[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 32. House-Senate Relations]
[B. DISPOSING OF AMENDMENTS BETWEEN THE HOUSES; MOTIONS]
[Â§ 8. Recognition To Offer Motions; Control of the Floor]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 184-222]
 
                House-Senate Relations
 
                  A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    8. Recognition To Offer Motions; Control of the Floor

Motions in the House to dispose of Senate amendments were traditionally
debated under the hour rule, with the proponent of the motion 
controlling the time and yielding to others for debate. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     124 CONG. REC. 4072, 4073, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
12.     Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 185]]

Amendments to House rules resulting from the adoption of the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 added the concept of dividing 
debate time on a conference report or on an amendment reported 
therefrom in disagreement between the majority and minority parties.(13) 
In the 92d Congress, Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(1) was amended to provide 
for a division of the debate time on a motion to dispose of a Senate 
amendment reported in disagreement from conference.(14) The hour is 
now divided between the majority and the minority parties, in effect 
between the manager of the conference report and the ranking conferee 
on the minority side. In the 99th Congress, the division of debate time 
was again changed in those situations where the managers for the 
majority and the minority support the motion offered to dispose of a 
Senate amendment in disagreement. In that case, a person opposed to 
that motion may claim one-third of the hour.(15) 
Under practices that have evolved since the adoption of the changes 
noted above, most motions to dispose of amendments between the Houses 
are now controlled and debated according to the strictures of Rule 
XXVIII. This rule also provides for the availability of copies of 
Senate amendments reported in disagreement, as well as copies of the
conference report and the statement of managers.(16) 

Control of Time-Division of Time
Sec.    8.1 When amendments in disagreement are considered in the House 
after disposition of the conference report, each amendment is debatable 
for one hour, equally divided between the majority and minority parties, 
and this division of time is not disturbed by the offering of a 
preferential motion.
The rule dividing time on an amendment in disagreement(17) was first 
adopted in the 92d Con-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     See H. Res. 5, 117 CONG. REC. 144, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 
1971.
14.     H. Res. 1153, adopted Oct. 13, 1972, 118 CONG. REC. 36023, 92d 
Cong. 2d Sess.
15.     H. Res. 7, 131 CONG. REC. 393, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 
1985.
16.     See Sec.Sec. 8.24, 8.25, infra.
17.     Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912b 
(1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 186]]

gress.(18) It was later amended, in the 99th Congress,(19) to provide 
for a three-way division of time if the majority and minority floor 
leaders on the conference report both support the offered motion.
In the 94th Congress, a controversial Senate amendment was reported in
disagreement from the conference dealing with the bill H.R. 8069, the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and related agencies
appropriation bill for fiscal year 1976. The original motion to dispose 
of the Senate amendment, offered by the majority floor manager of the 
report, was to recede from disagreement and concur with a further 
amendment. Immediately after the motion of Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of
Pennsylvania, was read, Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland, offered a
preferential motion to recede and concur. The Chair(20) explained that 
the offering of this preferential motion did not deprive Mr. Flood of 
the floor. When the minority floor leader yielded part of his debate 
time to Mr. Bauman, the latter spoke briefly and then attempted to move 
the previous question, but the Chair declined to entertain the motion 
since it would cut off the time  allocated to the managers under 
Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(1). After debate, the question on receding and
concurring was divided, the House receded from disagreement, rejected 
a motion to concur with an amendment, and eventually concurred in the 
Senate amendment.(1) 

MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Flood) has offered or will offer a motion, and I have a 
preferential motion at the desk.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will first report the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FLOOD
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Flood moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 72 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter inserted by said 
amendment, insert the following:
"SEC. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
require, directly or indirectly, the 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     See H. Res. 1153 (118 CONG. REC. 36013-23, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.,
Oct. 13, 1972).
19. See H. Res. 7 (131 CONG. REC. 393-413, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 
3, 1985).
20.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 1.     121 CONG. REC. 38714, 38716-19, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 4, 
1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 187]]

transportation of any student to a school other than the school which 
is nearest or next nearest the student's home, and which offers the 
courses of study pursued by such student, in order to comply with 
title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BAUMAN
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bauman moves that the House recede from its disagreement to Senate
amendment No. 72 and concur therein.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Flood).
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, who has the right to the time 
under the motion?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) has 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) has 30 minutes. 
The time is controlled by the committee leadership on each side, and 
they are not taken from the floor by a preferential motion. . . . 
MR. [ROBERT H.] MICHEL [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I yield such time 
as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman). . . . 
MR. BAUMAN: The gentleman from Maryland has made his case and if the 
gentleman would like to concur in the stand taken by the majority party 
in favor of busing he can do that. I do not concur.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I demand the question be divided.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania has the floor and the 
Chair is trying to let the gentleman be heard.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have not yielded. My time has not expired.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman has time for debate only.
MR. BAUMAN: No; Mr. Speaker, it was not yielded for debate only.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Maryland has 15 seconds.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman was yielded to for debate only. The 
gentleman from Illinois had no authority under clause 2, rule XXVIII 
to yield for any other purpose but debate.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I was yielded to. There was no limitation on 
for what purpose.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman was yielded 5 minutes. He can use it for 
debate only. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division of the question. . . . 
MR. MICHEL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois was given to un-


[[Page 188]]

derstand that the time was to be divided equally. There was no 
indication on the part of the gentleman from Illinois that he had 
concluded giving what time he wanted to allocate to Members for 
general debate.
The gentleman from Illinois still has a request pending.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman has 30 minutes for debate only. He can yield 
more time.
MR. MICHEL: I am still entitled, if I understand it, to the balance of 
the time to which I have been originally allocated. The gentleman from
Illinois has 17 minutes remaining.
THE SPEAKER: That is correct, but the question has been divided.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, when must a request for division be made?
THE SPEAKER: Any time the motion is pending and before the question is 
put the question may be divided, and it is already divided.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, if the question has been divided, then I have 
a preferential motion.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Illinois has 15 minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman's motion may come later.
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may require, and 
yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte). . . . 
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
THE SPEAKER: The question is, Will the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 72?
The House receded from its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 72.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FLOOD
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read the preferential motion as follows:

Mr. Flood moves that the House concur in the amendment of the Senate 
numbered 72 with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter 
inserted by said amendment, insert the following:
"SEC. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
require, directly or indirectly, the transportation of any student to 
a school other than the school which is nearest or next nearest the 
student's home, and which offers the courses of study pursued by such 
student, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964."

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the preferential motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 133, nays 
259, answered "present" 15, not voting 27. . . .


[[Page 189]] 
So the preferential motion to the Senate amendment numbered 72 was 
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER: The question is, Will the House concur in the Senate 
amendment?
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. [JOHN F.] SEIBERLING [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded 
vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 260, noes 
146, answered "present" 1, not voting 27. . . . 
So the Senate amendment was concurred in.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.
Member Handling Conference Report
Sec.    8.2 Where amendments in disagreement are being considered 
seriatim following adoption of a conference report, the Chair 
recognizes the Member handling the report to offer motions to dispose 
of the amendments; and while a motion so offered may be displaced by 
a preferential motion, the Member offering the preferential motion does 
not thereby gain control of time for debate.
If the question on the preferential motion to recede and concur is 
divided on demand and the House recedes from disagreement, the Member 
handling the conference report having offered an initial motion to 
insist on disagreement has been recognized to offer another motion to 
concur with an amendment preferential to the pending motion to concur, 
since that Member's original motion to insist has been displaced 
(although not directly rejected so as to deprive him the floor for 
subsequent recognition) and he would not be offering two motions 
pending at the same time.
On June 25, 1973,(2) the House was considering amendments reported 
back from conference in disagreement on H.R. 7447, supplemental 
appropriations for fiscal 1973. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, then
recognized George 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     119 CONG. REC. 21171-73, 21179, 21180, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 190]]

H. Mahon, of Texas, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Mahon moves that the House insist on its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 83.

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 
amendment of the Senate numbered 83 and concur therein.

MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division of the question.
THE SPEAKER: The question is, shall the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 83?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon).
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I moved that the House insist on its position 
banning all funds in the bill for combat activity in Cambodia. . . . 
MR. GERALD R FORD [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I will withhold my moving of the previous 
question until the gentleman from Michigan, the minority leader, states 
his parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Michigan will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. GERALD R. FORD: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: Am 
I correct, Mr. Speaker, that a "no" vote on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) to recede would uphold the House 
position on the supplemental?
The motion offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) was 
to recede and concur, but the Chairman, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Mahon) divided the question, and the vote is on a motion to 
recede. Therefore a "no" vote on the motion to recede would uphold 
the position of the House?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair can state that if the "no" vote prevails, the 
next vote would be on the motion to insist on the House's position. . . . 
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, we have been over this ground. Various Members 
on both sides of the aisle have expressed their views today and on 
previous days and in previous weeks and months.
Mr. Speaker, I now move the previous question on the motion to recede.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is: Will the House recede from its 
disagreement to Senate amendment numbered 83?
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
MR. GIAIMO: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 235, noes 
172, present 1, not voting 25, as follows: . . . 
So the preferential motion was agreed to. . . . 
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:


[[Page 191]]

Mr. Mahon moves that the House concur with the amendment of the Senate
numbered 83 with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter 
inserted, insert the following:
"SEC. 305. After September 1, 1973, none of the funds herein 
appropriated under this Act or heretofore appropriated under any other 
Act may be expended to support directly or indirectly combat 
activities in, over or from off the shores of Cambodia or in or over 
Laos by United States forces."

MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, this preferential motion is slightly different 
from the Senate language. The amendment reads:

SEC. 305. After September 1, 1973 none of the funds herein appropriated 
under this Act or heretofore appropriated under any other Act may be 
expended to support directly or indirectly combat activities, in, over, 
or from off the shores of Cambodia or in or over Laos by United States 
forces. . . . 

MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to 
concur with an amendment.
MR. FRANK E. EVANS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: Has the previous question been moved?
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I have moved the previous question.
THE SPEAKER: The previous question has been moved on the motion. Until 
that has been disposed of, the Chair is without power to recognize any 
Member for any other purpose.
The question is on ordering the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the preferential motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
MR. EVANS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
MR. GERALD R. FORD: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is not going to allow any further interruptions.
MR. GERALD R. FORD: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. Was that a 
vote on the previous question?
THE SPEAKER: The question was on the motion.
MR. GERALD R. FORD: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nayswere ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 204, nays 
204, present 1, not voting 24, as follows: . . . 
So the preferential motion was rejected. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion to concur offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo).
The motion was agreed to.

Parliamentarian's Note: While the manager of a conference report is 
entitled to prior recognition to offer motions to dispose of 
amendments in disagreement, he should not be entitled to offer two 
motions, one preferential to the other, to be pending at the same 
time. However, where his first motion to insist on disagreement has 
been superseded by the 



[[Page 192]]

House's voting to recede from disagreement, then his initial motion is 
no longer pending and he may be recognized to offer another motion to 
concur with an amendment which would be preferential to the remaining 
portion of another Member's divided motion to concur. This is to be 
contrasted with the situation where the bill manager offers a motion 
to dispose of a Senate amendment which is rejected by the House. As
illustrated on Aug. 6, 1993 (Manual Sec. 954) in that case recognition 
to offer a subsequent motion to dispose of the pending Senate amendment 
shifts to another Member who led the opposition to the rejected motion.
Withdrawal of Motions in House
Sec.    8.3 A motion to recede and concur with an amendment  in a 
Senate amendment in disagreement may be withdrawn before action is 
taken thereon, and the proponent has the right to change the amendment
included in the motion and offer it again in its modified form. 
When the final amendment in disagreement to H.R. 5021, the Commerce, 
State, Justice appropriation bill for fiscal 1991, was reported, the 
manager, Neal Smith, of Iowa, offered a motion to recede from 
disagreement and concur in the Senate amendment with a further 
amendment. Time was divided three ways, with Mr. Lawrence J. Smith, of
Florida, claiming time in opposition. A preferential motion to recede 
and concur was then offered by Mr. Smith of Florida. A division of the
preferential motion to recede and concur was then demanded, the House 
receded from disagreement, and a series of inquiries then focused on 
the options available to the House.(3) 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(4) The Clerk will designate the last amendment 
in disagreement.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment No. 165: Page 31, after line 10, insert:
SEC. 610. (a) None of the funds in this or any other act may be used to
approve the licensing for export   of any supercomputer or associated
technology to any country that (1) is assisting, officially or 
unofficially, or (2) whose nationals are assisting Iraq to improve its 
rocket technology or 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     136 CONG. REC. 32667, 32668, 32672-76, 101st Cong. 2d Sess., 
Oct. 23, 1990.
 4.     Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 193]]

chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons capability. . . . 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. SMITH OF IOWA
MR. SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will designate the motion.
The text of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Smith of Iowa moves that the House recede from its disagreement to 
the amendment of the Senate numbered 165, and concur therein with an
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed by said 
amendment, insert the following:
SEC. 609. (a) None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used 
to approve the licensing for export of any supercomputer to any country 
whose government the President determines to be assisting Iraq to 
improve its ballistic missile technology or chemical, biological, or 
nuclear weapons capability and so reports to the Congress. . . .

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair rules that under rule XXVIII the 
time will be divided three ways.
The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] will be recognized for 20 minutes, 
the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] will be recognized for 20 
minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Smith] will be recognized 
for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith].
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. SMITH OF FLORIDA
MR. SMITH of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Preferential motion offered by Mr. Smith of Florida: Mr. Smith of 
Florida moves that the House recede from its disagreement to Senate 
amendment No. 165 and concur therein.

MR. SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the question be divided.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question will be divided. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
MR. [STEPHEN J.] SOLARZ [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. SOLARZ: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible through a 
unanimous-consent procedure to amend the amendment of the gentleman 
from Iowa?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: By unanimous consent, yes.
MR. SOLARZ: That would be possible. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Iowa may withdraw his 
motion, leaving the motion of the gentleman from Florida to be voted 
on.
MR. SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I could withdraw my motion by unanimous
consent and substitute another one? Is that right?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman does not need unanimous consent 
to do that.
MR. SMITH of Iowa: I can substitute another. . . . 


[[Page 194]]

MR. [SAMUEL] GEJDENSON [of Connecticut]: Would the House be in a 
position to accept an amended version of the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Smith]?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Mr. Smith of Iowa may offer another 
motion. . . . 
MR. GEJDENSON: If the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Smith] then withdraws 
his motion, could he offer an amended version of that motion?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would look first to the 
manager of the bill, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] to offer a 
motion.
MR. GEJDENSON: Look first to the manager of the bill, and if the 
manager of the bill had no motion, well the manager could offer that 
motion. I thank the Chair. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The motion of the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Smith] to concur in Senate amendment No. 165 with an amendment.
MR. SMITH of Iowa: With an amendment?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Yes.
MR. SMITH of Iowa: So, Mr. Speaker, first if we vote to recede, we will 
then come to whether or not to concur with my amendment, which is 
agreed to by the conferees.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is correct.
MR. SMITH of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. SMITH of Florida: Mr. Speaker, under the division of the question, 
the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] has a motion which will be voted 
on first, which motion was to recede and concur with the Senate 
language, as amended by the Senate, is that correct? 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: With an amendment. . . . 
The first question is, Shall the House recede from its disagreement to 
Senate amendment No. 165?
MR. SMITH of Florida: And if that is defeated--
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the House then recedes, if that motion 
carries, then the question is on the motion of the gentleman from Iowa, 
shall the House concur in Senate amendment No. 165 with an amendment.
MR. SMITH of Iowa: If that is voted down, Mr. Speaker, there is 
nothing in the bill. . . . 
MR. SMITH of Florida: Mr. Speaker, there are two votes on the motion of 
the gentleman from Iowa to recede and concur in the Senate language?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The first vote is on receding. The second is 
on concurring with an amendment.
MR. SMITH of Florida: If those are adopted, I no longer obtain a vote 
on my preferential motion?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is correct. . . .
The question is: Will the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 165.
The House receded from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate
numbered 165.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is: Shall the House concur in the
amendment of the Senate numbered 165 with an amendment?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.


[[Page 195]]

MR. SMITH of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds 
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 381, nays 
39, not voting 13. . . . 
So the House concurred in the amendment of the Senate numbered 165 with 
an amendment.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider the votes by which action was taken on the 
several motions laid on the table.
Order of Consideration of Amendments in Disagreement
Sec.    8.4 The disposition of Senate amendments in disagreement 
normally proceeds in the order in which they appear in the House text; 
but the House may vary the order of consideration by a unanimous-consent agreement.
Where controversy is expected on a particular motion to dispose of a 
Senate amendment in disagreement, its disposition can be postponed 
until a more conven-ient time on the following day by  a proper 
unanimous-consent request.(5) 

MR. [NEAL] SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
amendments numbered 147 and 148 be passed over this evening and that 
they be considered tomorrow, Wednesday, October 20, 1993, immediately 
prior to the consideration of amendment No. 171.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will designate the next amendment 
in disagreement. . . . 
The motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair rules that further consideration of 
this bill will continue tomorrow. 
Control of Debate
Sec.    8.5 In 1970, pursuant to the provisions of Rule XIV clause 2 
(the "hour rule") the Speaker stated in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry that a Member recognized to offer a motion to dispose of a 
Senate amendment to a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House 
bill would be recognized for one 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     See 139 CONG. REC. 25388, 25390, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19,
1993 (H.R. 2519).
 6.     Kweisi Mfume (Md.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 196]]

hour, which time that Member could allocate at his discretion.
Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVIII clause 2(a), was amended in the 
92d Congress to provide for a division of debate time on a conference 
report or an amendment reported in disagreement. In the 99th Congress, 
the clause was further modified to specify that if the majority and 
minority floor managers support a conference report, the time can be 
allotted three ways if demanded by a Member opposing the report.(7) 
On Jan. 22, 1970,(8) the House was considering a Senate amendment to 
a House amendment to a Senate amendment to H.R. 13111, appropriations 
for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

MR. GERALD R. FORD [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. 
In the consideration of the Nelson amendments, which was an amendment 
in disagreement, when it comes back, will there be 1 hour of debate in 
the control of the chairman of the committee or the chairman of the
subcommittee?
THE SPEAKER:(9) The Chair will state in response to the parliamentary 
inquiry that any Member who makes the motion will be entitled to 1 hour, 
and the question of the allocation of time will be in his discretion.
Division of Debate Time on Motion To Dispose of Amendment Between 
Houses
Sec.    8.6 In the modern practice, debate on a privileged motion to 
dispose of a Senate amendment in disagreement, during the subsequent 
stages of action following the rejection of a conference report, is 
equally divided between the majority and minority parties.
While the provisions of Rule XXVIII clause 2(b) specifically address 
the division of debate time on an amendment "reported in disagreement" 
from a conference committee, the practice has developed of dividing 
the time between the parties on any motion to dispose of an amendment, 
once the stage of disagreement has been reached.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     Rule XXVIII clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
 8.     116 CONG. REC. 750, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. 
 9.     John W. McCormack (Mass.). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 197]]

On Dec. 19, 1985,(10) the Chair's announcement of the division of time 
in the proceedings carried here shows the practice that has been 
followed in recent years.(11) 
FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A further message from the Senate by Mr. Sparrow, one of its clerks, 
announced that the Senate agrees to the amendment of the House to the
amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3128) entitled "An act to 
make changes in spending and revenue provisions for purposes of deficit
reduction and program improvement, consistent with the budget process," 
with an amendment.(12) 
The message also announced that the Senate had passed a joint 
resolution of the following title, in which concurrence of the House 
is requested:

S.J. Res. 255. Joint Resolution Relative to the convening of the 2d 
session of the 99th Congress.
CONSOLIDATED OMNIBUS RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1985
MR. [WILLIAM (BILL) H.] GRAY of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3128) to make changes in 
spending and revenue provisions for purposes of deficit reduction and 
program improvement, consistent with  the budget process, with the 
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment, and 
concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(13) The Clerk will report the title of the 
bill and the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the 
Senate amendment as follows: . . . 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. DAUB
MR. [HAL] DAUB [of Nebraska]: Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion.
My motion is in writing, and it is on its way to the desk.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Daub moves to table the motion.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to lay on the 
table offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Daub).
The motion to table was rejected.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     131 CONG. REC. 38359, 38360, 38367, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
11.     This practice supersedes that followed in the period 
immediately following the adoption of Rule XXVIII clause 2(b) in 1972. 
See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912(b) (1997) for a synopsis of the 
evolution of dividing debate time.
12.     The conference report on H.R. 3128 had been rejected on Dec. 
19, 1985, so the stage of disagreement was still applicable and motions 
to dispose of this amendment between the Houses remained privileged.
13.     Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 198]]

MR. GRAY of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I move to limit debate to 15 
minutes per side.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman requests that debate be limited. 
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
MR. DAUB: Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Objection is heard.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gray] will be recognized for 30 
minutes and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Latta] will be recognized for 
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gray]. . . . 
MR. GRAY: . . . Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gray] to concur in the Senate amendment to the House
amendment to the Senate amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes 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 137, nays 
211, not voting 86, as follows: . . . 
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Division of Time on Motion Relating to Amendment in Disagreement
Sec.    8.7 Where an original motion to dispose of an amendment in
disagreement is pending, it is possible for an opponent to demand 
one-third of the hour if both the majority and minority managers are 
in favor; and the demand for 20 minutes does not come too late when 
the proponent of a preferential motion indicates his opposition after 
his motion is reported. 
The rule providing for a three-way division of time (Rule XXVIII 
clause 2(b)(1)) was added in the  99th Congress.(14) 
The proceedings of Oct. 11, 1989,(15) during the consideration of 
amendments reported in disagreement on the District of Columbia 
Appropriation Act, fiscal 1990, indicates that the mere offering of 
a preferential motion 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     H. Res. 7, 131 CONG. REC. 393, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 
1985. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912b (1997).
15.     135 CONG. REC. 24091, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 199]]

does not automatically cause the Chair to divide the time three ways: 
a Member must directly state his opposition to the original motion to 
qualify.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment No. 22: Page 31, after line 2, insert:
SEC. 141. (a) This section may be cited as the "Nation's Capital 
Religious Liberty and Academic Freedom Act".
(b) Section 1-2520 of the District  of Columbia Code (1981 edition) is 
amended by adding after subsection (2) the following new subsection:
"(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of the laws of the District 
of Columbia, it shall not be an unlawful discriminatory practice in the
District of Columbia for any educational institution that is affiliated 
with a religious organization or closely associated with the tenets of 
a religious organization to deny, restrict, abridge, or condition-
"(A) the use of any fund, service, facility, or benefit; or
"(B) the granting of any endorsement, approval, or recognition,
to any person or persons that are organized for, or engaged in, 
promoting, encouraging, or condoning any homosexual act, lifestyle,
orientation, or belief.".
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. DIXON
MR. [JULIAN C.] DIXON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Dixon moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 22, and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed by said 
amendment, insert the following:
SEC. 141. Notwithstanding any other provision of the laws of the 
District of Columbia, it shall not be an unlawful discriminatory 
practice in the District of Columbia for any educational institution 
that is affiliated with a religious organization to deny:
(a) the use of any facility, service or benefit set aside for the 
practice or promotion of religion; or
(b) the granting of any endorsement, approval, or recognition, to any 
person or persons that are organized for, or engaged in, the promotion
of any homosexual or heterosexual lifestyle or belief that is contrary 
to its religious doctrine.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(16) The gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Gallo] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. DANNEMEYER
MR. [WILLIAM E.] DANNEMEYER [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Dannemeyer moves that the House recede from disagreement with the
amendment of the Senate numbered 22 and concur therein.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     Doug Barnard, Jr. (Ga.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 200]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, how will the time be allocated concerning 
the motion in disagreement offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dixon]?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman from California requesting 
one-third of the time?
MR. DANNEMEYER: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Gallo] 
opposed to the original motion?
MR. [DEAN A.] GALLO [of New Jersey]: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer] 
will be recognized for 20 minutes.
MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division of the question on the
preferential motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question will be divided.
Order of Recognition for Controlling and Closing Debate 
Sec.    8.8 When time for debate on an amendment being considered after 
the stage of disagreement is divided three ways, with 20 minutes being
controlled by a Member opposed, the Chair recognizes the Member 
offering the motion to close debate and the others in the reverse order 
of the original allocation. 
Where a motion was made to concur in a Senate amendment after the stage 
of disagreement has been reached, and the bill had been represented in
conference by conferees from two House committees having jurisdiction 
and Members from both committees were seeking recognition to oppose 
the pending motion, the Speaker recognized the senior member of the two 
to control the time. The proceedings were as follows:(17) 
MEDICARE CATASTROPHIC COVERAGE REFORM AMENDMENTS OF 1989
MR. [DAN] ROSTENKOWSKI [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move to take from 
the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3607) to repeal Medicare provisions 
in the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment as follows:

Senate Amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the "Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Reform
Amendments of 1989". . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(18) The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rosten-

------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     135 CONG. REC. 30809, 30813, 30814, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., 
Nov. 21, 1989.
18.     Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 201]

kowski] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Archer] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
MR. [MARTIN A.] RUSSO [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. RUSSO: Mr. Speaker, I would wonder whether or not the gentleman 
from Texas is opposed to the motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will inquire: Is the gentleman from 
Texas opposed to the amendment?
MR. [EDWARD R.] MADIGAN [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to 
the amendment on this side.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair propounded a question, however, to 
the gentleman from Texas, the ranking member. Will the ranking member 
respond to the question of the Chair?
The Chair must ascertain whether the ranking member, who is entitled 
under the rules to 30 minutes, whether the ranking member is opposed 
to the amendment.
MR. [WILLIAM A.] ARCHER [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of 
the amendment.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does a Member seek 20 minutes in opposition 
to the amendment?
MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Speaker, I seek time in opposition.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Russo] rise?
MR. [J. J. (JAKE)] PICKLE [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, we have two 
gentlemen who wish to be recognized.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is going to recognize one Member 
for the purpose of being in opposition. That Member will be assigned 
20 minutes of the time allotted.
MR. ROSTENKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, if I may be recognized, I have no idea 
why the gentleman on my left and the gentleman on my right are seeking
recognition. However, if it is because of opposition, I would suggest 
that the senior member be recognized in opposition.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Pickle] 
seek time in opposition? The gentleman from Texas is on his feet and 
the gentleman from Texas is the ranking member. Under the rules he 
would be entitled to recognition. Is the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Pickle] opposed to the amendment?
MR. PICKLE: No, I am not. I am for the amendment, Mr. Speaker.
MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Speaker, this bill is in the jurisdiction of both 
the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
and members from both of those committees are conferees on the subject 
matter that is before us. Am I to understand that the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce is not entitled to any time?


[[Page 202]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would ask the gentleman from 
Illinois if he is opposed to the amendment?
MR. MADIGAN: I am opposed, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under the rule, the gentleman is entitled to 
20 minutes as the senior Member seeking time. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. RUSSO: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. RUSSO: Mr. Speaker, under the process that we have agreed upon, 
who has the right to close debate; in what order do we close this 
debate?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The chairman of the committee who made the 
motion has the right to close debate.
MR. RUSSO: And prior to the chairman of the committee, who is the next 
in line to close debate; would it be some Member for the opposition?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Not necessarily, since the ranking minority 
member to whom 30 minutes was originally allocated has the right to 
close prior to the chairman.
MR. RUSSO: It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that having two Members 
who are in support of the amendment and two opposing the amendment 
speaking before that, would it not be more equitable that we would have 
one to close against, one to close for, one to close against, and then 
the chairman to close for; would that not be more fair?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The precedents require the Chair to go by the 
reverse order of the original allocation under the circumstances when 
more than two Members control time.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Schulze] is recognized for 2 
minutes.
Control of Debate When Preferential Motion Displaces Original Motion
Sec.    8.9 Where an amendment reported in disagreement from 
conference is under consideration, and a motion is made to dispose of 
that amendment, a preferential motion may be offered; but the Member 
offering the preferential motion does not thereby deprive the Member 
making the original motion of the floor.
On June 30, 1972,(19) the House was considering amendments in 
disagreement to H.R. 15390, a bill to provide a four-month extension 
of the public debt limit. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized 
Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     118 CONG. REC. 23725, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 203]]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recede and concur, and pending that, 
Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recognized.
MR. [JOHN W.] BYRNES of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the motion 
be divided.
THE SPEAKER: That will be in order after the Clerk reports the motion.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk reads as follows:

Mr. Mills moves to recede and concur in Senate amendment numbered 2.

MR. BYRNES of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a division of the 
question, that it be divided.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Wisconsin asks for a division of the 
question.
The question is, will the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to.
MR. BYRNES of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to concur with 
an amendment.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion.

The reading of the amendment offered by Mr. Byrnes was dispensed with 
by unanimous consent, after which the Speaker recognized Mr. Mills.
Division of Time on Amendments Reported From Conference in Disagreement
Sec.    8.10 A Member offering a preferential motion to dispose of an
amendment in disagreement does not gain control of the time; the Member
offering the original motion to dispose of the amendment retains 
control of the time which is divided between the majority and minority
parties.(20) 
During consideration of an amendment reported in disagreement from a
conference on a general appropriation bill, the manager of the 
conference report offered a motion to insist on disagreement with the 
Senate amendment. A preferential motion to recede and concur in the 
amendment with an amendment was offered and pending the debate on the 
motions, a parliamentary inquiry was directed to the 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     The division of time on any amendment in disagreement is 
prescribed by Rule XXVIII clause 2(b) House Rules and Manual Sec. 
912(b) (1997). Under current rules, if the floor managers from the 
majority and minority are both in favor of the original motion which 
is offered to dispose of the amendment, one-third of the time can be 
claimed by a Member opposed. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 204]]

Speaker about the control and division of time.(1) 

THE SPEAKER:(2) The Clerk will report the next amendment in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 61: Page 41, line 9, insert:
"FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
"RAIL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT AND EMPLOYMENT
For payment of financial assistance to assist railroads by providing 
funds for repairing, rehabilitating, and improving railroad roadbeds 
and facilities, $700,000,000 of which not to exceed $7,000,000 shall 
be available for administrative expenses of the Secretary to remain 
available    until December 31, 1976: Provided, however, That these 
funds shall be available only upon enactment of authorizing 
legislation."
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Mahon moves that the House insist on its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 61.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. CONTE
MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Conte moves that the House recede from its disagreement to Senate
amendment Number 61 and concur therein with an amendment, as follows: 
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate, insert 
the following:
"CHAPTER VIII
"DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
"FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
"For payment of financial assistance to assist railroads by providing 
funds for repairing, rehabilitating, and improving railroad roadbeds 
and facilities, $200,000,000 of which not to exceed $1,500,000 shall 
be available for administrative expenses of the Secretary to remain 
available until December 31, 1976: Provided, however, That these funds 
shall be available only upon enactment of authorizing legislation: 
Provided, further, That none of these funds shall be available to 
commuter rail systems."

MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I have moved that the House insist upon its
disagreement with the Senate amendment. . . .  
MR. [E. G.] SHUSTER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. SHUSTER: Mr. Speaker, how is the time divided?
THE SPEAKER: The time is divided equally between the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Mahon), who has 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Michel) who has 30 minutes or such small fraction thereof as he 
may decide to use.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     121 CONG. REC. 14385, 14386, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 14, 
1975.
 2.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 205]]

MR. SHUSTER: I thank the Speaker.
Recognition To Offer Motion
Sec.    8.11 Where the subcommittee chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, calling up the conference report, did not seek 
recognition to offer a  motion to dispose of a crucial amendment in
disagreement, the Speaker recognized the chairman of the full committee 
to offer the anticipated preferential motion.
The sequence of motions to dispose of an amendment in disagreement 
can be important. In the instance cited below, the subcommittee 
chairman allowed another to offer the preferential motion so he could 
control the floor on the less preferential motion when the first motion
offered was defeated. The proceedings of Nov. 3, 1977,(3) are carried 
below:

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(4) The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
MR. [DANIEL J.] FLOOD [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the
resolution just agreed to, I call up the conference report on the 
amendment of the Senate to the amendment of the House to the amendment 
of the Senate numbered 82 to the bill (H.R. 7555) making appropriations 
for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare, and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, and 
for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will read the report.
The Clerk read the report.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
November 2, 1977.)
AMENDMENT IN DISAGREEMENT
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the amendment in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 28: Sec. 209. None of the funds contained in this 
Act shall be used to perform abortions except where the life of the 
mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or except 
for medical procedures necessary for the victims of rape or incest, or 
except in those instances where severe and long-lasting physical health 
damage to the mother would result if the pregnancy were carried to term.
Nor are payments prohibited for drugs or devices to prevent implantation 
of the fertilized ovum, or for medical procedures necessary for the
termination of an ectopic pregnancy.
The Secretary shall issue regulations and establish procedures to ensure 
that the provisions of this section are rigorously enforced.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     123 CONG. REC. 36959, 36966, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4.     K. Gunn McKay (Utah).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 206]]

PREFERRED MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential 
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Mahon moves that the House concur in the amendment of the Senate 
to the amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate numbered 
82.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) will be
recognized for 30 minutes,     and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Michel) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon). . . . 

Following debate, the question was taken and, on a yea and nay vote, 
the preferential motion was rejected.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FLOOD
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Flood moves that the House disagree to the amendment of the Senate 
to the amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate numbered 82.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood), 
is recognized for 30 minutes.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, the House has just voted down the preferential 
motion on the Senate amendment, and in order to move along with this 
bill and send it back to the Senate, I have offered this motion, which
accomplishes that purpose.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MS. [ELIZABETH] HOLTZMAN [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were refused.
So the motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Division of Debate Time on Amendments in Disagreement
Sec.    8.12 Rule XXVIII clause 2 (b)(1) provides explicitly for a 
division of debate time between the majority and the minority when 
amendments are reported in disagreement from conference; and initial 
practice under this rule was to construe the rule narrowly and to 
recognize the proponent of a motion to concur in a new amendment added 
by the Senate after the stage of disagreement for a full hour. 
The only amendment remaining in disagreement on the Labor and Health,
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill for fiscal year 


[[Page 207]]

1979 when it was taken up in the House on Oct. 14, 1978,(5) was one 
dealing with abortion funding. Since the stage of disagreement had been
reached, motions to dispose of the amendment were privileged, and after 
the amendment was read, the manager of the report, Mr. Daniel J. Flood, 
of Pennsylvania, offered a motion to disagree with the amendment. The 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. George H. Mahon, of 
Texas, then offered a preferential motion to concur in the Senate 
amendment. The Chair's application of the rule about division of debate 
time is shown below.
MOTION TO DISAGREE TO SENATE AMENDMENT  NO. 103 TO H.R. 12929, 
LABOR-HEW APPROPRIATIONS, FIS-CAL  YEAR  1979
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I again move to take from the Speaker's desk 
the bill (H.R. 12929) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare, and related agencies, for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979, and for other purposes, with 
Senate amendment No. 103 thereto and disagree to the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read Senate amendment No. 103 as follows:

Page 40, strike out lines 1 to 4, inclusive, and insert:
SEC. 210. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to perform 
abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if 
the fetus were carried to term, or where medically necessary, or for 
rape or incest victims. This section does not prohibit the use of drugs 
or devices to prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum.
GENERAL LEAVE
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
the Senate amendment which we will now consider.
THE SPEAKER:(6) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I have moved to disagree to the Senate amendment.
THE SPEAKER: That motion is now pending.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     124 CONG. REC. 38230, 38231, 38236, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 208]]

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) is recognized 
for 1 hour.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
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 Texas (Mr. Mahon).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes appeared 
to have it.
MR. MAHON: 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 198, 
nays 195, not voting 37.

Parliamentarian's Note: The practice has developed, through use of the 
Chair's recognition policy, of dividing the time on amendments in 
disagreement following rejection of a conference report, where an 
initial motion to dispose of an amendment in disagreement is rejected, 
and where the Senate adds a new amendment after the stage of 
disagreement. Decisions illustrating this evolving practice are 
carried elsewhere in this chapter.(7) 
Sec.    8.13 The Member offering the preferential motion to recede and 
concur does not thereby gain control of the time for debate.
On Sept. 12, 1967,(8) the House was considering an amendment reported 
in disagreement from a conference on H.R. 10738, appropriations for 
fiscal 1967 for the Department of Defense.

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Mahon moves that the House insist upon its disagreement to Senate
amendment numbered 18.

MR. [ROBERT L. F.] SIKES [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Sikes moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 18 and concur therein.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(9) The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mahon] is 
recognized for 1 hour.(10)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     See Sec. 8.20, infra. 
 8.     113 CONG. REC. 25201, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. 
 9.     Carl Albert (Okla.). 
10.     See also 113 CONG. REC. 29837, 29842, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., 
Oct. 24, 1967; and 111 CONG. REC. 8861,  
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 209]]

Sec.    8.14 Although the motion to recede from disagreement and concur 
in a Senate amendment takes precedence over the motion to insist on
disagreement, the Member offering the preferential motion does not 
thereby gain control of time for debate.
On Oct. 24, 1967,(11) the House was considering the amendments in 
disagreement to H.R. 9960, independent offices appropriations for 
fiscal 1968.

THE SPEAKER:(12) 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 previous 
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 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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
8866, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 29, 1965.
11.     113 CONG. REC. 29837, 29838, 29842, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. 
12.     John W. McCormack (Mass.). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 210]]

Sec.    8.15 Although the motion to recede from disagreement and concur 
in a Senate amendment takes precedence over the motion to adhere, the 
Member offering the preferential motion does not thereby gain control 
of time for debate.
On June 23, 1960,(13) the House was considering a Senate amendment to 
H.R. 10569, the Treasury and Post Office Departments appropriation bill 
for fiscal 1961. The following occurred:

MR. [J. VAUGHAN] GARY [of Virginia]: 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:(14) The gentleman may have a division of the 
motion. Does the gentleman wish to debate the motion?
MR. GARY: Yes.
MR. HOFFMAN of Michigan: Yes; I would like to explain what the motion 
is.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Gary] is 
entitled to be recognized for 1 hour on the motion.
MR. HOFFMAN of Michigan: How about my 5 minutes? Will I be recognized 
for 5 minutes to explain the motion?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The time is under the control of the gentleman 
from Virginia.
Dividing the Question
Sec.    8.16 When a division of the question is demanded on a 
preferential motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment in
disagreement, the House does not vote on whether to divide the question 
but first votes on whether to recede; and if it decides this question 
in the affirmative, the vote may recur on the underlying motion to 
concur with an amendment which was temporarily displaced by the 
preferential motion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     106 CONG. REC. 14074, 14081, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. 
14.     Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 211]]

The proceedings of Oct. 11, 1989,(15) illustrate one sequence of 
motions which may occur where a motion to recede and concur with an 
amendment is supplanted by a motion to recede and concur. 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
 MR. [WILLIAM E.] DANNEMEYER [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(16) The gentleman will state it.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, will the vote be on whether there will be 
a division?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: No, the question has been divided. There has 
been a division, and the first question will be: Will the House recede 
from its disagreement to Senate amendment numbered 22?
MR. DANNEMEYER: That is the first vote?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is the first vote.
The second vote will be, if the House does recede: Will the House 
concur      in the Senate amendment with the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon]?
MR. DANNEMEYER: And, Mr. Speaker, in order to get to the position that 
this Member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer], has 
offered, we must defeat the issue that is being presented by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon]; is that correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct.
MR. DANNEMEYER: I thank the Chair. . . . 
The House receded from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate
numbered 22.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is, Will the House concur in the
amendment of the Senate numbered 22 with an amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it. . . . 
So the House refused to concur in the amendment of the Senate numbered 
22 with an amendment.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the preferential motion 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer].
The motion was agreed to.
Effect of Division of Motion To Recede and Concur
Sec.    8.17 Where a motion to recede and concur in an amendment of 
the Senate which is in disagreement between the two Houses is divided, 
on the demand of a Member, the proponent of the initial motion still 
has control of the floor and has an hour at his disposal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     135 CONG. REC. 24097, 24099, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
16.     Doug Barnard, Jr. (Ga.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 212]]

On Dec. 22, 1969,(17) the House was considering Senate amendments to 
H.R. 15209, the supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal 1970. 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized George H. 
Mahon, of Texas, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. Mahon moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 33(18) and concur therein.

THE SPEAKER: For what purpose does the gentleman from New Jersey rise?
MR. [FRANK] THOMPSON [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the 
question be divided. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I do not yield for a motion at this time.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New Jersey demands a division?
MR. THOMPSON of New Jersey: The gentleman does.
THE SPEAKER: The question is, Will the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 33?
MR. [CLARK] MACGREGOR [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. MACGREGOR: I should like to ask the Speaker if the time for debate 
on the motion of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) is under the 
control of the gentleman from Texas and if it is in order for me at 
this time to ask the gentleman from Texas to yield to me for 5 minutes?
MR. MAHON: I have agreed to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota for 5
minutes for the purpose of debate.
MR. MACGREGOR: Am I recognized, Mr. Speaker?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Texas will be recognized for 1 hour, 
but the question before the House now is on the motion of the gentleman 
from Texas that the House recede from its disagreement to the Senate
amendment.
Debate on Preferential Motion
Sec.    8.18 Following a demand for a division of the question on a 
motion to recede and concur, the House having voted to recede, the 
proponent of   a motion to concur with amendment does not by offering 
his preferential motion deprive the Member who had previously been 
recognized to offer the motion to

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     115 CONG. REC. 40902, 40915, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. 
18.     This amendment concerned the controversial Philadelphia plan 
dealing with memberships of racial minorities in construction unions 
employed on federal projects. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 213]]

recede and concur of the floor. The Member offering the motion to recede 
and concur still controls the debate on the preferential motion under 
the hour rule.
On June 30, 1972,(19) Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, was recognized 
by Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, to offer a motion to recede and 
concur in a Senate amendment to H.R. 15390, a bill to extend the public 
debt limit.

MR. [JOHN W.] BYRNES of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a division of 
the question, that it be divided.
THE SPEAKER: that will be in order after the Clerk reports the motion.
The Clerk will report.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Mills moves to recede and concur in Senate amendment numbered 2.

MR. BYRNES of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a division of the 
question, that it be divided.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Wisconsin asks for a division of the 
question.
The question is, will the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to.
MR. BYRNES of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to concur with 
an amendment.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion. . . .  
MR. BYRNES of Wisconsin (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if 
on this particular amendment we may not dispense with the reading?
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to do so?
MR. BYRNES of Wisconsin: I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
further reading of the motion and that it be printed in the Record.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized.
MR. MILLS of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, the second amendment in which I 
have moved to recede and concur involves an increase in social security
benefits of 20 percent across the board effective for the month of 
September 1972, payable in the check for early October and automatic 
benefit increases to protect against the cost-of-living rises in the 
future. . . .
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House   to vote down the substitute offered 
by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Byrnes) and agree to the Senate
amendment.
I move the previous question.
THE SPEAKER: Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Byrnes).
MR. BYRNES of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     118 CONG. REC. 23725, 23731, 23738, 23739, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 214]]

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 83, nays 253, answered 
"present" 1, not voting 95. . . . 
So the motion was rejected. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Mills) that the House concur in the Senate amendment 
No. 2.
MR. MILLS of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 302, nays 35, not voting 
95. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to.
Recognition Following Defeat of Motion
Sec.    8.19 When a motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment 
with an amendment is made by the Member in charge of a bill and is 
defeated, recognition for a motion to further insist on disagreement 
passes to a Member opposed to the original motion.
On June 26, 1942,(20) the House was considering amendments in 
disagreement to H.R. 6709, appropriations for the Department  of 
Agriculture. Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, offered a motion to 
recede and concur in Senate amendment No. 90 with an amendment.

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 131, nays 159, not voting 
142. . . . 
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri and Mr. Tarver rose.
THE SPEAKER:(1) For what purpose does the gentleman from Missouri 
rise?
MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON of Missouri: I rise to move that the House insist 
on its disagreement to the Senate amendment.
MR. TARVER: Mr. Speaker, I desire to submit a parliamentary inquiry. It 
was my purpose to offer a motion as I have done in connection with the 
same subject matter on previous occasions. I had risen for the purpose 
of offering a motion to further insist upon the disagreement of the 
House to Senate amendments Nos. 90 and 91. I wish to inquire whether 
or not I am privileged, as chairman of the House conferees, to offer 
that motion?
MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, my motion is to further insist.
MR. TARVER: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet before the gentleman from 
Missouri rushed over between me and the microphone and offered his 
motion.
MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, it is a long-established rule of
procedure that when a vital motion made by the Member in charge of a 
bill is defeated, the right to prior recognition passes to the 
opposition. That is the position in which the gentleman finds 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     88 CONG. REC. 5642, 5643, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 215]]

himself. He has made a major motion. The motion has been defeated. 
Therefore the right of recognition passes to the opposition, and I ask 
to be recognized to move to further insist.
MR. TARVER: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard with regard to that statement?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
MR. TARVER: The question has never been raised so far as I have known 
in the course of my experience of some 16 years upon an appropriation 
bill conference report, but if as the gentleman states the right of 
making the motion passes to the opposition, it should pass to my 
Republican colleague the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Lambertson] with 
whom the gentleman from Missouri has been associated in the defeat of 
the motion offered by the chairman of the subcommittee. I have desired 
to offer the motion myself in the absence of the exercise of that 
privilege by the gentleman from Kansas.
MR. [WILLIAM P.] LAMBERTSON: Mr. Speaker, I ask for recognition.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Georgia has the floor.
MR. TARVER: I have completed all I desire to say except that I desire 
to offer the motion if it is permissible; otherwise, I insist that the 
right should pass to the opposition and to the gentleman from Kansas 
[Mr. Lambertson].
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is of the opinion that the gentleman from 
Missouri has been properly recognized to offer a motion. The gentleman 
will state his motion.
MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House further 
insist on its disagreement to the Senate amendments.
The motion was agreed to.
Where Initial Motion Is Rejected, Recognition May Go To Opponent 
Thereof
Sec.    8.20 Where the original motion to dispose of an amendment in
disagreement is rejected, recognition goes to a Member who led the 
opposition; and when that Member is recognized to offer a successor 
motion, the debate time, under current procedures, is divided pursuant 
to the same rule which governed debate on the original motion. 
On Aug. 6, 1993,(2) during consideration of amendments in disagreement
reported from the conference on H.R. 2493, Agriculture appropriations 
for fiscal year 1994, the original motion to recede and concur in a 
Senate amendment with an amendment was rejected. The subsequent motion 
was offered by a Member who had opposed the original motion.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(3) The Clerk will designate the next amendment 
in disagreement.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     139 CONG. REC. 19582, 19587, 19588, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
 3.     Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 216]]

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment No. 164: Page 81, after line 12, insert:
SEC. 730. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
available by this Act shall be used by the Secretary of Agriculture to 
provide a total amount of payments to a person to support the price of 
honey under section 207 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 
(7 U.S.C. 1446h) and section 405A of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1425a) in 
excess of $50,000 in the 1994 crop year.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. SKEEN
MR. [JOE] SKEEN [of New Mexico]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Motion offered by Mr. Skeen:
Mr. Skeen moves that the House recede and concur in the amendment of 
the Senate numbered 164 with an amendment as follows: In the matter 
proposed to be inserted by the amendment, add the following: "The GAO 
shall conduct a study and report to Congress on the effectiveness of 
the program."

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] is
recognized for 30 minutes.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
MR. [HARRIS W.] FAWELL [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. FAWELL: First of all, the motion that the gentleman from New Mexico
offered was read so fast I did not understand just what it was. But I 
rise in opposition.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the gentleman is opposed to the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New Mexico, the gentleman [Mr. Fawell] 
is entitled to 20 minutes to debate the issue.
Is the gentleman opposed to the motion offered by the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
MR. FAWELL: Mr. Speaker, if I could, may I have a rereading of that 
motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will rereport the motion offered by 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen].
The Clerk reread the motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman [Mr. Fawell] opposed to the 
motion offered by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen]?
MR. FAWELL: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. FAWELL: At least I think it is a parliamentary inquiry.
Assuming that this particular motion fails, can the Chair advise me 
where we will be then?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Another Member will be recognized for another 
motion on this amendment in disagreement.
Is the gentleman opposed to the motion?
MR. FAWELL: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will 
be recognized for 20 min-


[[Page 217]]

utes, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] will be recognized for 
20 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes. . . . 
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Skeen].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. FAWELL: 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 140, nays 
274, not voting 19. . . . 
So the House refused to recede and concur in the amendment of the 
Senate numbered 164 with an amendment.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FAWELL
MR. FAWELL: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Fawell moves that the House recede and concur in the amendment of 
the Senate numbered 164 with an amendment as follows: In the matter 
proposed to be inserted by the amendment, strike "$50,000" and insert 
"$0".

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes in support of his motion, and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] will be recognized for 30 minutes 
in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
MR. FAWELL: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I believe we have fully debated this, and with concurrence 
from the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and with concurrence from 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], I would suggest that we 
simply go right to the vote, and yield back our time.
I would merely say that those who voted "no" previously would vote 
"yes" this time if they want to kill the honey program, and I would, 
assuming there is agreement, I would then yield back  my time.
MR. [RICHARD J.] DURBIN [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. DURBIN: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 344, noes 
60, not voting 29. . . . 
Recognition Where Manager's Motion Regarding Senate Amendment in 
Disagreement Is Rejected
Sec.    8.21 Where a motion to dispose of an amendment re-


[[Page 218]]

ported from conference in disagreement, offered by the manager of the
conference report, is rejected, the Speaker recognizes a Member leading 
the opposition to offer another motion to dispose of the amendment. 
Following the adoption of an appropriations conference report in the 
95th Congress, the manager of the report, Mr. Edward P. Boland, of
Massachusetts, offered a motion to recede from disagreement to a Senate
amendment reported in disagreement and concur therein with an amendment
reducing the amount of the appropriation proposed by the Senate. The 
motion was actively opposed by the Chairman of the Committee on 
Science and Astronautics, Don Fuqua, of Florida. When the initial 
motion was defeated, Mr. Fuqua was recognized to offer a motion to 
recede and concur. 
The proceedings of July 19, 1977,(4) were as indicated:

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(5) The Clerk will report the next amendment 
in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
        
Senate amendment No. 24: Page 17, line 11, strike out "$2,943,600,000" 
and insert "$3,013,000,000".
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BOLAND
MR. BOLAND: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Boland moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 24 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment 
insert "$2,995,300,000".

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) 
is recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Coughlin) is recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland).
MR. BOLAND: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this motion and another motion I will offer later on in 
the bill are the only two controversial parts of this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, the House conferees were unable to reach agreement on the 
Jupiter Orbiter Probe which NASA had requested in the 1978 budget. The 
House deleted $20,700,000 for the initial funding of this program, and 
the Senate restored the funds. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Fuqua).
MR. FUQUA: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 24.
The effect of this amendment would be to deny the Jupiter Orbiter Probe
program which has been approved by 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     123 CONG. REC. 23668, 23669, 23678, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5.     Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 219]]

three of the four committees making reviews for authorizing and 
appropriating funds for NASA for fiscal year 1978. . . . 
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FUQUA
MR. FUQUA: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Fuqua moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 24 and concur therein.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua) is 
recognized . . . . 
MR. FUQUA: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The motion was agreed to.

Parliamentarian's Note: Under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(1) the division 
of time on a motion to dispose of an amendment reported from conference 
in disagreement is equally divided between the majority and minority 
parties. This provision about the control of time was added to the 
rules in 1972.(6) Two major alterations have occurred since: first, the 
rule was formally amended in the 99th Congress to provide that if both 
the manager and the floor manager for the minority favor the motion 
which is offered to dispose of the amendment, the time may be, if 
demanded, divided three ways to allow a Member in opposition to control 
one-third of the time;(7) and second, by custom, the practice has 
developed of dividing the time, not only on the original motion to 
dispose of the amendment in disagreement, but on mo-tions offered after 
defeat of the original motion. See, e.g., Sec. 8.20, supra. 
Role of Committee Chairman
Sec.    8.22 The Speaker recognized the Chairman of the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce to move to suspend the rules and agree 
to a resolution taking a House bill with Senate amendment from the 
Speaker's table   and agreeing to the Senate amendment.
On Aug. 27, 1962,(8) the following took place in the House:

MR. [OREN] HARRIS [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     See H. Res. 1153, 118 CONG. REC. 36023, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., 
Oct. 13, 1972.
 7.     See H. Res. 7, 131 CONG. REC. 393, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 
3, 1985.
 8.     108 CONG. REC. 17671, 17681, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 220]]

rules and agree to House Resolution 769.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill H.R. 11040, with the Senate amendment thereto, be, and the same 
is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table, to the end that the Senate
amendment be, and the same is hereby, agreed to.

THE SPEAKER:(9) Is a second demanded?
MR. [WILLIAM L.] SPRINGER [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
MR. [WILLIAM FITTS] RYAN of New York: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
second. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: Without objection, a second will be considered as ordered.
There was no objection. . . . 
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 372, nays 10, not voting 
53. . . . 
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended 
and the resolution was passed.(10) 
Sec.    8.23 The Speaker declined to recognize a Member for a 
unanimous-consent request to take a bill from the Speaker's table and 
concur in the Senate amendments where such a request was made without 
the authorization of the chairman of the committee involved and where 
Members had been informed there would be no further legislative 
business for the day.
On July 31, 1969,(11) the following occurred on the floor of the House:

MR. [HALE] BOGGS [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 9951), to provide for 
the collection of the Federal unemployment tax in quarterly 
installments during each taxable year; to make status of employer 
depend on employment during preceding as well as current taxable year; 
to exclude from the computation of the excess the balance in the 
employment security administration account as of the close of fiscal 
years 1970 through 1972; to raise the limitation on the amount 
authorized to be made available for expenditure out of the employment 
security administration account by the amounts so excluded; and for 
other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the 
Senate amendments.
THE SPEAKER:(12) The Chair will state that at this time the Chair does 
not recognize the gentleman from Louisiana for that purpose.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
10.     Mr. Harris was Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce during the 87th Congress.
11.     115 CONG. REC. 21691, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 221]]

The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means is at present appearing 
before the Committee on Rules seeking a rule and Members have been told 
that there would be no further business tonight.
The Chair does not want to enter into an argument with any Member,
particularly the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana whom I admire 
very much. But the Chair has stated that the Chair does not recognize 
the gentleman for that purpose.
MR. BOGGS: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Louisiana equally admires 
gentleman in the chair. I thoroughly understand the position of the
distinguished Speaker.
Availability on Floor of Copies of Matters To Be Considered
Sec.    8.24 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 2(b) copies of Senate 
amendments reported from conference in disagreement as well as the 
conference report in disagreement and the joint statement, must be 
available on the floor of the House when the amendment is considered, 
unless the amendment is considered under suspension of the rules.
On June 29, 1973,(13) Mr. Wil-bur D. Mills, of Arkansas, asked 
unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the conference 
report and amendments in disagreement on H.R. 8410, to continue a 
temporary increase in the public debt limit. Mr. William A. Steiger, 
of Wisconsin, rose with a parliamentary inquiry:

Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: that if an objection is 
heard to the request made by the gentleman from Arkansas, is it in 
order for the gentleman from Arkansas, the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, to move to suspend the rules to bring 
this to the floor of the House?
THE SPEAKER:(14) The Chair will state that the Chair has the authority 
to recognize the gentleman for such a motion.
MR. STEIGER of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to 
object, may I ask the Chair's indulgence in a question relating to rule
XXVIII, clause 2(b), as to whether we have waived that part of the 
rule XXVIII governing conference reports, which says: Nor shall it be 
in order to consider any such amendment that is to the conference 
unless copies of the report and accompanying statement together with 
the text of the amendment are then available on the floor.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that copies of the Senate amendment 
and conference report are available, but that suspension of the rules 
will suspend all rules. . . . 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     119 CONG. REC. 22381, 22382, 22384, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. 
14.     Carl Albert (Okla.). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 222]]

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Dispensing With Reading of Motions To Recede and Concur With an Amendment
Sec.    8.25 To expedite the consideration of amendments reported from
conference in disagreement, the House sometimes dispenses with the 
reading of motions to recede and concur with amendment, so long as the 
motions offered conform to those printed in the conference 
statement.(15) 
While this was the first instance where such a request was 
entertained,(16) it has since become an accepted method for 
accelerating consideration of amendments in disagreement on general
appropriation bills.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(17) The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten].
The motion was agreed to.
MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the reading of any motion to recede and concur with an 
amendment to be offered by the bill manager shall be dispensed with if 
offered in identical form as the motion printed in the Statement of 
Managers-House Report 100-195-which was also printed in the 
Congressional Record on June 27, 1987-pages H5651 through H5682.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection.

