[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 32. House-Senate Relations]
[A. INTRODUCTORY]
[Â§ 5. House Action on Senate Amendments]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 48-125]
 
                House-Senate Relations
 
                  A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    5. House Action on Senate Amendments

House measures with Senate amendments which do not require 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole are privileged for 
consideration in the House and may at once be disposed of on motion 
or as the House may otherwise determine.(9) If any Senate amendment 
requires consideration in the Committee of the Whole, a motion to act 
on the Senate amendment is not privileged, and the rules provide that 
the entire measure be referred to the ap-propriate standing 
committee.(10) Upon being reported from that committee the measure is 
placed on the Union Calendar for consideration in the Committee of the 
Whole. However, as a practical matter this procedure is rarely used 
and such measures are ei-ther considered under the provisions of 
resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules ("special rules")(11) 
or by unanimous consent.(12) The motion to suspend the rules may also 
be used to dispose of such Senate amendments.
Motions for the disposal of these Senate measures or Senate amendments 
to House bills requiring consideration in Committee of the Whole become
privileged after the stage of disagreement is 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     Rule XXIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 882 (1997).
10.     Rule XX clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1997) and Rule 
XXIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec.Sec. 882, 883 (1997).
11.     See Sec.Sec. 5.5, 5.30, 5.31, 5.33, 5.54, infra.
12.     See Sec. 5.7, infra. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 49]]

reached on that particular
measure.(13) This stage is not reached until one House informs the 
other that it disagrees to some provision of that measure.(14) However, 
when these measures are considered under the provisions of a special 
rule, or by unanimous consent, motions for their disposal are thereby
privileged (under the provisions of either the special rule or 
unanimous-consent agreement) despite the fact that the stage of 
disagreement may not have been reached. These measures are often sent 
to conference by unanimous consent,(15) pursuant to the provisions of 
a special rule from the Committee on Rules,(16) or pursuant to a 
committee-authorized motion to request or agree to a conference.(17) 
The provision in Rule XX, clause 1, now permits a motion to send a 
House bill with Senate amendments to conference, if the Speaker in his
discretion recognizes a Member authorized by the committee having 
jurisdiction over the bill, to make such motion. However, motions for 
the disposal of these amendments in the House itself are still not 
privileged at this stage, and they require unanimous consent. While a
privileged motion to go to conference under Rule XX clause 1 is 
pending, preferential motions to concur or to concur with amendments 
are not in order (the stage of disagreement not having been 
reached).(18) 
Senate amendments must be read in full prior to their being taken from 
the Speaker's table.(19) They are debated in the House under the hour 
rule(20) or under the five-minute rule if in Committee of the Whole.(1) 
They are considered in their entirety either in the House(2) or in 
Committee of the Whole.(3) 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     See Sec. 5.4, infra; and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3194.
14.     6 Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 756, 757.
15.     Id. at Sec. 732. See Sec.Sec. 5.6-5.9, infra.
16.     See precedents in Ch. 33, Sec. 2, infra.
17.     Rule XX clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1997), as 
amended by H. Res. 8, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. (1965) at p. 21.
18.     House Practice (104th Cong.), Sec. 11, Senate Bills; Amendments 
Between the Houses, p. 820, 124 CONG. REC. 38724, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 7, 1977.
19.     8 Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 2400, 3232.
20.     See Sec. 5.56, infra. 
 1.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 828 (1997). See also Sec. 5.50, infra.
 2.     See Sec. 5.42, infra.
 3.     5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6194.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 50]]

Amendment of Text to Which Both Houses Have Agreed

Sec.    5.1 During House consideration of Senate amendments to a House 
bill, it is not in order to enlarge the Senate amendment to change the 
text of the bill to which both Houses have agreed.
On June 10, 1940,(4) the House was considering Senate amendments to 
H.R. 9209, appropriations for the military. Mr. J. Buell Snyder, of
Pennsylvania, offered a motion to recede and concur with an amendment. 
Mr. John Taber, of New York, rose with a point of order:

. . . I shall feel obliged to make a point of order against the part 
of the amendment beginning with the comma in the first line thereof and
continuing through the balance of the language, because . . . it is not 
an amendment to an amendment to which it is offered, it being an 
amendment to the language on page 37, line 6 [of the House text], to 
which paragraph the Senate made no amendment whatever. . . .
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(5) Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire 
to be heard on the point of order?
MR. SNYDER: I concede the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair sustains the point of order.
Amending Text Previously Agreed to By Both Houses


Sec.    5.2 Where a Senate amendment struck language in a House bill 
and inserted a new provision, the House concurred with an amendment 
striking the insertion and altering other portions of the House 
engrossment, thus amending its own agreed-upon text. In the Senate, 
the motion to concur in the House action was agreed to.
Under section XLV of his Manual of Parliamentary Practice, Jefferson 
states that "the Commons resolved that it is unparliamentary to strike 
out, at a conference, anything in a bill which hath been agreed and 
passed by both Houses."(6) In the modern practice, the further 
principle has been established in the House of Representatives that 
it may not, even in the slightest degree, change the text to which 
both Houses have agreed.(7) 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     86 CONG. REC. 7895, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 5.     William P. Cole, Jr. (Md.).
 6.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 527 (1997).
 7.     See 5 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 6180; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 
3257; and 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 51]]

While technically at variance with these principles, the House has 
permitted, by sufferance and by special procedures (under suspension 
or pursuant to a special order), the type of amendment illustrated 
below as a way of expediting consideration of amendments between the
Houses.(8) 

MR. [MARK O.] HATFIELD [of Oregon]: Mr. President, I ask that the 
Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of 
Representatives on House Joint Resolution 115, a joint resolution 
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and 
for other purposes.
The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message 
from the House of Representatives:

Resolved, That the House agree to the amendments of the Senate numbered 
1 and 2 to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115) entitled "Joint 
resolution making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal 
year 1996, and for other purposes.".
Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the Senate numbered 
3 to the aforesaid joint resolution with the following amendment:
Delete the matter proposed by said amendment, and beginning on page 
15, line 1 of the House engrossed joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115), 
strike all down to and including line 7, on page 36, and redesignate 
title IV as title III, and renumber sections accordingly.

MR. HATFIELD: Mr. President, I move that the Senate concur in the 
House amendment to the Senate amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(9) The question is on agreeing to the motion.
So the motion was agreed to.
MR. HATFIELD: I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Receding From a House Amendment With a New House Amendment to Senate 
Text

Sec.    5.3 While under section XLV of Jefferson's Manual,(10) the 
House may not recede from its amendment to a Senate measure with an 
amendment, the House may, by unanimous consent, recede from its 
amendment and then amend the Senate text anew with another amendment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
House Rules and Manual Sec. 527 (1997). 
 8.     141 CONG. REC. 32194, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 13, 1995.
Similarly, on Oct. 14, 1986, the House agreed to a resolution 
considered under suspension of the rules, agreeing to a Senate 
amendment which inserted text in a House bill, with an amendment 
changing the text of the original House bill. See 132 CONG. REC. 30729, 
99th Cong. 2d Sess. (H. Res. 589).
 9.     Charles E. Grassley (Iowa).
10.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 526 (1997).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 52]]

On June 21, 1982,(11) it became essential that the House proceed to 
act first on Senate Concurrent Resolution 92, the first concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1983. The conference report 
on the resolution had been filed, showing that the conferees had 
reported in complete disagreement for technical reasons.
The unanimous-consent request proposed by the chairman of the Committee 
on the Budget, James R. Jones, of Oklahoma, was designed to permit the 
House to "act first" on the resolution by a rather unorthodox-and 
rarely used-procedure.

Mr. Jones of Oklahoma submitted the following conference report and 
statement on the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 92) setting 
forth the recommended congressional budget for the U.S. Government for 
the fiscal years 1983, 1984, and 1985, and revising the congressional 
budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal year 1982:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 97-614)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the House to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. 
Res. 92) setting forth the recommended congressional budget for the 
United States Government for the fiscal years 1983, 1984, and 1985, and
revising the congressional budget for the United States Government for 
the fiscal year 1982, having met, after full and free conference, have 
been unable to agree on a conference report because the conference 
decisions have changed certain budget figures outside the scope of 
conference. As set forth in the accompanying joint explanatory 
statement, the conferees do propose a congressional budget incorporated 
in a further amendment for the consideration of the two Houses. . . . 

MR. JONES of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it 
shall be in order tomorrow or any day thereafter to consider a motion 
by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to recede from the House
amendment, reported from conference in disagreement, to Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 92, and to amend the Senate concurrent resolution 
with the text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed 
in the joint statement of managers in the conference report as 
submitted in the House of Representatives, that debate on said motion 
shall continue not to exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Budget, that said motion shall not be subject to a demand for a 
division of the question, and that the previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on said motion to final adoption without 
intervening motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(12) Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     128 CONG. REC. 14470, 14481, 14482, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
12.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 53]]

MR. [TOM] LOEFFLER [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, and I shall not object, I do so solely for the purpose of
clarification.
As I understand the request of the distinguished chairman of the Budget
Committee, this would only allow us to expedite consideration of the 
budget resolution conference report, which was reported in disagreement
because of some minor-scope problems. This motion would, as I 
understand it, allow the House to proceed first to the consideration 
of the conference agreement. . . . 
MR. LOEFFLER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his response, and 
I wish to inform the body that this unanimous-consent request has also 
been cleared by the Republican leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
When Privileged for Consideration

Sec.    5.4 After the stage of disagreement on a House bill with Senate
amendments has been reached, the consideration of the amendments are
privileged.
On May 22, 1936,(13) Speaker    Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, had 
ruled out on a point of order the conference report on H.R. 9496, 
relating to losses suffered by the federal government through delivery 
of checks by mail, whereupon the Senate amendments thereto were again 
before the House for consideration.

MR. [FREDERICK R.] LEHLBACH [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. LEHLBACH: Are amendments put on a House bill by the Senate 
privileged?
THE SPEAKER: After the stage of disagreement has been reached they are. 
For this reason it is necessary that the House take some action upon 
the amendments at this time.
Consequences of Objection to Unanimous-consent Request To Consider 
Senate Amendments

Sec.    5.5 Should objection be made to a unanimous-consent request to 
take from the Speaker's table a House bill with Senate amendments, and 
to disagree to the amendments and agree to a conference, the Speaker 
is not required by Rule XXIV clause 2 to send the bill and amendments 
directly to the legislative committee having jurisdiction thereof, but 
may hold the bill on the table until the Committee on Rules

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     80 CONG. REC. 7790-92, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 54]]

has an opportunity to act or until the House takes other action.
On Mar. 29, 1961,(14) during the pendency of a unanimous-consent 
request of Mr. Harold D. Cooley,  of North Carolina, to take from  
the Speaker's table H.R. 5463, amending the Sugar Act of 1948, with 
Senate amendments thereto, Mr. Walter E. Rogers, of Texas, raised 
the following parliamentary inquiry:

If an objection is made, does the bill go back to the committee having
jurisdiction?
THE SPEAKER:(15) It does not; and the Committee on Rules, I am sure, 
would be called together immediately and asked to report a rule to 
send the bill to conference.(16) 
Consideration by Unanimous Consent

Sec.    5.6 A motion to take from the Speaker's table a House bill with 
Senate amendments (requiring consideration in the Committee of the 
Whole) for consideration in the House is not privileged before the 
stage of disagreement is reached, and such action requires unanimous 
consent.
On May 27, 1946,(17) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Clarence J. Brown, of Ohio, to pose a parliamentary inquiry regarding 
the consideration of H.R. 4908, a bill to provide for the appointment 
of fact-finding boards to investigate labor disputes:

Would it be in order for a Member to move to take from the Speaker's 
desk H.R. 4908 for consideration at this time?
THE SPEAKER: The motion is not a privileged motion at this stage of 
the proceedings.
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Would it be within the discretion of the Speaker?
THE SPEAKER: It would not. It requires unanimous consent.


Sec.    5.7 The House may, by unanimous consent, take from the 
Speaker's table a House bill with Senate amendments and consider

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     107 CONG. REC. 5288, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
15.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
16.     See also 107 CONG. REC. 21475, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 25, 
1961 (Calendar Day). The motion to send a bill and amendments to 
conference was not made part of the rules until the 89th Congress. See 
H. Res. 8, 111 CONG. REC. 21, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965.
17.     92 CONG. REC. 5864, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 55]]

those amendments in the House.
On Dec. 20, 1963,(18) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 
and consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5945) to establish a procedure 
for the prompt settlement, in a democratic manner, of the political 
status of Puerto Rico, with Senate amendments thereto.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the first Senate amendment.(19) 

The motion to dispose of each Senate amendment was debatable for one hour.


Sec.    5.8 A House bill, with Senate amendments that require 
consideration in Committee of the Whole, may be taken from the 
Speaker's table for consideration, for agreement to the Senate 
amendments, or sent to conference, by unanimous consent.
On Aug. 13, 1957,(20) Mr. Kenneth B. Keating, of New York, made this 
inquiry about the consideration of a civil rights bill:

Specifically with regard to the bill H.R. 6127, which is now on the 
Speaker's desk, I wish the Speaker would advise whether a unanimous-
consent request is necessary from some Member to dispose of it in some 
manner as a preliminary to its being sent to the Committee on Rules?
THE SPEAKER:(1) It requires unanimous consent to take it up for 
consideration, send it to conference, or to agree to the amendments of 
the Senate.

Sec.    5.9 A House bill, with Senate amendments requiring 
consideration in Committee of the Whole, was, by unanimous consent, 
taken from the Speaker's table for consideration; certain of the 
amendments were agreed to; and the House disagreed to the remaining 
amendments and agreed to a conference requested by the Senate.

On July 31, 1961,(2) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Thomas J. Steed, of Oklahoma, to make this request:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     109 CONG. REC. 25365, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
19.     See also 111 CONG. REC. 27412, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 
1965 (H.R. 168).
20.     103 CONG. REC. 14568, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 2.     107 CONG. REC. 14050, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56]]

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 
and consider the bill (H.R. 7208) making appropriations for the 
legislative branch for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1962, and for 
other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
MR. STEED: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House concur 
in the amendments of the Senate numbered 1 through 41, inclusive, and 
in amendments numbered 43 and 49; that the House disagrees to the
 amendments of the Senate numbered 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, and 
52; and that the House agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
The Chair hears none and appoints the following conferees:
Messrs. Steed, Kirwan, Cannon, Horan, and Taber.(3) 
Where  Unanimous-consent  Request Is Pending, Alternative Motions Not 
in Order 

Sec.    5.10 When a unanimous-consent request to take from  the 
Speaker's table a House bill with Senate amendments thereto (which 
require consideration in the Committee of the Whole) is pending, no 
motion for the disposal of those amendments is in order.
On Mar. 29, 1961,(4) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Harold D. Cooley, of North Carolina:

MR. COOLEY: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's desk the bill-H.R. 5463-  to amend and extend the Sugar Act 
of 1948, as amended, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the 
Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
MRS. [CATHERINE D.] MAY [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
right to object, may I propound a parliamentary inquiry?
THE SPEAKER: The gentlewoman will state it.
MRS. MAY: Mr. Speaker, may I offer a preferential motion?
THE SPEAKER: There is nothing before the House except the unanimous-
consent request of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Cooley].


Sec.    5.11 If objection is made to a unanimous-consent request to 
take a House bill with 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     See also 108 CONG. REC. 15854, 15856, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 
8, 1962.
 4.     107 CONG. REC. 5288, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 57]]

Senate amendment from the Speaker's table and concur in the amendment, 
the Speaker has no authority to automatically put the question on 
concurring to a vote. 
The recurring procedural distinctions between unanimous-consent 
requests to concur or to consider a Senate amendment, before the stage 
of disagreement, was again the subject of an inquiry on June 29, 1976.(5) 

MR. [AL] ULLMAN [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 10051) to amend section 815 
of the Internal Revenue Code to allow a life insurance company to 
disregard (for purposes of that section) a distribution during the last 
month of its taxable year, determined to have been made out of the
policyholders surplus account, if such distribution is returned to 
the company not later than the due date for filing its income tax return
(including extensions thereof) for that year, with Senate amendments 
thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:

Page 3, after line 5, insert:
SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM INCOME UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME 
PROGRAM. . . . 

THE SPEAKER:(6) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Ullman) to concur in the Senate amendments?
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, is the question being put on consideration of the bill?
THE SPEAKER: On Senate amendments, to concur in the Senate amendments. 
The question was put.
MR. ULLMAN: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. BAUMAN: Reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman 
from Oregon.
MR. ULLMAN: Mr. Speaker, the unanimous-consent request is to agree to 
the Senate amendments. I attempted to explain what the Senate amendments 
do. This was a House-passed bill which we have already voted on, and 
we are agreeing by this action to the Senate amendments.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, if an objection is lodged to the request, can 
the Chair then put the question?
If an objection is lodged to the request to agree to the Senate 
amendments, would the Chair then be able to put the question?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     122 CONG. REC. 21140, 21141, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 58]]

THE SPEAKER: No.
MR. BAUMAN: In other words, there is no manner in which a Member can 
obtain a rollcall vote on this?
THE SPEAKER: Not on this request.
MR. BAUMAN: It either passes by unanimous consent or not at all?
THE SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. BAUMAN: The gentleman from Maryland thinks that is unfortunate, 
and withdraws his reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oregon?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Interruption of Amendments in Disagreement for Other Business


Sec.    5.12 The House interrupted the consideration of amendments in
disagreement on a general appropriation bill to take up, pursuant to a
unanimous-consent request, a continuing appropriation measure, making 
in order one indivisible motion to  concur in all Senate amendments.
Following a record vote on a motion to dispose of one of the amendments 
in disagreement to the Department of Veterans' Affairs and Housing and 
Urban Development appropriation bill, fiscal 1990 (H.R. 2916), the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations was recognized to offer a
unanimous-consent request, providing for consideration and disposition 
of the final continuing appropriation bill for fiscal 1990. The request 
and the motion made pursuant thereto, as excerpted from the 
Congressional Record of Oct. 25, 1989,(7) are carried here. 
MAKING IN ORDER OFFERING OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE 
AMENDMENTS ON HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 423, FURTHER CONTINUING 
APPROPRIATIONS, 1990
MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that it be in order to offer an indivisible motion to take 
from the Speaker's table the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 423) making
continuing  appropriations for fiscal year 1990,  and for other 
purposes, with Senate amendments numbered 1 through 13 thereto, and 
to concur in such Senate amendments; that such motion be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by myself and the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] and that the previous question be considered 
as ordered on such motion to final adoption without intervening motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(8) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     135 CONG. REC. 25887-90, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
 8.     Frank McCloskey (Ind.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 59]]

MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
right to object, I understand that we are taking up the continuing 
resolution with this. Does that mean that we have now accepted the 
Senate amendments?
MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. WALKER: I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, it means we accept the Senate amendments as 
we have participated in working this out by telephone during the day. 
The Senate amendment carries with it what we thought we needed in 
addition to what we passed yesterday. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [CHALMERS P.] WYLIE [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. WYLIE: Mr. Speaker, concerning the HUD-VA appropriation bill, will 
we get back to that this evening?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Ohio 
that the House will continue with that later today. It will be 
temporarily interrupted.
MR. WYLIE: I thank the Chair.
FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, 1990
MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House just 
agreed to, I move to take from the Speaker's table the joint resolution 
(H.J. Res. 423) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal 
year 1990, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments numbered 1 
through 13 thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:

Senate amendments:
Page 2, line 2, strike out "section" and insert "sections".
Page 2, line 11, after "Fund" insert: "and to remain available until
expended".
Page 2, lines 11 and 12, strike out "120(f)(1) and".
Page 2, line 13, strike out all after "Fund" down to and including 
"1990" in line 16.
Page 2, line 23, after "activities" insert ": Provided, That during 
fiscal year 1990, and within the resources available to carry out 
Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act, as amended, gross obligations 
for new direct loans shall not exceed $1,813,250,000".
Page 3, line 4, after "authorized" insert: "Federal". . . .
Page 3, after line 10, insert: 
"SEC. 109. Section 102(c) shall not apply to sections 107, 108, 109, 
110, 111, 112, and 113."
Page 3, after line 10, insert:
"SEC. 110. Notwithstanding section 120(f) of title 23, United States 
Code, the Federal share payable on account of any project on the 
Interstate and other Federal-aid highway system resulting from 
Hurricane Hugo, September 1989, or the Loma Prieta Earthquake of 
October 17, 1989, with funds made available to carry out section 125 
of such title shall be 100 percent for costs incurred in the 180-day 
period beginning on the date of such natural disaster.". . . .

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] will be recognized for 30 minutes. . . . 


[[Page 60]]

MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of our committee and of the Congress. We have 
proved that we can act in a hurry.
Eight days after the worst earthquake since 1906, which wreaked havoc 
on the people of California, with deaths totaling more than 80 and 
destruction of billions of dollars worth of valuable property, we on 
the Committee on Appropriations have worked out a resolution enabling 
the people of the area to go full speed ahead with efforts to relieve 
the suffering and to return, so far as possible, to orderly business 
and lives. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, moving promptly on Friday, October 20, I introduced House 
Joint Resolution 423 for myself and on behalf of the delegations of 
the State of California, the State of South Carolina, and other areas 
affected by natural disasters on a national scale. On Monday, at 7:15 
p.m. the committee reported the resolution.
Yesterday the House passed House Joint Resolution 423 which extends 
the present continuing resolution, Public Law 101-100, from October 
25 to November 15, 1989. The existing resolution expires tonight at 
midnight. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, the Senate earlier today adopted a resolution with 13 
amendments. May I say in an effort to expedite this matter, we did 
work it out and reached an agreement by telephone where the Senate 
provision includes amendments we think important. So, it is a 
combination bill where we have gotten together in advance. I am glad 
to tell my colleagues that is the situation.
Distinction Between Unanimous Consent To Concur or Consider Senate 
Amendment


Sec.    5.13 A request to concur in a Senate action may lead to the 
final disposition of the matter, while a request to "consider" may 
permit a variety of motions and result in a vote on the motion offered. 
Amendments between the Houses are often disposed of in  the House by a
properly phrased unanimous-consent request. The distinction between a 
request to "concur" in a Senate amendment and one to "consider" the 
amendment are shown by the following requests and inquiries:(9) 

MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to take from the Speak-er's desk the bill (H.R. 9524) 
to extend the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, with a Senate
amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     121 CONG. REC. 30415-17, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 26, 1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 61]]

SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Emergency Petroleum Allocation 
Act of 1975". . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [WILLIAM L.] ARMSTRONG [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
right to object, I wonder if I could propound a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(10) The gentleman will state it.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Mr. Speaker, the effect of granting this unanimous-
consent request will be not only that the bill will be considered, but 
it will be by granting the request adopted?
THE SPEAKER: There will be an agreement by the House to the Senate 
amendment.
MR. ARMSTRONG: And to adopt the bill?
THE SPEAKER: It is simply an amendment to the House bill, which would
automatically be agreed to if there is no objection.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I may ask, is there a way to 
divide that question? My interest does not preclude the consideration 
of this matter. My interest is to have a vote on the issue.
THE SPEAKER: This is not a divisible question. This is a unanimous-
consent request. . . . 
MR. ARMSTRONG: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, do 
I understand the gentleman's explanation that if the unanimous-consent 
request is agreed to, the effect is final action by the House; there 
would be no debate?
THE SPEAKER: That would be final action by the House.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, then, Mr. Speaker, reluctantly and not because 
I desire to delay consideration of this issue, but because I think a 
matter of this importance deserves the effort, I will, therefore, 
object to the unanimous-consent request.
THE SPEAKER: Objection is heard.
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 9524) to extend the Emergency Petroleum
Allocation Act of 1973, with a Senate amendment thereto, and consider 
the Senate amendment in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Emergency Petroleum Allocation 
Act of 1975". . . . 

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to consideration of the Senate 
amendment in the House?
MR. ARMSTRONG: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, perhaps I 
am in doubt of our status. The information just given me is that upon 
the adoption of this amendment the bill

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 62]]

will then be before the House in the Committee of the Whole.
THE SPEAKER: No.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Then I have been given the wrong information. I thank 
the Speaker for helping me. I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to consideration of the Senate 
amendment? The Chair hears none. The question is on the adoption of 
the Senate amendment.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that 
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is 
not  present.
THE SPEAKER: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 342, nays 
16, not voting 75. . . . 

Sec.    5.14 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker stated 
the distinction between a unanimous-consent request to concur in Senate
amendments and a request to consider such amendments in the House: 
only the second alternative permits debate and a vote. 
Where a request was made to take from the Speaker's table a House 
measure with the Senate's amendments thereto, and concur in those 
amendments, an inquiry was directed to the Chair as shown in the 
following proceedings:(11) 

MR. PHILLIP BURTON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's desk the joint resolution (H.J. 
Res. 549) to approve the "Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of
America," and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and 
concur in the Senate amendments. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(12) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
MR. [M. G. (GENE)] SNYDER [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, further reserving 
the right to object, I have a parliamentary inquiry on the reservation. 
What was the unanimous-consent request, to take it up or to agree to the
Senate amendments?
THE SPEAKER: To concur in the Senate amendments.
MR. SNYDER: A further inquiry on  my reservation, Mr. Speaker: If that
unanimous-consent request then is granted, am I precluded from asking 
for a vote?
THE SPEAKER: Yes; the request is not for the immediate consideration 
of the Senate amendments. It is a unanimous consent to concur in the 
Senate amendments. . . . 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     122 CONG. REC. 6147, 6148, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 11, 1976.
12.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 63]]

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. SNYDER: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. SNYDER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would be possible for the 
gentleman from California to phrase his unanimous-consent request in 
such a way so that we could have a vote on it and dispose of it? I do 
not wish to unduly delay the proceedings but could that be done?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the only way that that could 
be done would be if the gentleman from California (Mr. Burton) had 
asked unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the Senate
amendments in the House; if that had been done, then the Senate 
amendments could have been debated. . . . 
MR. SNYDER: I would merely like to be able to register a vote against 
the matter.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the procedure we are presently
following is in order.
MR. SNYDER: I understand that.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will further state that Members through the 
whip's notice have been advised that there would be no more voting 
today, so that the Chair would not entertain a unanimous-consent 
request for the consideration of the Senate amendments at this time.
Unusual Unanimous-consent Procedure Providing for En Bloc Amendment of 
Five  Senate Amendments to Five House Bills on a Related Subject


Sec.    5.15 Where the Senate had added components of the comprehensive
National Energy Act (H.R. 8444, 95th Congress) to five private House 
bills, the House, act-ing by unanimous consent, amended four of the 
private bills by concurring in the germane amendments added by the 
Senate to each of them, and concurring in the energy-related amendments 
added by the Senate to each bill with a further amendment consisting of 
the entire text of the House-passed bill. 
The Senate had anticipated the House action described above and had laid 
the foundation by amending the four private bills to set the stage for 
a possible need to invoke cloture. From the perspective of the House, 
adding the complete text of the House-passed measure to the portion of 
the energy regulatory programs added by the Senate put the House in a 
position to have the various aspects of the regulatory provisions of 
H.R. 8444 in conference so that House conferees would not be confined 
in negotiating a compro-


[[Page 64]]

mise bill between the Senate language and existing law. 
After amending the Senate energy-related amendments to the four bills, 
the House insisted on its amendments thereto, requested a conference 
on each, and appointed managers on the part of the House. 
The tax portion of H.R. 8444, which was in title II of that bill, was
addressed by a Senate amendment to a private relief tariff measure, 
which had been reported in the House by the Committee on Ways and Means 
(H.R. 5263) which the House sent to conference on Nov. 3, 1977.
All five private bills became public laws (Public Laws 95-617 through 
95-621).
The pertinent proceedings in the House of Oct. 13, 1977,(13) are set 
out below:
SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 5037, FOR THE RELIEF OF JACK R. MISNER
MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5037) 
for the relief of Jack R. Misner, with Senate amendments thereto and 
concur in Senate amendments No. 1 and No. 2 and concur in Senate 
amendment No. 3 with an amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the House amendment to the Senate amendments, as 
follows:

Strike out the text of the Senate amendment numbered 3 and insert in 
lieu thereof the text of H.R. 8444 as passed the House (other than 
title II thereof and items in the table of contents relating thereto) 
as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.-This Act may be cited as the "National Energy Act".
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.-
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and statement of purposes.
Sec. 3. National energy goals.
Sec. 4. References to Federal Power Commission and Federal Energy Administration.
TITLE I-PRICING, REGULATORY, AND OTHER NONTAX PROVISIONS . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(14) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from West Virginia? . . . 
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, germaneness is out 
the window but I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 5037, FOR THE RELIEF OF JACK R. MISNER

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     123 CONG. REC. 33646, 33647, 33687, 33688, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
14.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 65]]

MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5037)    for the relief of Jack R. 
Misner, with the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto 
numbered 3, insist on the House amendment, and request a conference 
with the Senate thereon.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from  
West Virginia? The Chair hears none and appoints the following 
conferees: Messrs. Staggers, Ashley, Ullman, Bolling, Foley, Dingell, 
Rogers, Eckhardt, Sharp, Moffett, Charles Wilson of Texas, Reuss,
Rostenkowski, Vanik, Corman, Waggonner, Rangel, Anderson of Illinois, 
Brown of Ohio, Horton,   Wydler, Brown of Michigan, Steiger, Collins 
of Texas, and Archer. . . . 
HOUSE AMENDMENT TO SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 5289, FOR THE RELIEF OF 
JOE CORTINA OF TAMPA, FLA.
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5289) for the relief of Joe Cortina of 
Tampa, Fla., with Senate amendments thereto, concur in Senate 
amendments numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and concur in the Senate
amendment numbered 8 with an amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the House amendment to the Senate amendment, as follows:

Strike out the text of the Senate amendment and insert in lieu thereof 
the text of H.R. 8444 as passed by the House (other than title II 
thereof and items, in the table of contents relating thereto). . . .

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, the gentleman 
has repeatedly asked permission to agree to certain Senate amendments 
and to disagree with a substitute amendment to others. The Senate 
amendments we have been asked to agree to, are all these germane to 
the different bills, or do they also deal with other matters?
MR. STAGGERS: They are all technical changes to conform to what the 
House has passed.
MR. BAUMAN: They do not deal with any substantive matters?
MR. STAGGERS: That is correct.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

The procedure was similar with the other two private bills, the House
concurring in the Senate amendments relating to the private claims and
concurring with amendment in the energy-related Senate amendment with 
a further amendment.
Referral of House Bill and Senate Amendments

Sec.    5.16 The Speaker's reference of a House bill with Senate 
amendments to a committee 


[[Page 66]]

is entered in the Record after the proceedings 
of the day.
The following entry appeared in the Record of July 26, 1951:(15) 

Under clause 2, of rule XXIV, the following bill with Senate amendments
thereto, was taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

H.R. 2416. An act relating to the exclusion from gross income of income 
from discharge of indebtedness, to the Committee on Ways and Means and 
ordered to be printed with the amendments of the Senate numbered.

Sec.    5.17 The Speaker announced to the House that he had referred a 
general appropriation bill with Senate amendments thereto to the 
Committee on Appropriations.
On July 2, 1945,(16) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made this 
announcement:
The Chair desires to announce that he has referred the bill H.R. 3368, 
the war agencies bill, with Senate amendments thereto, to the Committee 
on Appropriations.
Use of Special Order To Prevent Amendment of Motion To Concur


Sec.    5.18 The House has on occasion utilized a special order to take 
from the Speaker's table a House bill, with Senate amendment thereto, 
and concur in the amendment with a further House amendment "without
intervening motion," thus precluding a motion to recommit the Senate
amendment.
The House bill, H.R. 1643, dealing with the extension of 
most-favored-nation treatment to Bulgaria, had been returned to the 
House with an amendment which was not germane, since it addressed the 
subject of continuing appropriations for the government to avoid a 
"shutdown" during a period of budget impasse. The motion included in 
the report of the Committee on Rules addressed the subject matter of 
the Senate amendment and added further provisions related to the 
operations of government.
Parliamentarian's Note: The special order was within the competence of 
the Committee on Rules and did not violate the restriction placed on 
the authority of that committee by Rule XI clause 4(b), that prohibits 
a rule precluding a motion to recommit from being made as provided in 
Rule XVI 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     97 CONG. REC. 8987, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
16.     91 CONG. REC. 7142, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 67]]

clause 4. That restriction applies to recommittal motions 
after the previous question is ordered on the passage of a bill or 
joint resolution. This distinction is discussed in 
Sec. 729c, House Rules and Manual, 104th Congress.
The proceedings of Jan. 5, 1996,(17) were as follows:

 MR. [DAVID] DREIER [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 334 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 334
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1643) to authorize the
extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favored-nation 
treatment) to the products of Bulgaria, with the Senate amendment 
thereto, and to consider in the House the motion printed in the report 
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate 
amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. All points of 
order against the motion are waived. The motion shall be debatable for 
one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption
without intervening motion or demand for division of the question.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(18) The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
is recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
The question is on ordering the previous question [on the resolution].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. [JOHN JOSEPH] MOAKLEY [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point 
of order that a quorum is not present.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 228, nays 
187, not voting 18, as follows: . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Later, pursuant to the resolution, Mr. Robert Livingston, of Louisiana, 
called up the bill H.R. 1643, and then offered the specified motion to 
amend the Senate amendment. After debate and unsuccessful attempts to 
modify the motion by unanimous consent, pursuant to the resolution, the
Speaker announced that the previous question was considered as ordered, 
and the question was then put on the motion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     142 CONG. REC. 332, 341, 342, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
18.     Jim Bunning (Ky.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 68]]


Sec.    5.19 A special rule can make in order a single motion to concur 
in several Senate amendments (even before the stage of disagreement is
reached), specify the control of the debate on the motion, and order 
the previous question thereon without intervening motion.
In considering and passing the House-passed bill H.R. 1833, to amend 
title 18, United States Code, relating to partial-birth abortions, the 
Senate added six discrete amendments on that subject. The special order
carried here was crafted to maintain the relationship between the 
amendments and prevent amendments to them. The rule and the motion made 
in order thereby were both passed by the House on Mar. 27, 1996.(19) 
SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 1833, PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT    
MRS. [ENID] WALDHOLTZ [of Utah]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 389 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1833) to amend title 
18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions, with Senate 
amendments thereto, and to consider in the House a single motion to 
concur in each of the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments and the 
motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for 
one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption
without intervening motion or demand for division of the question.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(20) The gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
MRS. WALDHOLTZ: . . . Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 389 provides for
consideration of the Senate amendments to the Partial-Birth Abortion 
Ban Act, H.R. 1833. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate on a single 
motion to concur in each and all of the Senate amendments. The rule 
further provides that the previous question is considered as ordered 
on the motion for final adoption.
Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to consider amendments 
adopted by the Senate to the partial-birth abortion ban including an 
amendment offered by Senator Dole that ensures doctors will be able to 
use this procedure when the life of a woman is in danger. . . . 
So the resolution was agreed to.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     142 CONG. REC. 6632, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     Harold Rogers (Ky.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 69]]

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MR. [CHARLES T.] CANADY of Florida: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 389, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
1833), to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth 
abortions with the Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate
amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the Senate amendments is as follows:

Page 2, line 9, strike out [Whoever] and insert: Any physician who
Page 2, line 12, after "both." insert: This paragraph shall not apply 
to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a 
mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or 
injury: Provided, That no other medical procedure would suffice for 
that purpose. This paragraph shall become effective one day after 
enactment.
Page 2, line 13, strike out [As] and insert: (1) As
Page 2, after line 16, insert:
"(2) As used in this section, the term 'physician' means a doctor of 
medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and 
surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such activity, or any 
other individual legally authorized by the State to perform abortions:
Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician or not 
otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who
nevertheless directly performs a partial-birth abortion, shall be
subject to the provision of this section.
Page 2, line 17, strike out [(c)(1) The father,] and insert: (c)(1) 
The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a 
partial-birth abortion procedure,
Page 3, strike out lines 12 through 20.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. CANADY
MR. CANADY of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will designate the motion.
The Clerk read the motion.
Mr. Canady of Florida moves to concur in each of the six Senate 
amendments to H.R. 1833.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] 
each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
Acting on Senate Amendments Before Stage of Disagreement

Sec.    5.20 Example of the form of motion used where a special order 
has provided for one indivisible motion to dispose of three Senate 
amendments to a House bill, before the stage of disagreement. 
Motions to dispose of Senate amendments, before the stage of 
disagreement, are not privileged, unless given that status by a 
unanimous-consent agreement or a resolution reported from the Committee 
on Rules and adopted by the House. In the proceedings


[[Page 70]]

of Nov. 26, 1991,
(1) carried here, the report of the Committee on Rules on the special 
order specified the amendments to the Senate amendments which would be
included in the nondivisible motion.  
PROVIDING FOR DISPOSITION OF SEN- ATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 3807, 
CONVENTIONAL FORCES IN EUROPE TREATY IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 1991
MS. [LOUISE MCINTOSH] SLAUGHTER of New York: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 316 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 316
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to
consider a nondivisible motion to take from the Speaker's table the 
bill (H.R. 3807) to amend the Arms Export Control Act to authorize the 
President to transfer battle tanks, artillery pieces, and armored 
combat vehicles to member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization in conjunction with the Treaty of Conventional Armed 
Forces in Europe, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to concur in 
the Senate amendments with amendments printed in the report of the 
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The motion and the 
Senate amendments shall be considered as having been read. Debate on 
said motion shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The previous question shall be 
considered as having been ordered on the motion to final adoption 
without intervening motion. All points of order against the motion are 
hereby waived.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(2) The question is, Will the House now 
consider House Resolution 316?
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) 
the House agreed to consider House Resolution 316.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
MS. SLAUGHTER of New York: . . . Mr. Speaker, this House resolution 
makes in order a nondivisible motion to take H.R. 3807 from the 
Speaker's table, and agree to the Senate amendments with three House
amendments. The House amendments are printed in the report to accompany 
the rule, and all points of order are waived against the motion. 
Finally, the rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion. . . . 
During its deliberations last night the Senate added three amendments 
relating to nuclear weapons destruction and emergency humanitarian 
assistance for the Soviet Union. Members of the Foreign Affairs and 
Armed Services Committees have met with their counterparts in the 
Senate and devised language which is mutually agreeable to all parties 
and-as I understand it-will be agreed to by the Senate once we have 
returned the legislation to that body. . . . 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     137 CONG. REC. 35487-90, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 71]]

MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FASCELL
MR. [DANTE B.] FASCELL [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 316, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
(H.R. 3807) to amend the Arms Export Control Act to authorize the 
President to transfer battle tanks, artillery pieces, and armored 
combat vehicles to member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization in conjunction with implementation of the Treaty on 
Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, with Senate amendments thereto, 
and concur in the Senate amendments with amendments.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will designate the motion and the 
House amendments.
The text of the motion and the text of the House amendments are as 
follows:

Mr. Fascell moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3807) 
to amend the Arms Export Control Act to authorize the President to 
transfer battle tanks, artillery pieces, and armored combat vehicles to 
member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in conjunction 
with implementation of the Treaty  on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe,
with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments with
amendments, as follows:
Amendment to Senate amendment numbered 1:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, 
insert the following:
TITLE II-SOVIET WEAPONS DESTRUCTION
PART A-SHORT TITLE

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the "Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 
1991".
PART B-FINDINGS AND PROGRAM AUTHORITY
SEC. 211. NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SOVIET WEAPONS DESTRUCTION. . . . 
Amendment to Senate amendment numbered 2:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, 
insert the following:
TITLE III-EMERGENCY AIRLIFT AND OTHER SUPPORT
SEC. 301. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER CERTAIN FUNDS TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY 
AIRLIFT AND OTHER SUPPORT. . . . 
Amendment to Senate amendment numbered 3:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, 
insert the following:
TITLE IV-ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT ACT
SEC. 401. ARMS CONTROL AND DIS-ARMAMENT AGENCY.
Agreement to Senate Amendment Pursuant to Special Order

Sec.    5.21 A special order can provide either for consideration of a 
motion to concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment (as in the 
preceding precedent), or it can "self-execute" the concurrence, so that 
the only vote is on the special order itself, 


[[Page 72]]

obviating the necessity for further debate and a second vote 
implementing the terms of the motion. 
On Jan. 5, 1996,(3) H. Res. 338, making in order H.R. 1358, conveying a
National Marine Fisheries laboratory to Gloucester, Massachusetts, was 
called up in the House. The Senate amendment to H.R. 1358 was not 
germane, since it also addressed continuing appropriations of the 
government. As in the preceding precedent noted in this section, the 
special order precluded a motion to recommit without expressly so stating.

  MR. [DAVID] DREIER [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 338 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 338
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution the House shall be 
considered to have taken from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1358) 
to require the Secretary of Commerce  to convey to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts the National Marine Fisheries Service laboratory located 
on Emerson Avenue in Gloucester, Massachusetts, with the Senate 
amendment thereto, and to have concurred in the Senate amendment with 
an amendment consisting of the text printed in the report of the 
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution.

The text of the Senate amendment and the House amendment to the Senate
amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: . . . 

MR. DREIER: . . . Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(4) The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. [MARTIN] FROST [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 344, noes 
24, not voting 65, as follows: . . . 
So the resolution was agreed to.
Disposing of Amendment by Resolution Offered Under Suspension of Rules

Sec.    5.22 The Speaker recognized a Member to offer a resolution, 
under suspension of the rules, which provided  for concurring in a 
Senate amendment to a House bill 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     142 CONG. REC. 454, 465, 466, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     Bill Emerson (Mo.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 73]]

on the Speaker's table with a further amendment which was stated in the 
text of the resolution.
On Dec. 20, 1973,(5) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. 
Wright Patman, of Texas, to move to suspend the rules and agree to 
House Resolution 753:

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the House 
resolution (H. Res. 753) to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
(H.R. 8449) to expand the national flood insurance program by 
substantially increasing limits of coverage and total amount of 
insurance authorized to be outstanding and by requiring known 
flood-prone communities to participate in the program, and for other 
purposes, with Senate amendment thereto, and agree to the Senate 
amendments with an amendment to strike out title III of the Senate 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. RES. 753
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill H.R. 8449, together with the Senate amendment thereto be, and the 
same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end that the 
Senate amendment be, and the same is hereby, agreed to with an 
amendment as follows:
"Strike out title III of the Senate amendment in the nature of a 
substitute."

Parliamentarian's Note: The resolution being drafted with this language, 
the Member did not need to offer a motion from the floor which would 
spell out the text of the amendment to the Senate amendment. Had the
suspension motion merely made in order the offering of a motion to 
amend the Senate amendment, the Speaker would have directed the reading 
of the proposed motion after the suspension motion was agreed to.

Sec.    5.23 The Speaker recognized a Member to offer a resolution, 
under suspension of the rules, which provided for concurring in two 
Senate amendments to a House bill on the Speaker's table and for 
concurring in another Senate amendment with a further amendment.
On Dec. 20, 1973,(6) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. 
Charles C. Diggs, Jr., of Michigan, to move to suspend the rules and 
agree to House Resolution 754:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     119 CONG. REC. 42883, 42884, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 6.     119 CONG. REC. 42917, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 74]]

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the House 
resolution (H. Res. 754) to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
(H.R. 6186) to amend the District of Columbia Revenue Act of 1947 
regarding taxability of dividends received by a corporation from 
insurance companies, banks, and other savings institutions, with Senate
amendments thereto, and agree to the Senate amendments numbered 1 and 2 
and agree to Senate amendment numbered 3, with an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. RES. 754
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill H.R. 6186, with the Senate amendments thereto, be, and the same 
is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end that (1) Senate
amendments numbered 1 and 2 be, and the same are hereby, agreed to; 
and (2) Senate amendment numbered 3 be, and the same is hereby, agreed 
to with an amendment as follows: . . .
Reading of the lengthy amendment carried in the text of the resolution 
was dispensed with by unanimous consent; after the motion was seconded, 
the resolution was debated and approved.
The Speaker did not state for the Record that the Senate amendments 
were disposed of pursuant to the terms of the resolution, nor did the 
Record carry the text of the Senate amendments Nos. 1 and 2.(7) 

Sec.    5.24 The House adopted a motion to suspend the rules and agree 
to a resolution which provided for taking a House joint resolution with 
a Senate amendment from the Speaker's table and agreeing to the Senate
amendment.
On Oct. 14, 1972,(8) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. 
Wright Patman, of Texas, to move to suspend the rules and agree to 
House Resolution 1165:

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution 
(H. Res. 1165) to extend the authority of the Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development with respect to the insurance of loans and mortgages 
under the National Housing Act.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. RES. 1165
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1301) to extend the authority of the 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development with respect to the 
insurance of loans and mortgages under the National Housing Act, 
together with the Sen-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     See Sec. 5.50, where the text of amendments concurred in were 
printed. In this instance, the Journal did carry the texts.
 8.     118 CONG. REC. 36408, 36409, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 75]]

ate amendment thereto, be, and the same is hereby, 
taken from the Speaker's table to the end that the Senate amendment be, 
and the same is hereby, agreed to.

THE SPEAKER: Is a second demanded?
MR. [STEWART B.] MCKINNEY [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
THE SPEAKER: Without objection, a second will be considered as ordered.
There was no objection. . . .
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(9) The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Patman) that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to House Resolution 1165.
The question was taken; and-two-thirds having voted in favor thereof-the 
rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Sec.    5.25 The Speaker recognized the Chairman of the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce to move to suspend the rules and agree 
to a resolution taking a House bill with a Senate amendment from the 
Speaker's table and agreeing to the Senate amendment.
On Aug. 27, 1962,(10) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, to offer a motion relating to 
H.R. 11040, the Communications Satellite Act of 1962:

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to House Resolution 769.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. RES. 769
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the bill 
H.R. 11040, with the Senate amendment thereto, be, and the same is 
hereby, taken from the Speaker's table, to the end that the Senate 
amendment be, and the same is hereby, agreed to.

THE SPEAKER: Is a second demanded?
MR. [WILLIAM L.] SPRINGER [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
MR. [WILLIAM FITTS] RYAN [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
second. . . .
THE SPEAKER: Without objection, a second will be considered as ordered.
There was no objection. . . .
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 372, nays 10, not voting 
53. . . .
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended 
and the resolution was passed.

Parliamentarian's Note: The resolution was introduced by the chairman 
of the committee when he was recognized to move to suspend the rules 
and agree to the amendment. Prior introduction would, under the rules, 
have re-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     Hale Boggs (La.).
10.     108 CONG. REC. 17671, 17681, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 76]]


quired reference to the Committee on Rules.

Motion To Suspend Rules Not Subject to Amendment

Sec.    5.26 When a motion to suspend the rules and concur in a Senate
amendment is pending, a motion to concur in such amendment with an 
amendment is not in order.
On July 27, 1946,(11) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas:

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate 
amendment to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 225) to quiet the titles 
of the respective States, and others, to lands beneath tidewaters and 
lands beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of such States 
and to prevent further clouding of such titles. . . .
THE SPEAKER: Is a second demanded?
MR. [SAM] HOBBS [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second. . . .
MR. SUMNERS of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a 
second be considered as ordered.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
There was no objection.
MR. HOBBS: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
THE SPEAKER: No amendment is in order.
MR. HOBBS: Mr. Speaker, I move to concur in the Senate amendment with 
an amendment.
THE SPEAKER: That motion is not in order.
MR. HOBBS: Mr. Speaker, I have an agreement with the gentleman from 
Texas that I would be permitted to offer an amendment to the Senate 
amendment.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair knows nothing about that agreement. An amendment 
to this motion is not in order.
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sumners] is recognized for 20 minutes and 
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hobbs] is recognized for 20 minutes.
Speaker's Authority To Refer House Bill and Senate Amendments to 
Committee

Sec.    5.27 If objection is made to    a unanimous-consent request to 
take a House bill with Senate amendments from the Speaker's table, 
disagree to the amendments and agree to a conference, the Speaker may 
hold the bill on the table for a reasonable length of time, may refer 
it to the legislative committee having jurisdiction over it, or may 
await a rule from the Committee on Rules.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     92 CONG. REC. 10310, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 77]]


Parliamentarian's Note: The events in this and following precedents 
occurred before the 1989 amendment to Rule XX clause 1, which permits 
a privileged motion to send a Senate or House bill with amendments of 
the other House to conference.(12) 
On July 6, 1937,(13) Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, requested unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the farm tenan-   cy bill, 
H.R. 7562, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the amendments 
and agree to the conference requested by the Senate. Mr. Charles W. 
Tobey, of New Hampshire, objected, and Mr. Scott W. Lucas, of Illinois, 
made the following inquiry:

In the event objection is made to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas, am I correct in my understanding that then the bill will be 
referred back to the Rules Committee?
THE SPEAKER:(14) Will the gentleman from Illinois kindly restate his
parliamentary inquiry?
MR. LUCAS: If objection is made to the unanimous-consent request 
submitted by the distinguished gentleman from Texas, my inquiry is what 
will then happen to the bill as presented to the House?
THE SPEAKER: In answer to the inquiry, the Chair will state that it is 
within the discretion of the Chair to allow the bill to lie on the 
Speaker's table for a reasonable length of time, or to refer the bill 
and Senate amendments to the Committee on Agriculture.
MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the question further by a 
parliamentary inquiry? Would it not be in order for the chairman of 
the Committee on Agriculture to apply to the Rules Committee for a rule 
to send the bill to conference?
THE SPEAKER: Undoubtedly.

Sec.    5.28 The Speaker has referred a House bill with Senate 
amendments to a standing committee instead of the Committee of the 
Whole.
On Aug. 26, 1935,(15) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, recognized 
Mr. James P. Buchanan, of Texas, and the following occurred:

MR. BUCHANAN: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
of the House, I request the Speaker to refer the third deficiency bill-
H.R. 9215-now on the Speaker's table, to the Appropriations Committee 
of the House. This bill passed the 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1997); 111 CONG. REC. 21, 89th
Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965. See also Sec. 5.48 (Parliamentarian's 
Note), infra.
13.     81 CONG. REC. 6815, 6816, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
14.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
15.     79 CONG. REC. 14757-59, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 78]]

House on Thursday, August 22, and, 
as usual, was promptly sent to the Senate, and was held there until 8 
o'clock on the evening of Saturday, August 24, when it was messaged to 
the House, together with the resolution providing for the sine die 
adjournment of Congress at 12 o'clock on the same day, thus requiring 
action by the House on this bill within 4 hours, notwithstanding the 
fact that the Senate had placed amendments on the bill involving a 
possible outlay by the Government of from $800,000,000 to $2,000,000,000 
by way of loans which were not in the bill as passed by the House and 
which had never received any consideration by  the Appropriations 
Committee of the House or Senate and about which no Member of either 
branch of Congress was fully informed. Manifestly, if we are going to 
apply business methods to the conduct of the Government involving such 
vast outlays of public funds, hearings should be held by some committee 
of Congress in which all the facts should be developed in order to 
permit an intelligent determination of the soundness of the policy 
involved, the approximate obligations incurred, and whether or not the
Government could raise the money without financial embarrassment or in 
any way affecting its credit. . . .
THE SPEAKER: The bill (H.R. 9215) making appropriations for 
deficiencies, known as the "third deficiency appropriation bill," is 
now on the Speaker's table. It is, of course, within the discretion of 
the Chair, under the rules of the House, to send it to the Committee on
 Appropriations. The ordinary course of procedure is to send it to 
conference, under a unanimous-consent request. The chairman of the 
committee having jurisdiction of the bill having made no such request, 
the Chair feels in view of the request of the chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations and the importance of the questions involved, both of
legislation and appropriation, as set forth briefly by the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Buchanan], that this bill should be referred to the 
committee having charge of the bill, in order that that committee may 
conduct such hearings and take such measures looking to recommendations 
as it may choose. The Chair accordingly refers the bill to the Committee 
on Appropriations under the established practice of the House which 
requires the Chair to take that course. [Applause.] In taking this 
action the Chair is following a similar action taken by a former Speaker 
of the House on January 23, 1931 (Record, p. 2975), when Mr. Speaker 
Longworth referred the Interior Department appropriation bill to the 
Committee on Appropriations.
MR. [CARL] VINSON of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. VINSON of Georgia: Why is it not in order that the House consider 
this appropriation bill in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union?
THE SPEAKER: That will be in order if the Committee on Appropriations 
reports it, as is required under the established practice of the House.
MR. VINSON of Georgia: But before the Speaker announced his decision, 
it would have been in order for the House by substitute motion to have
referred 


[[Page 79]]

this bill to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union?
THE SPEAKER: It would not, because that motion would not have been 
privileged, as the Chair ruled on Saturday. When a House bill with 
Senate amendments involving new matter of appropriations comes from 
the Senate it may be sent to conference by unanimous consent; otherwise, 
the duty of the Chair under the established practice of the House is 
to refer to it the standing committee having jurisdiction of it. The 
Chair has taken that course in this instance, and no motion of the kind
referred to by the gentleman from Georgia is in order as a matter of
privilege.
HOUSE BILL REFERRED
A bill of the House of the following title was taken from the Speaker's 
table, with Senate amendments thereto, and under the rule, referred as
follows:
H.R. 9215. An act making appropriations to provide urgent supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, to supply
deficiencies in certain appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 
30, 1935, and for prior fiscal years, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Appropriations.

Sec.    5.29 A Senate amendment to a House bill may be referred to a 
House committee having jurisdiction of the subject matter addressed in 
part of the amendment, even though the House bill was reported from 
another committee.
On Mar. 26, 1981,(16) the Speaker, pursuant to the authority granted 
him in Rule X clause 2, and Rule XXIV clause 2, referred the Senate 
amendment to the bill H.R. 31, amending the Truth in Lending Act, to 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for consideration of a portion of 
the Senate amendment within that committee's jurisdiction. 
The bill itself had been reported from the Committee on Banking, Finance 
and Urban Affairs. The portion of the Senate amendment which was 
controversial dealt with the qualifications of the Surgeon General of 
the United States, a matter within the competence of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce. The Speaker's referral was for a time certain.
The referral statement of the Speaker is carried here, and a portion of 
the proceedings of Apr. 8, 1981,(17) as well, to show the discharge of 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce from further consideration of the 
matter. Conferees were appointed from both of the committees.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     127 CONG. REC. 5397, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Id. at p. 6826.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 80]]

The excerpt from the Mar. 26 Congressional Record follows:
REFERRAL OF SENATE AMENDMENT UNDER TIME LIMITATION
Pursuant to clause 5, rule X and clause 2, rule XXIV, the Senate 
amendment to the bill (H.R. 31) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to 
encourage cash discounts, and for oth-er purposes, was referred from 
the Speaker's table to the Committee on Energy and Commerce for a 
period ending not later than April 8, 1981, solely for consideration 
of such provisions of section 303 of the Senate amendment as fall 
within the jurisdiction of that committee under clause 1(h), rule X.

The pertinent proceedings of Apr. 8 are set out below:

MR. [FRANK] ANNUNZIO [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be discharged from further
consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 31) to amend 
the Truth in Lending Act to encourage cash discounts, and for other 
purposes, and that the House disagree to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
31 and request       a conference with the Senate thereon. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(18) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Illinois? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following 
conferees:
Solely for consideration of all the provisions of the Senate amendment 
in the nature of a substitute except section 303, and modifications 
thereof committed to conference, the following Members on the part of 
the House: Messrs. St Germain, Annunzio, Gonzalez, Minish, Stanton of 
Ohio, Evans of Delaware, and Wylie; and
Solely for the consideration of section 303 of the Senate amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, and modifications thereof committed to 
conference, the following Members on the part of the House: Messrs. 
Dingell, Waxman, Scheuer, Broyhill, and Madigan.
Initiating Action on Special Order To Dispose of Senate Amendments

Sec.    5.30 Any Member may request that the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules call a meeting of that committee to consider reporting a 
resolution making in order disposition of a House bill, with Senate 
amendments that require consideration in the Committee of the Whole,
notwithstanding Rule XXIV clause 2.
On Aug. 13, 1957,(19) after objections had been made to two requests 
relating to H.R. 6127, the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and Senate
amendments thereto, Mr. Kenneth B. Keating, of New York, 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
19.     103 CONG. REC. 14568, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 81]]


was recognized with a parliamentary inquiry:

Would the Speaker advise what action is necessary now in order to get 
the bill to the Committee on Rules?
THE SPEAKER:(20) Anyone can make the request of the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules to call a meeting of the committee to consider the 
whole matter.
MR. KEATING: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. KEATING: Mr. Speaker, if that were done, would the bill which is 
now on the Speaker's desk be before the Rules Committee?
THE SPEAKER: It would not be before the Committee on Rules. The 
Committee on Rules could consider the matter of what procedure to 
recommend to the House for the disposition of this whole matter.
Authority of the Committee on Rules

Sec.    5.31 The Committee on Rules has jurisdiction to report 
resolutions providing for   the disposition of Senate amendments.
On May 29, 1968,(1) the House was considering the bill, H.R. 5037, the 
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Assistance Act of 1968, and the 
Senate amendments thereto. Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, Chairman of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, had asked for unanimous consent to take   
the bill and Senate amendments thereto from the Speaker's table, disagree 
with the amendments, and request a conference with the Senate. Mr. 
Richard H. Poff, of Virginia, then posed a series of parliamentary 
inquiries including the following:

If the motion to go to conference is not adopted by the House, in such 
case would it be in order for the Committee on Rules to report a 
resolution making it in order to move to recede and concur?(2) 
THE SPEAKER:(3) Under the rules of the House, it is within the 
authority and jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules to report a 
resolution providing for the disposition of the Senate amendments.
Use of Special Order To Send Multiply-referred Bill to Conference

Sec.    5.32 Where the authorization of four House committees 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 1.     114 CONG. REC. 15499, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     The stage of disagreement not having been reached, the proper 
motion was "to concur," not to "recede and concur."
 3.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 82]]

was required to authorize the motion to go to conference under Rule XX 
clause   1, the Committee on Rules reported, and the House adopted, a 
special order     providing that the House disagree with the Senate 
amendment and request a conference. 
On July 30, 1979,(4) the House agreed to a resolution sending 
H.R. 111, the Panama Canal Act of 1979, to conference, a 
unanimous-consent request to accomplish this step having been objected 
to. Following the adoption of the resolution, a motion was made to 
instruct the managers at the conference to "adhere" to the House 
position set forth in certain sections of the House text. 
PROVIDING FOR SENDING H.R. 111 TO CONFERENCE
MR. [LEO C.] ZEFERETTI [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 390 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 390
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the bill (H.R. 111) 
to enable the United States to maintain American security and interests
respecting the Panama Canal, for the duration of the Panama Canal Treaty 
of 1977, with the Senate amendments thereto, is taken from the Speaker's 
table to the end that    the House disagrees to the Senate amendments 
and requests a conference with the Senate thereof.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(5) The gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeferetti) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. ZEFERETTI: . . . [L]ast week on a motion to send House Resolution 
111 to conference an objection was raised by an opponent of the measure. 
In this instance it would require the four committees who have 
jurisdiction over this bill to meet and vote on whether to direct the 
chairmen of these respective committees to offer a motion on the floor 
to request a conference. Unfortunately, such a procedure would require 
a significant amount of time and would have delayed further 
consideration of this bill.
The Rules Committee has been informed by the chairman of the Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries Committee that it is imperative for the House and 
Senate conferees to begin deliberation immediately so as to effectively 
come to agreement at the earliest possible date. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     125 CONG. REC. 21298, 21302, 21309, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5.     George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 83]]

MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BAUMAN
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bauman moves that the conferees on the part of the House on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill H.R. 111, be instructed 
to adhere to the language of sections 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 110 of 
chapter 1; sections 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, and 250 of chapter 5;
sections 371, 372, 373, and 374 of chapter 9 of H.R. 111 as passed by 
the House with respect to the matters considered therein.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) is
recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
MR. BAUMAN: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to.

Parliamentarian's Note: While the House cannot "adhere and ask a 
conference," since adherence is inconsistent with the request for a
conference(6) and the willingness to negotiate, the form of the motion 
to instruct conferees did not render it subject to a point of order, 
and none was raised. See 8 Cannon's Precedents 
Sec. Sec. 3230, 3237, which indicate that consistency in motions to 
instruct is for the House, not the Chair, to decide. 

Special Order To Refer House Bill and Senate Amendments

Sec.    5.33 The Chair indicated that the Committee on Rules could 
report out a resolution, taking a House bill with Senate amendments 
(requiring consideration in the Committee of the Whole) from the 
Speaker's table and sending it to the legislative committee of the 
House having jurisdiction thereof.
On the legislative day of Sept. 26, 1961,(7) Speaker Pro Tempore John 
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, 
and the following discussion of the treatment of House bills with 
Senate amendments ensued:

MR. THOMAS: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 9169) making supplemental appropriations 
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1962, and for other purposes, with 
Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments and agree 
to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6303.
 7.     107 CONG. REC. 21475, 21476, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 25, 
1961 (Calendar Day).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 84]]

MR. [FRANK T.] BOW [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, and I do so in order to propound a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. BOW: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: If an objection 
is made to sending this to conference, the supplemental appropriation 
bill, whether or not the Speaker will then refer the bill to the 
committee having charge of the bill and that committee return the bill 
to the House in the Committee of the Whole House for the consideration 
of the Senate amendments as provided in "Cannon's Precedents" on page 
115, and whether or not the House then can work its will in the 
Committee of the Whole House on each amendment of the Senate under the 
5-minute rule, report the bill back to the House, and then move to 
send the bill to conference?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The parliamentary inquiry involves several 
different fields, related, but nevertheless separate.
MR. BOW: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to state them separately.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is clearly within his rights. 
In the first place, this is a procedure that the present occupant of 
the chair has no recollection of ever having taken place during his 
period of service in this body, and the Chair is informed, for many 
years prior thereto.
When objection is made the leadership of the House is confronted with 
the problem as to what action should be taken in order to get the bill 
to conference as quickly as possible. The Chair, while not answering 
the parliamentary inquiry with reference to the committee and committee 
action and coming back to the House, and then to the Committee of the 
Whole, would frankly state to the gentleman that the present occupant 
of the chair would employ every method under the rules in order to get 
the bill from the Speaker's desk to conference.
MR. BOW: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BOW: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as these amendments of the Senate are 
in the nature of charges against the Treasury of the United States, 
I will ask this parliamentary inquiry:
Is it not then necessary under the rules and procedures as found in 
volume 5 of the Procedure of the House of Representatives that the bill 
be sent to the committee and then considered in the Committee of the 
Whole before sending it to conference?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It is the opinion of the Chair that the answer 
which the Chair gave to the first part of the gentleman's parliamentary
inquiry also answers this inquiry: that if objection is made, the Chair 
would feel constrained, insofar as the Chair is capable of accomplishing 
it, to have the bill taken from the Speaker's desk and sent to conference
under the rules without reference to the committee.
MR. BOW: I thank the Chair, and withdraw my reservation.
MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to


[[Page 85]]

 object, if the conference report(8) should go to the Rules Committee 
for a rule, would it be possible for the Rules Committee to vote out a 
rule sending the bill to committee?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The answer is in the affirmative to that
parliamentary inquiry.
Uses of Special Order Before Stage of Disagreement 

Sec.    5.34 Before the stage of disagreement has been reached, a motion 
to take a House bill with a Senate amendment thereto which requires
consideration in the Committee  of the Whole from the Speaker's table 
and concur in the amendment is not privileged; but by adoption of a 
special order the House can: (1) bestow privilege to such a motion; 
(2) limit other options for disposition of the Senate amendment; and 
(3) prevent amendment of the motion to concur. 
As the time for sine die adjournment of the 95th Congress, 1st Session,
approached, the passage of a continuing appropriations bill became a 
high priority. As with the Labor-HEW appropriation bill, which remained 
in disagreement because of a restriction on abortion funding, the 
continuing appropriation bill also had a similar restriction remaining 
in disagreement.
On Dec. 7, 1977,(9) the House considered and adopted the following 
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules:

Mr. Dodd, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
privileged resolution (H. Res. 928, Rept. No. 95-833), which was 
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:
H. RES. 928
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
House shall proceed to consider a motion to take from the Speaker's 
table the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 662) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 1978, and for other purposes, with 
the Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments, 
without any intervening motion, and at the conclusion of the debate 
thereon the previous question shall be considered as ordered, and the 
question shall be put on the motion to concur without any intervening motion.

MR. [CHRISTOPHER J.] DODD [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
of the Committee on Rules, I call up 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     Mr. Gross apparently intended to refer to the House bill with 
Senate amendments, because a conference report does not require a rule 
from the Committee on Rules for its consideration.
 9.     123 CONG. REC. 38721, 38722, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 86]]

House Resolution 928 and ask for its immediate consideration.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is, will the House now consider 
House Resolution 928?
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, does not the consideration of this resolution 
require a two-thirds vote?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will state that that is correct.
MR. BAUMAN: Is there no debate permitted on consideration of the 
question?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will state that no debate is 
permitted on consideration of the question.
The question is, will the House now consider House Resolution 928?
The question was taken.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 251, nays 
86, not voting 97. . . . 
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the House agreed to 
consider House Joint Resolution 662.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Later on the same day,(11) the resolution was adopted and the prescribed
action undertaken:

MR. DODD: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I move 
the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken and on a     division (demanded by Mr. Bauman) 
there were-yeas 54; nays 40.
So the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Mahon).
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule 
just adopted, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Mahon moves to take from the Speaker's table the joint resolution 
(H.J. Res. 662) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal 
year 1978, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and 
concur in the Senate amendments.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the title of the joint

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     K. Gunn McKay (Utah).
11.     123 CONG. REC. 38723, 38724, 38728, 38729, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 87]]

resolution and the Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:

(1) Page 2, lines 15 and 16, strike out "as modified by the House of
Representatives on August 2, 1977".
(2) Page 2, line 17, after "resolution" insert: "Provided, however, 
that none of the funds provided for in this paragraph shall be used 
to perform abortions: except where the life of the mother would be 
endangered if the fetus were carried to term; or except for such 
medical procedures necessary for the victims of rape or incest, when 
such rape or incest has been reported promptly to a law enforcement 
agency or public health service; or except in those instances where 
severe and long-lasting physical health damage to the mother would 
result if the pregnancy were carried to term.
"Nor are payments prohibited for drugs or devices to prevent 
implantation of the fertilized ovum, or for medical procedures 
necessary for the termination of an ectopic pregnancy.
"The Secretary shall promptly issue regulations and establish 
procedures to ensure that the provisions of this section are rigorously
enforced."
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, if the motion offered to concur in the Senate
amendments is defeated, is it still not in order for a Member to be 
recognized to offer a motion to concur in the Senate amendments with 
an amendment?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will inform the gentleman that it 
would take unanimous consent.
MR. BAUMAN: Because of the rule that was adopted, that would not be in 
order?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: No, it would not.
MR. BAUMAN: So, Mr. Speaker, the rule totally precludes any possibility 
of offering an amendment?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct, other than by 
unanimous consent or by the adoption of another rule.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
Under the normal order of procedure, which the rule has changed, such 
a motion would be first in order now instead of the pending motion, 
would it not? 
The rule mentions nothing about precluding a motion to concur in the 
Senate amendments with an amendment. Would that not have been in order 
if this motion were defeated?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The rule makes in order one motion to concur 
and nothing else. Rejection of that motion would not at that stage 
permit other privileged motions in the House to dispose of the Senate
amendment.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I understand, and I thank the Chair.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) is 
recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
All time has expired.
Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Mahon).


[[Page 88]]

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 171, nays 
178, answered "present" 1, not voting 84. . . . 
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

When the motion made in order by the special order was defeated, the 
Committee on Rules met once more and reported a new resolution, not 
specifying the text of a motion but permitting consideration of the 
Senate amendments in the House.(12) 

Mr. Dodd, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following privileged
resolution (H. Res. 929, Rept. No. 95-834), which was referred to the 
House Calendar and ordered to be printed:
H. RES. 929
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it 
shall be in order to take from the Speak-er's table the joint 
resolution (H.J. Res. 662) making further continuing appropriations 
for the fiscal year 1978, and for other purposes, together with the 
Senate amendments thereto, and to consider the Senate amendments in 
the House.

MR. DODD: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 929 and ask for its immediate consideration.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(13) The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is, Will the House now consider 
House Resolution 929?
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Bauman) 
there were-yeas 110, nays 31.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 240, nays 
109, not voting 85. . . . 
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the House agreed to 
consider House Resolution 929.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is
recognized for 1 hour. . . .
MR. DODD: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule just adopted in the House, 
I move to take from the Speaker's table 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     Id. at pp. 38780-82.
13.     W. C. (Dan) Daniel (Va.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 89]]

the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 662) making further continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 1978, and for other purposes, 
together with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider 
the Senate amendments in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
SENATE AMENDMENTS
THE SPEAKER:(14) The Clerk will report the first Senate amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 1: Page 2, lines 15 and 16, strike "as modified 
by the House of Representatives on August 2, 1977".

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

Mr. Mahon moves that the House concur in the amendment of the Senate 
numbered 1.

MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, this is purely a technical amendment. It should 
be clear that the continuing resolution provides for the operation of 
the Departments of Labor and HEW at the conference rate and also that 
these departments operate under the provisions of the conference 
agreement on the Labor-HEW bill. I do not know of any other conflict 
on this.
The motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the second Senate amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 2; page 2, line 17, after "resolution" insert: 
"Provided, however, That none of the funds provided for in this 
paragraph shall be used to perform abortions: except where the life of 
the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term; or 
except for such medical procedures necessary for the victims of rape 
or incest, when such rape or incest has been report-ed promptly to a 
law enforcement agency or public health service; or except in those 
instances where severe and long-lasting physical health damage to the 
mother would result if the pregnancy were carried to term.
"Nor are payments prohibited for drugs or devices to prevent 
implantation of the fertilized ovum, or for medical procedures 
necessary for the termination of an ectopic pregnancy.
"The Secretary shall promptly issue regulations and establish 
procedures to ensure that the provisions of this section are rigorously
enforced.".

THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel).
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MICHEL
MR. [ROBERT H.] MICHEL [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Michel moves that the House concur in the amendment of the Senate 
numbered 2 with an amendment, as follows: "Provided, That none of the 
funds provided for in this paragraph shall be used to perform abortions 
except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus 
were carried to term; or except for such medical procedures necessary 
for the victims of rape or incest, when such rape or incest has been 
reported promptly to a law enforcement agency or public health service; 
or except in those instances where severe and long-lasting physical 
health damage to the mother would 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 90]]

result if the pregnancy were carried to term when so determined by 
two physicians.
"Nor are payments prohibited for drugs or devices to prevent 
implantation of the fertilized ovum, or for medical procedures 
necessary for the termination of an ectopic pregnancy.
"The Secretary shall promptly issue regulations and establish 
procedures to ensure that the provisions of this section are rigorously
enforced.".

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) is recognized for 
1 hour.
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the chairman of our 
committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon), and pending that I 
will proceed for just a few moments.

The motion offered to the second Senate amendment, relating to abortion
restrictions, was agreed to. Later in the same day, the Senate 
concurred in the House action and H.J. Res. 662, providing further 
continuing appropriations for fiscal 1978, was cleared for presentation 
to the President.
Special Orders (Resolutions) for Consideration of Senate Amendments

Sec.    5.35 Before the stage of disagreement is reached, a motion to 
concur in a Senate amendment to a House bill is not privileged; but a 
special order can be adopted which makes such a motion in order, divides
debate time, and protects the motion from amendment or being displaced 
by a more privileged motion to dispose of the Senate amendment. 
A special order which provides for concurrence in a Senate amendment 
can take several forms. The choice is whether to make in order a motion 
to concur, which is then debatable when offered and which permits a 
vote on the motion, or to "self-execute" the concurrence: "Upon the 
adoption of this resolution, the Senate amendment is hereby agreed to." 
The resolution is carried here to illustrate one of the approaches which 
can be utilized to dispose of a Senate amendment before the stage of
disagreement:(15) 

MR. [BUTLER] DERRICK [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 251 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                 H. RES. 251
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House a motion to take from the Speaker's 
table the bill (H.R. 20) to amend title 5, United 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     139 CONG. REC. 21805, 21806, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 21, 1993.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 91]]

States Code, to restore to Federal civilian employees their right to 
participate voluntarily, as private citizens, in the political 
processes of the Nation, to protect such employees from improper 
political solicitations, and for other purposes, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, and to concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate
amendment shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable 
for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final 
adoption without intervening motion.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(16) The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Derrick] is recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
MR. DERRICK: Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 251 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 20, the Federal Employees Political Activities 
Act. The rule provides for a motion to take H.R. 20 from the Speaker's 
table with a Senate amendment and to concur in the Senate amendment. 
The rule provides that the Senate amendment shall be considered as 
read. The rule further provides that the motion will be debatable for 
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
Service . . . . 
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MR. [WILLIAM L.] CLAY [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 251, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
20) to amend title 5, United States Code, to restore to Federal 
civilian employees their right to participate voluntarily, as private 
citizens, in the political processes of the Nation, to protect such 
employees from improper political solicitations, and for other 
purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate 
amendment.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Clay moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill, H.R. 20, with 
a Senate amendment thereto, and to concur in the Senate amendment.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to the rule, the Senate amendment is
considered as read.
The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

Amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

That this Act may be cited as the "Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993".
Parliamentarian's Note: In this instance, the Committee on Rules chose 
to make the motion to concur in order, rather than a "hereby" 
resolution, to avoid a possible point of order under section 308 of the 
Budget Act (requiring a CBO estimate of cost in the report on any bill 
or resolution containing new budget au-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     Barney Frank (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 92]]

thority. On Feb. 24, 1993,(17) 
a discussion occurred in the House about the susceptibility of a 
special order providing for the consideration of a House bill and 
"self-executing" the adoption of an amendment to such a Budget Act 
point of order. The Chair ruled on that occasion that a special order 
for the consideration of a House bill that "self-executes" the adoption 
of an amendment providing new budget authority into the bill to be
subsequently considered does not, itself, provide the new budget 
authority and is not subject to the point of order. 

Sec.    5.36 Although House rules preclude dividing a Senate amendment 
which strikes House text and inserts new language, such a division can 
be made in order by a spe-cial order reported from the Committee on 
Rules and adopted by the House.
When the Senate considered for amendment H.R. 9209, the Emergency 
Unemployment Compensation Act Amendments of 1993, it struck out all 
after the enacting clause of the House bill and added a new text, 
consisting of seven sections. The House wished to address section 7 
of the Senate amendment, which dealt with congressional pay, by a 
separate vote. The following special order was reported from the 
Committee on Rules, debated and agreed to on Mar. 4, 1993.(18) The 
rule, pertinent debate, and the procedure in the House are carried 
here. 
EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION AMENDMENTS OF 1993
Mr. Moakley, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report 
(Rept. No. 103-26) on the resolution (H. Res. 115) providing for the
consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 920) to extend 
the emergency unemployment compensation program, and for other purposes, 
which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:
H. RES. 115
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House, any rule of the House to the contrary
notwithstanding, a motion to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
(H.R. 920) to extend the emergency unemployment compensation program, 
and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to 
concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment shall be 
considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     See 139 CONG. REC. 3554, 3555, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     139 CONG. REC. 4157-59, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 93]]

on Ways and Means or their respective designees. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final
adoption without intervening motion. The motion shall be divided for a
separate vote on concurring in section 7 of the Senate amendment, any 
rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding.

MR. [JOHN JOSEPH] MOAKLEY [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 115 and ask for 
its immediate consideration. 
The Clerk read the resolution. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(19) The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. MOAKLEY: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. . . . 
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate. The rule also automatically
divides the question, allowing a separate vote on the last section of 
the bill, elimination of cost of living adjustment for Members of 
Congress in 1994. Mr. Speaker, the division is in order any rule of the 
House to the contrary notwithstanding. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . . . 
MR. [ROBERT T.] MATSUI [of California]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House
Resolution 115, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
920) "An act to extend the emergency unemployment compensation program, 
and for other purposes," with the Senate amendment thereto, and to 
concur in the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under the rule, the Senate amendment is 
considered as read.
The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the 
"Emergency Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993".
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM.
(a) GENERAL RULE.-Sections 102(f)(1) and 106(a)(2) of the Emergency
Unemployment Compensation Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-164, as amended) 
are each amended by striking "March 6, 1993" and inserting "October 2, 
1993". . . . 
SEC. 7. ELIMINATION OF COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS IN 1994.
(a) COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT.-Notwithstanding section 601(a)(2) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31(2)), the cost of 
living adjustment (relating to pay for Members of Congress) which would 
become effective under such provision of law during calendar year 1994 
shall not take effect.
(b) SEVERABILITY.-If any provision of this Act, or an amendment made by 
this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or 
circumstance, is held to be invalid, the re-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 94]]


mainder of this Act, or an
amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision to 
other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under the rule, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Matsui] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui].

Sec.    5.37 Before the stage of disagreement is reached, a motion to 
take from the Speaker's table a House bill, with the Senate amendment
thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment, is not privileged; but 
the motion can be made in order by a special order which provides for 
debate time and prohibits any intervening motion. 
On Apr. 22, 1993,(20) in an attempt to conclude consideration of an 
emergency supplemental appropriation bill, fiscal 1993 (H.R. 1335), the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations made a unanimous-consent 
request in the following form. 
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1993
MR. [WILLIAM H.] NATCHER [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that it be in order today to consider in the House, any rule of 
the House to the contrary notwithstanding, a motion to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill, H.R. 1335, making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993, and for 
other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and to concur in the 
Senate amendment; that the Senate amendment be considered as read; that 
the motion be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations 
or their designees; and that the previous question be considered as 
ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(1) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky? . . . 
There was no objection.
For text of H.R. 1335, see proceedings of the House of March 18, 1993, 
at page H 1508.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. NATCHER
MR. NATCHER: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House, I offer 
a motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Natcher moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1335) 
making emergency supplemen-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     139 CONG. REC. 8108, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (Miss.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 95]]

tal appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1993, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment
thereto, and to concur in the Senate amendment.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will designate the Senate amendment.
The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:
SENATE AMENDMENT
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
"That the following sum is appropriated out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to provide emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993, and for 
other purposes, namely:
"DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
"ADVANCES TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND AND OTHER FUNDS
"For an additional amount for "Advances to the unemployment trust fund 
and other funds", $4,000,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1994.".

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher] will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher].
MR. NATCHER: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as the Members know, late on March 18, this body passed 
H.R. 1335. The House-passed version of this bill included $16.2 billion 
of new emergency funding and $3.2 billion in obligation ceiling 
increases for transportation programs that the President recommended to 
help get our country moving again. The Senate completed action on this 
bill yesterday and amended it so that only $4 billion for unemployment
benefits remain in the bill. 
Motion To Dispose of Senate Amendments, En Bloc, Before Stage of 
Disagreement

Sec.    5.38 Example of the use of a special order to permit the House 
to consider one privileged motion to dispose of Senate amendments to a 
House bill, waiving all points of order against the motion and 
specifying that the motion is not subject to a demand for division of 
the question unless demanded by the Majority Leader or his designee.
On Nov. 10, 1995,(2) the Committee on Rules called up House Resolution 
261, permitting disposition of amendments on a continuing appropriations 
bill.
The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations(3) offered the motion
permitted by the special 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     141 CONG. REC. 32112, 32113, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3.     Robert Livingston (La.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 96]]

order later on that same day.(4) The Senate amendment numbered 
3 proposed to strike a portion of the House bill and insert a 
new provision. This motion to strike out and insert not being 
subject   to a division, Mr. Livingston's amendment proposed to
delete the Senate's insertion and then to strike the portions of the 
House text-thus removing from the bill all provisions dealing with the 
use of federal subsidies or grants to lobby government officials or 
agencies.  The rule, the motion, and a portion of the debate on both 
are carried here.

MR. [DAVID] DREIER [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 261 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 261
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to take from the Speaker's 
table the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes, with 
any Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House a motion 
offered by the majority leader or his designee to dispose of all Senate
amendments. Any Senate amendments and motions shall be considered as 
read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their 
designees. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
motion to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for 
division of the question except any such demand made by the majority 
leader or his designee.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(5) The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
is recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
MR. DREIER: Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration in the 
House, without intervening point of order, of a motion if offered by 
the majority leader or his designee to dispose of Senate amendments to 
House Joint Resolution 115, a continuing resolution making 
appropriations for fiscal year 1996 through December 1, 1995.
This rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the 
majority leader and the minority leader or their designees, and further
provides that the previous question is ordered to adoption of the 
motion without intervening motion or demand for a division of the 
question unless the demand is made by the majority leader or his 
designee. . . . 
MR. LIVINGSTON: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 261, I call 
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115), making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes, with 
Senate amendments thereto, and I offer a motion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     141 CONG. REC. 32135-37, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5.     John D. Hayworth, Jr. (Ariz.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 97]]

The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) Pursuant to House Resolution 261, the Senate
amendments are considered as read.
The text of the Senate amendments is as follows:

Senate amendments:
Page 2, line 20, after "1948," insert: section 313 of the Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 
103-236),
Page 10, line 19, after "resolution." Insert: Included in the 
apportionment for the Federal Payment to the District of Columbia shall 
be an additional $15,000,000 above the amount otherwise made available 
by this joint resolution, for purposes of certain capital construction 
loan repayments pursuant to Public Law 85-451, as amended.
Page 15, strike out line 1 and all that follows over to and including 
line 7 on page 36, and insert:
TITLE III
PROHIBITION  ON  SUBSIDIZING POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS WITH TAXPAYER 
FUNDS
SEC. 301. (a) LIMITATIONS.-(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, any organization receiving Federal grants in an amount that,   in 
the aggregate, is greater than $125,000 in the most recent Federal 
fiscal year, shall be subject to the limitations on lobbying activity
expenditures under section 4911(c)(2) (B) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986, except that, if exempt purpose expenditures are over 
$17,000,000 then the organization shall also be subject to a limitation 
on lobbying of 1 percent of the excess of the exempt purpose 
expenditures over $17,000,-000 unless otherwise subject to section
4911(c)(2)(A) based on an election made under section 501(h) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986. . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will designate the motion.
The text of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Livingston moves:
(1) That the House concur in the amendment of the Senate numbered 1,
(2) That the House concur in the amendment of the Senate numbered 2,
(3) That the House concur in the amendment of the Senate numbered 3 
with an amendment as follows:
Delete the matter proposed by said amendment, and beginning on page 15, 
line 1 of the House engrossed joint resolution, H.J. Res. 115, strike 
all down to and including line 7, on page 36, and redesignate Title IV 
as Title III, and renumber sections accordingly.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to House Resolution 261, the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized 
for 30 minutes. . . . 
MR. LIVINGSTON: . . . Mr. Speaker, I am offering a motion to dispose 
of these amendments. The first two are not controversial and make 
improvements to the CR and my motion is to concur with these amendments, 
for they are fine. The modification to the Simpson-Istook-McIntosh 
language unfortunately is technically insufficient and therefore, is 
not acceptable. There is agreement that we can not get an acceptable 
version on this matter agreed to on this CR. Therefore, my motion is 
to delete 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     David Dreier (Calif.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 98]]

the Senate proposed modification and to delete the underlying
Simpson-Istook-McIntosh language, so that it hopefully will be 
addressed at another time.
Special Order To Make Particular Disposition of Senate Amendment Only 
Option

Sec.    5.39 Before the stage of disagreement, a request to take a 
House bill, with a Senate amendment and concur in the amendment is not
privileged; and where other options for disposition of the Senate 
amendment are to be avoided, a special order is sometimes employed.
The special order reported from the Committee on Rules and a summary 
of the explanation, as excerpted from the Congressional Record of Aug. 
25, 1980,(7) are carried here as well as the procedural steps which 
followed the adoption of the resolution.
MULTIEMPLOYER PENSION PLAN AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1979
MR. [GILLIS W.] LONG of Louisiana: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 764 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 764
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider a motion to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
(H.R. 3904) to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to improve retirement income
security under private multiemployer pension plans by strengthening the
funding requirements for those plans, to authorize plan preservation 
measures for financially troubled multiemployer pension plans, and to 
revise the manner in which the pension plan termination insurance 
provisions apply to multiemployer plans, and for other purposes, with 
the Senate amendment thereto, and to concur in the Senate amendment 
with an amendment printed in the Congressional Record of August 21, 
1980, by Representative Thompson of New Jersey, without any intervening
motion, and at the conclusion of debate thereon the previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on said motion to final adoption without
intervening motion. . . .

MR. LONG of Louisiana: Mr. Speaker, I yield the usual 30 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Quillen) for purposes of debate only, 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 764 makes in order the consideration of 
H.R. 3904, the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments of 1980, as 
amended by the Senate. The rule provides for a motion to concur in 
the Senate amendment with an amendment, as printed in the Congressional 
Record of August 21 by Representative Thomp-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     126 CONG. REC. 23003, 23008, 23038, 23049, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 99]]

son, without intervening motion. Upon conclusion of debate, the 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the final 
adoption of the motion, also without intervening motion.
In effect, this rule allows the House to vote on a motion to return 
H.R. 3904 to the Senate, in essentially the same form it overwhelmingly 
passed this body by a vote of 374 to 0 on May 22. It was the hope at 
that time that the Senate would act quickly on the matter. Instead 
the Senate waited until July 29 to consider the measure. Though the 
bill reported in the Senate was generally consistent with the aims of 
H.R. 3904, several nongermane amendments were added on the Senate 
floor. . . . 

The resolution was agreed to.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. THOMPSON
MR. [FRANK] THOMPSON [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
House Resolution 764, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
(H.R. 3904) to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to improve retirement income
security under private multiemployer pension plans by strengthening the
funding requirements for those plans, to authorize plan preservation 
measures for financially troubled multiemployer pension plans, and to 
revise the manner in which the pension plan termination insurance 
provisions apply to    multiemployer plans, and for other purposes, 
with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment 
with an amendment printed in the Congressional Record of August 21, 1980.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the House amendment to the Senate amendment, as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment 
to the bill (H.R. 3904), insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act 
of 1980". . . .

MR. THOMPSON (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(8) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Thompson) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, my amendment, in its broad outlines, does the following:
It deletes the crippling nongermane amendments. It restores certain 
House provisions of H.R. 3904. Some of these are essential to better 
protect the interests of retirees of our inflation ravaged society. 
Other provisions reflect compromises between the majority and minority 
members of both committees. Finally certain provisions inserted by the 
other body at the 11th hour, re-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     George E. Danielson (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 100]

quired technical changes to make them workable. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to House Resolution 764, the previous
question is ordered.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Thompson).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 363, nays 
0, not voting 69.
Intervening Motion Precluded by Special Rule

Sec.    5.40 The House may agree to a resolution reported from the 
Committee on Rules, providing for disagreeing to Senate amendments to 
a House bill on the Speaker's table and for messaging of the House's 
action to the Senate without intervening motion.
On Nov. 29, 1973,(9) Mr. Claude Pepper, of Florida, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 721, which the House 
approved:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill (H.R. 11104) to provide for a temporary increase of 
$10,700,000,000 in the public debt limit and to extend the period to 
which this temporary limit applies to June 30, 1974, together with the 
Senate amendments thereto, be, and the same is hereby, taken from the
Speaker's table, to the end that the Senate amendments be, and the same 
are hereby disagreed to, and the Clerk is hereby directed to message 
that action of the House to the Senate without any intervening motion.

Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate had added amendments to H.R. 
11104-relating to election campaign financing and establishing an 
election reform commission-which were not germane to the House bill, 
a measure dealing with the public debt. The leadership decided to send 
the amendments back to the Senate in order to expedite enactment of the 
debt-limit bill. To accomplish that end, and to avoid a possible motion 
to send the bill to conference, the resolution was drafted to provide 
for the disagreement to, and immediate return of, the Senate 
amendments. A motion to agree to the conference requested by the Senate 
would have been privileged and could have been offered immediately upon 
the adoption of 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     119 CONG. REC. 38675, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 101]]

House Resolution 721, had it not precluded all intervening motions, 
since the stage of disagreement would then have been reached and the 
amendments would have been before the House.  

Providing for Consideration of Senate Amendments Before Stage of 
Disagreement and Before Receipt of Papers 

Sec.    5.41 The House adopted a special order, by unanimous consent, 
making it in order for the Majority Leader or his designee to move to 
concur, with one indivisible motion, in various Senate amendments 
to a House-passed bill (which had not yet been messaged to the House). 
H.R. 3660, the Government Ethics Reform Act of 1989, passed the House 
on Nov. 16, 1989;(10) the Senate acted on the following day.(11) The 
request of Mr. Steny H. Hoyer, of Maryland, was made just before a 
late-night recess on Nov. 17;(12) the message of the Senate action was
received in the House after midnight on that same legislative day.(13) 
The House concurred, pursuant to the special order carried here, in 
the early morning hours of Nov. 18, 1989.(14) 
MAKING IN ORDER AT ANY TIME MOTION TO CONSIDER SENATE AMENDMENTS TO 
H.R. 3660, GOVERNMENT ETHICS REFORM ACT OF 1989
MR. HOYER: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to
consider at any time a motion, if offered by the majority leader, or 
his designee, after consultation with the minority leader, to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3660), and for other purposes, 
with the Senate amendment or amendments thereto, and to dispose of the 
Senate amendment or amendments; that such motion be debatable for not 
to exceed 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader 
and the minority leader, or their designees; that the previous question 
be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without 
intervening motion; that all points of order against the motion be 
waived; that such motion shall be considered as having been read; and 
that such motion not be subject to a demand for a division of the 
question.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     See 135 CONG. REC. 29513, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
11.     See 135 CONG. REC. 29679, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 17, 1989.
12.     Id. at p. 29982.
13.     Id. at p. 30011.
14.     135 CONG. REC. 30029, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 102]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(15) Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection. . . . 
RECESS
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The House will now stand in recess subject to 
the call of the Chair.
Members will be given an hour's notice before any legislative business 
by the whip system, and bells will be rung 15 minutes prior to 
reconvening.
The House is now in recess.
Accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.) the House stood in recess
subject to the call of the Chair.
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the Speaker 
at 1 o'clock and 20 minutes a.m.
FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A further message from the Senate by Mr. Hallen, one of its clerks, 
announced that the Senate had passed with amendments in which the 
concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the 
following title:

H.R. 3660. An act to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives 
and the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to provide for governmentwide 
ethics reform, and for other purposes.
GOVERNMENT ETHICS REFORM ACT OF 1989
MR. [VIC] FAZIO [of California]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of 
the House of earlier today, I move to take from the Speaker's table the 
bill (H.R. 3660) to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to provide for governmentwide 
ethics reform, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments 
thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the Senate amendments is as follows:

Senate amendments: Page 2, strike out lines 1 to 4, and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Ethics Reform Act of 1989". . . . 

MRS. [LYNN] MARTIN of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
MR. FAZIO: Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
MRS. MARTIN of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
THE SPEAKER:(16) Pursuant to the order of the House of earlier today, 
the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Fazio].
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Debate on Motion Before Stage of Disagreement


Sec.    5.42 Where a motion to consider and dispose of Senate amendments
is made, prior 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     Gillespie V. (Sonny) Montgomery (Miss.).
16.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 103]]

to the stage of disagreement, the proponent of the 
motion is entitled to one hour and may yield time as he sees fit.
Rule XXVIII clause 2(a),(17) providing for a division of time between 
the majority and the minority parties is applicable only to conference 
reports and amendments in disagreement. While there have been occasions
where the Speaker has allocated time, without objection, on an initial 
motion to dispose of Senate amendments in the House, the practice 
prescribed in the standing rules is as carried here.(18) 

MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the joint resolution 
(H.J. Res. 666) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal 
year 1991, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and
consider the Senate amendments in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:

Senate amendments:
In subsection 101(b), after "the Senate as of October 1, 1990," insert 
"or at a rate for operations not exceeding the current rate and under 
the authority and conditions provided in applicable appropriations Acts 
for the fiscal year 1990,".
In section 103, strike out "$262,969,000,000" and insert "$265,369,000,000".
In subsection 108(c), strike out "October 20, 1990" and insert "October 
19, 1990". . . . 

There being no objection to the request, the chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations was recognized to offer a motion.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. WHITTEN
MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, I move to concur in Senate amendments Nos. 
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
THE SPEAKER:(19) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Whitten moves to concur in Senate amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 
5. . . . 

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] is recognized 
for 1 hour.
MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] for purpose of debate only 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Division of Time Before Stage of Disagreement

Sec.    5.43 The Chair has on occasion divided debate time under the 
hour rule into 20-

-------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
18.     See 136 CONG. REC. 28013, 101st Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1990.
19.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
-------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 104]]

minute segments on a motion relating to Senate 
amendments before the stage of disagreement, following the formula for 
debate on a motion to dispose of an amendment in disagreement 
prescribed in Rule XXVIII clause 2(b).
On Nov. 17, 1989,(20) the House was considering Senate amendments to 
H.R. 3566, the Labor and Health and Human Services appropriation bill 
for fiscal year 1990. Consideration was pursuant to a unanimous-consent
agreement permitting individual motions to dispose of seven Senate 
amendments. The last amendment was controversial and time for debate 
was demanded. The proceedings and the Chair's allocation of the time 
are carried here.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(1) The Clerk will designate the next Senate
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Senate Amendment No. 7: Page 74, after line 7, insert:
SEC. 521. RESTORATION AND CORRECTION OF DIAL-A-PORN SANCTIONS.
(1) AMENDMENT.-Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 
(47 U.S.C. 223) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting 
the following: . . . 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. NATCHER
MR. [WILLIAM H.] NATCHER [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Natcher moves that the House disagree to the amendment of the 
Senate numbered 7.

MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts] (during the reading): Mr. 
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read 
and printed in the Record.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: Reserving the right to object, 
Mr. Speaker, I would propound first a parliamentary inquiry.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, it is our desire at this point to attempt to 
defeat this particular motion; so I assume at this point that we would 
object to the unanimous-consent request and then an hour would be 
allocated for debate on the motion; is that correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman wish debate time?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     135 CONG. REC. 29904, 29905, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     Brian J. Donnally (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 105]]

MR. WALKER: Yes, we do wish debate time, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Conte] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, if they are both in favor, the time could be
allocated, 20 minutes to the various sides, is that correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct.
MR. CONTE: We have no objection to that, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman from Massachusetts in favor 
of the motion?
MR. CONTE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If that is the case, the Chair will allocate 
the time three ways. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher] will be
recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] 
will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the    gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
Amending Special Order Providing for Disposition of Senate Amendments


Sec.    5.44 If the previous question is voted down on a resolution 
providing for agreeing to Senate amendments to a House bill, the 
resolution is open to amendment.
On June 17, 1970,(2) Mr. Spark M. Matsunaga, of Hawaii, by direction 
of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 914:

Resolved, That, immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, the 
bill (H.R. 4249) to extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with respect 
to the discriminatory use of tests and devices, with Senate amendments
thereto, be, and the same hereby is, taken from the Speaker's table, 
to the end that the Senate amendments are, and the same are hereby, 
agreed to.
THE SPEAKER:(3) The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized for 1 hour.

After one hour of debate, Mr. Matsunaga moved the previous question on 
the resolution.

MR. GERALD R. FORD [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. GERALD R. FORD: Mr. Speaker, a "no" vote on the previous question 
does give an opportunity for one of those who led the fight against the
resolution to amend the resolution now pending before the House?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state in response to the parliamentary 
inquiry of the gentleman from Michigan that if the previous question is 
voted down, the resolution is open to amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     116 CONG. REC. 20159, 20198-200, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 106]]

Effect of Rejection of Special Rule


Sec.    5.45 The Chair indicated that should a resolution providing 
for concurring in Senate amendments to a House bill be rejected, the 
bill and amendments would remain on the Speaker's table for further 
action by the House.
On June 17, 1970,(4) the House was considering House Resolution 914, 
which provided for the taking of H.R. 4249, to extend the Voting Rights 
Act of 1964, with Senate amendments thereto, from the Speaker's table, 
to the end that those amendments be agreed to. Mr. Albert W. Watson, of 
South Carolina, raised a parliamentary inquiry:

Mr. Speaker, if this resolution is voted down then, further, it will 
mean we will follow the orderly procedure and let this matter go to 
conference and reconcile the differences?
THE SPEAKER:(5) The Chair will state that if the resolution is voted 
down the matter will lie on the Speaker's desk until the House 
determines what it wants to do with the matter.
MR. WATSON: I thank the Speaker.
Reading of Senate Amendment

Sec.    5.46 Where the House has before it a resolution providing for
concurrence in a Senate amendment, such Senate amendment may be read by
unanimous consent.
On Mar. 31, 1950,(6) Mr. John E. Lyle, Jr., of Texas, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 531:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill (H.R. 1758) to amend the Natural Gas Act approved June 21, 1938, 
as amended, with Senate amendment thereto, be, and the same is hereby 
taken from the Speaker's table to the end that the Senate amendment be, 
and the same is hereby, agreed to. . . .
MR. LYLE: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Allen].
MR. [LEO E.] ALLEN of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may desire.
MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
MR. ALLEN of Illinois: I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of this rule we are asked to 
approve an amendment which has been added by the other body.  Is it in 
order to request that that amendment, which 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     116 CONG. REC. 20159, 20198-200, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 5.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 6.     96 CONG. REC. 4553, 4554, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 107]]

has not been read to the House, be read at this time?
THE SPEAKER: It may be done by unanimous consent.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
added by the other body be read to the House at this time.
THE SPEAKER: That will come out of the time of the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Allen].
MR. ALLEN of Illinois: I yield for that purpose, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
There was no objection.
Senate Amendment Printed in Record


Sec.    5.47 Where the House adopts a resolution taking from the 
Speaker's table a House joint resolution with a Senate amendment and 
agreeing to the Senate amendment, the text of the Senate amendment is 
printed in the Record after the vote agreeing to the resolution.
On Sept. 25, 1972,(7) Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, of the 
Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 1133:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1227) approval and authorization for the 
President of the United States to accept an Interim Agreement Between 
the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics on Certain Measures with Respect to the Limitation of 
Strategic Offensive Arms, together with the Senate amendment thereto, 
be, and the same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end 
that the Senate amendment be, and the same is hereby, agreed to. . . .
THE SPEAKER:(8) The question is on the resolution. . . .
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 308, nays 4, answered "
present" 2, not voting 116. . . .
So the resolution was agreed to. . . .
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The Senate amendment, concurred in, reads as follows:(9) 
Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:
That the Congress hereby endorses those portions of the Declaration of 
Basic Principles of Mutual Relations Between the United States of 
America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics signed by President 
Nixon 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     118 CONG. REC. 31995-99, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 8.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 9.     An effort is made in the House to assure that where the House 
concurs, or concurs with a further amendment, the Senate amendment is 
printed in the Record proceedings. If the Senate amendment is lengthy 
and has already been printed in the proceedings of that body, the House 
Record may refer to the Senate proceedings rather than reprinting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 108]]

and General Secretary Brezhnev at Moscow on May 29, 1972, which 
relate to the dangers of military confrontation and which read as 
follows: . . . 

Initial Consideration of Senate Amendments; in House or in Committee of 
the Whole


Sec.    5.48 Parliamentarian's Note: Any amendment of the Senate to a 
House bill is subject to the point of order that it must first be 
considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union, if, originating in the House, it would be subject to that point.
However, a motion to disagree with the amendments of the Senate to a 
House bill or resolution and to request or agree to a conference with 
the Senate, or a motion to insist on the House amendments to a Senate 
bill or resolution and request or agree to a conference with the 
Senate, is always in order if the Speaker, in his discretion, 
recognizes for that purpose and if the motion is made by direction of 
the committee having jurisdiction of the subject matter of the bill or
resolution.(10) And House bills with Senate amendments which do not 
require consideration in a Committee of the Whole may be at once 
disposed of as the House may determine.(11) 
Timing of Point of Order That Senate Amendment Requires Committee of 
the Whole Consideration


Sec.    5.49 A point of order under Rule XX clause 1 that a particular 
Senate amendment should have been considered in the Committee of the 
Whole comes too late after conferees have been appointed and have 
reported.
On Oct. 20, 1966,(12) the House was considering the conference report 
on H.R. 13103, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Mr. 
Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, rose to a point of order against title 
III of the conference 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Rule XX clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1997); and 
Deschler's Procedure (93d Cong.), Ch. 32 Sec. 5.1.
11.     Rule XXIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 882 (1997); and 
Deschler's Procedure (93d Cong.), Ch. 32 Sec. 5.1.
12.     112 CONG. REC. 28240, 28241, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 109]]

report, which consisted entirely of a Senate amendment:

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask this question:
If that amendment had been offered when the bill was under 
consideration in the House it would have had to be under rule XX, and
considered under rule XX that I have just read.
Now, because it is a bill which is an appropriation bill we cannot 
consider it except in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
the Union. This rule provides that if there is put on it a Senate 
amendment and it comes back it is subject to a point of order that it 
has not been considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
State of the Union. . . .
THE SPEAKER:(13) The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Virginia makes the point of order that title III of 
the conference report contravenes the first sentence of rule XX:

Any amendment of the Senate to any House bill shall be subject to the 
point of order that it shall first be considered in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union, if, originating in the 
House, it would be subject to that point:(14) 

Without passing upon the germaneness of the amendment, because that 
point was not raised, the Chair calls attention to the fact that the 
Senate amendment went to conference by unanimous consent. Where 
unanimous consent was obtained, the effect of that is to circuit rule 
XX, in other words, to waive or vitiate that portion of rule XX.
If objection had been made at the point when the unanimous-consent 
request was made to send the bill to conference, then the bill could 
have been referred to the proper standing committee, and then, if and 
when reported out of the committee would have been brought up for
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union.
At this point, and under the parliamentary situation, the bill was sent 
to conference by unanimous consent; and this applies to all bills that 
go to conference by unanimous consent, if there be provisions therein 
that might be subject to the first sentence of rule XX. If there is no
objection made at that time the bill goes to conference; which in this 
case had the effect of suspending that portion of rule XX. Therefore, 
it is properly before the House at the present time as part of the 
conference report and the Chair overrules the point of order.
-Debate in Committee of the Whole

Sec.    5.50 Senate amendments to an appropriation bill are considered 
in the Committee of the Whole under the five-minute rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
14.     The pertinent part of Rule XX clause 1, quoted by the Speaker, 
had been part of the rules since 1880. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 
827 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 110]]

On July 12, 1945,(15) the following occurred in the House:
NATIONAL WAR AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL, 1946
MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House 
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3368) making 
appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1946, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments. Pending that 
motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with general 
debate.
THE SPEAKER:(16) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Missouri?
MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, that is satisfactory to me. That would not mean, of course, 
that there could be no debate on amendments?
MR. CANNON of Missouri: Amendments will be considered under the 
5-minute rule.(17) 
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion of the gentleman from 
Missouri.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3368) making appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1946, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments, 
with Mr. Sparkman in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE CHAIRMAN:(18) The Clerk will report the first Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

Senate amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 9, insert:
"COMMITTEE ON FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE
"Salaries and expenses: For all     expenses necessary to enable the 
Committee on Fair Employment Practice to carry out any functions 
lawfully vested in it by Executive Orders Nos. 8802 and 9346, including 
salary of a Chairman at not to exceed $8,000 per annum and 6 other 
members at not to exceed $25 per diem when actually engaged; travel 
expenses (not to exceed $63,800); expenses of witnesses in attendance 
at Committee hearings, when necessary; printing and binding (not to 
exceed $4,800); purchase of newspapers and periodicals (not to exceed 
$500); not to exceed $694 for deposit in the general fund of the 
Treasury for cost of penalty mail as required by section 2 of the act 
of June 28, 1944 (Public Law 364); and the temporary employment of 
persons, by contract or otherwise, without regard to section 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     91 CONG. REC. 7474, 7493, 7494, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
16.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
17.     For an example of the procedure in considering Senate amendments 
to a general appropriation bill in Committee of the Whole, see 91 CONG. 
REC. 7474, 7493, 7494, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., July 12, 1945.
18.     John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 111]]

3709 of the Revised Statutes and the civil-service and classification laws 
(not to exceed $8,900); $250,000: Provided, That no part of the funds 
herein appropriated shall be used to pay the compensation of any person 
to initiate, investigate, or prosecute any complaint against any 
defendant where such defendant does not have the same right to appeal 
an adverse decision of the Committee on Fair Employment Practice to 
the President of the United States, or to refer said complaint to the
President of the United States for final disposition, as is asserted by 
or allowed the said Committee on Fair Employment Practice in cases 
where persons complained against refuse to abide by its orders: 
Provided further, That no part of this appropriation shall be used to 
pay the compensation of any person to initiate, investigate, or 
prosecute any proceedings against any person, firm, or corporation 
which seeks to effect the seizure or operation of any plant or other 
property of such person, firm, or corporation by Federal authority for 
failure to abide by any rule or regulation of the Committee on Fair 
Employment Practice, or for failure to abide by any order passed by the
Committee on Fair Employment Practice: Provided further, That no part 
of the funds herein appropriated shall be used to pay the compensation 
of any person employed by said Committee on Fair Employment Practice 
who issues or attempts to enforce any rule, regulation, or order which
repeals, amends, or modifies any law enacted by the Congress."

MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which I 
send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Cannon of Missouri moves that the House concur in Senate amendment 
No. 1 with an amendment as follows:
"Strike out the matter proposed to be inserted by said amendment and 
insert the following in lieu thereof:
".'COMMITTEE ON FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE
".'Salaries and expenses: For completely terminating the functions and 
duties of the Committee on Fair Employment Practice, including such of 
the objects and limitations specified in the appropriation for such 
agency for the fiscal year 1945 as may be incidental to its 
liquidation, $250,000: Provided, That if and until the Committee on 
Fair Employment Practice is continued by an act of Congress, the amount 
named herein may be used for its continued operation until an 
additional appropriation shall have been provided.'."

MR. [WILLIAM M.] COLMER [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment to the committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Colmer to the amendment offered by Mr. Cannon 
of Missouri: On line 7 of the committee substitute after the word "if", 
strike out the words "and until".

MR. COLMER: Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. We might 
just as well understand that to begin with. If my amendment is adopted 
it means that the funds appropriated must be used for the liquidation 
of the FEPC. If my amendment is rejected it means that the $250,000 
thus appropriated can be used for the continued operation of the 
FEPC. . . . 
THE CHAIRMAN: The time of the gentleman from Missouri has expired. All 
time has expired.


[[Page 112]]

The question recurs on the amendment as amended by the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Missouri.
The amendment as amended was agreed to.
MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I think there is no disagreement 
on the remaining amendments.
In order to conserve the time of the House and get the conference 
report back this afternoon, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
Senate amendments be taken up en bloc and that they be considered as read.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri? . . . 
MR. [ANDREW J.] MAY [of Kentucky]: . . . What I am trying to get at is 
this: Did your statement to the effect that this is the only way by 
which a bill could be enacted which would take care of the several war
agencies for which appropriations are carried in this bill, mean that 
the other body at the other end of the Capitol is so obstinate about 
the one proposition of the FEPC that it will block all of the war 
agencies rather than take it out?
MR. CANNON of Missouri: May I say to the gentleman from Kentucky that 
the intransigents were not confined to any one House.
MR. MAY: Then the gentleman proposes to surrender without a reason?
MR. CANNON of Missouri: We are not surrendering; we are winning.
MR. [HOWARD W.] SMITH of Virginia: Reserving the right to object, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to understand from the gentleman from Missouri 
whether his unanimous-consent request is that we consider the amendments
en bloc and disagree to the Senate amendments and send them to 
conference? We do not agree by this to any Senate amendment?
MR. CANNON of Missouri: When we have secured consent to consider them
simultaneously, I will then move to disagree to the Senate amendments 
and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
MR. [VITO A.] MARCANTONIO [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
right to object, in reply to the gentleman from Virginia, so as to 
clear up any misunderstanding, we are not disagreeing to the Senate 
amendment on FEPC except by the action taken in the Committee of the 
Whole. The gentleman's motion refers merely to the remaining Senate
amendments?
MR. CANNON of Missouri: The request refers to the remaining amendments 
only.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise and report the bill back to the House with Senate amendments, with
recommendation in accordance with action taken by the Committee.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the 
chair, Mr. Sparkman, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on 
the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under
consideration the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 3368) making
appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1946, and for other purposes, 


[[Page 113]]

directed him to report the same back to 
the House with the recommendation that the House concur in Senate 
amendment numbered 1, with an amendment, and that the House disagree 
to Senate amendments numbered 2 to 33, inclusive, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses thereon.
MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the first recommendation of the 
Committee.
The Clerk read as follows:

The Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union recommends 
that the House concur in Senate amendment No. 1, with the following 
amendment:
"Strike out the matter proposed to be inserted by Senate amendment No. 
1 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
".'COMMITTEE ON FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE
".'Salaries and expenses: For completely terminating the functions and 
duties of the Committee on Fair Employment Practice, including such of 
the objects and limitations specified in the appropriation for such 
agency for the fiscal year 1945 as may be incidental to its 
liquidation, $250,000: Provided, That if and until the Committee on 
Fair Employment Practice is continued by an act of Congress, the amount 
named herein may be used for its continued operation until an 
additional appropriation shall have been provided: Provided further, 
That in no case shall this fund be available for expenditure beyond 
June 30, 1946.'."

THE SPEAKER: The question is on agreeing to the recommendation.
MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. RANKIN: As I understand it, this entire amendment, beginning on 
line 9, page 1, and ending on line 14, page 3, as amended, is a Senate
amendment. It is brought in here as a Senate amendment. Now the 
question is on adopting that Senate amendment, the entire amendment; 
not adopting the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri to 
the amendment, but on adopting the entire FEPC amendment?
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion agreed to in Committee of 
the Whole. That is, to agree to the Senate amendment with an amendment. 
There is no division of the question, if that is what the gentleman is 
asking.
MR. RANKIN: Then we have a right to vote on whether or not we will 
adopt the Senate amendment as amended.
THE SPEAKER: There is just one question before the House. That is, to 
concur in the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole.
MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on this entire Senate
amendment. The rules of the House provide that when an amendment is 
brought in, even though it is amended in Committee of the Whole, when 
we get back to the House we do not vote on amendments to the amendment 
but we vote on the amendment as amended.
THE SPEAKER: We vote on the recommendation which the Committee of the 
Whole made to the House. That is 


[[Page 114]]

all there is before the House at this time.
MR. RANKIN: That is that the amendment as amended be adopted?
THE SPEAKER: That is the question. . . . 
The yeas and nays were refused.
So the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole was agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Cannon of Missouri a motion to reconsider was laid on 
the table.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the remainder of the recommendation of 
the Committee of the Whole that the House disagree to the Senate 
amendments numbered from 2 to 33, inclusive, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
The recommendation was agreed to and a motion to reconsider was laid 
on the table.
-Voting on Recommendation of Committee of the Whole in the House

Sec.    5.51 The recommendation of the Committee of the Whole that the 
House concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment may not be divided 
for a vote in the House.
On July 12, 1945,(19) the Committee of the Whole, having considered 
H.R. 3368, war agency appropriations for fiscal 1946, with Senate 
amendments thereto, recommended that the House concur in Senate 
amendment No. 1 with an amendment.

THE SPEAKER:(20) The question is on agreeing to the recommendation.
MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. RANKIN: As I understand it, this entire amendment, beginning on 
line 9, page 1, and ending on line 14, page 3, as amended, is a Senate
amendment. It is brought in here as a Senate amendment. Now the 
question is on adopting that Senate amendment, the entire amendment; 
not adopting the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri to 
the amendment, but on adopting the entire FEPC amendment?
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion agreed to in Committee of 
the Whole. That is, to agree to the Senate amendment with an amendment. 
There is no division of the question, if that is what the gentleman is 
asking.
MR. RANKIN: Then we have a right to vote on whether or not we will 
adopt the Senate amendment as amended.
THE SPEAKER: There is just one question before the House. That is, to 
concur in the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole.
MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on this entire Senate
amendment. The rules of the House provide that when an amendment is 
brought in, even though it is amended in Committee of the Whole, when we 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     91 CONG. REC. 7494, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
20.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 115]]

get back to the House we do not vote on amendments to the amendment 
but we vote on the amendment as amended.
THE SPEAKER: We vote on the recommendation which the Committee of the 
Whole made to the House. That is all there is before the House at this 
time.
-If House Rejects Committee of the Whole Recommendation


Sec.    5.52 If the House disagrees to the recommendation of the 
Committee of the Whole that the House concur in a Senate amendment with 
an amendment, such Senate amendment is before the House for 
consideration.
On July 12, 1945,(1) the Committee of the Whole recommended that the 
House concur with an amendment to a Senate amendment to H.R. 3368, war 
agency appropriations for fiscal 1946. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
recognized Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, to pose a
parliamentary inquiry:

If we do not adopt the amendment which was just adopted in Committee 
of the Whole, we will then take the Senate amendment as it 
stands? . . .
THE SPEAKER: The Senate amendment itself will be in order for 
consideration.
-Senate Amendments Sent to Conference Do Not Thereaf-ter Require 
Consideration in Committee of the Whole


Sec.    5.53 Amendments between the Houses that have been sent to 
conference do not require consideration in the Committee of the Whole 
in the event the conference report is ruled out of order.
On Aug. 19, 1937,(2) the conference report on H.R. 7646, relating to 
flood walls and drainage structures in the Ohio River Basin, was ruled 
out on a point of order. Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, was 
recognized by Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, to raise a point 
of order:

When a conference report has been thrown out on a point of order is it 
not the same as if it had been rejected by the House?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New York makes a parliamentary inquiry 
as to whether, when a point of order to a conference report is 
sustained ipso facto, the Senate amendments come before the House for 
fur-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     91 CONG. REC. 7494, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     81 CONG. REC. 9376-79, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 116]]

ther consideration. Is that the parliamentary inquiry?
MR. SNELL: Yes.
THE SPEAKER: In reply to the gentleman the Chair calls the gentleman's
attention to section 3257, volume 8, Cannon's Precedents:

When a conference report is ruled out of order, the bill and amendments 
are again before the House as when first presented, and motions 
relating to amendments and conference are again in order.

MR. SNELL: When this first came back from the Senate there was an 
important matter that should have gone before the committee for 
consideration because it entailed expenditure of large amounts of 
money, and is it a privileged motion to move to consider that in the 
House at the present time?
THE SPEAKER: It is in the opinion of the Chair, because by sending the 
bill and Senate amendments to conference, the provisions of the rules
requiring consideration in Committee of the Whole were waived.
Consideration of Senate Amendments in the House


Sec.    5.54 The House may adopt a resolution taking a House bill with 
Senate amendments thereto from the Speaker's table and making it in 
order to consider the amendments in the House, rather than in Committee 
of the Whole, as required by Rule XX clause 1.
On July 2, 1960,(3) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, reported House
Resolution 596:

Mr. Bolling, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
privileged resolution (H. Res. 596-Rept. No. 2085), which was referred 
to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, the 
bill H.R. 12740 making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1961, and for other purposes, with the Senate 
amendments thereto, shall be taken from the Speaker's table and the 
Senate amendments considered in the House.

MR. BOLLING: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 596 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, the 
bill H.R. 12740 making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1961, and for other purposes, with the Senate 
amendments thereto, shall be taken from the Speaker's table and the 
Senate amendments considered in the House.

THE SPEAKER:(4) The question is, Will the House now consider the 
resolution?
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the yeas had it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     106 CONG. REC. 15775, 15785, 15786, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 117]]

MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, does not consideration require unanimous 
consent?
THE SPEAKER: It requires a two-thirds vote.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
THE SPEAKER: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will notify 
absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 291, nays 79, not voting 
62. . . .
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the House agreed to 
consider the resolution.(5) 

Debate then occurred on the resolution, it was agreed to, and the 
Senate amendments were considered.


Sec.    5.55 House bills with Senate amendments which do not require
consideration in the Committee of the Whole may at once be disposed of 
as the House may determine and are privileged matters on the Speaker's table.
On Feb. 1, 1937,(6) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, recognized 
Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York:

Mr. Speaker, I call up House Joint Resolution 81, to create a Joint
Congressional Committee on Government Organization, with a Senate 
amendment, for immediate consideration as a privileged resolution. . . .
MR. [BERTRAND H.] SNELL [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. SNELL: I understood the gentleman called this up as a privileged 
matter. On what ground is this a privileged matter?
THE SPEAKER: In reply to the inquiry of the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Snell], under paragraph 2 of rule XXIV of the House Manual it is stated: . . .

But House bills with Senate amendments which do not require 
consideration in a Committee of the Whole may be at once disposed of 
as the House may determine, as may also Senate bills substantially the 
same as House bills.

MR. SNELL: I appreciate that, and I have no objection to the 
consideration of this matter, but I wonder if it was a matter that 
could be taken up without 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     Parliamentarian's Note: A two-thirds vote was required to 
consider this resolution from the Committee on Rules on the same day on 
which it was reported to the House. Only a majority vote was required 
for its adoption.
 6.     81 CONG. REC. 644, 645, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 118]]

being referred back to the committee for consideration.
THE SPEAKER: Under the rule which the Chair has just read, the Chair 
is clearly of the opinion that it may be brought up in this manner.(7) 
Debate in House


Sec.    5.56 Senate amendments con-sidered in the House are debatable 
under the hour rule.
On Feb. 1, 1937,(8) Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, had called up, 
and the House was considering, House Joint Resolution 81, to create a 
Joint Committee on Government Organization, with  a Senate amendment 
thereto. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, recognized Mr. John 
E. Rankin, of Mississippi:

If this matter is debatable, I want to be heard in opposition.
MR. O'CONNOR of New York: How much time does the gentleman desire?
MR. RANKIN: How much time has the gentleman at his disposal?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Connor] is entitled to 
1 hour, and he may yield such part as he desires.(9) 
Amendments Considered in Their Entirety


Sec.    5.57 Senate amendments are considered in their entirety and it 
is not in order to consider separate items contained therein.
On May 20, 1936,(10) the House was considering the Senate amendments to 
the Interior Department appropriations bill for 1937 which had been 
reported back from conference in disagreement. After the Clerk read one
amendment which contained seven separate projects, Mr. Fred Cummings, 
of Colorado, raised a parliamentary inquiry:

Will a motion be in order to consider these items separately?
THE SPEAKER:(11) No; there is only one Senate amendment.
-Unless Special Rule Permits Division


Sec.    5.58 Although House rules preclude dividing a Senate amendment 
which strikes House text and inserts new language, such a division can 
be made in order by a special order reported from the 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     See also 106 CONG. REC. 18357, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 30, 1960.
 8.     81 CONG. REC. 645, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9.     See also 106 CONG. REC. 18357, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 30, 1960.
10.     80 CONG. REC. 7623, 7624, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 119]]

Committee on Rules and adopted by the House.
When the Senate considered for amendment H.R. 9209, the Emergency 
Unemployment Compensation Act Amendments of 1993, it struck out all 
after the enacting clause of the House bill and added a new text, 
consisting of seven sections. The House wished to address section 7 of 
the Senate amendment, which dealt with congressional pay, by a separate 
vote. The following special order was reported from the Committee on 
Rules, debated and agreed to on Mar. 4, 1993.(12) The rule, pertinent 
debate, and the procedure in the House are carried here. 
EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION AMENDMENTS OF 1993
Mr. Moakley, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report 
(Rept. No. 103-26) on the resolution (H. Res. 115) providing for the
consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 920) to extend 
the emergency unemployment compensation program, and for other purposes, 
which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:
H. RES. 115
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
to consider in the House, any rule of the House to the contrary
notwithstanding, a motion to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
(H.R. 920) to extend the emergency unemployment compensation program, 
and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to 
concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment shall be 
considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final
adoption without intervening motion. The motion shall be divided for a
separate vote on concurring in section 7 of the Senate amendment, any 
rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding.

MR. [JOHN JOSEPH] MOAKLEY [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 115 and ask for 
its immediate consideration. 
The Clerk read the resolution. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(13) The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. MOAKLEY: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. . . . 
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate. The rule also automatically
divides the question, allowing a separate vote on the last section of 
the bill, elimination of cost of living adjustment for Members of 
Congress in 1994. Mr. Speaker, the division is in order any 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     139 CONG. REC. 4157-59, 4163, 4164, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
13.     Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 120]]

rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . . . 
MR. [ROBERT T.] MATSUI [of California]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House
Resolution 115, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
(H.R. 920) "An act to extend the emergency unemployment compensation 
program, and for other purposes," with the Senate amendment thereto, 
and to concur in the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under the rule, the Senate amendment is 
considered as read.
The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the 
"Emergency Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993".
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM.
(a) GENERAL RULE.-Sections 102 (f)(1) and 106(a)(2) of the Emergency
Unemployment Compensation Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-164, as amended) 
are each amended by striking "March 6, 1993" and inserting "October 2, 
1993". . . . 
SEC. 7. ELIMINATION OF COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS IN 1994.
(a) COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT.-Notwithstanding section 601(a)(2) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31(2)), the cost of 
living adjustment (relating to pay for Members of Congress) which would 
become effective under such provision of law during calendar year 1994 
shall not take effect.
(b) SEVERABILITY.-If any provision of this Act, or an amendment made 
by this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or
circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this Act, or an
amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision to 
other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under the rule, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Matsui] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui]. . . .
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: All time has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 115, the previous question is ordered on 
the motion, and pursuant to House Resolution 115, the question on 
concurring in the Senate amendment will be divided.
The first question before the House is on concurring in sections 1 
through 6 of the Senate amendment. . . . 
So sections 1 through 6 of the Senate amendment to H.R. 920 were 
concurred in. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will advise the Members that the 
question, having been divided, now before the House is on concurring in
section 7 of the Senate amendment . . . . 


[[Page 121]]

The question, therefore, is on concurring in section 7 of the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 920. . . . 
So section 7 of the Senate amendment to H.R. 920 was concurred in.
Who May Call Up

Sec.    5.59 House bills with Senate amendments which do not require
consideration in a Committee of the Whole may be called up for 
consideration by a Member authorized by the committee reporting the 
bill to take such action.
On Aug. 24, 1935,(14) the following occurred on the floor of the House:

MR. [VIRGIL M.] CHAPMAN [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce I call up from the 
Speaker's table the bill, H.R. 9070, the omnibus bridge bill, with 
Senate amendments thereto.
THE SPEAKER:(15) The gentleman from Kentucky, by direction of the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, calls up a bill with 
Senate amendments thereto.
The Clerk reported the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the Senate amendments. . . .
MR. [WILLIAM D.] MCFARLANE [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, under what right 
is this bill called up?
THE SPEAKER: Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, which authorizes any member 
of a committee, when directed by the committee, to call up House bills 
with Senate amendments, on the Speaker's desk.
MR. MCFARLANE: Mr. Speaker, I raise the point that the committee has 
not had a meeting since the bill was passed.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair cannot go behind the statement of the gentleman 
from Kentucky.
MR. MCFARLANE: Then, I ask the gentleman from Kentucky whether the 
committee has met and considered this bill?
MR. CHAPMAN: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kentucky will reply by 
repeating what he said in the beginning, that by the direction of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce I call this bill from the
Speaker's table.
THE SPEAKER: Clause 2 of rule XXIV provides:

House bills with Senate amendments which do not require consideration 
in a Committee of the Whole may be at once disposed of as the House may
determine, as may also Senate bills substantially the same as House 
bills already favorably reported by a committee of the House, and not 
required to be considered in Committee of the Whole [be disposed of in
the same manner on motion directed to be made by such committee].

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     79 CONG. REC. 14645, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
15.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 122]]

Motion To Disagree in House To Permit Reconsideration in Senate


Sec.    5.60 A Senate amendment was disagreed to by the House for the 
purpose of permitting the Senate to reconsider its action in amending 
a House bill.
On Feb. 1, 1937,(16) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, proposed an 
amendment to a Senate amendment to House Joint Resolution 81, creating 
a Joint Committee on Government Organization. Speaker William B. 
Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled out Mr. Rankin's amendment on the ground 
that it would have amended the text of the joint resolution, not the 
Senate amendment thereto. Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, then raised a
parliamentary inquiry:

If it is not in order to offer an amendment such as the gentleman from
Mississippi proposes, if the Senate amendment were rejected and sent 
back to the Senate the purpose of the amendment could be accomplished.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state to the gentleman that on the premise
laid by him if the Senate amendment were voted down the Senate could
reconsider its action and increase the number of the House committee.
MR. JONES: If it were sent back to the Senate would not it go as an 
original proposition so they could recede from their amendment and take 
up the bill as an original measure and put in nine Members of the House?
THE SPEAKER: The Senate could reconsider its action. . . .
MR. [JOHN J.] O'CONNOR of New York: I think I can solve this by 
proceeding in accordance with my heart.
I will withdraw my motion to concur in the Senate amendment and move 
to disagree to the Senate amendment. . . .
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Connor] withdraws his 
motion to agree to the Senate amendment and now moves to disagree to 
the Senate amendment.
The question is on the motion of the gentleman from New York.
The motion was agreed to.
Considering Senate Amendment to House Joint Resolution Amending 
Constitution

Sec.    5.61 Senate amendments to a House joint resolution proposing a
constitutional amendment are considered in the House.
On Mar. 21, 1947,(17) Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, called up 
House Joint Resolution 27, with the Senate amendments thereto. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     81 CONG. REC. 646-48, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     93 CONG. REC. 2389, 2392, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 123]]

Since the matter did not require consideration in the Committee of the Whole, 
the matter could be disposed of by motion under Rule XXIV clause 2:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Speaker to lay before the House for immediate
consideration House Joint Resolution 27, a joint resolution proposing 
an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the 
terms of office of the President, with Senate amendments. 
THE SPEAKER:(18) The Clerk will report the title of the joint 
resolution and the Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:

Page 1, line 9, strike out all after "SECTION 1." over to and including
"term." in line 4, page 2, and insert "No person shall be elected to 
the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held 
the office of President, or acted as President, for more than 2 years 
of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be 
elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article 
shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this
article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person 
who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, 
during the term within which this article becomes operative from 
holding the office of President or acting as President during the 
remainder of such term."
MR. MICHENER: Mr. Speaker, this bill with the Senate amendment was 
returned to the House on March 13. It was taken informally before the 
full Committee on the Judiciary, and I am instructed by that committee 
to call the resolution up at this time for the purpose of agreeing to 
the Senate amendment. I have followed precedent and cleared through 
the majority leader and the minority leader.
I therefore move that the House concur in the Senate amendment.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Michener moves that the House concur in the Senate amendment.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 1 
hour. . . . 
MR. MICHENER: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The question was taken; and on a ivision (demanded by Mr. Thomason) 
there were-ayes 81, noes 29.
MR. [AIME J.] FORAND [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the 
vote on the ground a quorum is not present and make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will count.
MR. FORAND: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the point of order.
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the Senate amendments 
were concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 124]]

Senate Amendment to Concurrent Resolution for Adjournment


Sec.    5.62  A  concurrent  resolution providing that the two Houses 
adjourn to a day certain is not operative until agreed to by both, and 
where the Senate amends the resolution changing the date, such 
amendment must be concurred in before the adjournment can take place.
On Mar. 30, 1944,(19) the following took place in the House:

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(20) The Chair lays before the House, House 
Concurrent Resolution No. 75, with a Senate amendment, which the Clerk 
will report.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment: On page 2, line 3, strike out "Thursday, March 30" 
and insert "Saturday, April 1."

Amend the title so as to read: "Concurrent resolution providing for the
adjournment of Congress from Saturday, April 1, 1944, to Wednesday, 
April 12, 1944."
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
MR. [CLARE E.] HOFFMAN [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, I make a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. HOFFMAN: What is the procedure?
MR. [ROBERT] RAMSPECK [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House 
concur in the Senate amendment.
MR. HOFFMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman propounding a parliamentary 
inquiry?
MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. HOFFMAN: What is the procedure on this resolution?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It is a privileged resolution, and the 
procedure would be for some Member - and the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Ramspeck] has done so - to make a motion that the House concur in 
the Senate amendment.
MR. HOFFMAN: And then a vote is taken on the motion?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is correct.
MR. HOFFMAN: Does that require a quorum?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Any action by the House requires a quorum if 
the one who takes such step raises that question.
MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. RANKIN: As I understand the situation, whether there is a quorum 
present or not, unless this amendment 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     90 CONG. REC. 3318, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 125]]

is agreed to the resolution does not become final until this amendment 
is disposed of. That is correct, is it not?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct.
Procedure Leading to Correction of Error in Senate Amendment

Sec.    5.63 A concurrent resolution may authorize the Secretary of the 
Senate to reengross the amendment of the Senate to a House bill and 
make a correction in such re-engrossment.
On June 27, 1951,(1) the following occurred on the floor of the House:

MR. [ALBERT] THOMAS [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
for the immediate consideration of the concurrent resolution 
(S. Con. Res. 35) ordering the reengrossment of the Senate amendment 
to H.R. 3880, the independent offices appropriation bill for 1952.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That 
the Secretary of the Senate be, and he is hereby, authorized and 
directed to reengross the amendments of the Senate to the bill 
(H.R. 3880) making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry
independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, corporations, 
agencies, and offices for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1952, and for 
other purposes; and to reengross Senate amendment numbered 79 so as to 
read as follows:
On page 35, line 23, strike out "$875,163,335" and insert "$873,105,770."

THE SPEAKER:(2) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
MR. [JOHN] PHILLIPS [of California]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, will the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thomas] please explain 
the reason for the request on the part of the other body?
MR. THOMAS: Mr. Speaker, this resolution authorizes reengrossment of 
amendment No. 79 of the independent offices appropriation bill. It all 
adds up to this: Apparently the other body has made a mistake in 
printing or engrossing this amendment. Amendment No. 79 deals with 
salaries and expenses for the Veterans' Administration. What happened 
was that they show a reduction in that appropriation of about 
$1,200,000 more than the figure actually agreed upon by the Senate.