[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 32. House-Senate Relations]
[B. DISPOSING OF AMENDMENTS BETWEEN THE HOUSES; MOTIONS]
[Â§ 12. To Insist or Adhere]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 297-313]
 
                House-Senate Relations
 
                  A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    12. To Insist or Adhere

If both Houses insist or adhere in their positions, the bill fails. 
Only if they agree to proceed to conference, or to recede from their
disagreement, insistence, or adherence, can reconciliation be 
achieved.(14) 

Adherence Distinguished From Insistence
Sec.    12.1 Parliamentarian's Note: Adherence is to be distinguished 
from insistence in that adherence represents  an uncompromising 
position and may not be accompanied by a request for a conference.
Insistence After Refusal To Recede and Concur
Sec.    12.2 The House having refused to recede from its  disagreement 
to a Senate amendment and concur therein the motion to further insist 
may be entertained.
On Apr. 29, 1965,(15) the House was considering Senate amendment No. 15 
to H.R. 7091, supplemental appropriations, which had been reported back 
from conference still in disagreement.

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

Mr. Mahon moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 15 and concur therein. . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(16) The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mahon].

------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
14.     House Rules and Manual Sec.Sec. 521, 522, 553, 554 (1997).
15.     111 CONG. REC. 8867, 8871, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
16.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 298]]

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Mahon) there 
were-ayes, 45, nays, 93.
So the motion was rejected.
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House insist on its disagreement 
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 15.
The motion was agreed to.(17) 


Precedence of Motions in Disposing of Senate Legislative Amendment on 
General Appropriation Bill
Sec.    12.3 In the 103d Congress, the House altered the traditional
precedence of motions addressing amendments in disagreement on a general
appropriation bill, to make one motion to insist on disagreement the most
preferential where the initial motion proposed by the managers would 
change existing law.
Adopted as part of the rules package proposed by the Majority Leader, 
Mr. Richard A. Gephardt, of Missouri, on Jan. 5, 1993, the change was 
in Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(2).(18) There was little debate on this 
particular change, but the expressed motivation was to give a committee 
having jurisdiction over a legislative amendment the opportunity to 
protect that jurisdiction from Senate encroachment by way of an 
amendment to a general appropriation bill. In his explanation of the
resolution, the Majority Leader stated: "It is hoped that this procedure 
will both deter and allow the House to better consider Senate legislative
language in appropriation bills."
The conditions for utilizing the privileged motion are that: (1) the 
Senate amendment has been reported from conference in disagreement; 
(2) the manager's motion, as signaled in the statement of the managers 
or revealed when the amendment is pending, is to change existing law-by
concurring in the Senate amendment or concurring with an amendment which 
does not remove the legislative effect of the amendment; and (3) that 
the motion to insist on disagreement is made by the chairman of the
appropriate legislative committee or his designee.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     See also 89 CONG. REC. 10777-79, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., 
Dec. 16, 1943.
18.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912c (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 299]]

The pertinent excerpts from the Record of Jan. 5, 1993,(19) during
consideration of House Resolution 5, adopting the rules of the House 
for the 103d Congress, are set out below:

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 5
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the One 
Hundred Second Congress, including applicable provisions of law or 
concurrent resolution that constituted rules of the House at the end 
of the One Hundred Second Congress, are adopted as the Rules of the 
House of Representatives of the One Hundred Third Congress, with the 
following amendments to the standing rules, to wit: . . . 
(16) In clause 2(b) of rule XXVIII, insert "(1)" after "(b)" and add 
the following new subparagraph at the end:
"(2) During consideration of such an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill, if the original motion offered by the floor 
manager proposes to change existing law, then pending such original 
motion and before debate thereon one motion to insist on disagreement 
to the amendment proposed by the Senate shall be preferential to any 
other motion to dispose of that amendment if offered by the chairman 
of a committee having jurisdiction of the subject matter of the 
amendment or by a designee. Such a preferential motion shall be 
separately debatable for one hour equally divided between its proponent 
and the proponent of the original motion. The previous question shall 
be considered as ordered on such a preferential motion to its adoption 
without intervening motion.". . . . 

MR. GEPHARDT: Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter], and I yield 
30 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], on behalf of 
the minority.
THE SPEAKER:(20) The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York [Ms.
Slaughter].
MS. [LOUISE M.] SLAUGHTER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume. . . . 
The next amendment is designed to address the problem of Senate 
amendments to appropriations bills which contain legislative language. 
If an amendment in technical disagreement to an appropriations bill 
conference report proposes to change existing law, then a motion to 
insist on disagreement to the amendment shall have preference, if made 
by the chairman of a committee having jurisdiction over the subject 
matter of the amendment. The motion would be debated for 1 hour divided
between its proponent and the proponents of the original motion to 
dispose of the amendment. It is hoped that this procedure will both 
deter and allow the House to better consider Senate legislative 
language in appropriations bills.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     139 CONG. REC. 49, 50, 53, 54, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
20.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 300]]

Elevated Status of Motion To Insist When Pending Motion on an Amendment 
to Appropriation Bill Proposes Change in Law
Sec.    12.4 Although the motion to insist on disagreement is normally 
not the most preferential motion when Senate amendments in disagreement 
are before the House, such a motion does have the most preferential 
status where the initial motion to recede and concur with an amendment
proposes a change in existing law.  
On Oct. 20, 1993,(1) the House for the first time utilized the new rule 
giving the legislative committee of jurisdiction the right to insist on
disagreement to a Senate amendment which invades its legislative 
jurisdiction by an amendment attached to a general appropriation bill 
and reported in disagreement.
The proceedings during the consideration of H.R. 2520, the Interior
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1994, were as shown:

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. 124: Page 80, after line 5 insert:
SEC. 321. FOREST SERVICE SEPARATION PAY.-(a) In order to avoid or 
minimize the need for involuntary separations, effective for the period
beginning upon the date of enactment of this Act through and including
September 30, 1994, the Secretary of Agriculture, under such regulations 
and subject to such conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture may 
prescribe, shall have authority to offer separation pay to employees 
of the Forest Service to the same extent the Secretary of Defense is
authorized to offer separation pay to employees of a defense agency in 
section 5597 of title 5, United States Code.
(b) In the event that an authority is enacted to offer separation 
incentive similar to such section 5597 of title 5, United States Code, 
but applicable to employees in the executive branch generally, the 
authority under subsection (a) shall terminate. . . . 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. YATES
MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will designate the motion.
The text of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Yates moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 124, and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     139 CONG. REC. 25608, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     Kweisi Mfume (Md.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 301]]

In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment, insert:
"SEC. 320. FOREST SERVICE SEPARATION PAY.-(a) In order to avoid or 
minimize the need for involuntary separations, effective for the period
 beginning upon the date of enactment of this Act through and including
 September 30, 1994, the Secretary of Agriculture, under such regulations 
and subject to such conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture may 
prescribe, shall have authority to offer separation pay to employees 
of the Forest Service to the same extent the Secretary of Defense is
authorized to offer separation pay to employees of a defense agency in 
section 5597 of title 5, United States Code.
"(b) In the event that an authority is enacted to offer separation pay 
or a  voluntary separation incentive similar to such section 5597 of 
title 5, United States Code, but applicable to employees in the 
executive branch generally, the authority under subsection (a) shall
terminate. . . .
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. CLAY
MR. [WILLIAM L.] CLAY [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Pursuant to clause 2(b)(2) of rule XXVIII, Mr. Clay moves to insist on
disagreement to Senate amendment numbered 124.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair finds that the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] proposes changes in existing law as
written and is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Post Office 
and Civil Service. So the chairman of that committee, the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Clay] is then recognized to offer a preferential 
motion which the Clerk will report by title.
The Clerk re-read the preferential motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
MR. CLAY: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Sec.    12.5 The rejection of a motion to recede and concur is not 
equivalent to the affirmation of a motion that the House insist on
disagreement.
On Sept. 19, 1962,(3) the House had just adopted the conference report 
on H.R. 12648, agricultural appropriations for fiscal 1963.

THE SPEAKER:(4) The further unfinished business is the vote on the 
motion of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Forrester] which the Clerk 
will report.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. [Elijah L.] Forrester moves that the House recede and concur in the
amendment of the Senate numbered 19.

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion. . . . 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     108 CONG. REC. 19945, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 302]]

The question was taken, and there were-yeas 143, nays 223, answered 
"present" 1, not voting 68. . . . 
So the motion was rejected. . . . 
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER: The question now recurs on the motion of the gentleman 
from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] that the House insist on its 
disagreement to the Senate amendment.
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
All Matters in Disagreement Must Be Reconciled Before Bill Can Become 
Law
Sec.    12.6 Pending a motion in the Senate to recede from its one 
amendment remaining in disagreement with the House following adoption 
of the conference report in both Houses and disposition of all other
amendments, the Presiding Officer stated: (1) that if the motion were
rejected, a motion to further insist upon the amendment and to request 
a further conference  on that one amendment would be in order; but (2) 
that action on the entire bill would remain incomplete and the bill 
could not proceed to enrollment until the remaining amendment in 
disagreement was resolved. 
Before a bill can be presented to the President as an enactment, both 
Houses must agree to the same text and must, through the amendment 
process and conference procedures, reach concurrence on each item 
therein.(5) 
On May 22, 1975,(6) H.R. 5899, supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
year 1975, which had been sent to conference with 58 amendments in
disagreement, was again on the Senate floor, the House having messaged 
to the Senate its insistence on disagreement to one remaining Senate 
amendment which had not been reconciled. When a motion in the Senate 
to recede from that last Senate amendment was offered, the following 
inquiry was directed to the Chair:

MR. [JOHN L.] MCCLELLAN [of Arkansas]: Mr. President, I move that the 
Senate recede from its amendment No. 107.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(7) First, the Chair will lay before the Senate 
the House amendment in disagreement to 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 6233-6240. 
 6.     121 CONG. REC. 16127-29, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7.     Theodore F. Stevens (Alaska).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 303]]

Senate amendment No. 107, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The House insists on its disagreement to Amendment No. 107.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Arkansas. . . .
MR. [JACOB K.] JAVITS [of New York]: Mr. President, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator will state it.
MR. JAVITS: If the motion is rejected, will a motion to refuse to recede 
and to request the conferees to return to conference be in order?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: A motion to insist and ask for a further 
conference would then be in order.
MR. JAVITS: I thank my colleague.
Have the conferees been discharged by the Senate?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The conferees have been discharged in the House 
and a new conference would have to be appointed. The conference would 
be on one issue.
MR. JAVITS: I thank the Chair. . . .  
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Does the Chair understand the inquiry is whether 
or not the bill will be delayed until the one item that is in 
conference is determined? Is that the inquiry?
MR. MCCLELLAN: State the parliamentary inquiry.
MR. [JAMES B.] ALLEN [of Alabama]: I asked the question, though I think 
it is pretty well known, since at this stage  of the proceeding both 
Houses have agreed to more than $14 billion in appropriations, if the 
motion made by the Senator from Arkansas that the Senate recede from 
its amendment does not carry, then these $14 billion in appropriations 
will, at least for the time, fall. Is that correct?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The action on the bill would not be complete. 
The Chair does not recognize the reference to the appropriations falling. 
They would not be complete. The bill would not be prepared to be sent 
to the President.
MR. ALLEN: A new conference would have to be appointed and delay would 
take place?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The whole bill would be delayed until that one 
item was resolved. That is correct. . . . 
So the motion was rejected.
MR. JAVITS: Mr. President, I move that the Senate further insist on 
its amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to. . . . 
MR. ROBERT C. BYRD [of West Virginia]: Mr. President, I shall shortly 
move to stand in recess awaiting the call of the Chair, pending whatever
 action the House may wish to take in view of the action that has just 
been taken by the Senate. The House may further insist upon its 
disagreement and ask for a conference, or it may concur. Therefore, 
until we hear further from the House, I move that the Senate stand in 
recess awaiting the call of the Chair.
The motion was agreed to, and at 4:50 p.m., the Senate took a recess 
subject to the call of the Chair.
Failure To Address Title Amendment in Conference


[[Page 304]]

Sec.    12.7 Every House amendment to a Senate bill must be reconciled 
before the Senate can enroll one of its bills sent to conference; and 
where conferees had neglected to address a House amendment to the title 
of a Senate bill, the House receded from its title amendment after the
adoption of the conference report. 
The proceedings relating to the consideration of the conference report 
on S. 327 in the 94th Congress are carried below:(8) 

MR. [ROY A.] TAYLOR of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the Senate bill (S. 327) to amend the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, to establish the 
National Historic Preservation Fund, and for other purposes, and ask 
unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be read in lieu 
of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(9) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
September 2, 1976.) . . . 
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MR. TAYLOR of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the House recede from its amendment to the title of the Senate bill.
THE SPEAKER:(10) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Insistence After Refusal To Recede
Sec.    12.8 A division of the question having been demanded on a 
motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment, the Speaker 
indicated that refusal of the House to recede was not equivalent to 
insisting upon disagreement-the House could adhere-and that the House 
would vote separately on the motion to insist upon disagreement.
On June 25, 1973,(11) the House was considering Senate amendment No. 83 
to H.R. 7447 (supplemental appropriations, fiscal 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     122 CONG. REC. 29753, 29758, 29759, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 
10, 1976.
 9.     Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
11. 119 CONG. REC. 21171, 21172, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 305]]

1973), which had been reported from conference in disagreement. Speaker 
Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas:

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

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

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

Mr. Giaimo moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 83 and concur therein.

MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division of the question.
THE SPEAKER: The question is, Shall the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 83? . . .  
MR. GERALD R. FORD [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: Am I correct, Mr. 
Speaker, that a "no" vote on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Mahon) to recede would uphold the House position on the
supplemental?
The motion offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) was 
to recede and concur, but the chairman, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Mahon) divided the question, and the vote is on a motion to 
recede. Therefore a "no" vote on the motion to recede would uphold the
position of the House?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair can state that if the "no" vote prevails, the 
next vote would be on the motion to insist on the House's position.(12) 
Sec.    12.9 A motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with 
an amendment having been divided and the House having refused to recede, 
a motion to insist upon disagreement and request a further conference 
was entered.
On June 29, 1973,(13) a Senate amendment to H.R. 8410, providing for 
a temporary increase in the public debt limitation, was reported back 
from conference in technical disagreement. Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, offered a motion to recede from the Senate amendment and 
concur therein with an amendment. The Speaker, Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
then recognized Mr. William A. Steiger, of Wisconsin:

Mr. Speaker, on the motion of the gentleman from Arkansas I demand a 
division of the question.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12. But see 103 CONG. REC. 15816, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 23, 1957.
13.     119 CONG. REC. 22402, 22403, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 306]]

THE SPEAKER: A division is demanded. The question is, Shall the House 
recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate? . . . 
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 185, noes 
190, not voting 58. . . . 
So the motion to recede was rejected. . . . 
MR. MILLS of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House insist on 
its disagreement and request a further conference with the Senate.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec.    12.10 The stage of disagreement having been reached, the motion 
to recede and concur takes precedence of the motion to insist on 
disagreement; but where the motion to recede and concur is divided, and 
the House refuses to recede, a motion to insist is then entertained.
On Dec. 22, 1969,(14) the House was considering Senate amendment No. 
33 to H.R. 15209, supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1970, reported 
from conference in disagreement.

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

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

THE SPEAKER:(15) For what purpose does the gentleman from New Jersey 
rise?
MR. [FRANK] THOMPSON [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the 
question be divided. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I do not yield for a motion at this time.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New Jersey demands a division?
MR. THOMPSON of New Jersey: The gentleman does.
THE SPEAKER: The question is, Will the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 33? . . . 
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Thompson) demanded a 
division on the motion made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon).
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Mahon) that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 33. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 156, nays 208, answered 
"present" 1, not voting 68. . . . 
So the motion was rejected. . . . 
MR. [FRANK T.] BOW [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 115 CONG. REC. 40915, 40921, 40922, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 307]]

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bow moves that the House insist on its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 33.

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Bow).
The motion was agreed to.
Effect of Insisting
Sec.    12.11 When the House insists upon its amendment and the Senate 
insists on disagreement the bill goes to conference and conferees may 
bring in a compromise report if they so desire.
On Mar. 16, 1942,(16) the House was considering its amendments 
reported from conference in disagreement to S. 2208, the second war 
powers bill of 1942. The Speaker, Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Hatton W. Sumners, also of Texas:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House insist upon its amendment numbered 
32, and yield myself 10 minutes. . . . 
MR. [EARL C.] MICHENER [of Michigan]: There seems to be a slight
misunderstanding as to what is before the House. As I understand the 
matter, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has made a motion that 
the conferees insist on the position of the House; that is, if that 
motion carries, and if the conferees do insist, title VIII will be out 
of the bill entirely, or at least the matter must come back to the 
House. Am I correct?
MR. [CHARLES F.] MCLAUGHLIN [of Nebraska]: Mr. Speaker, if the Chair 
will permit me, that is not the situation. . . . 
MR. [CLARENCE E.] HANCOCK [of New York]: Will the gentleman yield?
MR. MICHENER: I yield to the gentleman from New York.
MR. HANCOCK: The gentleman from Nebraska will remember that it was our 
hope that this bill with this title would come back to the House for
instructions, and it was my hope that the chairman of the committee 
would make his motion in the form of a request for instructions. Before
abandoning title VIII entirely, the gentleman from Nebraska and myself 
wished to have an expression of the sentiment of the House.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The gentleman is correct.
MR. MICHENER: That cannot be accomplished under the parliamentary 
procedure in the House, as presently presented. The gentleman from 
Nebraska and the gentleman from New York are suggesting doing something 
that cannot be done at this time under the rules of the House. That is 
why I am asking for a clarification by the Speaker as to just what the
situation is.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 88 CONG. REC. 2508, 2512, 2513, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 308]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(17) The Chair may say that there are two 
things the House may do: The House may insist on the amendment, or it 
can recede from it. If the bill goes to conference, then the conferees 
have the subject before them, to be considered by the conferees, if the 
Senate insists on its position. . . . 
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.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: If the Senate does not agree with our action in 
accepting the Sumners motion insisting on the House amendment, then 
the matter will have to go to conference?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is correct.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: In that event the conferees on the part of the House 
and the conferees on the part of the Senate will have within their 
power and discretion the right to bring in any proposal which they 
see fit to bring back to the House and to the Senate?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It will be before the conference and the 
conferees may bring in a compromise report, if they so desire.
Concurrence as Precluding Motion To Further Disagree
Sec.    12.12 The Chair informed a Member that no further opportunity 
to move that the House disagree to a Senate amendment would be in order 
if the House, having receded, concurred with an amendment.
On May 14, 1963,(18) the House was considering Senate amendment No. 
76 to H.R. 5517, supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1963. Mr. Albert
Thomas, of Texas, moved that the House recede and concur with an 
amendment. After Mr. Thomas moved the previous question on his motion, 
Mr. George Meader, of Michigan, rose:

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(19) The gentleman will state it.
MR. MEADER: If the previous question is ordered and the vote is 
favorable on the motion of the gentleman from Texas, will there be an
opportunity to move that the House further disagree to the Senate 
amendment No. 76?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard M. Duncan (Mo.).
18. 109 CONG. REC. 8509, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 309]]

THE SPEAKER: At this point the Chair will answer the gentleman's 
parliamentary inquiry in the negative; no.
Insistence After Rejection of Conference Report
Sec.    12.13 If a conference report is rejected, the amendments of the 
Senate are again before the House; and a motion to further insist on
disagreement with the amendment of the Senate and request further 
conference is in order.
On Sept. 20, 1962,(20) the House was considering the conference report 
on H.R. 12391, the Food and Agricultural Act of 1962. Mr. Thomas G. 
Abernethy, of Mississippi, raised the following parliamentary inquiry:

If the motion to adopt the conference report is defeated, would it be 
in order for the conferees to return to conference on an appropriate 
motion?
THE SPEAKER:(1) It would be in order for some Member to offer a motion 
that the House insist on its position and ask for a further conference.
Recognition if Conference Report Is Rejected
Sec.    12.14 If a conference report  is rejected, recognition for 
a motion to further insist    on disagreement and request further 
conference is within the discretion of the Chair.
On Sept. 20, 1962,(2) the House was considering the conference report 
on H.R. 12391, the Food and Agricultural Act of 1962. Mr. Thomas G. 
Abernethy, of Mississippi, posed the following question:

If the motion to adopt the conference report is defeated, would it be 
in order for the conferees to return to conference on an appropriate 
motion?
THE SPEAKER:(3) It would be in order for some Member to offer a motion 
that the House insist on its position and ask for a further conference.
MR. ABERNETHY: Could any Member of the House offer that motion?
THE SPEAKER: That would depend upon recognition of the Chair.
Effect of Rejection of Motion To Insist
Sec.    12.15 Rejection of a motion to insist upon disagreement to a 
Senate amendment is not 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 108 CONG. REC. 20094, 20129, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 2. 108 CONG. REC. 20094, 20129, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 310]]

tantamount to concurrence and further action is required to dispose of 
the Senate amendment.
On Sept. 19, 1962,(4) the House adopted the conference report on H.R. 
11151, the legislative appropriation bill for fiscal 1963. The following
occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(5) The further unfinished business is the vote on a motion 
of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Steed] which the Clerk will report.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed moves that the House insist upon its disagreement 
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 44. . . . 

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 125, nays 248, not voting 
62. . . . 
So the motion was rejected. . . . 
MR. STEED: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Steed moves the House re- cede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 44, and concur therein.

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma.
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Resolution Providing for Insistence
Sec.    12.16 The House may adopt a resolution taking a Senate bill 
with House amendments from the Speaker's table, insisting on House 
amendments, and agreeing to a further conference.
On Aug. 12, 1964,(6) Speaker Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California:

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House
Resolution 818 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill (S. 1007) to guarantee electric consumers in the Pacific Northwest 
first call on electric energy generated at Federal hydroelectric 
plants in that region and to guarantee electric consumers in other 
regions reciprocal priority, and for other purposes, with House 
amendments thereto, be, and the same is hereby, taken from the 
Speaker's table; that the House insists on its amendments to said bill 
and agrees to the further conference requested by the Senate on the
disagreeing votes thereon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 108 CONG. REC. 19945-47, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 6. 110 CONG. REC. 19194, 19195, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 311]]

MR. SISK: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Brown] and pending that, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Parliamentarian's Note: A motion to further insist on the House 
amendment and agree to the further conference requested by the Senate 
was privileged, for the stage of disagreement had been reached when 
the House insisted on its amendment and agreed to the Senate request 
for a conference on Oct. 2, 1963. That conference had reported back 
in disagreement on Dec. 19, 1963. Instead of using the motion route, 
hearings before the Committee on Rules were requested so that matters 
in disagreement could be compromised. When it was found that 
differences could be resolved by further conference, the Committee on 
Rules reported this resolution.
Insistence by Unanimous Consent
Sec.    12.17 The House has agreed to a unanimous-consent request 
taking a House bill with Senate amendments from the Speaker's table 
and further insisting on disagreement to the Senate amendments.
On Oct. 11, 1962,(7) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 
the bill, H.R. 12648, with Senate amendments Nos. 2, 19, 44, and 47 
through 54, and further insist upon disagreement to said amendments.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Whitten]?
There was no objection.

Parliamentarian's Note: Since the stage of disagreement had already 
been reached, a motion for this purpose was privileged and the Member 
could have proceeded by moving to insist rather than seeking unanimous
consent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 108 CONG. REC. 23206, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 312]]

[[Page 313]]



         DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

        HOUSE-SENATE RELATIONS  Ch. 32