[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 32. House-Senate Relations]
[B. DISPOSING OF AMENDMENTS BETWEEN THE HOUSES; MOTIONS]
[Â§ 9. To Agree or Concur]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 222-232]
 
                House-Senate Relations
 
                  A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    9. To Agree or Concur

Before the stage of disagreement, or after that stage is reached and 
the House has receded from its disagreement on a particular amendment,
concurring in a Senate amendment brings the two Houses to 
reconciliation. A request or motion to concur may be made in order in 
a variety of ways-by intervention of the Committee on Rules, by 
unanimous consent, or by a motion under suspension of the rules. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     Under Rule XXVIII clause 2(c), as added to the standing rules 
in the 96th Congress, conference reports and amendments in disagreement 
are considered as read if printed and available as provided in clause 
2 of the same rule. (H. Res. 5, 125 CONG. REC. 7-16, 96th Cong. 1st 
Sess., Jan. 15, 1979.)
16.     133 CONG. REC. 18294, 100th Cong. 1st Sess., June 30, 1987.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 223]]

After the stage of disagreement is reached, a motion to dispose of an
amendment of the other House is given privilege.

Resolution From Committee on Rules
Sec.    9.1 By a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, the 
House may take a House bill with Senate amendments from the Speaker's 
table and concur in the Senate amendments.
On Apr. 8, 1964,(18) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri:

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House
Resolution 665, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill (H.R. 6196) to encourage increased consumption of cotton, to 
maintain the income of cotton producers, to provide a special research 
program designed to lower costs of production, and for other purposes, 
with the Senate amendments thereto, be, and the same is hereby taken 
from the Speaker's table, to the end that the Senate amendments be, 
and the same are hereby agreed to.(19) 
Sec.    9.2 Where a resolution provides for taking a House bill with 
Senate amendments from the Speaker's table to the end that the Senate
amendments are agreed to, adoption of the resolution means that the 
House concurs in the Senate amendments.
On Mar. 24, 1948,(20) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts,
recognized Mr. Leo E. Allen, of Illinois, to call up House Resolution 
510:

Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 510 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill (H.R. 4790) to reduce individual income tax payments, and for 
other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, be, and the same is 
hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end that all Senate 
amendments be, and the same are hereby, agreed to. . . . 

MR. [SAM] RAYBURN [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     Daniel R. Glickman (Kans.).
18.     110 CONG. REC. 7302-04, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
19.     See also 112 CONG. REC. 2069, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 3, 1966.
20.     94 CONG. REC. 3399, 3413, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 224]]

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. RAYBURN: As I understand the parliamentary situation, Mr. Speaker, 
there is to be one vote only; and if the resolution is agreed to, it 
means that the House concurs in the Senate amendments to the so-called 
Knutson bill.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman has stated the situation correctly.
Sec.    9.3 The House may adopt a resolution providing that it shall 
proceed to consideration of Senate amendments to a House joint 
resolution, that the motion to concur be pending, that the previous 
question be ordered thereon, and that the time for debate be fixed.
On Nov. 12, 1941,(1) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois:

Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 334, and ask for its immediate
 consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
House shall proceed to consider the Senate amendments to the joint 
resolution (H.J. Res. 237) to repeal section 6 of the Neutrality Act of 
1939, and for other purposes; that the motion to concur in the said 
Senate amendments shall be considered as pending and that debate on 
said motion shall be limited to not to exceed 8 hours, to be equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and that at the conclusion of such 
debate the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
motion to concur. . . .

THE SPEAKER: The previous question has been ordered. The question is on
agreeing to the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to. . . .  
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the Senate amendments. . . . 
Pursuant to House Resolution No. 334, a motion to concur in the Senate
amendments just read is pending. The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Bloom] is recognized for 4 hours. The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Fish] is recognized for 4 hours on the motion.
Sec.    9.4 Form of resolution providing for taking a House bill with a 
Senate amendment from the Speaker's table and agreeing to such Senate
amendment.
On May 29, 1946,(2) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Edward E. Cox, of Georgia:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     87 CONG. REC. 8763, 8770, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     92 CONG. REC. 5925, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 225]]

Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 644 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the bill (H.R. 4908) 
to provide additional facilities for the mediation of labor disputes, 
and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, be, and the 
same hereby is, taken from the Speaker's table, to the end that the 
Senate amendment be, and the same hereby is, agreed to.(3) 
Concurring and Concurring With Amendment
Sec.    9.5 The House may adopt a resolution providing for taking from 
the Speaker's table a House bill with Senate amendments, concurring in 
certain amendments, and concurring in certain other amendments with
amendments.
On Aug. 27, 1957,(4) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Ray J. Madden, of Indiana:
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules I call up House 
Resolution 410 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill, H.R. 6127, with Senate amendments thereto be, and the same hereby 
is, taken from the Speaker's table; that Senate amendments Nos. 1 
to 6, inclusive, Senate amendments 8 to 14, inclusive, and Senate 
amendment No. 16, be, and the same are hereby, agreed to; that the 
House hereby concurs in Senate amendment No. 7 with an amendment as 
follows: In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment insert the
following: . . . 
Sec.    9.6 The House may adopt a resolution taking a House bill with 
Senate amendments from the Speaker's table, agreeing to the Senate 
amendment to the title of the bill and concurring in the remaining 
amendment with an amendment striking out   a section of the Senate 
amendment.
On June 20, 1936,(5) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
recognized Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York:

Mr. O'Connor, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following 
privileged resolution, which was re-

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     See also 87 CONG. REC. 8579, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 6, 1941; 
87 CONG. REC. 2143, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 10, 1941; and 80 CONG. 
REC. 837, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 22, 1936.
 4.     103 CONG. REC. 16086, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5.     80 CONG. REC. 10568, 10569, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 226]]

ferred to the House Calendar and ordered printed:
H. RES. 557
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill H.R. 8555, with the Senate amendments thereto, be, and the same 
is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end that the Senate 
amendment to the title of the bill be, and the same is hereby, agreed 
to; and Senate amendment no. 1 be, and the same is hereby, agreed to 
with the following amendment: Strike out section 303 of title III of 
the said Senate amendment.
Resolution as Subject to Amendment
Sec.    9.7 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker stated 
that if the previous question were voted down on a resolution providing 
for agreeing to a Senate amendment to a House bill, the resolution 
would be open to amendment.
On June 17, 1970,(6) the House was considering House Resolution 914, 
which provided for agreeing to Senate amendments to H.R. 4249, a bill 
to extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of 
Michigan, rose with a parliamentary inquiry:

Mr. Speaker, a "no" vote on the previous question does give an 
opportunity for one of those who led the fight against the resolution 
to amend the resolution now pending before the House?
THE SPEAKER:(7) The Chair will state in response to the parliamentary 
inquiry of the gentleman from Michigan that if the previous question 
is voted down, the resolution is open to amendment. . . . 
Senate Joint Resolution
Sec.    9.8 The House may adopt a special rule taking a Senate joint
resolution from the Speaker's table and concurring in a Senate 
amendment to a House amendment.
On June 14, 1935,(8) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, instructed 
the Clerk to read the following resolution:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
joint resolution (S.J. Res. 113) entitled "Joint resolution to extend 
until April 1, 1936, the provisions of title I of the National 
Industrial Recovery Act, and for other purposes", with the amendment 
of the Senate to the House amendments, be, and the same hereby is, 
taken from the Speaker's table, to the end that the Senate amendment to 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     116 CONG. REC. 20159, 20198-200, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 8.     79 CONG. REC. 9311, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 227]]

the House amendments be, and the same is hereby, agreed to.
Under Motion To Suspend the Rules
Sec.    9.9 On one occasion the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means submitted a House resolution agreeing to Senate amendments to a 
House bill and the Speaker recognized him to move to suspend the rules 
and agree thereto.
On Sept. 17, 1962,(9) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas:

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the House 
Resolution 800.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill H.R. 7431, with the Senate amendments thereto, be, and the same 
hereby is, taken from the Speaker's table, to the end that the Senate
amendments be, and the same are hereby agreed to.
Sec.    9.10 A motion to suspend the rules and concur in a Senate 
amendment to a House bill is not subject to amendment.
On July 27, 1946,(10) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [HATTON W.] SUMNERS of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the 
rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the joint resolution 
(H.J. Res. 225) to quiet the titles of the respective States, and 
others, to lands beneath tidewaters and lands beneath navigable waters 
within the boundaries of such States and to prevent further clouding 
of such titles. . . . 
MR. [SAM] HOBBS [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
THE SPEAKER:(11) No amendment is in order. . . . 
MR. HOBBS: Mr. Speaker, I have an agreement with the gentleman from 
Texas that I would be permitted to offer an amendment to the Senate 
amendment.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair knows  nothing about that agreement. An 
amendment to this motion is not in order.
Sec.    9.11 To a pending motion to suspend the rules and concur in a 
Senate amendment a motion to concur in such amendment with an amendment 
is not in order.
On July 27, 1946,(12) the following took place in the House:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     108 CONG. REC. 19610, 19614, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
10.     92 CONG. REC. 10310, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
12.     92 CONG. REC. 10310, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 228]]

MR. [HATTON W.] SUMNERS of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the 
rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the joint resolution 
(H.J. Res. 225) to quiet the titles of the respective States, and 
others, to lands beneath tidewaters and lands beneath navigable waters 
within the boundaries of such States and to prevent further clouding 
of such titles. . . . 
MR. [SAM] HOBBS [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I move to concur in the 
Senate amendment with an amendment.
THE SPEAKER:(13) That motion is not in order.
By Unanimous Consent
Sec.    9.12 Before the stage of disagreement, the House may by 
unanimous consent concur in a nongermane Sen-  ate amendment to House
amendments to a Senate bill.
On Apr. 23, 1970,(14) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Kenneth J. Gray, of Illinois:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk 
the bill (S. 3253) to provide that the Federal office building and U.S.
Courthouse in Chicago, Ill., shall be named the "Everett McKinley 
Dirksen Building East", and that the Federal office building to be 
constructed in Chicago, Ill., shall be named the "Everett McKinley 
Dirksen Building West" in memory of the late Everett McKinley Dirksen, 
a Member of Congress of the United States from the State of Illinois 
from 1933 to 1969, together with the Senate amendment to the House 
amendments, and concur in the Senate amendment. . . . 
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendments as follows:

Sec. 2. Upon a determination that a local educational agency lacks the 
fiscal capacity to provide an adequate free public education for 
children of persons who live and work on Federal property, and if such
children constitute not less than 25 per centum of the total enrollment, 
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall make emergency 
payments from sums already available, but not to exceed $2,500,000, 
for the current school year to such local educational agency as may 
be necessary to provide a free public education for such children: 
Provided, That such payments shall not exceed the average per-pupil 
cost to such agency for all children eligible to receive a free public
education from such agency, less Federal and State payments to such 
agency for free public education.

The Senate amendment was agreed to.
Sec.    9.13 By unanimous consent, the House conferees were discharged 
and, the original papers being in the possession of the House, the 
House agreed to the Senate amendments that had been in disagreement.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
14.     116 CONG. REC. 12874, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 229]]

On Aug. 12, 1964, the Senate notified the House that it had appointed 
managers to join those previously named in the House at conference on 
H.R. 4649, which had been amended by the Senate. The House agreed to 
the Senate amendments on Oct. 2, 1964. On Oct. 2,(15) Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the conferees on the part of 
the House be discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4649) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to authorize the 
use of certain volatile fruit-flavor concentrates in the cellar 
treatment of wine; and I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 4649) to amend the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1954 to authorize the use of certain volatile fruit-flavor 
concentrates in the cellar treatment of wine, with Senate amendments 
thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arkansas?
There was no objection.
The Senate amendments were concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec.    9.14 The pendency of a unanimous-consent request to take from 
the Speaker's table a House joint resolution with Senate amendments 
and concur in the Senate amendments precludes a demand for a roll call 
vote on the Senate amendments, since those amendments are already 
disposed of if the request is granted.
On June 30, 1971,(16) George H. Mahon, of Texas, Chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, sought unanimous consent to take House 
Joint Resolution 742, with Senate amendments thereto, from the 
Speaker's table and to concur in those amendments:

MR. [JOHN R.] DELLENBACK [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, a . . . 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(17) The gentleman will state it.
MR. DELLENBACK: If this Member is desirous of asking for a rollcall 
vote on the approval of this particular continuing appropriation 
measure, would this be the time to bring it to the attention of the 
Chair and withdraw the reservation of objection?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     110 CONG. REC. 23786, 23787, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
16.     117 CONG. REC. 23095, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 230]]

MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, if I may say a word, the request or unanimous 
consent was to take from the Speaker's table House Joint Resolution 742 
making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1972, and for other
purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate 
amendments. The request, I believe, would not open up the measure for 
a rollcall vote.(18) We would have to use a different procedure if we 
wanted a rollcall vote on the measure, as I see it. The Speaker, of 
course, will make his own ruling.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct.
Privilege of Motion When Applied to Amendments Not Requiring 
Consideration in Committee of the Whole
Sec.    9.15 A motion to concur in the Senate amendments to a House 
concurrent resolution providing for the signing of enrolled bills 
during a period of adjournment is privileged under Rule XXIV clause 2 
(since such amendments do not require consideration in the Committee 
of the Whole).
Parliamentarian's Note: Although the Congressional Record for Oct. 13,
 1970,(19) indicates that Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, obtained 
unanimous consent to concur in the Senate amendments to House 
Concurrent Resolution 775, the following entry from the Journal for 
that day(20) indicates that concurrence was obtained by a motion 
offered by Mr. Albert, and that therefore, such motion was privileged:

On motion of Mr. Albert, the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 775)
authorizing the Speaker of the House(1) and the President of the Senate 
to sign enrolled bills and joint resolutions notwithstanding the 
adjournment of Congress from October 14 to November 16, 1970; together 
with the following amendment of the Senate thereto, was taken from the
Speaker's table:
Page 1, line 3, strike out "House" and insert "Congress".
Page 1, line 4, after "Senate" insert ", the President pro tempore, or 
the Acting President pro tempore,".
When, on motion of Mr. Albert, said Senate amendment was concurred in.
Effect of Rejection of Preferential Motion
Sec.    9.16 Upon rejection of a preferential motion to concur in 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     This request also obviated the requirement that these amendments 
be considered in the Committee of the Whole.
19.     116 CONG. REC. 36600, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     H. Jour. 1299, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970).
 1.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 231]]

a Senate amendment with an amendment, the question recurs on a pending 
motion to concur in the Senate amendment.
On June 28, 1972,(2) the House was considering Senate amendments in
disagreement to H.R. 13955, legislative branch appropriations for 
fiscal 1973. A motion to recede and concur offered by Mr. Samuel S. 
Stratton, of New York, was divided on demand of Mr. Robert R. Casey, of 
Texas. After the House voted to recede, Mr. Casey offered the resultant
preferential motion to concur with an amendment.

MR. STRATTON: Mr. Speaker, if the motion offered by the gentleman from 
Texas does not carry; what is the parliamentary situation then?
THE SPEAKER:(3) The next vote would be on the motion of the gentleman 
from New York to concur in the Senate amendment.
Effect of Rejection of Motion To Concur
Sec.    9.17 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker 
indicated that if a motion to concur in Senate amendments to a House 
amendment to a Senate bill was rejected, either a motion to concur with 
a germane amendment or to disagree would be in order.
On July 17, 1967,(4) the House was considering a Senate amendment to 
a House amendment to Senate Joint Resolution 81, providing for a 
settlement to a railway labor dispute. Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of 
Maryland, offered a motion to concur in the Senate amendment. Mr. 
Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, was then recognized:

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry, if I may.
THE SPEAKER:(5) The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. PEPPER: If the motion to concur in the Senate amendments should be 
voted down, would then a motion to disagree to the Senate amendments 
be in order?
THE SPEAKER: It could be, under the rules, any germane amendments. Did 
the gentleman ask specifically as to any amendment?
MR. PEPPER: If a motion to disagree to the Senate amendments were made, 
in case the motion to agree to the Senate amendments were voted down, 
would it be in order?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     118 CONG. REC. 22959, 22974, 22975, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 4.     113 CONG. REC. 19036, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 232]]

THE SPEAKER: It could be.