[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 32. House-Senate Relations]
[B. DISPOSING OF AMENDMENTS BETWEEN THE HOUSES; MOTIONS]
[Â§ 10. To Recede or Recede and Concur]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 232-268]
 
                House-Senate Relations
 
                  A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    10. To Recede or Recede and Concur

A "motion to recede" is a somewhat ambiguous term in the abstract: it 
may indicate that the person making the request in the House wishes to 
recede from a House amendment. After the stage of disagreement is 
reached, the request is normally directed at removing a particular 
amendment of the Senate from that condition, thus permitting a reversal 
of the privilege bestowed upon certain motions under Rule XLV of 
Jefferson's Manual (House Rules and Manual Sec. 528 (1997)).
 Where a bill is returned to the House with amendments in disagreement, 
and the House recedes from its own House amendments, the bill is passed 
unless the motion otherwise specifies,(6) or unless the Senate has 
concurred in the House amendment with a Senate amendment.(7) But if by 
motion the House recedes from disagreement to Senate amendments, the
amendments are not thereby agreed to, since a motion to concur with an
amendment is still in order.
A motion to recede from an amendment with an amendment is not 
privileged, but such a result can be achieved by unanimous consent or 
special order.(8) 

Receding From House Amendment
Sec.    10.1 By unanimous consent, the House may recede from its own
amendments to a Senate bill.
On Apr. 18, 1966,(9) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [WRIGHT] PATMAN [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 2729) to amend section 
4(c) of the Small Business Act, and for other purposes, with House 
amendments thereto, and that the House recede from its amendments 
numbered 1 through 7.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER:(10) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.(11)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     See Sec.Sec. 10.2, 10.3, infra.
 7.     See Sec.Sec. 10.7-10.9, infra.
 8.     See Sec.Sec. 10.4-10.6, infra.
 9.     112 CONG. REC. 8207, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
10.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 233]]

Effect of House Receding From Its Amendment to Senate Bill
Sec.    10.2 Where the House recedes from its amendment to a Senate 
bill, even where the Senate has informed the House that it disagrees 
with  the House amendment, the Senate bill is passed.
Since the House was about to adjourn sine die, there was no time to go 
to conference on S. 1805, authorizing reinstatement of a certain oil 
and gas lease. The proceedings, which were not a matter of dispute, are
carried here.(12) 

MR. [NICK J.] RAHALL [II, of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill 
(S. 1805) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to reinstate oil 
and gas lease LA 033164, with House amendments thereto, and recede 
from the House amendments to the Senate bill.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of the House amendments to the Senate bill is as follows:

House amendments:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Amendments 
Act of 1990".
SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF SECTION 14 LEASES. . . . 
Amend the title so as to read: "An Act to amend sections 14 and 31 of 
the Mineral Leasing Act, and for other purposes.".

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(13) Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from West Virginia? . . . 
MR. RAHALL: Mr. Speaker, this legislation was first passed by the 
Senate on September 11. On October 10, the House amended and passed 
the bill. On Tuesday, the Senate disagreed to our amendments.
We are accepting the Senate version of this legislation. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.(14) 
Effect of Receding
Sec.    10.3 When a House amendment to a Senate bill is reported back 
from conference in disagreement and the House insists on its amend-

------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     See also 107 CONG. REC. 18595, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 7, 
1961.
12.     136 CONG. REC. 36825, 36826, 101st Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 27, 
1990.
13.     Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).
14.     The enrollment of this measure was announced to the House on 
Jan. 3, 1991, at 137 CONG. REC. 111, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 234]]

ment, the bill returns to the Senate with such message for further 
action, but should the House recede from its amendment the bill retains 
its original form.
On Mar. 16, 1942,(15) the House was considering the amendments reported 
back from conference still in disagreement to S. 2208, the second war 
powers bill of 1942. Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, moved to insist 
on House amendment No. 32, which deleted title VIII of the bill. Mr. 
Charles F. McLaughlin, of Nebraska, was then recognized by the Speaker 
Pro Tempore, Richard M. Duncan, of Missouri:

If the House votes not to insist upon its amendment, then there is 
nothing before the conferees, because the House will then have yielded 
to the position taken by the Senate, as I understand the situation. Am 
I correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the House recedes from its amendment, then 
there would be no reason to go to conference.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: That is what I intended to ask. So that the situation 
is, Mr. Speaker, if I understand it correctly, we have two 
alternatives-one to insist and one to recede.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is correct.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: If we recede, we vote to pass without further action 
by the conferees the bill in the form in which it was prior to the time 
the    Judiciary Committee, by committee amendment, moved that this 
title be stricken out, and prior to the time the House adopted that 
amendment. If we vote to insist, then we send it back to conference 
for action by the conferees. Is that not the situation?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the House adopted the pending motion, then 
it goes back to the Senate for further consideration. It goes to the 
Senate first before it goes to conference.
Receding From an Amendment With an Amendment
Sec.    10.4 The Senate has, by unanimous consent, receded from one of 
its own amendments "with an amendment."
The proceedings below show the action of the Senate on Mar. 22, 1983,(16) 
when it receded from one of its amendments to a House bill with an 
amendment.

MR. [MARK O.] HATFIELD [of Oregon]: Mr. President, I move that we adopt
amendment No. 82.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(17) The amendment has been adopted.
The clerk will report the remaining amendment in disagreement.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     88 CONG. REC. 2508, 2512, 2513, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
16.     129 CONG. REC. 6629, 6630, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Nancy L. Kassebaum (Kans.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 235]]

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The House insists upon disagreement to Senate amendment numbered 82.
MR. HATFIELD: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
for the Senate to recede from its amendment No. 82 with an amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, it is so ordered.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 118
MR. HATFIELD: Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The amendment will be stated.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon (Mr. Hatfield) proposes an unprinted amendment
numbered 118.

MR. HATFIELD: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said amendment, insert 
the following: 

SEC. 101. (a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 75 per 
centum of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this 
title for each account listed in subsection (a)(5) shall be made 
available for projects and activities in civil jurisdictions with high
unemployment, or in labor surplus areas, or in political units or in 
pockets of poverty that are currently or should meet the criteria to 
be eligible under the Urban Development Action Grant program 
administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
On Mar. 24, 1983,(18) when the House took up the message from the 
Senate with respect to the new Senate amendment 82, it was considered 
as privileged, the stage of disagreement being in effect, even with 
respect to this new amendment.

EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS, 1983
MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I move to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1718) making emergency 
expenditures to meet national needs for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1983, and for other purposes, with the remaining Senate
amendment numbered 82 thereto, and concur therein.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

Resolved, That the Senate recede from its amendment numbered 82 and 
concur with a further amendment as follows:
Page 32, of the House engrossed bill, strike out all after line 21 over 
to and including line 5 on page 35 and insert: . . . 

THE SPEAKER:(19) The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Conte) will be recognized for 30 minutes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     129 CONG. REC. 7300, 7301, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
19.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 236]]

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten).

Parliamentarian's Note: Although the Senate is not under its rules
specifically governed by  Jefferson's Manual, it has traditionally 
followed the prohibition Jefferson sets forth in Sec. XLV of his 
Manual: "But the House can not recede from or insist on its own 
amendment, with an amendment; for the same reason that it cannot send 
to the other House an amendment to its own act after it has passed 
the act. They may modify an amendment from the other House by 
engrafting an amendment on it, because they have never assented to 
it; but  they cannot amend their own amendment, because they have,  
on the question, passed it in that form."(20) 
Sec.    10.5 Form of a special order permitting the House to recede 
from its amendment to a Senate amendment in disagreement, and concur 
therein with a different amendment.
On Nov. 15, 1995,(1) the Senate had attempted to table its amendment 
numbered 115 to the bill H.R. 1868. Debate in the Senate indicated that 
the Senate action would clear the bill for presentation to the 
President, assuming that by tabling its amendment (in which the House 
had already concurred with an amendment) there would be nothing left 
in disagreement between the Houses. 
On Dec. 13, 1995,(2) the House took the action here noted, since under 
House precedents, the Senate action in tabling its amendment (an action 
which the Senate equated with receding from its amendment) was not 
itself an action sufficient to pass the bill without further action by 
the House.(3) 
The Senate action, a portion of the debate on that occasion, and the 
special order utilized in the House to recede from its amendment and 
concur with a new amendment are carried here. The special order 
provided for a waiver of points of order against the mo-

------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. House Rules and Manual Sec. 526 (1997).
 1.     141 CONG. REC. 32530, 32534, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     Id. at p. 36290.
 3.     See Sec. 10.9, infra. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 237]]

tion, since House precedents indicate that it is not parliamentary to 
recede from a House amendment to a Senate text with an amendment.(4) 
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
MR. [MITCH] MCCONNELL [of Kentucky]: Mr. President, I ask that the 
Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives 
on H.R. 1868, a bill making appropriations for foreign operations, 
export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1996, and for other purposes.
The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message from 
the House of Representatives.

Resolved, That the House disagree to the amendment of the Senate to the
amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate numbered 115 to 
the bill (H.R. 1868) entitled "An Act making appropriations for foreign
operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes.". . . . 

. . . [T]he motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 115) was 
agreed to. . . . 
MR. MCCONNELL: Mr. President, let me describe where I believe we are on 
the foreign operations bill as of this motion to table.
According to the Senate Parliamentarian, based on precedence, beginning 
in 1898 and in subsequent votes as recently as 1984, either House has 
the option to recede on its amendment. Based on discussions with the
Parliamentarian, it is my understanding that by tabling amendment No. 
115, we have, in effect, receded our position on both the Kassebaum 
language [Senate] and the Chris Smith language [House] leaving no 
further amendments in disagreement. This means no further action is 
required by the House on the foreign operations appropriations bill, 
unless it chooses to, and it can be enrolled by the House and sent to 
the President, again, if the House should choose to take that 
route. . . . 
DISPOSING OF SENATE AMENDMENT 115 TO H.R. 1868, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, 
EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
MR. [PORTER J.] GOSS [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 296 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 296
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1868) making 
appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related 
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other
purposes, with the Senate amendment numbered 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     See 5 Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 6216-6218; House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 526 (1997).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 238]]

115 thereto, and to consider in the House the motion printed in section  
2 of this resolution. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be 
considered as read. All points of order against the motion are waived. 
The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on that motion to final adoption without
intervening motion or demand for division of the question.
SEC. 2. The motion to dispose of the amendment of the Senate numbered 
115 is as follows:
Mr. Callahan (or his designee) moves that the House recede from its 
amendment to the amendment of the Senate numbered 115, and concur 
therein with an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert:
"Authorization of Population Planning
"SEC. 518A. Section 526 of this Act shall not apply to funds made 
available in this Act for population planning activities or other 
population assistance pursuant to section 104(b) of the Foreign 
Assistance Act or any other provision of law, or to funds made 
available in title IV of this Act as a contribution to the United 
Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).".

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(5) The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is
recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
Sec.    10.6 The House has also receded from a House amendment to a 
Senate amend-ment to a House bill with    an amendment, but only by 
unanimous consent.
The request made by Mr. Eligio (Kika) de la Garza, of Texas, on July 
14, 1983,(6) shows an example of this type of action, which is rarely
utilized.

AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 1949 AMENDMENT
MR. DE LA GARZA: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3392) to amend the Agricultural Act of 
1949, with a House amendment to the Sen-ate amendment thereto, and to 
recede from the House amendment with an amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the House amendment to the Senate amendment, as follows:

In lieu of the language contained in the Senate amendment, insert the
following:
Page 1, after line 11, insert the following:
SEC. 2. Section 319 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 
(7 U.S.C. 1314e) is amended by-
(1) in the second sentence of subsection (c), striking out "5 per 
centum" and inserting in lieu thereof "10 per centum"; and
(2) in the fourth sentence of subsection (e), striking out "95 per 
centum" and inserting in lieu thereof "90 per centum". . . . 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     Jack Kingston (Ga.).
 6.     129 CONG. REC. 19158, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 239]]

THE SPEAKER:(7) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
There is no objection.
Is there objection to the initial request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Effect of Receding From an Amendment, the Other House Having Concurred 
With a Further Amendment
Sec.    10.7 Where one House has receded from its amendment to a bill 
after the other House has concurred therein with an amendment, the bill 
is  not passed until the House that has concurred with an amendment 
has receded from its own amendment and agreed to the action of the other House. 
In the instance described here,(8) the Senate had actually not receded 
from, but tabled, its amendment in which the House had previously 
concurred in with an amendment. Mr. Mark O. Hatfield, of Oregon, 
originally moved to recede, but after debate, the question was put on 
his motion to table the Senate amendment to the House amendment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(9) The clerk will report the next amendment in
disagreement.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment 
of the Senate numbered 14 to the aforesaid resolution, and concur 
therein with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment, insert: "No funds 
are appropriated herein for the Central Intelligence Agency in fiscal 
year 1984 for purpose or which would have the effect of supporting, 
directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in 
Nicaragua by any nation, group, organization, movement, or individual.".

MR. HATFIELD: Mr. President, this is the amendment dealing with the 
subject of Nicaragua, aid to Nicaragua. I now move that the Senate 
recede from its amendment numbered 14.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, the motion is agreed to.
MR. [WILLIAM] PROXMIRE [of Wisconsin]: Mr. President, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
MR. HATFIELD: Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold, I was about 
ready to explain the motion. I think there are Members who wish to 
speak on this issue. I should like to have the Chair not rule on this 
point, on the adoption of this motion, until I have had an opportunity 
to explain it. . . . 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
 8.     130 CONG. REC. 18576, 18591, 98th Cong. 2d Sess., June 25, 
1984.
 9.     Robert W. Kasten, Jr. (Wis.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 240]]

(Mrs. [Nancy L.] Kassebaum [of Kansas] assumed the chair.)
MR. HATFIELD: Madam President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina. 
I know that he feels strongly about this issue and expressed himself 
today in very eloquent terms. Even though we disagree on the matter, 
I think the issue has had a good debate and good discussion and the 
record has been made.
Therefore, at this time, I move to table Senate amendment numbered 14.
MR. [EDWARD M.] KENNEDY [of Massachusetts]: Madam President, this is 
an important vote.
It does represent a lessening of the administration's commitment to 
the war.
And I say, "Amen."
Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] to table Senate amendment No. 
14. The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the 
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
MR. [JOHN C.] STENNIS [of Mississippi]: I announce that the Senator 
from South Dakota [Mr. Abdnor] and the Senator from Colorado 
[Mr. Armstrong] are necessarily absent. . . . 
So the motion to lay on the table Senate amendment No. 14 was agreed 
to.
MR. [HOWARD H.] BAKER [Jr., of Tennessee]: Madam President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.
MR. [ALAN J.] DIXON [of Illinois]: I move to lay that motion on the 
table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
MR. BAKER: Madam President, am I correct now that the vote just taken, 
which disposes of the last remaining amendment in disagreement, is the 
final action required by the Senate on this measure?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The majority leader is correct.
MR. BAKER: I thank the Chair.

On the following day,(10) the House took the necessary conforming 
action. Mr. Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi, offered a unanimous-consent
request, but since the stage of disagreement had been reached when the 
measure was sent to conference, a motion to recede from the House 
amendment would have been privileged.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Sparrow, one of its clerks, announced 
that the Senate agrees to the report of the committee of conference on 
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate 
to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 492) entitled "Joint resolution 
making an urgent supplemental appropriation for the 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     130 CONG. REC. 18733, 18734, 98th Cong. 2d Sess., June 26, 1984.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 241]]

fiscal year ending September 30, 1984, for the Department of 
Agriculture." . . . 
The message also announced that the Senate tabled its amendment 
numbered 14 to the above-entitled joint resolution. . . . 
EXPLANATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 492 . . . 
MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement regarding a 
unanimous-consent request that I am about to make regarding the urgent
supplemental (H.J. Res. 492). As my colleagues probably know by now, 
yesterday the Senate cleared the remaining obstacle on the conference 
report on the urgent supplemental. By a record vote of 88 to 1 the 
other body agreed with the House position that no additional funding 
should be made available to the CIA for the Nicaragua operations. This 
House voted 241 to 177 on May 24 to prohibit the CIA to use any funds 
in this bill to continue their covert actions in Nicaragua. Finally 
after almost a month, the Senate has come around to the House position 
on this matter. My unanimous-consent request, which I will make shortly 
is somewhat unusual in that since the Senate has tabled its amendment 
(No. 14) which provided the $21 million, for the bill to go to the 
President we need to recede from our language amendment which was 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Boland]. Since the 
funding is no longer in this measure, the language prohibition is no 
longer required and it can now be deleted so that this bill may go to 
the President.
I sincerely hope that no one will object to this request. This 
resolution which began in the Appropriations Committee on February 29 
is long overdue and necessary. . . . 
URGENT SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1984
MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 492) making an urgent
supplemental appropriation for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1984, for the Department of Agriculture, with the remaining amendment, 
and that the House recede from its amendment to the amendment of the 
Senate numbered 14 and agree to the action of the Senate.
This is necessary in order for the bill to go on to the President, and 
as I say again, everyone that I have talked to agrees that it is 
necessary.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
THE SPEAKER:(11) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Parliamentarian's Note: In the Senate, tabling an amendment does not 
table the underlying bill (as would be the case in the House).
Relevant precedents relating to one House receding from its amendment 
after the other has concurred with an amendment 

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


[[Page 242]]

are noted in Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 524 
(1997).
Sec.    10.8 Where the Senate has receded from its amendment to a bill 
after the House has concurred therein with an amendment, the bill is 
not passed until the House has receded from its own amendment and 
agreed to the action of the other body. 
On Nov. 9, 1993,(12) Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, Chairman of the 
Interior Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, made the 
unanimous-consent request carried below. Since the stage of 
disagreement had been reached on the amendments remaining in 
disagreement to the appropriation bill, the matter could have been 
effected by a motion if the request were not agreed to.

MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2520) making
appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes, 
with the remaining amendment in disagreement and that the House recede 
from its amendment to the amendment of the Senate numbered 123 and 
agree to the action of the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the House amendment to Senate amendment No. 123 is as 
follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert:
SEC. 317. GRAZING. . . . 
Title IV of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 
(43 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) is amended by adding the following new 
sections:
"SEC. 406. GRAZING FEES.
"(a) ESTABLISHMENT.-The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture shall annually establish grazing fees.
"(b) PHASE-IN.-The grazing fee for the grazing years 1994, 1995, and 
1996 shall be as follows . . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
MR. [RALPH] REGULA [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, I reserve the right to object in order to advise the House as 
to what has happened on this.
On September 29 this House, by a vote of 314 to 109, instructed the 
House conferees to reject the Senate amendment to this bill which put 
a moratorium on the Secretary of the Interior. I am pleased to inform 
the House Members that the House has prevailed. The moratorium has been 
taken out of the bill and the Secretary of the Interior will now be 
free to, by executive action, deal with the grazing-fee issue and also 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     139 CONG. REC. 28061-64, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 243]]

with whatever regulations he may choose to promulgate.
This reflects exactly the House position as we, as conferees, were 
instructed by that vote on September 29. 
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec.    10.9 Where the Senate recedes from amendments which have been 
amended by the House it is necessary, to reach agreement on the bill, 
for the House to recede from its amendments to the Senate amendments.
On Sept. 11, 1944,(13) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Stephen Pace, of Georgia:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 
the bill (H.R. 4278) to provide for the control and eradication of 
certain animal and plant pests and diseases, to facilitate cooperation 
with the States in fire control, to provide for the more efficient 
protection and management of the national forests, to facilitate the 
carrying out of agricultural conservation and related agricultural 
programs, to facilitate the operation of the Farm Credit Administration 
and the Rural Electrification Administration, to aid in the orderly 
marketing of agricultural commodities, and for other purposes, with 
Senate amendments; that the House recede from its amendments to Senate
amendments Nos. 1 and 3 and agree to the action of the Senate in 
receding from their amendments Nos. 1 and 3.
MR. [EARL C.] MICHENER [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, will the gentleman explain in very clear language the 
necessity for this?
MR. PACE: The bill H.R. 4278 was an authorization bill which passed the 
House last May authorizing certain appropriations that Congress has 
made for a number of years but which had never been authorized by law. 
After being amended I believe the bill passed the House practically
unanimously.
The Senate Committee on Agriculture reported the bill line for line as 
it was passed by the House; but they did add three amendments, one 
having to do with the school-lunch program, a second having to do with 
the Farm Security Administration, and a third having to do with the
tobacco-acreage allotments.
The House never agreed to the amendment relating to tobacco allotments 
but did agree with an amendment to the school-lunch and Farm Security
provisions. On account of the fact that these two provisions 
subsequently were written into the agricultural appropriation bill and 
enacted into law the Senate has agreed to recede from all three 
amendments. Inasmuch as the other two provisions are 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     90 CONG. REC. 7634, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 244]]

now in the agricultural appropriation bill they have receded from the 
tobacco amendment.
I am advised by the Parliamentarian, however, that inasmuch as we 
concurred in two of the amendments with amendments it is now necessary 
that the House concur in the action of the Senate in receding from 
their original amendments.
MR. MICHENER: Yes, I understand that. The language of the request is 
unusual from a parliamentary standpoint; it is very difficult to 
understand. It expresses what ought to be done, but in a very unusual 
way. I do not wish to apologize for the Parliamentarian in drafting the
language of the request, for I think it is the only possible approach 
he could make to a situation so unusual.
MR. PACE: I am advised it is under these circumstances.
Division of Motion To Recede and Concur
Sec.    10.10 The question on the motion to recede and concur in a 
Senate amendment may be divided on demand of a Member.
On June 15, 1943,(14) the House was considering the Senate amendment in
disagreement  to H.R. 1648, Treasury and Post Office appropriations for 
1944. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Louis Ludlow, of 
Indiana:

Mr. Speaker, I move to recede and concur in the Senate amendment, and 
I yield myself 15 minutes.
MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a division of 
the question.
MR. LUDLOW: Mr. Speaker, I object to a division of the question and 
insist on my preferential motion to recede and concur.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair thinks the gentleman from New York is entitled 
to have the question divided if he so desires.
MR. LUDLOW: A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. LUDLOW: I have always understood that a motion to recede and concur 
by the Member in charge of the bill is a preferential motion.
THE SPEAKER: It is a preferential motion, but it may be divided.
MR. LUDLOW: If I insist that it is a preferential motion, what is the 
ruling of the Chair?
THE SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair is that it is a preferential 
motion, but it is divisible. If any Member desires a division of the 
question, he has a right under the rules of the House to demand it.(15)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     89 CONG. REC. 5899, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
15.     See also 109 CONG. REC. 8506, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., May 14, 
1963 (H.R. 5517); and 106 CONG. REC. 14074,
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 245]]

Sec.    10.11 Any Member may as a matter of right (under Rule XVI 
clause 6) demand a division of the question on a motion to recede and 
concur in a Senate amendment, and the House does not vote on whether 
to permit a division of the question.
On June 28, 1972,(16) the House was considering Senate amendments in
disagreement to H.R. 13955, legislative branch appropriations for 
fiscal 1973. Mr. Robert R. Casey, of Texas, offered a motion that the 
House insist on its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 36. Speaker 
Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, then recognized Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, of 
New York:

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

Mr. Stratton moves that the House recede from its disagreement to 
Senate amendment numbered 36 and concur therein.

MR. CASEY of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I request a division of the question.
MR. STRATTON: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. STRATTON: Is the request for a division of the question presumably 
to recede on one part and concur on the other part? Is this subject to 
a vote or something?
THE SPEAKER: All of the motion is subject to a vote. The question is 
on the matter of receding from disagreement.
MR. STRATTON: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. If a Member 
is in favor of accepting the Senate amendment, then he would oppose the 
motion to divide on the vote. Is that correct?
THE SPEAKER: This is not a question of voting on the division but a 
question of voting on the motion to recede.
MR. STRATTON: A further parliamentary inquiry. My understanding is that 
if the motion to divide succeeds and passes, then it is possible
parliamentarily to offer an amendment to the Senate amendment rather 
than to accept the Senate amendment. Is that not correct?
THE SPEAKER: If the motion to recede from disagreement is adopted, then
a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment is in 
order.
MR. STRATTON: Then another further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. 
If we want to accept the Senate amendment and conclude the conference, 
the way to do that is to vote down the motion to divide this particular
question. Is that not true?
THE SPEAKER: There is no question of division involved.
MR. STRATTON: Mr. Speaker, I am confused. My original question was 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 23, 1960 (H.R. 10569).
16.     118 CONG. REC. 22959, 22974, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 246]]

whether the proposal to divide the question into two parts was subject 
to a vote.
THE SPEAKER: Division of a question is a right which any Member of the 
House enjoys.
Sec.    10.12 Where a motion to recede and concur with an amendment to 
an amendment of the Senate reported in disagreement from conference has 
been divided, and the House has refused to recede, the conferee managing 
the bill is entitled to recognition to offer a motion to insist on
disagreement.
The practice regarding the Speaker's bestowal of recognition to offer 
a new motion following the rejection of a motion to recede from 
disagreement is illustrated by the proceedings of Sept. 24, 1975.(17) 

THE SPEAKER:(18) . . . The question is on the motion to recede.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it. . . . 
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 197, nays 
203, not voting 33. . . . 
So the motion to recede was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. SLACK
MR. [JOHN M.] SLACK [Jr., of West Virginia]:(19) Mr. Speaker, I offer 
a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Slack moves that the House insist on its disagreement to Senate 
amendment No. 8.

THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from West Virginia desire time on the 
motion?
MR. SLACK: Mr. Speaker, I desire no time.
MR. [M. G. (GENE)] SNYDER [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
gentleman yield just for 30 seconds?
MR. SLACK: I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
MR. SNYDER: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say I had the same motion.
The motion was agreed to.
Debating Both Parts of Divided Motion To Recede and Concur
Sec.    10.13 When the question is divided on a motion to recede and 
concur, and the House debates the question of whether to recede under 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     121 CONG. REC. 30081, 30082, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
19.     Mr. Slack was the manager of the conference report on H.R. 8121
(State, Justice, Commerce, the Judiciary appropriations for fiscal year 
1976) by virtue of his chairmanship of the Subcommittee on State, 
Justice, Commerce, and Judiciary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 247]]

the hour rule and does not order the previous question on either member
of the divided question, then the second member (to concur, or the
preferential motion to concur with amendment, if offered) is separately
debatable for one hour. 
Where a motion to dispose of an amendment in disagreement is pending, 
a Member offering a preferential motion does not ordinarily control 
time thereon, as all debate is allocated on the original motion. But 
where an original motion is divided, it in effect becomes two motions, 
each subject to debate under the hour rule, subject to the divided 
allocations prescribed in Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(2).(20) Often, the 
question on receding is put without debate so the House can get quickly 
to the next step: a preferential motion or the other half of the 
divided question.
The proceedings of Nov. 14, 1989,(1) included debate on both the motion 
to recede and the preferential motion to concur with an amendment.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(2) The Clerk will designate the next amendment 
in disagreement.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

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

MR. [VIN] WEBER [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I demand that the question 
be divided.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question will be divided.
The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Okla-

------------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912(c) (1997).
 1.     See 135 CONG. REC. 28754, 28766, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     Sander M. Levin (Mich.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 248]]

homa [Mr. Edwards] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
MR. [MICKEY] EDWARDS of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the 30 minutes allotted to me may be controlled by the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. . . . 
MR. [WILLIAM] LEHMAN of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I have no further 
requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(3) The question is, will the House recede from 
its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 17?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it. . . . 
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY
MR. [CHRISTOPHER H.] SMITH of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

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

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
McHugh] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Debate on Motion To Recede and Concur
Sec.    10.14 Debate on a motion that the House recede from its 
disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur in the same is under the 
hour rule, and if the question is divided the hour rule applies to each 
motion separately.
On May 9, 1940,(4) during consideration of the conference report and
amendments in disagreement to H.R. 8202, the agricultural appropriation 
bill for 1941, the following discussion occurred:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     Frank McCloskey (Ind.).
 4.     86 CONG. REC. 5889, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 249]]

MR. [WILLIAM M.] WHITTINGTON [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, as I 
understand, there is 1 hour debate allowed on the motion to recede and 
concur. Request had been made for a division. My inquiry is this: Will 
there be 1 hour of debate on each motion?
THE SPEAKER:(5) The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] controls the 
time. If one is demanded on the motion to recede, that hour is granted. 
Then an hour will be granted on the motion to concur.
MR. WHITTINGTON: That satisfies my inquiry.
Consequences of Dividing Motion To Recede and Concur
Sec.    10.15 Where a division of the question was demanded on a 
preferential motion to recede from disagreement and concur in a Senate
amendment (offered while a motion to insist was pending), the Speaker
indicated: (1) that if the motion to recede were agreed to, a motion to 
concur with a germane amendment would take precedence over the pending 
motion to concur; but (2) that if the motion to recede were disagreed 
to, the question would recur on the initial motion to insist on 
disagreement to the Senate amendment. 
On Aug. 10, 1976,(6) when the House had under consideration the final
amendment remaining in disagreement following adoption of the 
conference report on an appropriation bill,(7) the manager(8) of the 
bill offered a motion that the House insist on its disagreement.  A
preferential motion to recede and concur was then offered, followed by 
a demand that that motion be divided. The proceedings and inquiries 
are carried below:

THE SPEAKER:(9) The Clerk will report the last amendment in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
 6.     122 CONG. REC. 26781, 26783, 26792, 26793, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     H.R. 14232 (Labor and Health, Edu-cation, and Welfare 
appropriations for fiscal 1977).
 8.     Daniel J. Flood (Pa.).
 9.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 250]]

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

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

MR. [DAVID R.] OBEY [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, if this is the correct 
time to make this request, I ask that that question be divided.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will inform the gentleman that the question 
will be divided on the preferential motion. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [JEROME A.] AMBRO [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. AMBRO: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situation, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania is making a motion to insist on the House language
incorporated in the Hyde amendment. The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Pritchard) now asks us to recede and concur with the Senate 
language.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is right.
MR. AMBRO: The gentleman then said that this was divisible, which means 
that we can take a vote on the motion to recede.
THE SPEAKER: To recede from disagreement to the Senate amendment.
MR. AMBRO: Yes. If the motion to recede passes, can we then go on with 
a vote to concur with the Senate language? Is that the next step?
THE SPEAKER: Yes. But if the House recedes, any germane motion to 
concur with an amendment would be in order before the House votes on 
the pending motion to concur.
MR. AMBRO: To concur with an amendment will be in order. If the motion 
to recede fails, is another preferential motion to recede and amend in 
order?
THE SPEAKER: No.
MR. AMBRO: Do we then move to a vote on the Flood language?
MR. FLOOD: Pro forma.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct.
MR. AMBRO: That is correct?
THE SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. AMBRO: I thank the Speaker. . . . 
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to 
insist on its disagreement and on the preferential motion.
THE SPEAKER: Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MS. [BELLA S.] ABZUG [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentlewoman will state it.
MS. ABZUG: Mr. Speaker, if as the chairman has indicated he moves the 
previous question, if one intends to concur with the Senate amendment 
one would vote "yea" and if one opposes the Senate amendment, which is 
to elimi-


[[Page 251]]

nate the Hyde amendment, then one would vote "nay." Is that correct?
THE SPEAKER: The question will be on whether the House shall recede 
from its disagreement. If the House does not recede, then the motion of 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be voted upon, and then the House 
could insist on its position and then the matter will go back to the 
Senate.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [JOE] SKUBITZ [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. SKUBITZ: Mr. Speaker, if the House votes to recede, would a motion 
have precedence?
THE SPEAKER: A motion will be in order.
MR. SKUBITZ: I thank the Chair.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Pritchard) that the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered  68. . . . 
So the motion to recede was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the vote by which action was taken on the 
several motions was laid on the table.
Stage of Disagreement, Once Reached, Continues as Additional Amendments 
Are Considered; Precedence of Motions
Sec.    10.16 A motion in the House to dispose of a further amendment 
of the Senate to a House amendment to a Senate amendment, the stage of
disagreement having been reached, is privileged and is more preferential 
than a motion to commit under Rule XVII clause 1.
Where the House, pursuant to a rule, amended a Senate amendment to a 
House bill, then insisted on its amendment and requested a conference, 
the stage of disagreement was reached; and when the Senate ignored a 
request for a conference and sent the House a further amendment to the 
House amendment to the Senate amendment, the motion to concur in the 
House was deemed  privileged.
 A motion to refer, or to commit, a Senate amendment to a House 
amendment to a Senate amendment, the stage of disagreement having been
reached, is in order under Rule XVI clause 4 if the previous question 
is rejected on the motion to concur.


[[Page 252]]

Where the final stage of amendment is reached between the Houses, the 
motion which tends to bring the matter to closure most quickly is the 
most preferential. 
On Sept. 16, 1976,(10) when the House had before it the final Senate 
amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to a House 
bill, the options available to the House were limited. When the manager 
of the bill(11) moved to concur in the final Senate amendment, a 
series of inquiries and alternatives were broached, including a 
specific inquiry regarding the applicability of a motion to refer 
under Rule XVII(12) in the pending situation:

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

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House engrossed 
amendment to the Senate engrossed amendments, insert;
That this Act may be cited as the "Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust 
Improvements Act of 1976". . . .

MR. RODINO (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that further reading of the Senate amendment be dispensed with.
THE SPEAKER:(13) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New Jersey?
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
MR. [ROBERT] MCCLORY [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have several 
parliamentary inquiries.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state them.
MR. MCCLORY: Mr. Speaker, is the motion of the gentleman from New 
Jersey privileged because the stage of disagreement has been reached?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct.
MR. MCCLORY: Mr. Speaker, my next parliamentary inquiry is, was the 
stage of disagreement reached when the House insisted on its amendment 
to the first Senate amendment and requested a conference thereon, even 
though the Senate had not previously or has not subsequently voted its
disagreement?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     122 CONG. REC. 30868, 30872, 30873, 30887, 30888, 94th Cong. 2d 
Sess.
11.     Peter W. Rodino, Jr. (N.J.), Chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
12.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 804 (1997).
13.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 253]]

THE SPEAKER: That is correct.
MR. MCCLORY: Mr. Speaker, my third parliamentary inquiry is this: Is the 
House still in disagreement even though it has not acted upon the 
Senate amendment now before the House?
THE SPEAKER: The stage of disagreement is still in effect.
MR. MCCLORY: I thank the Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey? . . .
There was no objection. 
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

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

MR. RODINO: Mr. Speaker, I allot myself such time as I may consume. . . . 
I move the previous question on the motion.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. MCCLORY: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. MCCLORY: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that rule XVII states 
that "It shall be an order-after the previous question shall have been 
ordered on its passage, for the Speaker to entertain and submit a 
motion to commit, with or without instructions, to a standing or select
committee," and in view of the fact that motions to commit are 
permitted when the stage of disagreement has been reached in the 
context of the consideration of conference reports, and in view of the 
fact that prior precedents indicate that a motion to commit is in order 
after the previous question has been ordered on a motion to concur in 
a Senate amendment (V, 5575), is it absolutely necessary to first vote 
down the previous question before I may be recognized to offer a motion 
to commit?
THE SPEAKER: The answer to the specific question is "yes," but the 
precedent cited by the gentleman is not applicable in the present 
situation, since in this case the stage of disagreement has been 
reached and therefore the pending motion is most preferential as 
tending to resolve the differences between the House most quickly.(14)
MR. MCCLORY: I thank the Chair. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on ordering the previous question.(15) 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     The precedent cited by Mr. McClory (5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 
5755) involved action on a Senate amendment which was not in 
disagreement. Rule XVII clause 1 was held on that occasion to permit a 
motion to commit after the previous question was ordered.
15.     If the previous question on Mr. Rodino's motion had been voted 
down, a motion to refer under Rule XVI clause 4 (House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 782 (1997)) would have been in order, but not the most 
preferential.  See House Rules and Manual Sec. 808 (1997), which states
"Although a motion to commit under this clause, with instructions to 
report forthwith with an amendment, has been allowed after the previous
question has been ordered on a motion to dispose of Senate amendments 
before the stage of disagreement (5 Hinds'
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 254]]

The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. MCCLORY: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 215, noes 
177, not voting 38. . . . 
Sec.    10.17 The stage of disagreement having been reached and the 
previous question having been demanded on the motion to recede (the 
motion to recede and concur in the Senate amendment having been 
divided), the Chair informed a Member that a motion to refer the matter 
back to the committee having jurisdiction would not be in order.
On May 14, 1963,(16) a motion to recede and concur in a Senate 
amendment to H.R. 5517, supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1963, 
had been divided and the previous question had been demanded on the 
motion to recede.

MR. [AUGUST E.] JOHANSEN [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(17) The gentleman will state it.
MR. JOHANSEN: Mr. Speaker, if the privileged motion prevails, what will 
be the parliamentary situation with respect to the possibility of 
offering a motion to refer the matter back to the proper legislative
committee?
THE SPEAKER: Under present circumstances, that motion, in the opinion 
of the Chair, would not be in order.
Effect of Receding After Division of Motion
Sec.    10.18 A motion to recede from disagreement to a Senate 
amendment and concur therein is divisible and, if the House recedes, 
the motion to concur in the Senate amendment is then pending.
On June 30, 1972,(18) the House was considering the conference 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Precedents Sec. 5575; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 2744, 2745), a 
motion to commit under this rule does not apply to a motion disposing 
of Senate amendments after the stage of disagreement where utilized to
displace a pending preferential motion." But a motion which would 
further amend would not have been in order since it would have been 
in the third degree.
16.     109 CONG. REC. 8508, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 255]]

report and amendments in disagreement to H.R. 15390, providing for a 
temporary extension of the public debt limit. Speaker Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma, recognized Mr. John J. Rhodes, of Arizona, with a 
parliamentary inquiry:

Mr. Speaker, as I understand the parliamentary situation that will 
prevail, there are two amendments which will be offered and then a 
motion will be offered, presumably by the gentleman from Arkansas, to 
recede and concur.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, is that motion divisible?
THE SPEAKER: It is.
MR. RHODES: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry-if the motion 
to recede is carried, then a motion to concur is then in order; is 
that correct?
THE SPEAKER: That is part of the pending motion to recede and concur.
Sec.    10.19 After a motion to recede and concur in a Senate 
amendment is divided and the previous question had been moved on the 
pending question to recede, no motion to concur in the Senate amendment 
with an amendment is in order until the House votes to recede.
On May 14, 1963,(19) the House was considering Senate amendment No. 76 
to H.R. 5517, supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1963. A motion to 
recede and concur offered by Mr. Robert R. Barry, of New York, was 
divided on demand of Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, who then moved the 
previous question on the motion to recede. At this point Mr. H. R. 
Gross, of Iowa, sought to offer a "substitute"(20) motion:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a substitute for the Barry motion.
THE SPEAKER:(1) The gentleman from Texas has moved the previous 
question.
Effect of the Previous Question
Sec.    10.20 The motion to recede and concur having been divided, the
previous question applies only to the motion to recede and, if both the
previous question and the motion to recede are agreed to, then 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     118 CONG. REC. 23716, 23717, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
19.     109 CONG. REC. 8508, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
20.     The term "substitute" motion is imprecise here. If Mr. Gross 
had intended to offer a motion to concur with an amendment, such motion 
would have been "preferential" if the motion to recede had carried in 
the House.
 1.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 256]]

the question of concurring is before the House.
On May 14, 1963,(2) the House was considering Senate amendments in
disagreement to the supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 5517. Mr. 
Robert R. Barry, of New York, moved that the House recede from its
disagreement to Senate amendment No. 76 and concur therein. That motion 
was divided on demand of Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, who, after brief 
debate moved the previous question on the motion to recede. Mr. Melvin 
R. Laird, of Wisconsin, then posed a parliamentary inquiry:

Mr. Speaker, as I understand, the gentleman from Texas moved the 
previous question merely on the question of receding. We will still 
have the question before us of concurring, and amendments may be 
offered?
THE SPEAKER:(3) The gentleman is correct.
MR. [FRANK J.] BECKER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BECKER: Mr. Speaker, what has happened to the preferential motion 
made by the gentleman from New York?
THE SPEAKER: The motion of the gentleman from New York is the pending
question. If the previous question is ordered, the first vote will be 
on whether or not the House will recede from its disagreement to the 
Senate amendment.
The question is on ordering the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is, Will the House recede from its 
disagreement to the Senate amendment No. 76?
The motion was agreed to.
Effect of Rejection of Motion To Recede
Sec.    10.21 The House having refused to recede from disagreement to 
a Senate amendment, a motion to further insist is in order and a motion 
to concur is not admitted.
On July 7, 1943,(4) the House was considering Senate amendment No. 33 
reported back in disagreement on H.R. 2968, the second deficiency
appropriation bill. Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, moved that the 
House further insist on its disagreement to the amendment. Mr. Herman 
P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania, offered a preferential motion to 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     109 CONG. REC. 8508, 8509, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 4.     89 CONG. REC. 7382-84, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 257]]

recede and concur which was divided on demand of Mr. John Taber, of New 
York.

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 170, nays 176, answering 
"present" none, not voting 84. . . . 
So the motion to recede was not agreed to. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(5) The question is on the motion of the gentleman from 
Missouri.
MR. EBERHARTER: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. EBERHARTER: As I understand the situation, the motion made by me 
contained two parts, the motion to recede and concur; and the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Taber] asked for a division of that question and the 
House just declared itself not to recede. The question, as I understand 
it, now before the House is whether it desires to recede and concur.
THE SPEAKER: The House cannot concur until it has receded, which it has 
just refused to do.
MR. EBERHARTER: I beg the Speaker's pardon. I thought the vote was that 
the House should recede.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Missouri.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec.    10.22 If the House refuses to recede from its disagreement to 
a Senate amendment a motion to concur with an amendment is precluded.
On May 9, 1940,(6) the House was considering amendments in disagreement 
to H.R. 8202, agriculture appropriations for fiscal 1941. After a 
motion to recede and concur was divided, the following question arose:

MR. [WILLIAM P.] LAMBERTSON [of Kansas]: If the House recedes, the 
question then recurs on the amendment to strike out the 75-percent 
provision. Will that come on concurring, or what will be the effect of
receding?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(7) Of course, the Chair is not in position to
anticipate further motions that may be made, but, as the Chair 
understands it, after the motion to recede is agreed to, the gentleman 
from Missouri gave notice that he expected to offer a motion to concur 
with an amendment.
MR. LAMBERTSON: If the motion to recede carries, what will be the 
situation?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Missouri will doubtless 
offer his motion, as he had indicated he will do.
MR. LAMBERTSON: If the House does not recede, then his motion is 
precluded?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is the effect of it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 6.     86 CONG. REC. 5892, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 7.     Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 258]]

Sec.    10.23 Where the House refuses to recede from its disagreement 
to a Senate amendment a motion is usually made that the House insist 
on its disagreement to such amendment.
On July 15, 1937,(8) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
recognized Mr. James G. Scrugham, of Nevada, to offer a motion to 
dispose of Senate amendment No. 89 to H.R. 6958, Interior Department
appropriations for fiscal 1938:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recede and concur.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nevada 
that the House recede and concur.
MR. [ABE] MURDOCK of Utah: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division of that 
question.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is entitled to a division of the question. 
The question is whether the House shall recede from its disagreement 
to the Senate amendment. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 122, nays 191, not voting 
117. . . . 
MR. SCRUGHAM: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House insist on its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 89.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec.    10.24 The rejection of the motion to recede has on rare 
occasions been interpreted as tantamount to insisting on disagreement 
to the Senate amendment.
On Aug. 21, 1957,(9) the House was considering the Senate amendments 
reported back from conference in disagreement to H.R. 9131, 
supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1958. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, recognized Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recede and concur in the Senate 
amendment with an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Cannon moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 54, and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum named in said amendment 
insert "$425,000".

MR. [KARL M.] LECOMPTE [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential 
motion.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     81 CONG. REC. 7197, 7198, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9.     103 CONG. REC. 15518, 15519, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 259]]

Mr. LeCompte moves to recede  and concur with Senate amendment numbered 
54.

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a division of 
the question.
THE SPEAKER: The question is, Will the House recede from its 
disagreement? . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 142, nays 215, not voting 
75. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The House insists on its disagreement to the Senate 
amendment.

Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker's interpretation in this instance 
was contrary to the weight of the precedents. See Sec.Sec. 10.20, 
10.21, supra, and Sec.Sec. 12.5, 12.9, 12.10, infra, for examples of 
the prevailing interpretation generally given in this situation.
Effect of Adoption of Motion To Recede and Concur on Motion To Insist
Sec.    10.25 When the House agrees to a preferential motion to recede 
and concur, the motion to insist upon disagreement falls and is not 
voted upon.
On the legislative day of Sept. 14, 1959,(10) the House was considering 
Senate amendment No. 50 reported in disagreement to H.R. 8385, 
providing appropriations for mutual security and related agencies.

MR. [OTTO E.] PASSMAN [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Passman moves that the House insist upon its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 50.

MR. [JOHN J.] ROONEY [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Rooney moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 50 and concur therein. . . . 

The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER:(11) The question is on the preferential motion offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rooney]. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 221, nays 81, not voting 
133. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to. . . . 
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     105 CONG. REC. 19740-42, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 15, 1959
(Calendar Day).
11.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 260]]

Rejection of Motion To Recede and Concur Not Equivalent to Insisting 
on Disagreement
Sec.    10.26 Rejection of a motion  to recede and concur with 
amendments in a Senate amendment reported from conference in 
disagreement is not equivalent to a motion to insist on disagreement, 
and a motion to insist and request a conference is the appropriate 
motion to send a measure to a new conference. 
On May 29, 1980,(12) during the consideration of motions to recede 
from disagreement and concur with amendments in the Senate amendment 
reported from the conference in disagreement, a colloquy occurred about 
the equivalency of motions. A portion of the proceedings is carried 
here. 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 307, FIRST CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET-FISCAL YEAR 1981
MR. [ROBERT N.] GIAIMO [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 307) 
setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the 
fiscal years 1981, 1982, and 1983 and revising the congressional budget 
for the U.S. Government for the fiscal year 1980, and ask for its 
immediate consideration. . . . 
MR. [LEON E.] PANETTA (of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Panetta moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
Senate amendment to House Concurrent Resolution 307 and to concur 
therein with two amendments, as follows:
In the engrossed Senate amendment to House Concurrent Resolution 307, 
strike out section 1 and sections 14-20 and insert in lieu thereof the
following:
SECTION 1. That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant 
to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that for the 
fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1980- . . .

THE SPEAKER:(13) The gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta) will be
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) 
will be recognized for 30 minutes. . . .
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Panetta).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
MR. [DELBERT L.] LATTA [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     126 CONG. REC. 12678, 12710, 12712, 12716, 12717, 96th Cong. 
2d Sess.
13.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 261]]

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 173, nays 
199, not voting 61 . . . . 
So the motion was rejected.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. GIAIMO
MR. GIAIMO: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Giaimo moves that the House insist upon its disagreement to the 
Senate amendment and requests a further conference with the Senate 
thereon.

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo).
The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [PETER A.] PEYSER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. PEYSER: Mr. Speaker, would the Speaker please explain what it is 
that we are now voting on in this particular matter?
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion of the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) that the House insist upon its disagreement to 
the Senate amendment and request a further conference with the Senate 
on the budget for 1980 and 1981.
The question has been put.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, we just voted on the figures for 1981 in the 
motion by the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta). A motion to 
insist is, in fact, redundant and it is a revote of the previous vote; 
is that not correct? It is the same proposition.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will reply that it is a necessary motion to get 
back to a new conference. That is the gentleman's motion, and it is not 
an equivalent motion to the motion previously made by the gentleman 
from California. The Chair has already put the question to a voice 
vote. The gentleman from Maryland had risen for a rollcall. Does the 
gentleman want the yeas and nays?
MR. BAUMAN: Yes, I certainly do.
The yeas and nays were ordered. 
Defeat of Motion To Recede and Concur Permits Further Motions
Sec.    10.27 If a motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment is
defeated, a further motion relating to the amendment in disagreement 
is in order.


[[Page 262]]

On Oct. 17, 1967,(14) the House was considering Senate amendment No. 13 
to H.R. 11476, appropriations for the Department  of Transportation for 
fiscal 1968 which had been reported back from conference in 
disagreement. Mr. Edward P. Boland, of Massachusetts, moved that the 
House recede and concur therein. Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, was
recognized:

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry, if the gentleman will yield.
MR. BOLAND: I yield to the gentleman.
THE SPEAKER:(15) The gentleman will state it.
MR. YATES: This is a motion to recede and concur in the Senate 
amendment. What would be the effect of voting down such a motion? Will 
it have the effect of sending the conferees back to conference for the 
purpose of ironing out this particular item again?
THE SPEAKER: The amendment would still be before the House subject to 
another form of a motion.
MR. YATES: What would be the nature of that motion, Mr. Speaker?
THE SPEAKER: The motion could be that the House insist on its 
disagreement.
MR. YATES: I thank the Speaker.
MR. [DURWARD G.] HALL [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
yield?
MR. BOLAND: I yield to the gentleman.
MR. HALL: If the gentleman from Massachusetts' motion that the House 
recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 13 and 
concur therein was voted down, then another motion would be in order, 
would it not, I would ask as a parliamentary inquiry, to instruct the
conferees to maintain the position of the House or that the House 
insist upon its disagreement with the other body?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state in response to the parliamentary 
inquiry propounded to the Chair by the distinguished gentleman from 
Missouri that if the House should insist upon its disagreement, then 
the matter could go back to conference.(16) 
Sec.    10.28 When a preferential motion to recede and concur is 
decided in the negative, the question recurs on a pending motion to 
insist on disagreement to the Senate amendment.
On Dec. 17, 1963,(17) the House was considering amendments in 
disagreement to H.R. 8667, river basin and flood control authoriza-

------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     113 CONG. REC. 29044, 29048, 29049, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
15.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
16.     See also 81 CONG. REC. 7007, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 9, 
1937.
17.     109 CONG. REC. 24815, 24816, 24822, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 263]]

tion. After the Clerk read Senate amendment No. 26, Speaker Pro Tempore 
Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. Clifford Davis, of Tennessee:

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

Mr. Davis of Tennessee moves that the House insist upon its 
disagreement to Senate Amendment No. 26.

MR. [ARNOLD] OLSEN of Montana: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential 
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Olsen of Montana moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
to the amendment of the Senate No. 26 and concur therein.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Davis] is
recognized for 1 hour.
MR. DAVIS of Tennessee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona [Mr. Udall].
MR. [MORRIS K.] UDALL: Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Davis] and his committee for the constructive work that 
they have done on this bill. However, I rise in support of the 
preferential motion which has been offered by the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Olsen]. . . . 
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Olsen of 
Montana) there were-ayes 66, noes 132.
So the motion was rejected.
THE SPEAKER:(18) The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Davis] to insist  on its disagreement to the Senate
amendment.(19) 
Sec.    10.29 The defeat of a motion to recede and concur is not 
equivalent to insisting upon disagreement.
On July 9, 1937,(20) the House was considering a Senate amendment in
disagreement to H.R. 7493, War Department appropriations for 
nonmilitary activities for fiscal 1938.
THE SPEAKER:(1) The question is on the motion of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania to recede and concur in the Senate amendment.
The question was taken; and on a division(2) (demanded by Mr. Snyder of
Pennsylvania) there were ayes 3 and noes 95.
So the motion was rejected.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair respectfully suggests to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Snyder] that in view of 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
19.     See also 108 CONG. REC. 19945, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 19, 
1962.
20.     81 CONG. REC. 7007, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
 2.     The word "division" as it is used here refers to a method of 
voting during which Members stand and are counted as either "aye" or 
"no" on the question at issue. It should not be confused with a 
division into two separate motions of the motion to recede and concur.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 264]]

the last action, the gentleman should move that the House insist on its
disagreement to the Senate amendment. In other words, some disposition 
should be made of that amendment, and not leave it up in the air.
MR. [MALCOLM C.] TARVER [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. [MALCOLM C.] TARVER: If the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Snyder] does not desire to make a motion to further insist upon 
the disagreement of the House to the Senate amendment, will the Chair
recognize some other member of the committee to make such a motion?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will recognize some other member of the 
committee to make such a motion if the chairman of the committee does 
not desire to make the motion.
MR. [J. BUELL] SNYDER of Pennsylvania: I make that motion, Mr. 
Speaker.(3) 
Withdrawal of Motion To Recede and Concur; Amendments in Disagreement, 
Motions in Order Following Rejection of First
Sec.    10.30 If a preferential motion to recede and concur in a Senate
amendment reported from conference in disagreement is withdrawn or 
defeated, a motion to recede and concur with an amendment is in order 
and preferential to a motion to insist on disagreement. 
When a Senate amendment in disagreement was before the House, 
following the adoption of the conference report on the legislative 
branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 1977, the manager of the 
bill moved that the House insist on disagreement. A preferential motion 
to recede and concur was offered, then withdrawn to permit the offering 
of a motion     to recede and concur with an amendment. Proceedings 
were as follows:(4) 

THE SPEAKER:(5) The Clerk will report the next amendment in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 56: Page 35, line 1 insert:
RESTORATION OF WEST CENTRAL FRONT OF CAPITOL
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Architect of the 
Capitol, under the direction of the Senate 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     See also 109 CONG. REC. 24823, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 17, 
1963; and 108 CONG. REC. 19945, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 19, 1962.
 4.     122 CONG. REC. 31899, 31900, 31902, 31905, 31906, 94th Cong. 
2d Sess., Sept. 22, 1976.
 5.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 265]]

and House Office Building Commissions acting jointly, is directed to 
restore the West Central Front of  the United States Capitol (without 
change of location or change of the present architectural appearance 
thereof), $25,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
That the Architect of the Capitol, under the direction of such 
Commissions acting jointly, is authorized and directed to enter into 
such contracts including cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contracts, incur such
obligations, and make such expenditures for personal and other expenses 
as may be necessary to carry out this paragraph. . . . 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. SHIPLEY
MR. [GEORGE E.] SHIPLEY [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Shipley moves that the House insist on its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 56.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. STRATTON
MR. [SAMUEL S.] STRATTON [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion to recede and concur in the Senate amendment No. 
56 to the legislative appropriation conference report.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Stratton moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate number 56 and concur therein.

MR. STRATTON: Mr. Speaker, will the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois, the chairman, yield me 5 minutes. 
MR. SHIPLEY: I yield the gentleman from New York 5 minutes. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. STRATTON: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shipley) yield for 
a parliamentary inquiry?
MR. SHIPLEY: Yes, I yield to the gentleman for the purpose of making a
parliamentary inquiry.
MR. STRATTON: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) 
wishes to offer a substitute motion to recede and concur with an 
amendment striking the cost plus fixed fee contract.
Is it in order for that motion to be offered if I withdraw my motion?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the gentleman may offer his 
motion if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) withdraws his
preferential motion. In that event, the gentleman could offer another
preferential motion, or if this preferential motion would be defeated, 
another preferential motion can be offered.
MR. STRATTON: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
Would a motion to recede and concur with an amendment be a preferential
motion?
THE SPEAKER: It would be preferential over a motion to insist on 
disagreement.
MR. STRATTON: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
permitted to withdraw my preferential motion.
MR. [R. LAWRENCE] COUGHLIN [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) does not need
unanimous consent for that purpose in the House.


[[Page 266]]

Does the gentleman intend to withdraw his motion? The gentleman does 
not need unanimous consent to withdraw the motion that he has made.
MR. STRATTON: Mr. Speaker, if I do not need unanimous consent, then I 
withdraw my motion.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) withdraws his 
motion.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. YATES
MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Yates moves on amendment 56 to recede and concur with the Senate on
amendment No. 56 with an amendment as follows: on page 35, line 11, 
strike out the words "including cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts".
On lines 14 and 15, strike out the words "cost-plus-a-fixed-fee".
On line 23, strike out language after "appurtenant thereto" and strike 
out lines 24 and on page 36 strike out lines 1 and 2.

MR. SHIPLEY: Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Yates). . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I urge a "no" vote, and I move the previous question on 
the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the preferential motion offered by 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
MR. STRATTON: 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: The Chair will count.
One hundred and eighty-seven Members are present, not a quorum.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 95, nays 
304, not voting 31. . . . 
So the preferential motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shipley).
The motion was agreed to.
Where Preferential Motion Is Withdrawn, Another May Take Its Place
Sec.    10.31 A preferential motion to recede and concur in a Senate 
amendment reported from conference in disagreement having been 
withdrawn(7) before action was taken thereon, another pref-

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     John J. McFall (Calif.).
 7.     It does not require unanimous consent to withdraw a motion 
offered in the House before a decision has been taken thereon or an 
amendment offered thereto.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 267]]

erential motion, to recede and concur with an amendment, was then 
offered.
In the 94th Congress,(8) following the adoption of H.R. 14238, the 
conference report on the legislative branch appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 1967, a controversial Senate amendment relating to the 
restoration of the west front of the Capitol Building was before the 
House, the stage of disagreement having been reached. The proceedings 
were as indicated below:

THE SPEAKER:(9) The Clerk will report the next amendment in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 56: Page 35, line 1 insert:
RESTORATION OF WEST CENTRAL FRONT OF CAPITOL
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Architect of the 
Capitol, under the direction of the Senate and House Office Building
Commissions acting jointly, is directed to restore the West Central 
Front of  the United States Capitol (without change of location or 
change of the present architectural appearance thereof), $25,000,000, 
to remain available until expended. . . . 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. SHIPLEY
MR. [GEORGE E.] SHIPLEY [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Shipley moves that the House insist on its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 56.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. STRATTON
MR. [SAMUEL S.] STRATTON [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion to recede and concur in the Senate amendment No. 56 
to the legislative appropriation conference report.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Stratton moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate number 56 and concur therein.

MR. STRATTON: Mr. Speaker, will the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois, the chairman, yield me 5 minutes.
MR. SHIPLEY: I yield the gentleman from New York 5 minutes. . . . 
MR. STRATTON: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) 
wishes to offer a substitute motion to recede and concur with an 
amendment striking the cost plus fixed fee contract.
Is it in order for that motion to be offered if I withdraw my motion?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the gentleman may offer his 
motion if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) withdraws his
preferential motion. In that event, the gentleman could offer another
preferential motion, or if this preferential motion would be defeated, 
another preferential motion can be offered.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     122 CONG. REC. 31899, 31900, 31902, 31905, 31906, 94th Cong. 
2d Sess., Sept. 22, 1976.
 9.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 268]]

MR. STRATTON: I have a . . . parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
Would a motion to recede and concur with an amendment be a preferential
motion?
THE SPEAKER: It would be preferential over a motion to insist on 
disagreement.
MR. STRATTON: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
permitted to withdraw my preferential motion.
MR. [R. LAWRENCE] COUGHLIN [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) does not need
unanimous consent for that purpose in the House.
Does the gentleman intend to withdraw his motion? The gentleman does 
not need unanimous consent to withdraw the motion that he has made.
MR. STRATTON: Mr. Speaker, if I do not need unanimous consent, then I 
withdraw my motion.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) withdraws his 
motion.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. YATES
MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential
motion.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Yates moves on amendment 56 to recede and concur with the Senate 
on amendment No. 56 with an amendment as follows: on page 35, line 11, 
strike out the words "including cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts".
On lines 14 and 15, strike out the words "cost-plus-a-fixed-fee".
On line 23, strike out language after "appurtenant thereto" and strike 
out lines 24 and on page 36 strike out lines 1 and 2.

MR. SHIPLEY: Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Yates). . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I urge a "no" vote, and I move the previous question on 
the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the preferential motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). . . . 
So the preferential motion was rejected. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shipley).
The motion was agreed to.