[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 32. House-Senate Relations]
[A. INTRODUCTORY]
[Â§ 2. Messages Relating to Bills]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 17-31]
 
                House-Senate Relations
 
                  A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    2. Messages Relating to Bills

Each House informs the other of the passage of a measure and of any 
subsequent legislative action taken. A House-passed bill is engrossed,
attested to by the Clerk of the House and is messaged to the Senate. 
If the Senate passes the bill without change, that action is formalized,
attested to, and the House is notified. If the Senate amends, its 
amendments are engrossed, attested to by the Secretary and the House 
is informed. Any further amendments by either House are engrossed as 
well. If one House disagrees with amendments of the other a conference 
may result. The request for or agreement to a conference, the 
appointment of conferees, actions taken on the report or amendments 
in disagreement-all are certified by the appropriate official of the 
acting House. The package of actions travels together from one House 
to the other. 
The "bundle" of messages and attested copies of legislative actions 
are called the "official papers." To act on a measure, the body must 
be in possession of these papers. The progression of papers from one 
House to the other normally mirrors the flow of messages.
When the conference meeting is held, the managers of the asking House 
(having possession of the papers because it received the last message-
the agreement to the 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 18]]
conference) carries the papers to the conference 
meeting. When the conference results in agreement, the expectation is 
that the asking House will yield the papers to the agreeing House which 
may act first on the report.(18) However, if the managers of the 
agreeing House release the official papers to the managers of the other 
House, the sequence of actions may be reversed. No point of order lies 
against a conference report which is acted on "out of order" so long 
as the acting House has possession of the papers when the report is
considered.(19) 
When the conference results in disagreement, the managers of the asking 
House are justified in retaining the papers so that the body they 
represent may act first on the amendments in disagreement.(20) 
Messages are also used to communicate a request for a return of a bill 
already transmitted to the other House,(1) to indicate an error in the 
text of an engrossed bill or amendment, and to inform the other House 
of unusual legislative actions.(2) 

Senate Request for Return of Bill

Sec.    2.1 The House, by unanimous consent, agreed to a request of 
the Senate for the return of a Senate bill which had been messaged to 
the House and referred to a committee thereof.
On Jan. 21, 1960,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, laid before the 
House the following message from the Senate:

Ordered, That the House of Representatives be requested to return to 
the Senate the bill (S. 1282) entitled "An act relating to acreage 
allotments for Durum wheat."
THE SPEAKER: Without objection, the request is granted.
There was no objection.
Discharge of Senate Bill From House Committee

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     See Jefferson's Manual Sec. XLVI, House Rules and Manual Sec. 555 
(1997). 
19.     See Sec. 2.19, infra. Once managers have filed a conference report 
in the Senate, with the official papers attached, retrieval of the 
papers-to transfer them to the House-required unanimous consent. 
See Sec. 2.18, infra. 
20.     See Sec. 2.12, infra.
 1.     See Sec.Sec. 2.1, 2.2, infra.
 2.     See Sec. 1.14, supra, and Sec.Sec. 2.3-2.5, infra.
 3.     106 CONG. REC. 1022, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 19]]


Sec.    2.2 The House, responding to a request of the Senate, 
discharged one of its standing committees from consideration of a 
Senate bill and directed the Clerk to return the bill to the Senate.
On July 10, 1969,(4) the following took place in the House:

THE SPEAKER:(5) The Chair lays before the House a request from the 
Senate.
The Clerk read as follows:

That the Secretary be directed to request the House of Representatives 
to return to the Senate the bill (S. 1583) entitled "An Act to provide 
that appointments and promotions in the Post Office Department, 
including the postal field service, be made on the basis of merit and
fitness", together with all accompanying papers. . . .

THE SPEAKER: . . . Without objection, the request of the Senate is 
agreed to, the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service is discharged 
from further consideration of the bill S. 1583, and the Clerk will 
return the bill to the Senate.
There was no objection.
Bills Passed in Closing Hours of Previous Session


Sec.    2.3 At the beginning of a session of Congress, bills are 
messaged to the Senate that were passed by the House in the closing 
hours of a previous session of that Congress and not messaged to the 
Senate before adjournment sine die.
On Jan. 7, 1960,(6) the House sent to the Senate a message concerning 
actions it had taken prior to the adjournment of the first session of 
that Congress.

The message announced that the House had passed the following bills, 
in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:

H.R. 5349. An act to provide for the conveyance to Orange County, 
Calif., of all right, title, and interest of the United States in and 
to certain real property situated in Orange County, Calif.; and
H.R. 8289. An act to accelerate the commencing date of civil service
retirement annuities, and for other purposes.
Veto Overridden


Sec.    2.4 When the House passes a bill over a President's veto, it 
notifies the Senate by message.
On Apr. 2, 1948,(7) this message from the House was received by the 
Senate:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     115 CONG. REC. 19095, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 5.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 6.     106 CONG. REC. 76, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     94 CONG. REC. 4018, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 20]]

IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,
 April 2, 1949. 
The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the bill 
(H.R. 4790) entitled "An act to reduce individual income-tax payments, 
and for other purposes," returned by the President of the United States 
with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in which it 
originated, it was
"Resolved, That the said bill pass, two-thirds of the House of 
Representatives agreeing to pass the same."
Attest:
JOHN ANDREWS,
Clerk.
House Strikes Enacting Clause of Senate Bill

Sec.    2.5 Where the House strikes the enacting clause of a Senate 
bill, the Speaker directs the Clerk to notify the Senate, but the 
original papers are not returned to the Senate.
On Oct. 4, 1972,(8) the Committee of the Whole recommended that the 
House strike out the enacting clause of S. 1316, a bill to amend the 
Federal Meat Inspection Act and Poultry Products Inspection Act.
THE SPEAKER:(9) The question is on the recommendation of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union that the enacting clause 
be stricken out.
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 173, nays 169, not voting 
88. . . .
So the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
of the Union that the enacting clause be stricken out was agreed 
to. . . .
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the House.

Parliamentarian's Note: The last instance where the House struck the 
enacting clause of a Senate bill was June 20, 1946.(10) The message 
from the House to the Senate at that time did not indicate that the 
original papers were returned to the Senate.

Privilege of Senate Request for Return of a Bill

Sec.    2.6 A request of the Senate for the return of a bill is treated 
as privileged in the House.
On Sept. 14, 1959,(11) the Speaker, Sam Rayburn, of Texas, laid before 
the House a request of 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     118 CONG. REC. 33785-87, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 9.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
10.     92 CONG. REC. 7211, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     105 CONG. REC. 19715, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 21]]

the Senate that the House return to the Senate 
H.R. 8392, to amend the District of Columbia Stadium Act of 1957. Mr. 
H. R. Gross, of Iowa, then rose:

Mr. Speaker, is that subject to a reservation of any kind?
THE SPEAKER: It is a privileged matter. It is a request of the Senate 
to return a bill.

Sec.    2.7 Where the Senate, by message, requests the return of a bill 
it has passed, the request is considered as privileged in the House 
and may be disposed of by motion.
On Sept. 9, 1970,(12) the Speaker, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
laid before the House the following communication from the Senate 
relating to a bill which the Senate had passed eight days previously:

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,
September 1, 1970.
Ordered, That the Secretary be directed to request the House of
Representatives to return to the Senate the bill (H.R. 16968) entitled 
"An act to provide for the adjustment of the Government contribution 
with respect to the health benefits coverage of Federal employees and
annuitants, and for other purposes".
Attest:
FRANCIS R. VALEO,
Secretary.
MR. [THADDEUS J.] DULSKI [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
request of the Senate be agreed to.
MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. DULSKI: I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman explain to the House 
briefly the nature of this legislation and the reason for the Senate 
asking the papers and this bill be sent back to that body?
MR. DULSKI: . . . It also is our understanding that upon return of the 
House bill, a motion will be made in the Senate to amend the House 
bill by inserting the language of the Senate-passed bill. The House 
bill with the Senate amendment would then be returned to the House for 
further consideration.
This gives the details of what happened in the Senate.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield further?
MR. DULSKI: I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, in other words, the other body took up the 
bill, apparently on the call of the calendar, and by unanimous 
consent, without debate, passed a bill that was faulty and now asks its 
return by the House.
MR. DULSKI: That would be correct, in substance.
MR. GROSS: I thank the gentleman for yielding. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from New York.
The motion was agreed to.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     116 CONG. REC. 30850, 30851, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 22]]

Sec.    2.8 A request of the Senate for the return of a bill is 
treated as privileged, and the Chair can immediately put the question 
on the request without debate.
On Dec. 29, 1970,(13) Speaker Pro Tempore Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, 
laid before the House this request of the Senate:

DECEMBER 28, 1970.
Ordered, That the Secretary be directed to request the House of
Representatives to return to the Senate the bill (H.R. 14984) entitled "
An Act to provide for the disposition of funds appropriated to pay 
judgments in favor of the Mississippi Sioux Indians in Indian Claims
Commission dockets Nos. 142, 359-363, and for other purposes", together 
with all accompanying papers.
FRANCIS R. VALEO,
Secretary.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on agreeing to the request 
of the Senate. . . .
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 235, nays 20, not voting 
177. . . .
So the request of the Senate was agreed to.

Receipt and Consideration of Senate Request for Return of a Bill

Sec.    2.9 A message from the Senate requesting that the House return 
a bill must be presented to the House for consideration, and the 
question of complying with the request is treated as privileged.
On Sept. 14, 1959,(14) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, laid before the 
House this request of the Senate:

Ordered, That the Secretary of the Senate request the House of 
Representatives to return to the Senate the bill (H.R. 8392) entitled 
"An act to amend the District of Columbia Stadium Act of 1957 with 
respect to motor-vehicle parking areas, and for other purposes," 
together with accompanying papers.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on agreeing to the request of the 
Senate. . . .
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes had it.

Mr. Gross, of Iowa, then asked if consideration of the Senate's request
required unanimous consent. The Speaker stated it was a privileged 
matter. The Speaker then put the question.

MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present, 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     116 CONG. REC. 43776, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
14.     105 CONG. REC. 19715, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 23]]

and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will count. [After counting.] Two hundred and 
thirty-nine Members are present, a quorum.
So the request of the Senate was granted.
House Compliance With Senate Request

Sec.    2.10 On occasion, the House, acting by unanimous consent, 
agrees to a request of the Senate for the return of a House bill.
On Nov. 6, 1963,(15) the following request of the Senate was disposed 
of by the House:

Ordered, That the Secretary of the Senate request the House of 
Representatives to return to the Senate the bill (H.R. 2985) entitled 
"An act to amend section 1391 of title 28 of the United States Code, 
relating to venue generally" together with all accompanying papers.
THE SPEAKER:(16) Without objection, the request is granted.
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.(17) 
Message Requesting Return of Bill 

Sec.    2.11 The two Houses communicate officially by written messages; 
and when the House receives a message from the Senate asking for the 
return of a bill previously sent to the House, the message is laid 
before the House for action. Such requests are frequently agreed to 
without objection.
When the Senate asked for the return of a Senate bill previously 
messaged to the House, the Speaker laid the communication before the 
House for action. The proceedings below show the disposition of such 
a request.(18) 

The Speaker laid before the House the following communication from the 
Senate of the United States:

Ordered, That the Secretary be directed to request the House of
Representatives to return to the Senate the bill (S. 622) entitled 
"An Act to provide standby authority to assure that the essential 
energy needs of the United States are met, to reduce reliance on oil 
imported from insecure sources at high prices, to implement United 
States obligations under international agreements to deal with shortage
conditions, and to authorize and direct the implementation of

---------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     109 CONG. REC. 21122, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
16.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
17.     See also 107 CONG. REC. 20822, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 22, 
1961; and 106 CONG. REC. 9853, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 10, 1960.
18.     121 CONG. REC. 30414, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 26, 1975.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 24]]
Federal 
and State conservation programs consistent with economic recovery", 
together with all accompanying papers.

THE SPEAKER:(19) Without objection, the request is agreed to.
There was no objection.
Progression of Conference "Official Papers"

Sec.    2.12 Where conferees report in total disagreement, the papers 
are normally retained by the asking House so that it may act first on 
the matter in disagreement; but where the only matter remaining in
disagreement is an amendment of the asking House, which cannot amend 
its own amendment, the papers may be transferred so that the agreeing 
House may address the disagreement by amending. 
The conference agreement brought before the House on Oct. 7, 1975, was 
the second report dealing with amendments in disagreement on H.R. 8121, 
the State, Justice, Commerce, and the Judiciary appropriations for 
fiscal 1976. The second conference was asked by the Senate and the 
second report dealt with the sole remaining Senate amendment in 
disagreement, and the conferees agreed to recommend a further amendment 
to that amendment. Since the Senate-the "asking House" which would 
normally entitle it to act first-could not amend its own amendment, the 
report was filed in disagreement, the House retained the papers and acted
first on the managers recommendation. 
The form of the report, the Senate amendment in disagreement, and the 
House action thereon are shown in the Congressional Record excerpt and 
the relevant parts of the statement of the managers are carried here:(20) 
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 94-527)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the Senate numbered 8 to the bill (H.R. 8121) 
"making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, and 
Commerce, the judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1976, and the period ending September 30, 1976, and 
for other purposes," having met, after further full and free conference, 
have been unable to agree.
JOHN M. SLACK . . . 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
20.     121 CONG. REC. 31510, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 2, 1975.
-------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 25]]

JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE . . .
TITLE I-DEPARTMENT OF STATE
General provisions-Department of State
Amendment No. 8: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on 
the part of the House will offer a motion as follows:
Restore the matter stricken by said amendment amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 104. It is the sense of the Congress that any new Panama Canal 
treaty or agreement must protect the vital interests of the United States 
in the Canal Zone and in the operation, maintenance, property and 
defense of the Panama Canal." 
The managers on the part of the Senate will move to concur in the 
amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate.

When the report was called up and read on Oct. 7, 1975, the Speaker(1) 
laid down the amendment in disagreement.(2) 

The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

Senate amendment No. 8: Page 16, line 18, strike out:
"SEC. 104. None of the funds appropriated in this title shall be used 
for the purposes of negotiating the surrender or relinquishment of any 
U.S. rights in the Panama Canal Zone."
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. SLACK
MR. [JOHN M.] SLACK [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Slack moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 8 and concur therein with an amendment, 
as follows: Restore the matter stricken by said amendment amended to 
read as follows:
"SEC. 104. It is the sense of the Congress that any new Panama Canal 
treaty or agreement must protect the vital interests of the United 
States in the Canal Zone and in the operation, maintenance, property 
and defense of the Panama Canal."
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [JOHN J.] FLYNT [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. FLYNT: Mr. Speaker, is a division of the question in order?
THE SPEAKER: Yes, a request for a division of the question is in order.
MR. FLYNT: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division of the question.
THE SPEAKER: The question will be divided.  . . . 
The question is on whether the House shall recede from its disagreement 
to Senate amendment No. 8.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.(3) 

The Speaker later put the question on concurring in the Senate 
amendment with an amendment.

--------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 2.     121 CONG. REC. 32064, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3.     Id. at p. 32075.
--------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 26]]

Message Returning a Bill Passed by the Other Body

Sec.    2.13 Where the House orders a bill returned to the Senate, it 
notifies the Senate of this fact by a message accompanying the returned 
bill.  On May 20, 1965,(4) the following resolution was called up as a
question of the privileges of the House by the chairman of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas:

H. RES. 397
Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 1734) to conserve and protect
domestic fishery resources in the opinion of this House contravenes the 
first clause of the seventh section of the first article of the 
Constitution of the United States, and is an infringement of the 
privileges of this House, and that the said bill be respectfully 
returned to the Senate with a message communicating this resolution.

The resolution was agreed to. This action was communicated to the 
Senate as shown by the following Record proceedings of May 21, 1965.(5) 

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its
reading clerks, notified the Senate that, pursuant to the provisions 
of House Resolution 397, 89th Congress, the engrossed bill (S. 1734) 
to conserve and protect domestic fishery resources, was herewith 
returned to the Senate.
Notice of Senate Proceedings

Sec.    2.14 The Chair does not take public notice of the proceedings 
of the Senate unless formally brought to the attention of the House by 
message from the Senate.
On July 10, 1969,(6) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
directed the Clerk to read a request from the Senate:

That the Secretary be directed to request the House of Representatives 
to return to the Senate the bill (S. 1583) entitled "An Act to provide 
that appointments and promotions in the Post Office Department, 
including the postal field service, be made on the basis of merit and
fitness", together with all accompanying papers.
MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state the parliamentary inquiry.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, is this the bill that was passed by the other 
body on Tuesday morning without any debate whatsoever, the only 
explanation being the bill as printed in the Record?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     111 CONG. REC. 11149, 11150, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5.     Id. at p. 11188. 
 6.     115 CONG. REC. 19095, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 27]]

THE SPEAKER: The Chair is not aware of what action took place in the 
other body.
The Chair is aware of the action of the other body which is now before 
the House.

House Request To Return Message

Sec.    2.15 The House, by unanimous consent, requested the Senate to 
return to the House a message by which the Senate had been erroneously
informed that the House had concurred in the Senate amendments to a 
House bill.
On Dec. 19, 1969,(7) Mr. Olin M. Teague, of Texas, was recognized to 
rectify a mistake made the preceding day, whereby the House had 
inadvertently notified the Senate that it had concurred in the Senate
amendments to H.R. 9634, instead of H.R. 9334, both of which amended 
title 38 of the United States Code.

MR. TEAGUE of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that 
the Clerk be directed to request the Senate to return to the House of
Representatives the message on the bill (H.R. 9634) to amend title 38 
of the United States Code in order to improve and make more effective 
the Veterans' Administration program of sharing specialized medical 
resources.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(8) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Effect of Motion To Postpone Indefinitely

Sec.    2.16 The motion to postpone indefinitely has been used in the 
House to finally dispose of a Senate measure, passed by the House but
identical to a House bill previously passed by both Houses, after the 
Senate had acquiesced in the House's request for its return.
Where the House had inadvertently passed a Senate joint resolution 
identical to a House joint resolution passed by both bodies, it 
requested the Senate return the papers and then put the matter to rest 
by use of a motion to postpone indefinitely.(9) 
Had this action not been taken, the Senate would have enrolled the 
resolution and two identical 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     115 CONG. REC. 40189, 40191, 40215, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 8.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 9.     See 135 CONG. REC. 28222, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 9, 1989; 
and 135 CONG. REC. 29587, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 16, 1989.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 28]]

measures would have been sent to the President. 
DIRECTING THE CLERK TO REQUEST RETURN OF MESSAGE ON SENATE JOINT 
RESOLUTION 216
MR. [THOMAS C.] SAWYER [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Clerk be directed to request the Senate to return to the 
House of Representatives the message on the joint resolution 
(S.J. Res. 216).
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(11) The Chair lays before the House the 
following message from the Senate:

Ordered, That the Secretary be directed to return to the House of
Representatives its message informing the Senate that the House had 
passed the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 216) "Joint resolution 
designating November 12 through 18, 1989, as 'Community Foundation 
Week'.", in compliance with a request of the House for the return 
thereof.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the Senate joint resolution 
is indefinitely postponed.
There was no objection.
House Bill Returned by President Pursuant to Senate Request

Sec.    2.17 Where the Senate by way of a concurrent resolution requests 
the President to return a House bill sent to him for signature, he 
returns the bill to the House and the House messages the same to the 
Senate.
On July 3, 1947,(12) the following occurred on the floor of the House:

The Speaker(13) laid before the House the following message from the 
President of the United States, which was read by the Clerk:

To the House of Representatives:
In compliance with the request contained in the resolution of the 
Senate (the House of Representatives concurring therein), I return 
herewith H.R. 493, an act to amend section 4 of the act entitled "An 
act to control the possession, sale, transfer, and use of pistols and 
other dangerous weapons in the District of Columbia," approved July 8, 
1932 (sec. 22, 3204 D.C. Code, 1940 ed.).
HARRY S. TRUMAN.
THE WHITE HOUSE, July 3, 1947.

Later that day(14) this message from the House was received by the 
Senate:

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its 
reading clerks, informed the Senate 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Ronald Coleman (Tex.).
11.     Peter H. Kostmayer (Pa.).
12.     93 CONG. REC. 8260, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
13.     Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
14.     93 CONG. REC. 8203, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 29]]


that the President of the United 
States having returned to the House of Representatives the enrolled 
bill (H.R. 493) to amend section 4 of the act entitled "An act to 
control the possession, sale, transfer, and use of pistols and other 
dangerous weapons in the District of Columbia," approved July 8, 1932 
(sec. 22, 3204 D.C. Code, 1940 ed.)," in compliance with the request 
contained in Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 22; and returned the 
engrossed copy of said bill to the Senate.
Possession of Official Papers

Sec.    2.18 Where a conference report had been filed in both Houses 
and the original papers were at the Senate desk (the Senate having 
agreed to the House request for a conference and being scheduled to 
act first), unanimous consent was required (and objected to) in the 
Senate to transfer the official papers  to the House to permit the 
House to act first on the conference report.
The following proceedings occurred in the Senate on June 28, 1990:(15) 
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
MR. [EDWARD M.] KENNEDY [of Massachusetts] addressed the Chair.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(16) The Senator from Massachusetts.
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. President, I understand that the papers regarding 
the conference report on the Americans With Disabilities Act are at 
the desk; am I correct?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator is correct.
MR. KENNEDY: I ask unanimous consent to be able to receive those 
papers in order to be able to deliver them to the House of 
Representatives.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there objection? . . . 
MR. [STROM] THURMOND [of South Carolina]: Mr. President, I object.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from South Carolina objects. . . . 
MR. [BOB] DOLE [of Kansas]: Mr. President I reserve the right to 
object to the unanimous-consent request. There is no objection to the 
Senator from Massachusetts. Perhaps the Senator from Nebraska could 
first proceed to make a statement on some other matter.
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. President, I will not object. I just would like to 
inquire of the minority leader what the reluctance is to permit the 
papers from the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) to go over to 
the House of Representatives, which is now waiting, so that they can 
take action prior to Fourth of July recess. As we celebrate 
Independence Day, 43 million disabled Americans would like to have
independence from the kind of physical and mental barriers which they 
have lived with for so long.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     136 CONG. REC. 16249, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
16.     Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 30]]

I just inquire of the minority leader, what in the world is the 
reluctance to release this conference report that bears the signature 
of every Republican and every Democratic Member of the Senate 
conference committee? What is the reluctance to permit this conference 
report to follow the traditional path and be acted on by the House 
of Representatives if that body is prepared to act.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Kansas, the Republican leader, 
has the floor.
MR. DOLE: Mr. President, I do not know that it is any reluctance. They 
can celebrate the Fourth of July and I am part of 43 million that will 
be celebrating the Fourth of July.
In any event, this bill cannot be signed by the President until 
somewhere around the 12th of July, and the primary concern we have-in 
fact initially I had no concern until I checked with the 
Parliamentarian-is to preserve the rights of Members on this side-I am 
not one of them-some Members have some concern with certain provisions 
of the ADA bill, not one-checking true disability, the so-called 
Chapman amendment, and we have another amendment, the Grassley 
amendment.
I am advised by the Parliamentarian and by my staff that they would 
lose certain rights if in fact the papers went to the House, the House 
acted, then there would not be any conference. You could not recommit 
the bill to conference because there would not be any conference left 
because the House will have acted.
So it is that concern. Certainly we have no problem with the bulk of 
the legislation. I think it certainly, as the Senator from 
Massachusetts indicated, is a landmark action by the Congress for 
millions of disabled Americans. But this happened to be a procedure, 
and I think if I consent to the request of the Senator from 
Massachusetts, it would undercut and take away some of the rights of 
my colleagues on this side of the aisle. I cannot do that. Therefore, 
I will object. That will take care of it.
Possession and Transfer of Official Papers

Sec.    2.19 It is customary, at the conclusion of a successful 
conference, for the House which has asked for the conference to 
surrender the original papers to the conferees from the other House 
which has agreed to the conference in order that the latter House may 
act first on the conference report; but the failure of conferees from 
the Senate, which had asked for the conference in question, to 
immediately surrender the original papers to the House conferees at 
the conclusion of a successful conference, deviated from the customary
handling of original papers but did not specifically violate the rules 
of the House.


[[Page 31]]

The following proceedings relating to H.R. 3982, the Omnibus 
Reconciliation Act of 1981, occurred in the House on July 31, 1981:(17) 

MR. [BRUCE F.] VENTO [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(18) The gentleman will state it.
MR. VENTO: Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the Chair whether the papers of 
the reconciliation package, H.R. 3982, are in the possession of the House.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Yes, they are.
MR. VENTO: Mr. Speaker, I would further inquire, is it customary for 
these papers to remain in the possession of the House at the conclusion 
of a conference committee, and in this instance, were they retained at 
the conclusion of the conference committee, or were they more recently
delivered to the House?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Yes, the Chair would say to the gentleman, it 
is customary for the papers to be transferred to the House which agreed 
to the conference-and is to act first on the report-at the conclusion 
of a successful conference.
MR. VENTO: In this case, Mr. Speaker, were the papers retained by the 
House conferees on the matter of the reconciliation conference?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evidently not, because they were brought back 
to the House this morning at about 9:15 by a messenger from the other 
body.
MR. VENTO: Mr. Speaker, in other words, this violated one of the tenets 
that we have in terms of consideration.
I thank the Chair.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would advise the gentleman that 
this deviated from custom but did not especially violate the rules of 
the House.