[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 32. House-Senate Relations]
[A. INTRODUCTORY]
[Â§ 6. Amending Senate Amendments; Degree of Amendment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 125-145]
 
                House-Senate Relations
 
                  A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    6. -Amending Senate Amendments; Degree of Amendment

When amending a Senate amendment the House need not confine itself 
within the limits set 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     97 CONG. REC. 7254, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 126]]

by its bill and the Senate amendment,(3) but the 
House amendment must be germane to the Senate amendment and not merely 
to the provisions of the House bill.(4) 
A House bill with a Senate amendment is considered as the original text 
of a Senate proposal, according to Jefferson's Manual.(5) Therefore, 
an amendment of the House to a Senate amendment to  a House bill is an
amendment in the first degree which may be amended further by the 
Senate. However, a House amendment to this further Senate amendment 
would be in the third degree and therefore not in order.(6) 
The principle set forth in Jefferson's Manual(7) touching on the 
permissible degree of amendments between the Houses is as follows:
"A bill originating in one House is passed by the other with an 
amendment.
"The originating House agrees to their amendment with an amendment. 
The other may agree to  their amendment with an amendment, that being 
only in the second and not the third degree; for, as to the amending 
House, the first amendment with which they passed the bill is a part 
of its text. It is the only text they have agreed to. The amendment to 
that text by the originating House therefore is only in the first 
degree, and the amendment to that again by the amending House is only 
in the second degree, to wit, an amendment to an amendment and so 
admissible."
The proscription against extending the amendment process beyond the 
second degree may be waived in the House by a special rule, a motion 
under the suspension procedure, or unanimous consent.(8) 

Immediate Consideration of Senate Amendment to House Substitute for 
Senate Measure

Sec.    6.1 Senate amendments to a House amendment in the nature of a
substitute for a Senate bill which do not 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3189, cited at Sec. 6.12, infra. 
 4.     See Sec.Sec. 6.13-6.16, infra. 
 5.     House Rules and Manual, Jefferson's Manual Sec. 529 (1997). See 
Sec. 6.3, infra, especially the Parliamentarian's Note, for a discussion 
of the degree of amendments between the Houses and within a particular House.
 6.     See Sec.Sec. 6.4, 6.5, infra.
 7.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 529 (1997).
 8.     See Sec.Sec. 6.5-6.11, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 127]]

require consideration in a Committee of the Whole may be called up and 
be at once disposed of as the House may determine pursuant to Rule XXIV 
clause 2.(9) On Aug. 30, 1960,(10) Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, was 
recognized by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas:

Mr. Speaker, I call up from the Speaker's desk the bill (S. 1898) to 
amend the Communications Act of 1934 with respect to the procedure in
obtaining a license and for rehearings under such act, with Senate 
amendments thereto to the House amendments, and ask for its immediate
consideration.

After the Clerk read the Senate amendments, Mr. Harris offered the 
following motion:

Mr. Harris moves that the House concur in the Senate amendments to the 
House amendments. . . .
MR. [CHARLES A.] HALLECK [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. HALLECK: I would like to know what the request of the gentleman 
was, whether it was for the immediate consideration of the Senate 
amendments.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman called up from the Speaker's table a Senate 
bill with Senate amendments to the House amendments. . . . 
MR. HALLECK: I might say to the gentleman, as I understand under the
parliamentary situation, it is now a matter before the House to be 
acted upon one way or the other and that no objection could be made. 
I have learned since the gentleman called it up that the members on my 
side on the committee were consulted with reference to this procedure, 
and as I understand have no objection to it now.
Suspension of the Rules


Sec.    6.2 The House adopted a motion to suspend the rules and agree 
to a resolution which provided for taking a House bill with a Senate 
amendment from the Speaker's table and agreeing to the Senate amendment 
with a designated amendment.
On Oct. 14, 1972,(11) Mr. Harold T. Johnson, of California, was 
recognized to offer the following motion:

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution 
(H. Res. 1166) providing for concurring the Senate amendment to 
H.R. 16071, to amend the Public Works and Economic 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 882 (1997).
10.     106 CONG. REC. 18357, 18358, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     118 CONG. REC. 36477-83, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 128]]

Development Act of 1965, with an amendment.(12) 

After the motion was read and debated, Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
put the question thereon:

The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Johnson) that the House suspend the rules and pass House 
Resolution 1166. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 155, nays 64, not voting 
212. . . . 
So the resolution was agreed to.
Degree of Amendment


Sec.    6.3 Where a bill of one House is passed in the other House with 
an amendment,(13) the originating House may concur therein with an 
amendment, whereupon the second House may concur with still another 
amendment; but here the process stops, for a further amendment between 
the Houses would be in the third degree.
On June 17, 1959,(14) Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, called up the 
conference report in total disagreement on S. 1, to amend the Federal 
Airport Act. After the Clerk read the conference report, Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, directed the Clerk to read the amendment in 
disagreement.

The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment 
of the House of Representatives to the above-entitled bill and agree to 
the same with an amendment. . . . 

After the reading of the Senate amendment to the House amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to S. 1, the Speaker again recognized Mr. Harris.

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

Mr. Harris moves to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment
. . . . 

Parliamentarian's Note: After Mr. Harris offered his motion to 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     H. Res. 1166 provided for concurring in the Senate amendment with 
a lengthy amendment in the nature of a substitute. The proposed 
amendment was included in the text of H. Res. 1166.
13.     Jefferson's Manual states that when calculating the degree of 
amendments between the Houses, an amendment of one House resulting from 
its initial consideration of a bill of the other House is not 
considered an amendment, but is construed to be the original text of 
the amending House. House Rules and Manual Sec. 529 (1997).
14.     105 CONG. REC. 11108, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 129]]

concur with an amendment in the Senate amendment to the House amendment 
to the Senate bill, an issue arose concerning the possibility of 
introducing a substi- tute for Mr. Harris' motion. The Speaker 
indicated erroneously that such a substitute would be in the third 
degree, and hence not in order. The Speaker did indicate correctly, 
however, that the substitute would be in order if Mr. Harris' motion 
were defeated. Amendments between the Houses may not go beyond the 
second degree, nor may they do so internally within either House. 
However, an amendment pending in one House to the original text of the 
other House or to an amendment in the first degree of that other House, 
may itself be amended to the second degree. Contra, 5 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 6176 (Senate precedent).


Sec.    6.4 Where a Senate amendment to a House bill had been reported 
from conference in disagreement and  the Senate had amended a further 
House amendment thereto, motions in the House to agree or disagree to 
the Senate amendment to the House amendment are privileged in the 
House (the stage of disagreement having been reached on the initial 
Senate amendment); but in response to a parliamentary inquiry, the 
Chair implied that a motion to concur with a further amendment would 
be in the third degree and not in order.
On Oct. 18, 1973,(15) Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, offered the 
following motion:

Mr. Speaker, I move to take from the Speaker's desk the bill 
(H.R. 9639) to amend the National School Lunch and Child Nutrition 
Acts for the purpose of providing additional Federal financial 
assistance to the school lunch and school breakfast programs, with a 
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment No. 5 
thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment No. 5. . . . 
MR. [ALBERT H.] QUIE [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(16) The gentleman will state it.
MR. QUIE: Mr. Speaker, since the House has already adopted the 
conference report and since the other body added an amendment afterward 
when they adopted the conference report, is there anything we can do 
other than defeat the motion before us? Is there any way we can have a 
separate amendment to strike out?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     119 CONG. REC. 34699, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. 
16.     Carl Albert (Okla.). 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 130]]

THE SPEAKER: The House can either accept or reject the Senate 
amendment.
Third Degree by Special Order


Sec.    6.5 A special order can make in order the consideration of 
amendments in the third degree as a way of resolving differences on 
amendments in disagreement between the House and Senate.
The special order in this instance made it in order in the House to 
consider motions to concur in Senate amendments to House amendments to 
a Senate amendment in disagreement between the Houses, with further
amendments. In this situation,(17) the amendments in the third degree 
were spelled out in the report of the Committee on Rules, and the 
resolution provided for one hour of debate on each motion and ordered 
the previous question, without intervening motion, to prevent other
amendments.

MR. [BART] GORDON [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 260 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 260
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2493) making appropriations for
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1994, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments to the House
amendments to the Senate amendments numbered 29 and 164 thereto, and 
to consider: (1) a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment 
to the House amendment to the Senate amendment numbered 29 with the 
amendment printed in section 2 of this resolution; and (2) a motion 
that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment 
to the Senate amendment numbered 164 with the amendment printed in 
section 3 of this resolution. Each Senate amendment shall be considered 
as read. Each 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 each motion to final adoption without intervening motion.
SEC. 2. The House amendment to the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment numbered 29 is as follows: In the 
matter proposed to be added by the Senate amendment, insert after the 
word "operations" the following: ", except for marketing year 1993".  

After debate, the resolution was agreed to. The two motions permitted 
by the rule were debated and agreed to.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     See 139 CONG. REC. 23061, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 29, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 131]]

Third Degree Amendments Between the Houses


Sec.    6.6 Example of a special order providing that on its adoption, 
the House shall be considered to have receded from its disagreement to 
a third degree Senate amendment to a House amendment to a Senate 
amendment, and concurred in the final Sen-ate amendment with a new 
House amendment. 
In the 99th Congress,(18) the Committee on Rules reported several 
"hereby" resolutions, designed to accomplish a legislative objective 
by their adoption rather than making in order motions to accomplish 
the same result. 
The special order on this occasion(19) permitted the House to dispose 
of an amendment between the Houses by a further amendment in the third 
degree. 
Proceedings were as indicated below:

MR. [BUTLER] DERRICK [of South Carolina]: 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 House shall be
considered to have taken from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3128) 
to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 2 of the first 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1986 
(S. Con. Res. 32, Ninety-ninth Congress), with the Senate amendment to 
the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, to have receded 
from its disagreement to the Senate amendment, and to have concurred 
in the Senate amendment with an amendment printed in the Congressional 
Record of March 4, 1986, by Representative Gray of Pennsylvania.

THE SPEAKER:(20) The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
MR. DERRICK: Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes, for 
purposes of debate only, to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], 
and pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

After debate, the resolution was agreed to.
Since the special resolution was drafted as a "self-executing" motion, 
its adoption concluded the disposition of the amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     See 131 CONG. REC. 4347, 4361, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 5, 1985 
(H. Res. 92); 132 CONG. REC. 3783, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 6, 1986 
(H. Res. 390); 132 CONG. REC. 29608, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1986.
19.     132 CONG. REC. 3783, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 6, 1986.
20.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 132]]

Disposing of Amendments in Third Degree and Beyond


Sec.    6.7 A motion in the House to concur in a Senate amendment (even 
in the fourth degree) is privileged if offered by any Member, the stage 
of disagreement having been reached, but is subject to a motion to table.
On Mar. 18, 1986,(1) the House considered a series of motions dealing 
with the final amendment in disagreement on H.R. 3128, the deficit 
reduction amendments of 1985. 
The admonition in section 526 of Jefferson's Manual is not an absolute
prohibition against amendments between the Houses progressing beyond the
second degree. The rationale for the limit on amendments is that it 
provides a procedural signal that it is time to compromise. Once that
threshold has been passed, where the House has waived the rule to amend 
in the third degree and the Senate has done likewise, no point of order 
lies in the House against a privileged motion to agree to the Senate
amendment.
When the Speaker recognized Mrs. Lynn Martin, of Illinois, to offer the
initial motion to concur in the fourth degree Senate amendment, the
proceedings were as follows:
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Hallen, one of its clerks, announced 
that the Senate agrees to the amendment of the House to the amendment 
of the Senate to the amendment of the House to the amendment of the 
Senate to the bill (H.R. 3128) "An Act to make changes in spending and 
revenue provisions for purposes of deficit reduction and program 
improvement, consistent with the budget process," with an amendment
. . . .
DEFICIT REDUCTION AMENDMENTS OF 1985 
MRS. MARTIN of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(2) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mrs. Martin of Illinois moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill, 
H.R. 3128, with the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the 
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment 
thereto, and to concur in the Senate amendment.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the 
Senate amendment to the House 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     132 CONG. REC. 5195, 5205, 5206, 5210, 5216, 5217, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     William V. Alexander (Ark.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 133]]

amendment to the Senate amendment, as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the said amendment, 
insert:
In section 4016, insert "or seasonal suspension" after "adjustment in
frequency"; and insert "adjustment or" after "service unless such".
In subparagraph (F)(ii) of paragraph (10) of section 204(b) of the 
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as proposed to be 
amended by section 6021, strike out "from such nations". . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Martin] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Gray] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Martin]. . . . 
MR. [WILLIAM H.] GRAY [III] of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I would 
inquire of the gentlewoman from Illinois how many speakers the 
gentlewoman has remaining.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under the rules, the gentlewoman from Illinois 
[Mrs. Martin] is entitled to close the debate.
MRS. MARTIN of Illinois: I will be closing, Mr. Speaker. That will be 
the last speaker, Mr. Speaker. . . . 
Please vote to concur and not to table.
I yield back the balance of my time.
MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MR. GRAY OF PENNSYLVANIA
MR. GRAY of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Gray of Pennsylvania moves to table the motion to concur.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gray] to table the motion to concur 
offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Martin].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MRS. MARTIN of Illinois: 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 217, nays 
192, not voting 25. . . . 
Instance Where House Agreed to Amendment in Third Degree Between the 
Houses


Sec.    6.8 Instance where, by unan-imous consent, the House agreed to 
an amendment in the third degree to a Senate amendment.
In the 95th Congress, on Sept. 30, 1977,(3) the House by unanimous 
consent, took from the Speaker's table a House bill, with a Senate 
amendment to the House 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     123 CONG. REC. 31704, 31705, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 134]]

amendment to the Senate amendment and concurred therein with a further 
amendment. The request by the bill manager is shown below.
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR TERRITORIES OF THE UNITED STATES
MR. PHILLIP BURTON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 6550) to 
authorize certain appropriations for the territories of the United 
States, to amend certain acts relating thereto, and for other purposes, 
with a Senate amendment to  the House amendment to the Senate amendment 
No. 10 thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER:(4) The Clerk will report the Senate amendment to the House
amendment to the Senate amendment No. 10. . . . 
The Clerk will report the House amendment to the Senate amendment to 
the House amendment to Senate amendment No. 10.
The Clerk read the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the House
amendment to Senate amendment No. 10, as follows:

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

MR. DON H. CLAUSEN [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my 
reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Amendment in Third Degree Between Houses


Sec.    6.9 The stage of disagreement having been reached on a House 
amendment to a Senate amendment to a House proposition, the House, by 
motion, receded from its last amendment and, having receded, then 
concurred in the Senate amendment with a different amendment.
The proceedings of Oct. 12, 1977,(5) relating to Senate amendment 82, 
reported in disagreement from the conference on H.R. 7555, the Labor 
and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill for fiscal 1978, 
show one method which has been used on rare occasions when the House 
was faced with a problem of an amendment in the third degree. The
Parliamentarian's note which follows the Record proceedings provides 
some historical insight into this rarely used practice.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
 5.     123 CONG. REC. 33445, 33447, 33448, 33454, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 135]]

MR. [DANIEL J.] FLOOD [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on Senate amendment No. 82 to H.R. 7555 making
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and
Welfare, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1978, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
August 2, 1977.)
After the conference report was agreed to, the remaining Senate 
amendment in disagreement was reported:

THE SPEAKER:(6) The Clerk will report the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
House amendment to Senate amendment No. 82: Insert the following:
SEC. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be 
endangered if the fetus were carried to term.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FLOOD
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Motion offered by Mr. Flood: Mr. Flood moves that the House recede from 
its amendment to the amendment of the Senate numbered 82.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) will be recognized for 30 minutes 
each.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
MR. FLOOD: . . . The House conferees suggested new language to 
accommodate the view of the Senate, especially the many Senators who 
were concerned over rape and incest, but again this proposal was 
rejected.
At this point it became very apparent that nothing could be 
accomplished by further conference and the conferees decided to report 
that they could not agree.
Mr. Speaker, if the motion I just offered is agreed to, I shall then 
offer the following language:
SEC. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be 
endangered if the fetus were carried to term. This section does not 
prohibit payment for medical procedures, 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.

We hope the Senate will accept this language today and clear this bill 
for the President. I would urge the Members to vote for the pending 
motion and to vote for the motion which I shall offer if the pending 
motion is agreed to. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).

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


[[Page 136]]

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Bauman) 
there were-yeas 80, nays 62.
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: 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 209, nays 
206, not voting 19 . . .
So the motion [to recede] was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FLOOD
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Flood moves that the House concur in the amendment of the Senate 
numbered 82 with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter 
stricken and inserted by said amendment, insert the following:
SEC. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be 
endangered if the fetus were carried to term. This section does not 
prohibit payment for medical procedures, performed before the fact of
pregnancy is established, necessary for the prompt treatment of the 
victims of forced rape or incest reported to a law enforcement agency. 
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 SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) are recognized for 30 minutes 
each.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood)
. . . . 
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(7) The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MS. [ELIZABETH] HOLTZMAN [of New York]: 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 263, nays 
142, answered "present" 1, not voting 28.

Parliamentarian's Note: Section 526 of Jefferson's Manual, states as a
principle of parliamentary law that the House may not recede from or 
insist on its own amendment with a further amendment. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     John Brademas (Ind.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 137]]

The precedents cited there (5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6216-6218) 
all involved situations where the Speaker ruled that the House could not, 
in a single motion, recede from its amendment with an amendment. 
The more recent practice in the House has been to permit the 
two-step approach suggested in 8 Cannon's Precedents 
Sec. 3199, on the theory that a motion to recede from a House amendment 
and concur in the Senate amendment was divisible, and that if the 
question were   divided and the House receded from its amendment, the 
Senate amendment was not thereby agreed to but that a further motion 
to concur with an amendment could be offered.

Senate Action When Faced With Amending in Third Degree

Sec.    6.10 Instance where the Senate, faced with a situation where 
any further amendment between the Houses on an amendment in disagreement 
would be in the third degree, adopted a unanimous consent agreement to 
permit it to recede from its last amendment and, if that motion were 
agreed to, to concur with a new amendment.
On Nov. 29, 1977,(8) a unanimous-consent request relating to an 
amendment in the third degree was made in the Senate, as indicated 
below:

MR. ROBERT C. BYRD [of West Virginia]: Mr. President, I ask the Chair 
to lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives 
on H.R. 7555.
The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message from 
the House of Representatives:

Resolved, That the House disagree to the amendment of the Senate to the
amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate numbered 82 to 
the bill (H.R. 7555) entitled "An Act making appropriations for the
Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare, and related
agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, and for other
purposes."

MR. ROBERT C. BYRD: Mr. President, anent the unanimous-consent 
agreement that was entered into a moment ago with respect to the 
message from the House of Representatives on H.R. 7555, I ask unanimous
consent that at 3:55 p.m. today the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina be allowed to make a motion to recede with respect to the 
Senate amendment to the House amendment, which motion shall be decided 
without debate, and if that motion is agreed to Mr. Brooke will then 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     123 CONG. REC. 37981, 37982, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 138]]

be allowed to move to concur in the House amendment with an amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

In 1977, the bill H.R. 7555, making appropriations for the Departments 
of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare never did become law. The 
dispute between the House and Senate over Senate amendment 82, dealing 
with the restriction of funds for abortions, could not be resolved and
remained in disagreement at sine die adjournment.
Amendment Between Houses in Third Degree 


Sec.    6.11 On occasion, by unanimous consent, the House progresses 
to a third degree amendment-in this instance by amending a Senate 
amendment to a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House bill.
The proceedings excerpted from the Record of Dec. 19, 1979,(9) and 
carried here are self-explanatory but illustrate the type of request 
that is sometimes entertained to expedite consideration of a measure 
and avoid the time delays involved in the various steps required to 
proceed through a conference.

MR. [FERNAND J.] ST GERMAIN [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 4998) 
to amend the Federal Reserve Act to require that detailed minutes of 
Federal Open Market Committee meetings shall be published on a deferred 
basis, with a Senate amendment to House amendments to Senate amendments, 
and concur in the Senate amendment to House amendments to Senate 
amendments with an amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The Clerk will report the Senate amendment 
to House amendments to Senate amendments and the proposed House 
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House engrossed 
amendment to the Senate amendment to the text of the bill, insert: . . .
[The Senate amendment was reported.]

The House amendment to the Senate amendment in the second degree was as
follows:

SEC. 106. The President shall convene an interagency task force 
consisting of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Housing 
and Urban Development, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the Board of

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     125 CONG. REC. 36903, 36906, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     Joseph G. Minish (N.J.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 139]]

Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Board of Directors of the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Comptroller of the Currency, 
and the National Credit Union Administration Board. . . .

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Rhode Island?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Scope of Amendment


Sec.    6.12 In amending a Senate amendment to an appropriation bill, 
reported from conference in disagreement, the House is not confined 
within the limits of amount set by the original bill and the Senate 
amendment.
On May 15, 1940,(11) the House was considering the amendments in 
disagreement to H.R. 8202, the agriculture appropriation bill. Mr. 
Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, offered a motion to recede and concur 
with an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Cannon of Missouri moves that the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 110 and agree to the 
same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum of $40,000,000 
named in said amendment insert "$100,000,000."

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order 
that this amount exceeds the amount carried in the Senate amendment 
and is not in order at this time.
MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, the only requirement is that it 
be germane, and this is certainly germane to the Senate amendment to 
which it is offered. The gentleman's point of order is not well taken.
THE SPEAKER:(12) The point of order raised by the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Taber] has heretofore been very thoroughly passed upon. The 
Chair cites section 3189, of Cannon's Precedents, volume 8:

In amending a Senate amendment the House is not confined within the 
limits of amount set by the original bill and the Senate amendment.

The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.
Amendment to Senate Amendment Must Be Germane


Sec.    6.13 A motion to recede from disagreement to a Senate amendment 
and to concur therein with a further amendment must be germane to the 
Senate amendment; and the proper rule to cite in expressing a point of 
order that the test has not been met is Rule XVI clause 7, and 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     86 CONG. REC. 6184, 6185, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. 
12.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.). 
        
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 140]]

not the more complicated mechanism of Rule XXVIII clause 5.
On June 30, 1987,(13) during consideration of the supplemental 
appropriation bill for fiscal year 1987, Mr. Bill Frenzel, of 
Minnesota, raised a point of order against the motion offered by 
Chairman Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi, to recede and concur with 
an amendment in one of the Senate amendments reported from conference 
in disagreement. 
The proceedings were as shown:

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(14) The Clerk will designate the next 
amendment in disagreement.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment No. 5: Page 3, after line 7, insert:
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds 
appropriated for fiscal year 1987 shall be used for the purpose of 
granting any patent for vertebrate or invertebrate animals, modified, 
altered, or in any way changed through engineering technology, 
including genetic engineering.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. WHITTEN
MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will designate the motion.
The text of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 5 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed by said 
amendment, insert the following:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Not to exceed $14,100,000 appropriated and available for obligation 
and expenditure under section 108(a)(1) of Public Law 99-190, as 
amended, shall remain available for obligation through September 30, 
1988: Provided, That the Economic Development Administration shall 
close out the audits concerning grants to New York, New York pursuant 
to title I of the Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment 
Act of 1976, not later than August 1, 1987.
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES
None of the funds appropriated by this or any prior Act to the Patent 
and Trademark Office shall be used to purchase the mass storage 
requirement (PTO-10) portion of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Automation Project.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. FRENZEL: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against Senate 
amendment No. 5.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     133 CONG. REC. 18294, 18295, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
14.     Daniel R. Glickman (Kans.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 141]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. FRENZEL: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against [the proposed 
House amendment to] amendment No. 5 reported in disagreement of the
supplemental appropriation conference report on page 13 of the report, 
and on page 3 lines 19 through 23 of the printed bill now before us 
which relates to procurement by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
automation project pursuant to rule XXVIII, clause 5(a)(1). This rule 
relates to nongermane matter in amendments in disagreement.
As I interpret it, the rule states that any matter introduced as a new 
issue in a conference committee which would have been otherwise ruled 
out of order if it came before the House, would likewise be made 
eligible for a point of order as reported in amendments in disagreement 
from the conference committee should there be a motion from the House 
to recede from its disagreement with the Senate. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Frenzel] is 
raising a point of order against the motion, is that correct as being 
not germane to the Senate amendment under rule XVI, clause 7?
MR. FRENZEL: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does anybody else desire to be heard on the 
point of order?
MR. [NEAL] SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] concedes 
the point of order and the point of order is sustained against the 
motion.
Proper Time To Raise a Point of Order That Senate Amendment Is Not 
Germane


Sec.    6.14 Pending a unanimous-consent request to concur with an 
amendment in a Senate amendment, no point of  order  lies  against  
the Senate amendment on the ground it is not germane.
In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker Pro Tempore(15) 
explained the alternatives available to a Member where a 
unanimous-consent request was pending to take H.R. 5398, the Emergency
Homeowners' Relief Act, to which the Senate had appended an amendment 
that was not germane, from the table and concur with a further 
amendment.(16) 

MR. [HENRY S.] REUSS [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5398) to 
authorize temporary assistance to help defray mortgage payments on 
homes owned by persons who are temporarily unemployed or underemployed 
as the result of adverse economic conditions, with a Senate amendment 
thereto, as printed in the Congressional Record dated June 25, 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     John J. McFall (Calif.).
16.     121 CONG. REC. 20977, 20979, 20980, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., June 26, 1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 142]]

1975, at pages 20794-97, and concur in the Senate amendment with amendments.
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 the following:
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. That this Act may be cited as the "Emergency Housing Act of 
1975". . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the House amendment to 
the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the House amendment to the Senate amendment, as follows:

Section 203, strike the whole section and renumber accordingly.
Section 205, strike the whole section and renumber accordingly.
Section 303, insert a new section 303.
SEC. 303. Section 202(b) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 
is amended by inserting before the period at the end thereof a comma 
and the following: "except that the prohibition contained in this 
sentence shall not apply to any loan made prior to January 1, 1976, to 
finance the acquisition of a previously occupied residential dwelling".

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Reuss)? . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Chair whether or not 
there is any way an individual Member can attack the nongermaneness of 
that particular amendment, or is it includ-ed in the unanimous-consent
request, which would mean that one would have to object to the request 
in order to request a division on the nongermane provisions.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would advise the gentleman, in 
answer to his parliamentary inquiry, that it is all under one 
unanimous-consent request; it is all one package.
MR. BAUMAN: But the gentleman could withdraw from his request 
concerning that amendment, could he not?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If there was an objection, the gentleman then 
could ask unanimous consent for something else. That is correct.
Amendments to Senate Amend-ments to Appropriation Bills; Germaneness
Requirements

Sec.    6.15 Senate amendments pro-posing legislation on an 
appropriation bill may be amended by germane amend-ments.
On June 15, 1943,(17) the House was considering the amendments in 
disagreement to H.R. 1648, Treasury and Post Office appropriations for 
1944. A motion offered by Mr. Louis Ludlow, of 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     89 CONG. REC. 5899, 5900, 78th Cong. 1st Sess. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 143]]

Indiana, to recede and concur was divided on demand of Mr. John Taber, 
of New York, and the House voted to recede. Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of 
Wisconsin, then offered a preferential motion to concur with an amendment 
which included a provision prohibiting the use of funds for certain 
purposes after Jan.1, 1944. Mr. Emmet O'Neal, of Kentucky, then raised 
a point of order:

Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the amendment is not 
germane to the paragraph under discussion. It goes beyond the matters
considered in the paragraph.
MR. LUDLOW: I supplement that with the suggestion, Mr. Speaker, also 
that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
THE SPEAKER:(18) But the Senate amendment is legislation on an 
appropriation bill, or the matter would not be here. The only 
difference that the Chair can see is that there is a further 
proviso-a difference in the date.
MR. O'NEAL: Which is beyond the scope of the paragraph and, therefore, 
is not germane. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair has great respect for the opinion of the 
gentleman from Kentucky upon this and all other matters, but he cannot 
agree with the point that the gentleman makes. The only difference that 
the Chair can see between the motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
and what was in the House bill and is now in the bill as it comes from 
the Senate is fixing the dates January 1, 1944, and June 30, 1944. The 
Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.


Sec.    6.16 Where a Senate amendment on a general appropriation bill 
proposes an expenditure not authorized by law, it is in order in the 
House to perfect such Senate amendment by germane amendments.
On Feb. 8, 1937,(19) the House was considering amendments in 
disagreement to H.R. 3587, a deficiency appropriation bill. A motion 
was offered by Mr. Clifton A. Woodrum, of Virginia, to recede and 
concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment. Mr. Henry Ellenbogen, 
of Pennsylvania, offered a preferential motion to recede and concur, 
and Mr. Woodrum demanded a division of that question. The motion to 
recede was agreed to, whereupon Mr. Woodrum moved to concur in the 
Senate amendment with an amendment. After the Clerk read Mr. Woodrum's 
motion, Mr. Ellenbogen rose with a point of order:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.). 
19.     81 CONG. REC. 975, 976, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 144]]

Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the motion of the gentleman 
from Virginia violates the rules of the House in that it is legislation 
on an appropriation bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(20) The Chair will state that the Senate 
amendment is legislation and the amendment to that amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Virginia is not out of order because it contains
legislation. The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.
MR. [THOMAS] O'MALLEY [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. O'MALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the amendment 
of the gentleman from Virginia is not germane, since it limits the 
Senate amendment by date.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will state that it deals with the 
same subject matter, and the mere limitation of the Senate amendment 
by date does not destroy its germaneness, and the Chair therefore 
overrules the point of order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     John J. O'Connor (N.Y.). 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 145]]

B. DISPOSING OF AMENDMENTS BETWEEN THE HOUSES; MOTIONS