[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 32. House-Senate Relations]
[B. DISPOSING OF AMENDMENTS BETWEEN THE HOUSES; MOTIONS]
[Â§ 7. In General; Precedence]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 145-184]
 
                House-Senate Relations
 
                  A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    7. In General; Precedence

When an amendment of one House is first considered in the other, that 
body has the opportunity to perfect the amendment by adopting a motion 
to concur (agree) with an amendment. At this stage, this motion has 
priority over a motion simply to concur.(1) However, when one House 
informs the other of its disagreement to an amendment of that House, 
the stage of disagreement is reached,(2) the precedence of these 
motions is reversed, and a motion which tends to bring the two Houses 
into agreement most promptly (to concur) is preferential.(3) 
When the stage of disagreement is reached on a particular amendment, 
that motion which tends most quickly to bring the Houses into agreement 
is preferential.  Thus, where Senate amendments are taken up in the 
House for the first time (before the stage of disagreement has been 
reached on those amendments), the motion to concur with an amendment 
takes precedence over the motion to concur; but where the stage of
disagreement between the two Houses has been reached, the precedence of 
the motions is reversed and the motion to recede and concur then takes
precedence of a motion to recede and concur with an amendment, since 
such a motion most promptly tends to bring the two Houses together. 
However, the motion to recede  and concur (with or without an 
amendment) is divisible on demand by any Member,(4) and upon such 
demand the House first votes on the question of receding. If the House 
votes to recede from its disagreement, a motion to concur with an 
amendment again takes precedence over a motion to concur.(5) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Sec. 7.1, infra. 
 2.     6 Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 756, 757. 
 3.     Sec.Sec. 7.1, 7.8, infra. 
 4.     Rule XVI clause 6, House Rules and Manual, Sec. 791 (1997). See
Sec.Sec. 10.10, 10.11, 11.6, 11.7, infra.
The propositions which are distinct and hence divisible are first to 
recede and second to concur (with or without amendment). The motion to 
concur with an amendment contains one proposition only, and is not 
divisible.  Sec. 11.9, infra.
 5.     Sec. 7.18, infra.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 146]]

Under the earlier practice, the Member(6) who offered a motion to 
dispose of an amendment in disagreement was recognized to control an 
hour of debate thereon, and he or she could allocate the time at his 
or her discretion.(7) The modern practice is to divide the time, as 
explained in Sec. 8, infra. If this motion is displaced by a 
preferential motion the proponent of the original motion still controls 
debate on the preferential motion(8) and on the original motion should 
the preferential motion fail.(9) 
One House may recede from its amendment to a bill of the other, and 
that bill is considered as passed.(10) However, when the House recedes 
from an amendment with which it had agreed to a Senate amendment, it 
does not thereby agree to the Senate amendment.(11) 
In the past, one House could recede from its own amendment  to a bill 
of the other after that other House had concurred in the amendment with 
an amendment,(12) but more recently it has been held that the bill is 
not passed until further action by the House which had concurred in 
the amendment with an amendment.(13) 
When the House recedes from its disagreement to a Senate amendment, 
such amendment is not thereby agreed to, as a motion to concur with an
amendment is still in order.(14) The House may not recede from its own
amendment with an amendment.(15) 
Although it has been held that a negative vote on a motion to recede 
from disagreement to a Senate amendment is tantamount to 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     Usually the chairman of the committee which considered the
legislation, or a Member designated by the chairman, is recognized to 
offer motions to dispose of amendments in disagreement. See Sec.Sec. 
8.22, 8.23, infra.
 7.     Sec. 8.5, infra.
 8.     Sec.Sec. 8.2, 8.9, 8.15, 8.18, infra.
 9.     See text accompanying Sec. 8.18, infra.
10.     Sec.Sec. 10.2, 10.3, infra. See also Jefferson's Manual, House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 524 (1997).
11.     8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3199.
12.     5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6226.
13.     Sec. 10.9, infra; and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3177.
14.     See Sec. 7.18, infra; and Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 525 (1997). 
15.     Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 526 (1997); and 
Sec. 7.24, infra. But see Sec. 10.5, infra, for special case. See also 5
Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 6216-6218.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 147]]

insisting on disagreement to that amendment(16) the weight of authority
holds that the defeat of a motion to recede or recede and concur is not
the equivalent of insisting on disagreement, since the House may also 
vote to adhere to its disagreement.(17) 
When both Houses insist and neither of them asks for a conference or 
recedes, the bill fails.(18) When both Houses adhere the bill fails.(19) 
A House may recede from adherence(20) or reconsider its adherence.(1) 

Stage of Disagreement as Affecting Precedence
Sec.    7.1 Where the House has receded from its disagreement to a 
Senate amendment and has then concurred therein with an amendment, it 
was held in the Senate  that a motion to concur in the House amendment 
with  a further amendment took precedence over a pending motion to 
concur.
On Dec. 30, 1970,(2) the Sen-   ate was considering House action on 
Senate amendments to H.R. 17867, foreign assistance appropriations for 
fiscal 1971.

MR. [GALE W.] MCGEE [of Wyoming]:  Mr. President, amendment No. 19 is 
the one that relates to foreign military credit sales. The House has 
concurred in a motion by the Chairman of the House managers to recede 
from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and to concur 
with an amendment to fix the sum, as the Senate did on foreign military 
credit sales, at $200 million.(3) . . . 
I would, therefore, move that the Senate concur in the amendment of the 
House to the amendment of the Senate amendment No. 19. . . . 
MR. [MICHAEL J.] MANSFIELD [of Montana]: . . . Mr. President, I move 
that the Senate concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment 
numbered 19, with an amendment as follows:

Provided, however, That none of these funds may be obligated or ex-

----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     Sec. 10.24, infra.
17.     Sec.Sec. 10.29, 12.5, 12.8, infra.
18.     5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6228.
19.     Id. at Sec.Sec. 6163, 6313, 6324, 6325.
20.     Id. at Sec.Sec. 6252, 6401.
 1.     Id. at Sec. 6253.
 2.     116 CONG. REC. 44116, 44117, 44123, 44124, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. 
 3.     This was a new amendment to Senate amendment No. 19, and was 
being considered for the first time in the Senate. Thus, the stage of
disagreement on this particular amendment to Senate amendment No. 19 
had not yet been reached. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 148]]

pended until an authorization shall have been enacted into law.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(4) The question is on the amendment. Would the 
Senator send the motion to the desk?
The motion will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

That the Senate concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment 
numbered 19, with an amendment as follows:
Provided, however, That none of these funds may be obligated or 
expended until an authorization shall have been enacted into law.

MR. MANSFIELD: Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
MR. MCGEE: Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator will state it.
MR. MCGEE: Mr. President, are we dealing with an amendment to the 
pending motion?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The motion of the Senator from Montana is that 
the Senate concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment with 
an amendment.
MR. MCGEE: Mr. President, what I am questioning in a parliamentary 
sense is the redundancy. Was not my motion the pending motion?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Montana has offered a motion to 
concur with an amendment. That takes precedence over a straight motion 
to concur.
MR. MCGEE: That still does not address itself to my question. My motion 
takes precedence as the primary motion. My motion is to concur in the
amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate numbered 19.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Should the amendment of the Senator from Montana 
fail, then we will return to the motion of the Senator from Wyoming. . . . 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(5) The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Montana (Mr. Mansfield) that the Senate concur in the 
House amendment to the Senate amendment No. 19, with an amendment.
On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
will call the roll. . . . 
The result was announced-yeas 60, nays 12. . . . 
So Mr. Mansfield's motion was agreed to.
Precedence of Senate Motions
Sec.    7.2 In the Senate, a motion to concur with an amendment in a 
House amendment to a Senate bill takes precedence over the privileged 
motion to disagree to the amendment and agree to the conference 
requested by the House. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.). 
 5.     Theodore F. Stevens (Alaska). 
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 149]]

The proceedings in the Senate on Feb. 1, 1977,(6) demonstrate the 
precedence of motions which are in order under the rules of the Senate 
before the Senate has reached the stage of disagreement and show that 
the motion to amend the House amendment is more privileged than the 
motion to disagree; but the motion to concur is itself subject to the 
motion to table.

The Chair laid before the Senate the following message from the House:

FEBRUARY 1, 1977.
Resolved, That the House insist upon its amendment to the bill (S. 474)
entitled "An Act to authorize the President of the United States to 
order emergency deliveries and transportation of natural gas to deal 
with existing or imminent shortages by providing assistance in meeting
requirements for high-priority uses; to provide authority for short-term
emergency purchases of natural gas; and for other purposes", and ask a
conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
thereon.
Ordered, That Mr. Staggers, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Eckhardt, Mr. Sharp, Mr. 
Moffett, Mr. Broyhill, and Mr. Brown of Ohio be the managers of the 
conference on the part of the House. . . .

MR. ROBERT C. BYRD [of West Virginia]: Mr. President, I move that the 
Senate disagree with the amendment by the House, agree with the request 
for a conference, and that the Chair appoint the conferees on the part 
of the Senate. . . . 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(7) The question is on the motion of the Senator 
from West Virginia to disagree with the amendment of the House and 
request a conference with the House. . . . 
MR. [EDWARD W.] BROOKE [of Massachusetts]: Mr. President, is an 
amendment now in order?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: A motion to concur in the House amendment with 
an amendment takes precedence over the pending motion. The answer is 
yes.
MR. BROOKE: All right. Then, Mr. President, I send to the desk an 
amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Brooke) proposes an unprinted 
amendment numbered 20 to the House amendment to the Senate bill. . . . 

MR. [ADLAI E.] STEVENSON [III, of Illinois]: . . . So, Mr. President, 
unless there is anything further to be said, I move to table the 
amendment.(8) 
MR. BROOKE: Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     123 CONG. REC. 2948, 2950, 2951, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7.     Dale Bumpers (Ark.).
 8.     It was the motion to concur with an amendment that was tabled, 
not just the amendment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 150]]

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll. . . . 
So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
MR. ROBERT C. BYRD: Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by 
which the motion was agreed to.
MR. STEVENSON: I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The question recurs on the motion of the Senator 
from West Virginia.
The motion was agreed to and the Chair appointed Mr. Stevenson, Mr. 
Hollings, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Pearson, and Mr. Stevens conferees on the 
part of the Senate.

Parliamentarian's Note: The stage of disagreement in either House is 
not reached until the House in possession of the papers has disagreed 
with the amendment of the other House (or has insisted on its own 
amendment to a bill of the other) and has notified the other body of 
that action. Before the stage of disagreement is reached, the only 
motion in the House is the one provided in Rule XX clause 1, which 
permits a motion to disagree to an amendment of the other House and 
ask or agree to a conference. This motion is in order if the Speaker 
in his discretion agrees to recognize for that purpose and if the 
committee of jurisdiction authorizes the motion to be made.
Privilege of Motions Resolving Disagreement
Sec.    7.3 Parliamentarian's Note: Once the stage of disagreement has 
been reached, motions in the House to resolve the matter in 
disagreement are privileged and do not require unanimous consent for 
their consideration.
The proceedings of Nov. 9, 1967,(9) demonstrate this principle.
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Michael J. 
Kirwan, of Ohio.

MR. KIRWAN: Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill (H.R. 11641), making
appropriations for certain civil functions administered by the 
Department of Defense, the Panama Canal, certain agencies of the 
Department of the Interior, the Atomic Energy Commission, the 
Atlantic-Pacific Interoceanic Canal Study Commission, the Delaware 
River Basin Commission, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River 
Basin, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Water Resources Council, 
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, and for other purposes; with 
Senate amend-

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     113 CONG. REC. 31878, 31880, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 151]]

ment No. 2 thereon, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment [to the House amendment to Senate
amendment number 2], as follows:

Strike out "$967,599,000" and insert "$968,474,000".

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

Mr. Kirwan moves that the House disagree to the amendment of the Senate 
to the House amendment to Senate amendment No. 2.

MR. [WILLIAM D.] HATHAWAY [of Maine]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Hathaway moves that the House concur in the amendment of the Senate 
to the House amendment to Senate amendment No. 2.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kirwan] is recognized for 1 
hour.
MR. KIRWAN: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Boland]. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the preferential motion 
offered by the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Hathaway].
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The question is on the preferential motion
offered by the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Hathaway] that the House 
concur in the amendment of the Senate to the House amendment to Senate
amendment No. 2.
Precedence of Motions To Dispose of Senate Amendments After the Stage 
of Disagreement Is Reached
Sec.    7.4 Where the stage of disagreement on a House bill with Senate
amendments has been reached and the Senate has then messaged to the 
House a new amendment to a House amendment to an earlier Senate 
amendment, a motion to concur in the new amendment is privileged and 
takes precedence over a motion to disagree and request a further 
conference. 

Once the stage of disagreement is reached on a House bill and the 
Senate amendments thereto, motions to dispose of further degrees of 
amendments on the bill, when before the House, remain privileged, and 
when a motion is made to dispose of such an amendment, the proponent of 
the motion is recognized for an hour. Rule XXVIII clause 2(b),(11) 
specifying the division of time between the two parties on "an 
amendment 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Charles M. Price (Ill.). 
11.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912b (1997). 
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 152]]

reported from conference in disagreement" is no longer applicable. An
illustration of this practice is shown by the following proceedings:(12) 

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 9861) making appropriations for the 
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, and 
the period beginning July 1, 1976, and ending September 30, 1976, and 
for other     purposes, together with the Senate amendment to the House
amendment to the Senate amendment No. 75 thereto, disagree to the 
Senate amendment to the House amendment to Senate amendment No. 75, and
request a conference with the Senate thereon.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment to Senate 
amendment No. 75 as follows:

Strike out "$205,600,000" and insert: "$205,600,000, none of which, nor 
any other funds appropriated in this Act may be used for any activities
involving Angola other than intelligence gathering, and which funds 
are".
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. GIAIMO
MR. [ROBERT N.] GIAIMO [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Addabbo) and myself, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Giaimo moves that the House concur with the Senate amendment to the 
House amendment to Senate amendment numbered 75.

THE SPEAKER:(13) The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) is recognized for 
1 hour. . . . 
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
preferential motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the preferential motion offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
MR. GIAIMO: 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 323, nays 
99, not voting 10. . . . 
So the preferential motion was agreed to.
Stage of Disagreement, Once Reached, Continues as Additional Amendments 
Are Considered

----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     122 CONG. REC. 1035, 1036, 1056, 1057, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., 
Jan. 27, 1976.
13.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 153]]

Sec.    7.5 A motion in the House to dispose of a further amendment of 
the Senate to a House amendment to a Senate amendment, the stage of
disagreement having been reached, is privileged. 
Where the House, pursuant to a rule, amended a Senate amendment to a 
House bill, then insisted on its amendment and requested a conference, 
the stage of disagreement was reached; and when the Senate ignored a 
request for a conference and sent the House a further amendment to the 
House amendment to the Senate amendment, the motion to concur in the 
House was deemed privileged and more preferential than a motion  to 
commit under Rule XVI clause 4.(14) 
Where the final stage of amendment is reached between the Houses, the 
motion which tends to bring the matter to closure most quickly is the 
most preferential. 
On Sept. 16, 1976,(15) when the House had before it the final Senate 
amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to a House 
bill, the options available to the House were limited. When the manager 
of the bill(16) moved to concur in the final Senate amendment, a series 
of inquiries and alternatives were broached, including a specific 
inquiry regarding the applicability of a motion to refer under Rule 
XVII(17) in the pending situation:

MR. RODINO: Mr. Speaker, I move to take from the Speaker's desk the 
bill (H.R. 8532) to amend the Clayton Act to permit State attorneys 
general to bring certain antitrust actions, and for other purposes, 
with a Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendments
thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to 
the Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the 
Senate amendments, as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House engrossed 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     For further discussion, see footnotes in Sec. 10.16, infra.
15.     122 CONG. REC. 30868, 30872, 30873, 30887, 30888, 94th Cong. 
2d Sess.
16.     Peter W. Rodino, Jr. (N.J.), Chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
17.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 804 (1997).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 154]]

amendment to the Senate engrossed amendments, insert;
That this Act may be cited as the "Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust 
Improvements Act of 1976". . . .

MR. RODINO (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that further reading of the Senate amendment be dispensed with.
THE SPEAKER:(18) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New Jersey?
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
MR. [ROBERT] MCCLORY [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have several 
parliamentary inquiries.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state them.
MR. MCCLORY: Mr. Speaker, is the motion of the gentleman from New 
Jersey privileged because the stage of disagreement has been reached?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct.
MR. MCCLORY: Mr. Speaker, my next parliamentary inquiry is, was the 
stage of disagreement reached when the House insisted on its amendment 
to the first Senate amendment and requested a conference thereon, even 
though the Senate had not previously or has not subsequently voted its
disagreement?
THE SPEAKER: That is correct.
MR. MCCLORY: Mr. Speaker, my third parliamentary inquiry is this: Is 
the House still in disagreement even though it has not acted upon the 
Senate amendment now before the House?
THE SPEAKER: The stage of disagreement is still in effect.
MR. MCCLORY: I thank the Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey? . . .
There was no objection. 
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Rodino moves that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the 
House amendment to the Senate amendments. . . .

MR. RODINO: Mr. Speaker, I allot myself such time as I may consume. . . . 
I move the previous question on the motion.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. MCCLORY: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. MCCLORY: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that rule XVII states 
that "It shall be an order-after the previous question shall have been 
ordered on its passage, for the Speaker to entertain and submit a 
motion to commit, with or without instructions, to a standing or select
committee," and in view of the fact that motions to commit are 
permitted when the stage of disagreement has been reached in the 
context of the consideration of conference reports, and in view of the 
fact that prior precedents indicate that a motion to commit is in order 
after the previous question has been ordered on a motion to concur in 
a Senate amendment (V, 5575), is it absolutely necessary to first vote 
down the previous question before I may be recognized to offer a motion 
to commit?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 155]]

THE SPEAKER: The answer to the specific question is "yes," but the 
precedent cited by the gentleman is not applicable in the present 
situation, since in this case the stage of disagreement has been 
reached and therefore the pending motion is most preferential as 
tending to resolve the differences between the House most quickly.
MR. MCCLORY: I thank the Chair. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on ordering the previous question.(19) 
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. MCCLORY: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 215, 
noes 177, not voting 38. . . . 
Sec.    7.6 When a conference report is ruled out of order the 
prerequisite stage of disagreement continues, the bill and amendments 
are again before the House, and motions relating to amendments and 
conference remain privileged.
On May 22, 1936,(20) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, sustained 
a point of order raised by Mr. James P. Buchanan, of Texas, against 
the conference report on H.R. 9496, a bill to pro- tect the United 
States against  loss suffered in postal delivery of checks for 
veterans' benefits.

THE SPEAKER: . . . The Clerk will report the first amendment in 
disagreement.
MR. [BERTRAND H.] SNELL [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. SNELL: Mr. Speaker, if the conference report is out of order, how 
can we consider it?
THE SPEAKER: The amendments are before the House and must be disposed 
of.
MR. SNELL: I suppose that the whole report went out.
THE SPEAKER: The report goes out, but that leaves the amendments 
before the House, and some action must be taken on them. It is for the 
House to say what action it will take. . . . 
MR. [CARL E.] MAPES [of Michigan] (interrupting the reading of the 
Senate amendment): Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     If the previous question on Mr. Rodino's motion had been voted
down, a motion to refer under Rule XVI clause 4 (House Rules and Manual
Sec. 782 (1997)) would have been in order. But a motion which would
further amend would not have been in order since it would have been in
the third degree.
20.     80 CONG. REC. 7790-92, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 156]]

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. MAPES: Mr. Speaker, supplementing what the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Snell] has said, an attempt was made to get this bill before the 
House by calling up the conference report and the conference report was 
held out of order. No further action to get the bill before the House 
has been taken. There has been no request to bring it up in any other 
way except through the conference report, and the Speaker, very 
properly I think, has ruled that the conference report is out of order.
THE SPEAKER: The conference report was called up by the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Mead]. The conference report has been held to be out of 
order, which leaves the Senate amendments before the House for 
consideration.  The House must take some action on them.
MR. MAPES: How do the amendments get before the House for 
consideration?
THE SPEAKER: They are called up by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Mead].
MR. MAPES: No attempt has been made by the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Mead], as I understand, to call them up.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair, in answer to the gentleman from Michigan, reads 
from section 3257 of 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.

The Chair thinks that completely answers the gentleman from Michigan.
MR. MAPES: That seems to cover the matter.
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.
Recognition Following Rejection of Conference Report
Sec.    7.7 Upon rejection of a conference report on a House bill with 
Senate amendments, the manager is entitled to priority in recognition 
to offer a motion to dispose of the amendments; and he may move to 
disagree with all the amendments and request a further conference, 
although this motion is not of the highest priority.
On Oct. 20, 1990,(1) the House ordered the previous question on, and 
then rejected, the conference report on H.R. 5311, the District  

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     136 CONG. REC. 31493, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 157]]

of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1991. Control of the floor did not 
shift in this situation, as shown by the proceedings carried here.

Mr. Frenzel and Mr. Fazio changed their vote from "no" to "aye."
So the conference report was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . . . 
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 5311, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1991
MR. [JULIAN C.] DIXON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move to insist on 
the disagreement to all Senate amendments to the bill, H.R. 5311, and 
request a further conference with the Senate thereon.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(2) The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].
The motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: With-out objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Dixon, Natcher, Stokes . . . and Conte.
There was no objection.

Parliamentarian's Note: Chairman Dixon could have been preempted by a 
more preferential motion. The stage of disagreement having been reached 
when the House initially disagreed to the Senate amendments and agreed 
to the conference, the following motions are privileged and have the
precedence indicated: (1) to recede and concur; (2) to recede and 
concur with amendment; (3) to insist on disagreement and request a 
further conference; (4) to insist on disagreement; and (5) to adhere. 
Precedence of Motions Bringing Houses Into Agreement
Sec.    7.8 The stage of disagree-ment having been reached, that motion 
that tends most quickly to bring the House into agreement is 
preferential.
On Dec. 10, 1963,(3) the House was considering the amendments in 
disagreement to H.R. 8747, appropriations for certain independent 
offices for fiscal 1964. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
directed the Clerk to read the next amendment in disagreement.

THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 92: Page 46, line 19, insert: "Provided further, 
That $1,722,000 shall be used for the sites and planning expenses 
involved in the construction of a Veterans' 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     William H. Gray III (Pa.).
 3.     109 CONG. REC. 23950, 23952, 23953, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 158]]

Administration hospital at Bay Pines, Florida.".

MR. [ALBERT] THOMAS [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Thomas moves that the House insist upon its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 92.

MR. [HAROLD C.] OSTERTAG [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Ostertag moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate numbered 92 and concur therein. . . . 

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the preferential motion offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Ostertag]. . . .  
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 171, nays 204, not voting 
59. . . . 
So the preferential motion was rejected. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Thomas].
The motion was agreed to.(4) 

Parliamentarian's Note: In the 103d Congress, a new paragraph was added 
to Rule XXVIII, clause 2, giving one motion to insist on disagreement 
to a Senate amendment preferential standing where the original motion 
offered by the floor manager proposes a change in existing law.(5) The 
new rule applies only to amendments in disagreement on a general 
appropriation bill.(6) 
Consequences of Dividing Motion To Recede and Concur
Sec.    7.9 Where a division of the question was demanded on a 
preferential motion to recede from disagreement and concur in a Senate
amendment (offered while a motion to insist was pending), the Speaker
indicated: (1) that if the motion to recede were agreed to, a motion to 
concur with a germane amendment would take precedence over the pending 
motion to concur; but (2) that if the motion to recede were disagreed 
to, the question would recur on the initial motion to insist on 
disagreement to the Senate amendment. 
On Aug. 10, 1976,(7) when the House had under consideration 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     See also 111 CONG. REC. 8861, 8866, 8867, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., 
Apr. 29, 1965.
 5.     Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(2), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912c 
(1997), adopted as part of H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993.
 6.     See Sec. 12.3, infra.
 7.     122 CONG. REC. 26781, 26783, 26792, 26793, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 159]]

the final amendment remaining in disagreement following adoption of the
conference report on an appropriation bill,(8) the manager(9) of the 
bill offered a motion that the House insist on its disagreement.  A
preferential motion to recede and concur was then offered, followed by 
a demand that that motion be divided. The proceedings and inquiries are
carried below:

THE SPEAKER:(10) The Clerk will report the last amendment in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 68: Page 39, line 5, strike out: "Sec. 209. None 
of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to pay for 
abortions or to promote or encourage abortions."
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FLOOD
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Flood moves that the House insist on its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 68.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. PRITCHARD
MR. [JOEL] PRITCHARD [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Pritchard moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate numbered 68 and concur therein.

MR. [DAVID R.] OBEY [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, if this is the correct 
time to make this request, I ask that that question be divided.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will inform the gentleman that the question will 
be divided on the preferential motion. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [JEROME A.] AMBRO [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. AMBRO: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situation, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania is making a motion to insist on the House language
incorporated in the Hyde amendment. The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Pritchard) now asks us to recede and concur with the Senate 
language.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is right.
MR. AMBRO: The gentleman then said that this was divisible, which means 
that we can take a vote on the motion to recede.
THE SPEAKER: To recede from disagreement to the Senate amendment.
MR. AMBRO: Yes. If the motion to recede passes, can we then go on with a 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     H.R. 14232 (Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare 
appropriations for fiscal 1977).
 9.     Daniel J. Flood (Pa.).
10.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[Page 160]

vote to concur with the Senate language? Is that the next step?
THE SPEAKER: Yes. But if the House recedes, any germane motion to 
concur with an amendment would be in order before the House votes on 
the pending motion to concur.
MR. AMBRO: To concur with an amendment will be in order. If the motion 
to recede fails, is another preferential motion to recede and amend in 
order?
THE SPEAKER: No.
MR. AMBRO: Do we then move to a vote on the Flood language?
MR. FLOOD: Pro forma.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct.
MR. AMBRO: That is correct?
THE SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. AMBRO: I thank the Speaker. . . . 
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to 
insist on its disagreement and on the preferential motion.
THE SPEAKER: Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MS. [BELLA S.] ABZUG [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentlewoman will state it.
MS. ABZUG: Mr. Speaker, if as the chairman has indicated he moves the 
previous question, if one intends to concur with the Senate amendment 
one would vote "yea" and if one opposes the Senate amendment, which is 
to eliminate the Hyde amendment, then one would vote "nay." Is that 
correct?
THE SPEAKER: The question will be on whether the House shall recede 
from its disagreement. If the House does not recede, then the motion 
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be voted upon, and then the 
House could insist on its position and then the matter will go back to 
the Senate.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [JOE] SKUBITZ [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. SKUBITZ: Mr. Speaker, if the House votes to recede, would a motion 
have precedence?
THE SPEAKER: A motion will be in order.
MR. SKUBITZ: I thank the Chair.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Pritchard) that the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered  68. . . . 
So the motion to recede was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the vote by which action was taken on the 
several motions was laid on the table.
Precedence of Motion To Disagree and Request Further Conference
Sec.    7.10 The stage of disagreement having been reached  on a Senate
amendment (to which the House has refused 


[Page 161]]

to agree), the compound motion to disagree to the Sen-ate amendment and
request a further conference takes precedence over the simple motion to
disagree to the Senate amendment, since tending to bring the two Houses
together. 
The final Senate amendment to the Deficit Reduction Act of 1985 
remained in contention between the two Houses. In the House, a motion 
to table an effort to recede and concur had just been agreed to. 
 The chairman of the Committee on the Budget,(11) then offered a motion 
to disagree with the final Senate amendment. The proceedings which 
followed are carried here.(12) 

So the motion to table [the motion to recede and concur] 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. GRAY OF PENNSYLVANIA
MR. GRAY of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [TRENT] LOTT [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(13) The gentleman will state it.
MR. LOTT: Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman from Pennsylvania has
offered a motion to disagree. My parliamentary inquiry is, would a 
motion to disagree to the last amendment of the Senate and request a
conference thereon be a preferential motion to the motion to disagree, 
that is, more preferential?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would advise the gentleman in the
affirmative, that is correct.
MR. LOTT: Then Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged resolution which I send 
to the desk.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the gentleman will hold, the Clerk will 
first report the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
The Clerk read as follows:

Motion offered by Mr. Gray of Pennsylvania: Mr. Gray of Pennsylvania 
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 disagree to the 
Senate amendment.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would advise the Members that this 
is a very important matter. It is a very detailed parliamentary 
situation, and I am sure the Members would like 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     William H. Gray III (Pa.).
12.     132 CONG. REC. 5218-20, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 18, 1986.
13.     William V. Alexander (Ark.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 162]]

to know what they are going to be voting on.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. GRAY of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. GRAY of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, which motion was read, was it my 
motion or that of the gentleman from Mississippi?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk has just read the motion of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
The Clerk will now report the preferential motion of the gentleman from
Mississippi.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. LOTT
MR. LOTT: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Preferential motion offered by Mr. Lott: Mr. Lott moves to disagree to 
the last amendment of the Senate and request a conference thereon.

MR. GRAY of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would ask which motion, the motion 
of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Lott]?
MR. GRAY of Pennsylvania: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion of the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Lott].
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gray] to table the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Lott].
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. LOTT: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. LOTT: As the Chair has stated, this is a complicated parliamentary 
process we have here.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make sure that Members understand what 
they are about to vote on and that I understand what we are about to 
vote on.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gray] 
made a motion to disagree to the Senate amendment. The gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Lott] made a motion to instruct-excuse the Chair-to 
disagree to the Senate amendment and to go to conference. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania now has moved to lay that on the table. . . . 
MR. LOTT: So that we do not send this off into some dark hole, but so 
that we could have a conference to try to further work out the 
difficulties.
So my parliamentary inquiry is this: Is the vote at this time then on 
the motion to table the motion for a conference on this most important
reconciliation bill?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct.
MR. LOTT: So if you vote for the motion to table you are saying you do 
not even want to go to conference, is that correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The regular order is that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania has made a motion 


[[Page 163]]

to lay on the table the motion of the gentleman from Mississippi, and 
the question occurs on the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MRS. [LYNN] MARTIN of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentlewoman from Illinois will state it.
MRS. MARTIN of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it was the noise of 
the body, but I did not hear the answer to the question that was posed 
by the Republican whip.
The question I believe was: When we vote on the motion to table going 
to conference a "yes" vote to table would mean you did not wish to go 
to conference on this important item, is that correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: At this stage that would be an accurate 
statement.
MRS. MARTIN of Illinois: I thank the Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to table offered 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gray].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. LOTT: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 223, noes 
186, not voting 25. . . . 
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The pending business is the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gray] to disagree to the Senate
amendment.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gray] will be recognized for 30 
minutes and the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Martin] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gray]. . . . 
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gray].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. GRAY of Pennsylvania: 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 331, nays 
76, not voting 27. . . . 
Motion To Concur and Motion To Disagree
Sec.    7.11 A motion that the House concur in a Senate amendment to a 
House amendment to an amendment of the Senate (in disagreement between 
the two Houses) takes precedence over a motion to disagree to the 
Senate's amendment.


[[Page 164]]

On Nov. 9, 1967,(14) the House was considering a [new] Senate amendment 
to a House amendment to a Senate amendment to H.R. 11641, civil 
functions appropriations for 1968. Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Michael J. Kirwan, of Ohio.

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

Mr. Kirwan moves that the House disagree to the amendment of the Senate 
to the House amendment to Senate amendment No. 2.

MR. [WILLIAM D.] HATHAWAY [of Maine]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Hathaway moves that the House concur in the amendment of the Senate 
to the House amendment to Senate amendment No. 2.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kirwan] is recognized for 1 
hour.

After controlling debate on this motion, Mr. Kirwan moved the previous
question.

MR. KIRWAN: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
preferential motion offered by the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Hathaway].
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(15) The question is on the preferential motion
offered by the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Hathaway] that the House 
concur in the amendment of the Senate to the House amendment to Senate
amendment No. 2.
MR. KIRWAN: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 118, nays 263, not voting 
51. . . .  
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question now is on the motion of the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kirwan] that the House disagree to the 
amendment of the Senate to the House amendment to Senate amendment No. 
2.
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec.    7.12 A motion that the House concur in a Senate amendment takes
precedence of a motion to disagree, but may not deprive the Member in 
charge of the floor.
On Nov. 9, 1967,(16) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Michael J. Kirwan, of Ohio, to offer a motion to 
disagree to an amendment 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     113 CONG. REC. 31878, 31880, 31881, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. 
15.     Charles M. Price (Ill.). 
16.     113 CONG. REC. 31878, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[Page 165]]

of the Senate to H.R. 11641, the civil functions appropriations bill 
of 1968.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Kirwan moves that the House disagree to the amendment of the Senate 
to the House amendment to Senate amendment No. 2.

MR. [WILLIAM D.] HATHAWAY [of Maine]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Hathaway moves that the House concur in the amendment of the Senate 
to the House amendment to Senate amendment No. 2.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kirwan] is recognized for 1 
hour.
Motion To Concur and Motion To Insist on Disagreement
Sec.    7.13 The stage of disagreement having been reached, the motion 
to recede and concur takes precedence over the motion to insist on
disagreement.(17) 
On Oct. 24, 1967,(18) the House was considering the amendments in 
disagreement to H.R. 9960, independent offices appropriations for 
fiscal 1968. The following occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(19) The Clerk will report the Senate amendments in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 58: On page 36, line 23, strike out "$75,000,000" 
and insert "$125,000,000". 
Senate amendment No. 59: On page 37, line 2, strike out "$237,000,000" 
and insert "$537,000,000".

MR. [JOSEPH L.] EVINS of Tennessee: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Evins of Tennessee moves that the House insist on its disagreement 
to the amendments of the Senate numbered 58 and 59.

MR. [ROBERT N.] GIAIMO [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Giaimo moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendments of the Senate numbered 58 and 59 and concur therein.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Evins].

After controlling one hour of debate, Mr. Evins moved the previ-

----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     See 119 CONG. REC. 21171-73, 21179, 21180, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., 
June 25, 1973 (H.R. 7447); 118 CONG. REC. 22959, 22974, 22975, 92d 
Cong. 2d Sess., June 28, 1972 (H.R. 13955); and 113 CONG. REC. 25201, 
25211, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 12, 1967 (H.R. 10738). 
18.     113 CONG. REC. 29837, 29838, 29842, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. 
19.     John W. McCormack (Mass.). 
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 166]]

ous question on the motion offered by Mr. Giaimo.

MR. EVINS of Tennessee: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question 
and urge that you vote against the preferential motion. . . . 

The previous question was ordered.

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the preferential motion offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Giaimo] that the House recede from its
disagreement to Senate amendments No. 58 and No. 59, and concur therein.
MR. EVINS of Tennessee: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 156, nays 241, not voting 
35. . . . 
So the preferential motion was rejected. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Evins] that the House insist upon its disagreement 
to the amendments of the Senate No. 58 and No. 59.
The motion was agreed to.
Precedence of Motions and Control of Debate When Stage of Disagreement 
Is Reached
Sec.    7.14 When the stage of disagreement is reached on a Senate 
amendment to a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House bill, 
the motion to concur in the last Senate amendment takes precedence over 
a motion to disagree and request a conference, but the Member offering 
the preferential motion does not thereby gain control of the debate time 
which continues to be controlled by the manager of the bill and is 
divided between the majority and the minority. 
The proceedings of Oct. 13, 1977,(20) when the House was considering a 
final amendment in disagreement to the bill H.R. 7555, the Labor and 
Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill, show that, even 
after the preferential motion to concur was pending, the debate time 
continued to be controlled by the manager who eventually moved the 
previous question on the privileged and the underlying motions.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 7555, LABOR AND HEALTH, EDUCATION, 
AND WELFARE APPROPRIATION ACT, 1978
MR. [DANIEL J.] FLOOD [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I move to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 7555) making appropriations for 
the Departments of Labor, and Health,

----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     123 CONG. REC. 33688, 33689, 33693, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 167]]

Education, and Welfare, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1978, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment 
to the House amendment to Senate amendment numbered 82, disagree to 
the amendment of the Senate, and request a conference with the Senate 
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER:(1) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FLOOD
Mr. Flood moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill 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, with a Senate 
amendment to the House amendment to Senate amendment numbered 82, 
disagree to the amendment of the Senate, and request a conference with 
the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. STEERS
MR. [NEWTON J.] STEERS [Jr., of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Steers of Maryland moves that the House concur in the Senate 
Amendment to the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment No. 82.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) is in control 
of the time, and the gentleman is recognized for 30 minutes.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [JOHN J.] RHODES [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. RHODES: Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Steers)
 made the motion which is being considered by the House, does the 
gentleman from Maryland not have control of the time?
THE SPEAKER: In response to the parliamentary inquiry, the preferential 
motion made by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Steers) does not take 
the time from the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the 
committee, who previously had the time under his original motion. The 
motion was in order. The vote will come first on the preferential 
motion.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood). . . . 
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to 
disagree and on the preferential motion to concur.
The previous question was ordered.

The preferential motion was then rejected.
Relationship of Motions To Disagree, Recede and Concur, and Recede and 
Concur With Amendment
Sec.    7.15 A motion that the House insist on its disagreement 

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


[[Page 168]

to a Senate amendment remains pending during the consideration of 
preferential motions to recede and concur and to recede and concur with 
an amendment, and if the House refuses to recede (the preferential 
motion to recede and concur having been divided) the question recurs 
on the motion to insist on disagreement.
On July 7, 1943,(2) the House was considering amendments in 
disagreement to H.R. 2968, the second deficiency appropriations bill. 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Clarence Cannon, of 
Missouri.

MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House further 
insist on its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 33.
Mr. Eberharter and Mr. Taber rose.
MR. [HERMAN P.] EBERHARTER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a member of the committee.
THE SPEAKER: For what purpose does the gentleman from New York rise?
MR. TABER: To offer a preferential motion, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will have both motions read and see which is 
more preferential.
The Clerk will report the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Eberharter].
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Eberharter moves to recede and concur in Senate amendment No. 33 to 
H.R. 2968.

THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the suggestion of the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Taber].
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Taber moves to recede and concur with an amendment as follows: 
"In lieu of the matter inserted by the Senate insert the following:
" 'No part of any appropriation contained in this act shall be 
available to pay the salary of any person at the rate of $5,500 per 
annum or more, appointed after June 30, 1943, unless such person shall 
have been appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent 
of the Senate: Provided, That those appointed between June 30, 1943, 
and November 1, 1943, may hold office till the latter date unless 
sooner than that the Senate shall have refused to give its advice and 
consent as to any such appointee.' "

THE SPEAKER: The Chair is compelled to hold that the motion to recede 
and concur, at this stage, takes precedence over a motion to recede 
and concur with an amendment.
MR. TABER: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a division of the question.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] demands a division
of the question.
The question is: Will the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate? . . .  

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     89 CONG. REC. 7382-84, 78th Cong. 1st Sess. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 169]]

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 170, nays 176, answering 
"present" none, not voting 84. . . .  
So the motion to recede was not agreed to. . . . 
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Missouri.
MR. EBERHARTER: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. EBERHARTER: As I understand the situation, the motion made by me 
contained two parts, the motion to recede and concur; and the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Taber] asked for division of that question and the 
House just declared itself not to recede. The question, as I understand 
it, now before the House is whether it desires to recede and concur.
THE SPEAKER: The House cannot concur until it has receded, which it has 
just refused to do.
MR. EBERHARTER: I beg the Speaker's pardon. I thought the vote was that 
the House should recede.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion of the gentleman from 
Missouri.
The motion was agreed to.
Motion To Adhere and Motion To Recede and Concur
Sec.    7.16 Where both the motion to adhere and the motion to recede 
and concur are pending, and a division of the latter motion is 
demanded, the vote comes first on the motion to recede.
On June 23, 1960,(3) the House was considering the amendments in 
disagreement to H.R. 10569, appropriations for the Treasury and Post 
Office departments.  Speaker Pro Tempore Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas,
recognized Mr. J. Vaughan Gary, of Virginia.

MR. GARY: Mr. Speaker, I send a motion to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Gary moves that the House adhere to its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 6.

MR. [CLARE E.] HOFFMAN of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Hoffman of Michigan moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 6 and concur therein.

MR. GARY: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a division of the motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman may have a division of the 
motion. Does the gentleman wish to debate the motion?
MR. GARY: Yes.

After one hour of debate, controlled by Mr. Gary, the following 
occurred:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     106 CONG. REC. 14074, 14081, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 170]]

The previous question [on the motion to recede] was ordered.
MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(4) The gentleman will state it.
MR. TABER: Is not the parliamentary situation this: The gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] has offered a motion to recede and concur. The
gentleman from Virginia asked for a division of the question. The
parliamentary situation is this: We first vote on the question of 
receding, and if that carries we can vote on the other part of the 
motion?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: On the question of concurrence?
MR. TABER: Yes.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is correct.
MR. TABER: If the motion to recede is not agreed to, then that is the 
end of it?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: No. The vote then would be on the motion to 
adhere.
MR. TABER: To adhere, that is right.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct.
MR. GARY: Mr. Speaker, the question at the present time is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman].
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is, will the House recede from 
its disagreement with the Senate amendment. . . . 
So the motion to recede was agreed to. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(5) The question pending is, Shall the House concur in the 
Senate amendment?
The Senate amendment was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Motion To Recede and Concur and Motion To Recede and Concur With an 
Amendment
Sec.    7.17 After the stage of disagreement is reached on an amendment
between the Houses, a motion to recede from disagreement to a Senate 
amendment and concur takes precedence over a motion to recede and 
concur with an amendment.
On July 7, 1943,(6) the House was considering amendments in 
disagreement to H.R. 2968, the second deficiency appropriations bill. 
Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, moved that the House insist on its
disagreement to the Senate amendment numbered 33.

Mr. Eberharter and Mr. Taber rose.
MR. [HERMAN P.] EBERHARTER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a member of the committee.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     Francis E. Walter (Pa.). 
 5.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.). 
 6.     89 CONG. REC. 7382-84, 78th Cong. 1st Sess. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 171]]

THE SPEAKER:(7) For what purpose does the gentleman from New York rise?
MR. TABER: To offer a preferential motion, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will have both motions read and see which is 
more preferential.
The Clerk will report the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Eberharter].
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Eberharter moves to recede and concur in Senate amendment No. 33 
to H.R. 2968.

THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the suggestion of the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Taber].
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Taber moves to recede and concur with an amendment as follows: "In 
lieu of the matter inserted by the Senate insert the following:
" 'No part of any appropriation contained in this act shall be 
available to pay the salary of any person at the rate of $5,500 per 
annum or more, appointed after June 30, 1943, unless such person shall 
have been appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent 
of the Senate: Provided, That those appointed between June 30, 1943, 
and November 1, 1943, may hold office till the latter date unless 
sooner than that the Senate shall have refused to give its advice and 
consent at to any such appointee.' "

THE SPEAKER: The Chair is compelled to hold that the motion to recede 
and concur, at this stage, takes precedence over a motion to recede 
and concur with an amendment.
Divisibility of Motion To Recede and Concur
Sec.    7.18 After the stage of disagreement has been reached, a 
motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment takes precedence over 
a motion to recede and concur with an amendment, but a motion to recede 
and concur being divisible, and the House having receded from its 
disagreement to a Senate amendment, a motion to concur with an 
amendment takes precedence over a motion to concur.
On July 18, 1947,(8) the House was considering the amendment in 
disagreement to H.R. 3601, agriculture appropriations for fiscal 1948. 
Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, offered the following motion:

Mr. Cannon moves that the House recede and concur in Senate amendment 
No. 42. . . .  
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER:(9) The question is on the motion of the gentleman from 
Missouri to recede and concur in the Senate amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.). 
 8.     93 CONG. REC. 9311, 9319, 9320, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. 
 9.     Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.). 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 172]]

MR. [FRANCIS H.] CASE of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a 
division of the question.
THE SPEAKER: The question is, Will the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate? . . . 
MR. CASE of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. CASE of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, if the motion to recede should 
carry, then it will be in order, will it not, for me to offer a motion 
to concur with an amendment?
THE SPEAKER: It would be in order.
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 204, nays 187, not voting 
39. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to. . . . 
MR. CASE of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion 
to concur with an amendment.(10) 
Sec.    7.19 A motion to recede from disagreement to a Senate amendment 
and concur therein being divided and the House having receded, a motion 
to concur with an amendment takes precedence of a motion to concur; and 
if the motion to concur with an amendment is rejected the question 
recurs on the underlying motion to concur in such Senate amendment.
On July 18, 1947,(11) the House was considering amendments in 
disagreement to H.R. 3601, agriculture appropriations for fiscal 1948. 
Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, moved that the House recede and 
concur in Senate amendment No. 42.

THE SPEAKER:(12) The question is on the motion of the gentleman from 
Missouri to recede and concur in the Senate amendment.
MR. [FRANCIS H.] CASE of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a 
division of the question.
THE SPEAKER: The question is, Will the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate? . . .  
MR. CASE of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. CASE of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, if the motion to recede should 
carry, then it will be in order, will it not, for me to offer a motion 
to concur with an amendment?
THE SPEAKER: It would be in order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     See also 118 CONG. REC. 23718, 23725, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., 
June 30, 1972; 89 CONG. REC. 5899, 5900, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., 
June 15, 1943; 86 CONG. REC. 5892, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 9, 1940; 
and 81 CONG. REC. 971, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 8, 1937. 
11.     93 CONG. REC. 9319, 9320, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 173]]

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 204, nays 187, not voting 
39. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to. . . . 
MR. CASE of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion to 
concur with an amendment. . . . 
MR. CANNON: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. CANNON: If the motion of the gentleman is voted down, would the 
vote then recur on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment?
THE SPEAKER: It would.
Amending Motion To Dispose of Senate Amendment in Disagreement
Sec.    7.20 The Member calling up  a conference report with amendments 
in disagreement controls the floor on motions to dispose of each 
amendment in disagreement; and although the hour of debate on each such 
motion is divided and controlled by the manager and a representative 
from the minority party, an amendment to a pend-  ing motion may be 
offered only in time yielded by the manager for that purpose or if the
previous question is voted down. 
On Aug. 2, 1977,(13) during consideration of the Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill for fiscal 1978, when an 
amendment in disagreement was pending, the Minority Leader, Mr. Robert 
H. Michel, of Illinois, was controlling the 30 minutes time in 
opposition. He yielded, without restriction, to Mrs. Millicent Fenwick, 
of New Jersey, who attempted to offer an amendment. The proceedings 
were as carried here.

MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, before yielding a minute to my friend, the
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick), may I make this observation 
that if the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Pritchard), considers that 
he is being foreclosed from voting on the position of the Senate, let 
it be clear and understandable that the next vote is really one of 
either accepting the position of the House or the position of the 
Senate. If the position of the House prevails, as with the amendment 
of the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Flood), that, in my opinion, is a clear expression of this House 
that we turned down the position of the Senate in favor of the position 
of the House.
I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     123 CONG. REC. 26209, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 174]]

MRS. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Michel), for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(14) Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Mr. Flood, yield for an amendment?
MR. [DANIEL J.] FLOOD [of Pennsylvania]: I do not yield for the purpose 
of offering amendments, only for the purpose of debate.
MRS. FENWICK: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood), did not 
yield to me, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel), yielded to me.
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I did not yield to the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) for the purpose of offering an amendment.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MRS. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(15) The gentlewoman from New Jersey will state 
her parliamentary inquiry.
MRS. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding of the parliamentary
procedure that unless we are yielded to for the purpose of debate only, 
and for which I was not yielded, that then one can offer an amendment.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will rule that the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey was recognized for the purpose of debate only.
MRS. FENWICK: That is not what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) 
said when he yielded to me.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will state that the gentleman had to 
yield for the purpose of debate only, he did not have any authority 
under clause 2(b)(2) rule XXVIII to yield other than for the purpose 
of debate.
Effect on Pending Motions of Refusal To Recede
Sec.    7.21 After the stage of disagreement is reached and there are 
pending two motions-one to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with 
an amendment and the other a preferential motion to recede and concur-
if the House refuses to recede when the motion to recede and concur is
divided, both the above motions fall and a demand for a division of the 
motion to recede and concur with an amendment is not in order.
On Dec. 16, 1943,(16) the House was considering amendments in 
disagreement to H.R. 3598, the first supplemental national defense
appropriation bill. The following occurred:

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     John Brademas (Ind.).
15.     Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
16.     89 CONG. REC. 10777-79, 78th Cong. 1st Sess. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 175]]

recede from its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 49 and concur in 
the same with an amendment which I have sent to the desk.
THE SPEAKER:(17) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Cannon of Missouri moves that the House recede from its 
disagreement to Senate amendment No. 49 and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows:
"In lieu of the sum of '$2,800,000' named in such amendment, insert
'$700,000'; and in lieu of the sum of '$800,000' named in such 
amendment, insert '$200,000.'.". . . . 

MR. [COMPTON I.] WHITE [of Idaho]: Mr. Speaker, I make a preferential 
motion, which I send to the desk.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. White moves that the House recede from its disagreement to Senate
amendment No. 49 and concur in the same. . . . 

MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a division of the 
question, and I ask that we vote immediately on the question of receding.
THE SPEAKER: The question is, Will the House recede from its 
disagreement with the Senate amendment? . . .  
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Cannon of 
Missouri) there were ayes 40 and noes 48.
So the motion to recede was rejected.
MR. [FRANCIS H.] CASE [of South Dakota]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a 
division of the motion of the gentleman from Missouri.
THE SPEAKER: The House has refused to recede.
MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move to further insist.
MR. CASE: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. CASE: The first question for division was a division on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. White]. The House 
has refused to recede on the division of that motion.  Then it seems to 
me that the question recurs on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] to recede and concur with an amendment. On 
that motion I ask for a division.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman asks for a division of the question. The 
House has already refused to recede. Therefore, it would be rather 
anomalous if we had a division of the motion of the gentleman from 
Missouri, and voted again on the question of receding.
MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I insist on my motion that the 
House insist on its disagreement to the Senate amendment.
MR. CASE: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. CASE: Since the motion which was offered by the gentleman from 
Idaho [Mr. White] was a preferential motion as against the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], I question whether 
or not the gentleman can then move to insist. The vote, it seems to me, 
must recur on the 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.). 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 176]]

motion previously pending, which was the motion of the gentleman from 
Missouri to recede and concur with an amendment. A division of the 
question is entirely different when two different propositions are 
before the House. The House has refused to recede on the dividing of 
the question offered by the gentleman from Idaho, but has not refused 
to recede on dividing the question offered by the gentleman from 
Missouri in his original motion.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] has moved to 
insist on disagreement to the Senate amendment. The Chair believes 
there is nothing to do at this time but to put the gentleman's motion.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Missouri, 
that the House insist on its disagreement.
MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, may I say with regard to that, 
there appears to have been a misunderstanding on the part of certain 
Members. I think we should take this back to conference.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion of the gentleman from 
Missouri, to insist on the disagreement of the House to the Senate 
amendment. . . .  
MR. [CLINTON P.] ANDERSON of New Mexico: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. ANDERSON of New Mexico: Did the gentleman from Missouri withdraw 
his motion to recede and concur with an amendment?
THE SPEAKER: He did not; it was not necessary. Because of the fact 
that a motion to recede had been voted down, a second motion to recede 
was not in order.
MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. TABER: The motion to recede and concur with an amendment having 
been displaced by a motion to recede and concur, and this motion having 
been divided so that we voted on the motion to recede alone, the only 
motion that could possibly be made would be the one the gentleman from
Missouri did make, that the House further insist; is that correct?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair has so stated.
Where Senate Amendment Is Laid on the Table, Effect on Bill
Sec.    7.22 Where a conference report is rejected, and the manager 
moves to insist on its disagreement, a motion to lay the Senate 
amendment on the table is preferential and if adopted, carries the 
amendment and the bill to the table.
When the second conference report on the Federal Trade Commission 
Amendments of 1978 (H.R. 3816) was called up on Sept. 28, 1978,(18) 
the previous question 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     The first conference report, submitted in the House on Feb. 22, 
1978,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 177]]

was ordered but on the question of the adoption of the report, the noes
prevailed, 214 to 175. 
The manager's motion that the House insist on its disagreement was then
preempted by a motion to lay the Senate amendment on the table. 
Proceedings were as indicated below.(19) 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.

After a record vote, the motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. ECKHARDT
MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Eckhardt moves that the House insist on its disagreement to the 
Senate amendment.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BROYHILL
MR. [JAMES T.] BROYHILL [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Broyhill moves to lay on the table the amendment of the Senate to 
the bill, H.R. 3816.

THE SPEAKER:(20) The question is on the preferential motion to lay on 
the table offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill).
The preferential motion to table was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
So the Senate amendment and the bill H.R. 3816 were laid on the table.
Motion To Table and Motion To Recommit (Refer)
Sec.    7.23 A motion that a Senate amendment be laid on the table is 
of higher privilege than a motion to recommit (refer) the amendment to 
a committee.
On June 17, 1936,(1) the House was considering Senate amendments in
disagreement to H.R. 11663, a bill to regulate lobbying. Speaker 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, recognized Mr. Earl C. Michener, of 
Michigan.

MR. MICHENER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Senate amendment be laid 
on the table.
MR. [JOHN J.] O'CONNOR [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion, that the conference report 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
was rejected by the House on Feb. 28, 1978; when the second report was 
agreed to by the Senate but defeated in the House, the motion to table 
was offered and agreed to.
19.     124 CONG. REC. 32334, 32335, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
 1.     80 CONG. REC. 9753, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 178]]

and the Senate amendment be recommitted to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
MR. MICHENER: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the rule is that the 
motion suggested by the gentleman from New York is not preferential.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is of opinion that the motion made by the 
gentleman from Michigan has priority. The question is on the motion of 
the gentleman from Michigan to lay the Senate amendment on the table.
The motion was agreed to.

Parliamentarian's Note: The effect of the motion to table the amendment 
was to table the bill also.
Amendment to Provision Following Its Adoption
Sec.    7.24 It is not in order in the House to recede from or insist 
on a House amendment with an amendment since the House may not amend a
provision that it has already adopted.
On Feb. 1, 1937,(2) the House was considering a Senate amendment to 
House Joint Resolution 81, creating a Joint Committee on Government
Organization. The following occurred:

MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
from New York yield to me to submit an amendment to be read by the 
Clerk?
MR. [JOHN J.] O'CONNOR of New York: Just for information; yes.
MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, I send an amendment to the Clerk's desk to be 
read for the information of the House.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Rankin offers the following amendment to the Senate amendment: 
After the word "nine" insert "and"; on page 1, line 9 [of the House 
text], strike out the word "seven" and insert the word "nine".

MR. RANKIN: That gives nine Members of the House and nine Members of 
the Senate.
MR. O'CONNOR of New York: A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER:(3) The gentleman will state it.
MR. O'CONNOR of New York: If I yield the floor to permit an amendment, 
will it be in order under the rule-I have some doubt about it?
THE SPEAKER: In reply to the inquiry made by the gentleman from New 
York, the Chair desires to call the attention of the gentleman and the
attention of the House to the following rule.
Section 526 of Jefferson's Manual reads:

But the House cannot recede from or insist on its own amendment with an
amendment, for the same reason that it cannot send to the other House 
an amendment to its own act after it has passed the Act.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     81 CONG. REC. 646-48, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. 
 3.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.). 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 179]]

Under that rule it seems to the Chair that the House having acted on 
the matter and the Senate having accepted that language, it would not 
be open for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi.
MR. RANKIN: We have a right to accept the Senate amendment with an 
amendment. We are not attempting to amend the House bill.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman's amendment is to the text of the House 
bill. . . . 
MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. My amendment 
states:

I offer the following amendment to the Senate amendment.

I am not trying to amend what the House has done. It is specifically 
written that it is an amendment to the Senate amendment.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is not confining himself in his amendment 
to the Senate amendment, which deals only with the number of Senators 
on the joint committee; but he goes further down in the paragraph and 
adds additional matter to the text, to which both Houses have already 
agreed.
MR. RANKIN: All I do is to offer an amendment to the Senate amendment, 
not striking out their number but adding to ours, making them equal. I 
submit that under the rules of the House I have a right to offer an 
amendment to the Senate amendment.
THE SPEAKER: But the amendment offered by the gentleman must deal with 
the matter the Senate amendment deals with, as shown by the resolution.  
The Chair makes the further statement that the Chair has no disposition
whatever to prevent the House from expressing itself upon the attitude 
assumed by the gentleman from Mississippi, but when the Chair is called 
upon to make a parliamentary decision, he is bound, of course, to 
conform with the rules and precedents of the House.
Debating Both Parts of Divided Motion To Recede and Concur
Sec.    7.25 When the question is divided on a motion to recede and 
concur, and the House debates the question of whether to recede under 
the hour rule and does not order the previous question on either motion 
of the divided question, then the second motion (to concur, or the
preferential motion to concur with amendment, if offered) is separately
debatable for one hour. 
Where a motion to dispose of an amendment in disagreement is pending, 
a Member offering a preferential motion does not ordinarily control 
time thereon, as all debate is allocated on the original motion. But 
where an original motion is divided, it in effect becomes two motions, 
each subject to debate under the hour rule, subject to the divided 
allocations 


[[Page 180]]

prescribed in Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(2).(4) Often, the question on 
receding is put without debate so the House can get quickly to the 
next step: a preferential motion or the other half of the divided 
question.
The proceedings of Nov. 14, 1989,(5) included debate on both the motion 
to recede and the preferential motion to concur with an amendment.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) The Clerk will designate the next amendment 
in disagreement.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment No. 17: Page 11, line 25, after "zation" insert ": 
Provided further, That notwithstanding the previous proviso, not less 
than $15,000,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
made available only for the United Nations Population Fund: Provided 
further, That the United Nations Population Fund shall be required to 
maintain these funds in a separate account and not commingle them with 
any other funds: Provided further, That none of the funds made 
available under this heading for the United Nations Population Fund 
shall be made available for programs for the People's Republic of China". 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. OBEY
MR. [DAVID R.] OBEY [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Obey moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 17, and concur therein. . . .

MR. [VIN] WEBER [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I demand that the question 
be divided.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question will be divided.
The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Edwards] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
MR. [MICKEY] EDWARDS of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the 30 minutes allotted to me may be controlled by the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. . . . 
MR. [WILLIAM] LEHMAN of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests 
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(7) The question is, will the House recede from 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912(c) (1997).
 5.     See 135 CONG. REC. 28754, 28766, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
 6.     Sander M. Levin (Mich.).
 7.     Frank McCloskey (Ind.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 181]]

its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 17?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it. . . . 
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY
MR. [CHRISTOPHER H.] SMITH of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Smith of New Jersey moves to concur with the Senate amendment 
(number 17) with an amendment, as follows: at the end of Senate 
amendment 17, insert:
Provided further, That notwithstanding the previous provisos, no funds 
under this heading shall be made available to the United Nations 
Population Fund unless the President of the United States certifies 
that the United Nations Population Fund does not provide support for, 
or participate in the management of, a program of coercive abortion or
involuntary sterilization in the People's Republic of China.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
McHugh] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Motion To Lay on the Table a Motion To Dispose of a Senate Amendment
Sec.    7.26 Where conferees on a particular Senate amendment in 
disagreement develop compromise language to settle the dispute between 
the two Houses which is "legislative language" to which the House 
managers cannot agree (under Rule XX clause 2) without specific 
permission of the House, the matter is often brought back in "technical
disagreement; enabling the House to recede and concur in the amendment 
in disagreement with an amendment which contains "legislative" language 
and is germane to the Senate amendment. 
On May 16, 1978,(8) when a Senate amendment in disagreement to H.R. 
9005, making appropriations for the District of Columbia, fiscal 1978, 
was considered in the House, the proceedings were as follows:
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(9) The Clerk will report the next amendment 
in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 37: Page 13, line 14, strike out: "$168,757,900" 
and insert "$102,173,400".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     124 CONG. REC. 13921-23, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 182]]

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 recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 37 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum named in said amendment, 
insert: "$129,173,400: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated 
for the Washington Civic Center shall be obligated until the 
Subcommittees on the District of Columbia Appropriations of the House 
of Representatives and the Senate have approved the plan submitted by 
the Mayor and the City Council for the Washington Civic Center".
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BAUMAN
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bauman moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 37 and concur therein.
 
MR. NATCHER: Mr. Speaker, I demand that the question be divided.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question will be divided.
Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) seek time?
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman would take some 
time briefly. I do not want to prolong this debate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) 
is recognized for 30 minutes. . . . 
MR. NATCHER: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion 
to recede.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recede.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is, Will the House recede from 
its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 37.
The House receded from its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 37.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. NATCHER
MR. NATCHER: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Natcher moves that the House concur in the amendment of the Senate
numbered 37 with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum named in 
said amendment, insert: "$129,173,400: Provided, That none of the funds
appropriated for the Washington Civic Center shall be obligated until 
the Subcommittees on the District of Columbia Appropriations of the 
House of Representatives and the Senate have approved the plan 
submitted by the Mayor and the City Council for the Washington Civic 
Center".
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BAUMAN
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bauman moves to table the motion to concur in the amendment of the 
Senate numbered 37, with an amendment.


[[Page 183]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the preferential motion 
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
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 190, nays 
199, answered "present" 1, not voting 44. . . . 
So the preferential motion to table was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
MR. NATCHER: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion 
now pending.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the preferential motion offered by the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) to concur in the Senate amendment No. 37, with 
an amendment.
The question is on the preferential motion offered by the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. [JOHN H.] ROUSSELOT [of California]: 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 199, nays 
183, answered "present" 1, not voting 51.

Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to table a motion disposing of an 
amendment in disagreement does not carry with it the amendment and the 
bill itself, since if the motion is tabled other motions remain 
available for disposition   of the amendment, whereas the tabling of a 
Senate amendment itself has the effect of carrying to the table the 
House bill as well.(10) 
Tabling Motion To Dispose of Amendment in Disagreement
Sec.    7.27 A privileged motion to dispose of a Senate amendment in
disagreement is subject to the motion to table; and the latter motion 
takes precedence over the motion for the previous question.
The application of the motion to lay on the table a motion to dispose 
of an amendment in disagreement is rare. There are few precedents but 
the principle is now established that adoption of such a motion does 
not carry the underlying matter with it. The use 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Note distinction between Sec. 7.26 and Sec. 7.22 and Sec. 7.23,
supra. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 184]]

of the motion here, excerpted from the Congressional Record of Feb. 22,
1978,(11) is illustrative of the modern practice.

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
question on the motion to recede and concur.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. LLOYD OF CALIFORNIA
MR. [JIM] LLOYD of California: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential 
motion that the motion of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) to 
recede and concur be laid upon the table.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(12) The gentleman will state it.
MR. MAHON: If the motion to table is defeated, then the next order of 
business would be a vote on my motion to recede and concur in the 
Senate amendment?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The next vote would be on ordering the 
previous question which the gentleman from Texas has moved, and then 
on the motion of the gentleman from Texas to recede and concur.
MR. MAHON: That is, if the motion to table is defeated?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the motion is defeated.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. LLOYD of California: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. LLOYD of California: If my motion should be defeated, would there 
be an opportunity to amend?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the motion to table is defeated and the 
previous question is ordered, the answer is no on the pending motion.
MR. LLOYD of California: I thank the Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the preferential motion to 
lay on the table offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lloyd).
The question was taken.
MR. LLOYD of California: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered. . . . 
So the preferential motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.