[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[D. Division of the Question for Voting]
[Â§ 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.