion to adhere was not voted upon, however, as the motion to
recede carried by a substantial margin.
Sec. 52.7 The motion to recede and concur having been divided, and the
House having receded from its disagreement to a Senate amendment,
the motion to concur with an amendment takes precedence over the
motion to concur.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. For more information about the disposition of amendments between
the Houses, see Ch. 32, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 14, 1963,(8) the conference report on the
supplemental appropriation bill of 1963 was before the House. Among
those Senate amendments remaining in disagreement was a provision
calling for some $73 million to be paid to the Philippine government
for the purposes of war-damage compensation. Mr. Albert Thomas, of
Texas, moved that the House recede from its disagreement to this
amendment (No. 76) and concur with an amendment. After some discussion,
Mr. Robert R. Barry, of New York, offered the preferential motion that
the House recede and concur in Senate amendment No. 76. A division
being demanded by Mr. Thomas, the motion to recede was agreed to, and
Mr. Thomas then moved to concur with an amendment, which was part of
his original motion. This motion now occupying a preferential status,
it was entertained before the remaining portion of the Barry motion.
Mr. Thomas' proposal was rejected, however, and the Speaker
(9) then indicated that the question before the House was
Mr. Barry's motion to concur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 109 Cong. Rec. 8502, 8505, 8506, 8509, 8510, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 52.8 A motion to recede from disagreement to a Senate amendment
and concur therein being divided, and the House having receded, if
a preferential motion to concur with an amendment is offered and
rejected, the question recurs on the motion to concur in the Senate
amendment.
A motion to recede from disagreement to a Senate amendment and
concur therein having
[[Page 11794]]
been divided,(10) the motion to recede was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 109 Cong. Rec. 8506, 8509, 8510, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., May 14,
1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thereafter, a preferential motion to concur in the Senate amendment
with an amendment was offered by Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas. After
some debate thereon, the Speaker put the question on that motion:
The Speaker: (11) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Texas that the House concur in the
Senate amendment, with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was rejected.
The Speaker: The question now is on the second part of the
motion offered by the gentleman from New York that the House concur
in the Senate amendment.
Thus, the rejection of the preferential motion revives the second
portion of the previously divided motion to recede and concur
(12) unless another preferential motion is offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See also 93 Cong. Rec. 9319, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., July 18, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect of Division When Followed by Rejection of Motion To Recede
Sec. 52.9 The motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment having
been divided, the Chair informed a Member that the effect of voting
down the motion to recede from disagreement to the Senate amendment
would permit the offering of a motion to insist on disagreement.
On May 14, 1963,(13) the conference report on the
supplemental appropriation bill of 1963 (H.R. 5517) having been agreed
to, Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, moved that the House recede from its
disagreement to a Senate amendment No. 76, and concur therein with an
amendment. A preferential motion to recede and concur having been
offered, Mr. Thomas demanded the division of the latter motion, and
subsequently moved the previous question on the motion to recede.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 109 Cong. Rec. 8504-06, 8508, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. George Meader, of Michigan, then rose and the following
exchange took place:
Mr. Meader: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Meader: Would it be in order, either before the previous
question is agreed to or thereafter, to offer a motion to further
disagree with the Senate amendment?
[[Page 11795]]
The Speaker: The Chair will state that that can be
accomplished, if desired, by voting down the motion to recede.
Parliamentarian's Note: It is in order, following the refusal of
the House to recede, to entertain a motion to insist on
disagreement.(15) They are not equivalent questions, since
the House, upon refusing to recede, could also adhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See also 103 Cong. Rec. 15519, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 21, 1957;
115 Cong. Rec. 40902, 40912, 40915, 40921, 40922, 91st Cong.
1st Sess., Dec. 22, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 52.10 There being two motions currently pending--one to recede and
concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment and the other a
preferential motion to recede and concur--if the House refuses to
recede when the motion to recede and concur is divided, both
motions are then inoperable. The House has in effect reiterated its
disagreement to the Senate amendment and a motion to further insist
on (or a motion to adhere to) that position is in order.
On Dec. 16, 1943,(16) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri,
called up the conference report on a supplemental defense appropriation
bill for 1944 (H.R. 3598). The House subsequently agreed to the report,
and discussion ensued with respect to those amendments remaining in
disagreement between the Houses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 89 Cong. Rec. 10753, 10756, 10777-80, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among them was a Senate amendment No. 49, as to which Mr. Cannon
offered a motion to recede and concur with an amendment. The Senate
amendment dealt with a supplemental appropriation for the Bureau of
Reclamation. Mr. Cannon's proposal read as follows:
In lieu of the sum of ``$2,800,000'' named in such amendment,
insert ``$700,000''; and in lieu of the sum of ``$800,000'' named
in such amendment, insert ``$200,000''.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Compton I. White, of Idaho, offered a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. White moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to Senate amendment No. 49 and concur in the same.
Mr. Cannon then requested a division of the question, and the House
refused to recede.
Thereafter, Mr. Cannon moved that the House further insist on its
disagreement to the Senate amendment. This motion prompted a series of
parliamentary in
[[Page 11796]]
quiries from a number of Members:
Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Case: The first question for division was a division on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. White]. The
House has refused to recede on the division of that motion. Then it
seems to me that the question recurs on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] to recede and concur with an
amendment. On that motion I ask for a division.
The Speaker: The gentleman asks for a division of the question.
The House has already refused to recede. Therefore, it would be
rather anomalous if we had a division of the motion of the
gentleman from Missouri, and voted again on the question of
receding.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I insist on my motion that
the House insist on its disagreement to the Senate amendment.
Mr. Case: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Case: Since the motion which was offered by the gentleman
from Idaho [Mr. White] was a preferential motion as against the
motion offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], I
question whether or not the gentleman can then move to insist. The
vote, it seems to me, must recur on the motion previously pending,
which was the motion of the gentleman from Missouri to recede and
concur with an amendment. A division of the question is entirely
different when two different propositions are before the House. The
House has refused to recede on the dividing of the question offered
by the gentleman from Idaho, but has not refused to recede on
dividing the question offered by the gentleman from Missouri in his
original motion.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] has moved
to insist on disagreement to the Senate amendment. The Chair
believes there is nothing to do at this time but to put the
gentleman's motion.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Missouri, that the House insist on its disagreement.
Shortly thereafter, the Speaker put the question to a vote. The
motion to insist carried, but was objected to on the ground that a
quorum was not present. More parliamentary inquiries preceded the vote:
Mr. [John R.] Murdock [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Murdock: I am confused as to what the question is. Will the
Chair restate it?
The Speaker: The motion to recede was voted down. The only
motion the gentleman from Missouri had left, therefore, was to
further insist on the disagreement to the Senate amendment. That is
what we are voting on now.
[[Page 11797]]
Mr. [Clinton P.] Anderson of New Mexico: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Anderson of New Mexico: Did the gentleman from Missouri
withdraw his motion to recede and concur with an amendment?
The Speaker: He did not; it was not necessary. Because of the
fact that a motion to recede had been voted down, a second motion
to recede was not in order.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Taber: The motion to recede and concur with an amendment
having been displaced by a motion to recede and concur, and this
motion having been divided so that we voted on the motion to recede
alone, the only motion that could possibly be made would be the one
the gentleman from Missouri did make, that the House further
insist; is that correct?
The Speaker: The Chair has so stated.
The roll was then called, and the motion to insist was agreed
to.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also 89 Cong. Rec. 7384, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., July 7, 1943,
where the Speaker indicated that ``the House cannot concur
until it has receded;'' and 86 Cong. Rec. 5892, 76th Cong. 3d
Sess., May 9, 1940, where the Speaker Pro Tempore answered a
parliamentary inquiry by stating that the rejection of a motion
to recede (which question had been divided from an original
motion to recede and concur) would preclude the subsequent
offering of a motion to concur with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect of Division on Time Allotted for Debate
Sec. 52.11 A motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment having
been divided, the proponent of the initial motion retains control
of the floor.
On Dec. 22, 1969,(19) the House having called up a
conference report on a bill (H.R. 15209) making supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and for other
purposes, certain Senate amendments remained in disagreement between
the Houses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 115 Cong. Rec. 40902, 40915, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, moved that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 33 and concur therein.
A division of the question having been demanded, the Speaker put the
first portion of the question before the House, and the following
discussion ensued:
The Speaker: (20) The question is, Will the House
recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate
numbered 33?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clark] MacGregor [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 11798]]
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. MacGregor: I should like to ask the Speaker if the time for
debate on the motion of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) is
under the control of the gentleman from Texas and if it is in order
for me at this time to ask the gentleman from Texas to yield to me
for 5 minutes?
Mr. Mahon: I have agreed to yield to the gentleman from
Minnesota for 5 minutes for the purpose of debate.
Mr. MacGregor: Am I recognized, Mr. Speaker?
The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas will be recognized for 1
hour, but the question before the House now is on the motion of the
gentleman from Texas that the House recede from its disagreement to
the Senate amendment.
The Speaker having confirmed Mr. Mahon's control of the time for
debate, Mr. Mahon then yielded the floor to Mr. MacGregor for 5
minutes.
Sec. 52.12 Debate on a motion that the House recede from its
disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur in the same is under
the hour rule, and if the question is divided, the hour rule
applies to each motion separately, unless the previous question has
been ordered on the motion prior to the division of the question.
On May 9, 1940,(1) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri,
moved that the House recede from its disagreement to a Senate amendment
to the agricultural appropriation bill of 1941 and concur therein with
an amendment which he sent to the Clerk's desk. Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver,
of Georgia, then offered a preferential motion that the House recede
from its disagreement and concur in the Senate amendment, itself. The
question having been divided by request, the House entertained the
motion to recede.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 86 Cong. Rec. 5887, 5889, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the course of that debate, the following occurred:
Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, as
I understand, there is 1 hour debate allowed on the motion to
recede and concur. Request has been made for a division. My inquiry
is this: Will there be 1 hour of debate on each motion?
The Speaker: (2) The gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Cannon] controls the time. If one is demanded on the motion to
recede, that hour is granted. Then an hour will be granted on the
motion to concur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Whittington: That satisfies my inquiry.
Parliamentarian's Note: Under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(1), debate on
a motion to dispose of an
[[Page 11799]]
amendment in disagreement is divided between the majority and minority
parties--or divided three ways if both floor managers are in support of
the motion and if another Member demands 20 minutes in opposition. See
H. Res. 7, 131 Cong. Rec. 393, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1985.