[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 32. House-Senate Relations]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1-17]
 
                House-Senate Relations
 
                  A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    1. In General; Messages Between the Houses



[[Page 1]]

                     Chapter 32 

The material in this chapter examines messages between the House and 
Senate and procedures for the disposition of amendments of one House 
to measures adopted by the other.(1) The material in Chapter 33, 
infra, examines House-Senate conferences, conference managers 
(conferees) and conference reports, including the consequences of 
their adoption or rejection. It is the logical extension of this 
chapter, and both chapters are necessary for a comprehensive 
understanding of the procedures which reconcile differences between 
the Houses. To the extent that the disposal of amendments between the 
Houses is accomplished by resorting to a conference, some material 
will appear in both chapters.
The House of Representatives and the Senate communicate and coordinate 
their activities by sending formal messages to each other. These 
messages between the two Houses constitute the sole source of official
information regarding actions taken by the other House.(2) The 
reception of a message from the Senate is a highly privileged matter,
(3) although such reception is not considered the transaction of 
business and therefore does not require a quorum.(4) Until the 95th 
Congress, messages were not read in the absence of a quorum.(5) 
Under the modern practice, the reading of a message from the Senate or 
the President 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     For comparable precedents that occurred prior to 1935 consult 
5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 6163-6253, 6594, 6599 and 8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec.Sec. 3177-3208. 
 2.     8 Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 3342, 3343. See Sec.Sec. 2.11, 
2.14, infra.
 3.     See Sec. 1.4, infra.
 4.     See Sec. 1.7, infra; and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3339.
 5.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 55 (1973); 8 Cannon's Precedents 
Sec. 3339; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 6600, 6650; and 4 Hinds' 
Precedents Sec. 3522.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 2]]

does not require the presence of a quorum.(6) Messages 
may be received even though the originating House may have adjourned.
(7) The reception of a message may even interrupt a call of the roll.
(8) Senate bills and House bills with Senate amendments messaged from 
the Senate to the House go to the Speaker's table, from which they may 
be referred by the Speaker to the appropriate standing committees in 
the same manner as public bills introduced by the Members.(9) Those 
bills and amendments requiring consideration in the Committee of the 
Whole are placed on the Union Calendar for consideration there, after 
being reported from the standing committees to which they were 
referred. However, House bills with Senate amendments not requiring
consideration in the Committee of the Whole and Senate bills which do 
not require consideration there, and which are substantially the same 
as House bills which were reported by a standing committee, may be 
disposed of in the House on motion authorized by that committee.(10) 
In determining whether the bills of the House and Senate are 
substantially the same, the Chair considers the House bill as reported 
from the standing committee rather than as originally introduced in the
House.(11) 
In order for a Senate bill to be eligible to be taken directly from the
Speaker's table for consideration in the House under this exception to
the general rule, the similar House bill must already  be on the House
Calendar when the Senate bill is placed on the Speaker's table.(12) 
If a House bill has already been passed before the similar Senate bill
arrives, the Senate bill may still be disposed of when authorized by 
the appropriate committee.(13) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     See  House Rules and Manual Sec. 55 (1997).
 7.     See Sec. 1.9, infra, and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3338. The 
earlier practice is illustrated at 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 
6601, 6603.
 8.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 767 (1997).
 9.     Rule XXIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 882 (1997). 
See Sec.Sec. 5.27, 5.28, infra.
10.     Rule XXIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec.Sec. 882, 883 (1997). 
See also Sec. 3.8, infra.
11.     6 Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 734, 736.
12.     6 Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 727, 736, 738, 4 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec. 3096, and Sec. 3.8, infra.
13.     6 Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 734, 735. See Sec. 3.9, infra.

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


[[Page 3]]

Senate Informed of House Quorum

Sec.    1.1 At the beginning of a session of Congress, the House 
informs the Senate that a quorum of the House has assembled and is 
ready to proceed with business.

On Jan. 7, 1960,(14) the House sent the following message to the Senate:

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its 
reading clerks, informed the Senate that a quorum of the House is 
present and that the House is ready to proceed with business.
The message also informed the Senate that a committee of three members 
had been appointed by the Speaker on the part of the House of 
Representatives to join with the committee on the part of the Senate 
to notify the President of the United States that a quorum of each 
House had assembled and that Congress was ready to receive any 
communication he might be pleased to make.

Parliamentarian's Note: The House and Senate also notify each other 
of additional organizational matters-the election of officers,(15) 
setting the date and time for the President's state of the Union 
address,(16) arranging for the counting of the electoral vote(17) in 
January following a Presidential election. 
One House Often Uses a Resolution To Inform the Other of Certain Actions

Sec.    1.2 Senate resolutions are often used to notify the House of 
matters related to the organization of the Senate.

When a new Congress convenes, each House notifies the other of steps 
taken to permit legislative activity to begin. The resolutions noted 
here from the proceedings of Jan. 4, 1989,(18) are typical of those 
sent to the House to provide official notification of Senate actions.
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the Speaker 
pro tempore [Mr. (Dale E.) Kildee (of Michigan)] at 12 o'clock and 25 
minutes p.m.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Hallen, one of its clerks, announced 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     106 CONG. REC. 76, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
15.     1 Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 225, 229.
16.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 169 (1997).
17.     3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1961.
18.     135 CONG. REC. 194, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 4]]

that the Senate had passed resolutions and a concurrent resolution of 
the following titles, in which the concurrence of the House is requested:

                     S. RES. 1
Resolved, That a committee consisting of two Senators be appointed to 
join such committee as may be appointed by the House of Representatives 
to wait upon the President of the United States and inform him that a 
quorum of each House is assembled and that the Congress is ready to 
receive any communication he may be pleased to make.
                    S. RES. 2
Resolved, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives that 
a quorum of the Senate is assembled and that the Senate is ready to 
proceed to business.
                    S. RES. 5
Resolved, That the House of Representatives be notified of the election 
of Robert C. Byrd, a Senator from the State of West Virginia, as 
President pro tempore.

Refusal To Receive Message From Other House

Sec.    1.3 The refusal of one House to receive a message from the other 
is a breach of the practice of comity between the two Houses.

On Oct. 14, 1970,(19) Mr. Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, was granted 
unanimous consent to make this statement:

Mr. Chairman, it is not very often that I have found occasion to 
criticize the action of the other body. I have always felt that my
responsibility here in the House, as is the case with every Member of 
this body, was to maintain the spirit of comity.
But yesterday and today that spirit was closer to comedy than it was 
to comity.
In due deliberation and in the regular order yesterday, the House 
considered and approved the conference report on the farm bill. The 
official papers on that legislation plus the papers on other bills 
were carried by a House employee to the other body, in conformity with 
the normal practice.
Strangely enough, the path was blocked in a fashion reminiscent of the 
action of Gov. George Wallace who one day stood in the schoolroom door.
This morning the same sorry scene was repeated as our House employee 
was again abruptly turned away.
Finally, we now hear the farm bill papers have been accepted, but alas, 
the farm bill is not going to be considered prior to the election recess.
In my time in the House I can recall no instance of this nature-whatever 
one may think of the farm bill.
What I cannot understand, Mr. Chairman, is why the leadership of the 
other body would refuse to even consider the farm bill. . . . 
I certainly think this whole dismal affair has pointed up very 
dramatically the need for change in the other body-a change from 
pettiness to substance 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     116 CONG. REC. 36675, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 5]]

that will make it both responsible and responsive to public interest.


Privilege of Reception of Senate Message

Sec.    1.4 The reception of a message from the Senate is a highly 
privileged matter and may interrupt the consideration of a bill, even 
though the previous question has been ordered thereon.

On May 3, 1961,(20) the House had just ordered the previous question on 
H.R. 6441, to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, when a 
message was received from the Senate.

A message from the Senate by Mr. McGown, 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 bill (H.R. 3935) entitled "An act to amend the Fair Labor 
Standards Act of 1938, as amended, to provide coverage for employees 
of large enterprises engaged in retail trade or service and of other 
employers engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for 
commerce, to increase the minimum wage under the act to $1.25 an hour, 
and for other purposes."

Following receipt of the message, the House proceeded to other 
privileged business-the consideration of a conference report, the 
submission of another conference report, the filing of a privileged 
report from the Committee on Rules-before resuming consideration, as
unfinished business, of the bill on which the previous question was
ordered.(1) 

Privilege of Request for Return of Message


Sec.    1.5 The request of the Senate for the return of a message is 
laid before the House by the Speaker as privileged, and it requires 
only a majority vote to grant such request.

On Aug. 24, 1935,(2) the House and the Senate both approved House 
Concurrent Resolution 38, providing that both Houses of Congress 
adjourn sine die at the end of the day. However, later that day the 
following took place in the House:

THE SPEAKER:(3) . . . The Chair lays before the House the following 
request from the Senate.
------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     107 CONG. REC. 7172, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     Id. at p. 7195.
 2.     79 CONG. REC. 14583, 14645, 14669, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 6]]

The Clerk read as follows:

Ordered, That the Secretary of the Senate be directed to request the 
House of Representatives to return to the Senate the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. No. 38), a concurrent resolution providing 
for the sine die adjournment of the first session of the Seventy-fourth
Congress.

THE SPEAKER: The question is on agreeing to the request of the Senate.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Snell and 
Mr. Taber) there were-ayes 127, noes 103.
MR. [BERTRAND H.] SNELL [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
MR. [CARL E.] MAPES [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. MAPES: May I inquire of the Chair whether to grant this request 
of the Senate the rules must be suspended, and to agree to the motion 
will require a two-thirds vote?
THE SPEAKER: No; the request of the Senate is laid before the House 
and acted upon by a majority of the House. The action taken by the 
House will determine what shall be done with the request.
MR. MAPES: The Chair rules that it requires only a majority to grant 
the request?
THE SPEAKER: It requires only a majority.
Time for Reception of Senate Message

Sec.    1.6 The Speaker may receive a message from the Senate before 
the approval of the Journal.

On Sept. 13, 1965,(4) the House was debating the motion to approve the 
Journal when a message arrived from the Senate. After the time of the 
Member then speaking (Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri) had expired, 
the Chair(5) recognized the Senate messenger who informed the House of 
Senate passage of several House bills. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, then 
stated a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
THE SPEAKER: For what purpose does the gentleman from Iowa arise?
MR. GROSS: The transacting of business of the House prior to adoption 
of the reading of the Journal.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state it is always proper, as well as 
courteous, to receive a message from the President of the United 
States, or from the other body, as quickly as possible.(6) 

Receipt of Senate Message Absent House Quorum

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     111 CONG. REC. 23604, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 6.     In the permanent Record, the message from the Senate is shown
following completion of the pending business-the approval of the 
Journal-and not at the point where it was actually received. See 111 
CONG. REC. 23607, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 7]]

Sec.    1.7 A message from the Senate may be received in the absence 
of a quorum, pending a motion for a call of the House.

On Oct. 8, 1968,(7) the following occurred on the floor of the House:

MR. [WILLIAM A.] STEIGER of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I make the point 
of order that a quorum is not present.
THE SPEAKER:(8) Evidently a quorum is not present.
MR. [CARL] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House.
THE SPEAKER: At this time the Chair will receive a message. . . .
A message from the Senate by Mr. Arrington, one of its clerks, 
announced that the Senate had passed without amendment a bill of the 
House of the following title:

H.R. 8781. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
exchange certain lands in Shasta County, Calif., and for other 
purposes. . . .

A call of the House was ordered.
Effect of Failure of a Quorum Upon Message Received During a Call


Sec.    1.8 Where a message from the Senate is received during a call 
of the House, and the House adjourns when a quorum fails to appear on 
the call, the message is held at the Speaker's table until it next 
convenes.

On Oct. 11, 1968,(9) the following occurred on the floor of the House:

MR. [CARL] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The Clerk called the roll. . . .
During the call of the roll messages were received from the President 
of the United States and from the Senate.
THE SPEAKER:(10) One hundred eighty-eight Members are present, not a 
quorum.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
MR. ALBERT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 53 minutes 
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Saturday, October 12, 1968, 
at 12 o'clock noon.(11) 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     114 CONG. REC. 30091, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 9.     114 CONG. REC. 30816, 30817, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
10.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
11.     Parliamentarian's Note: While the reception of messages from 
the President or the Senate is not the transaction of business 
requiring the presence of a quorum, if they are received during a call 
of the House, and a quorum does not appear on the call, they are not 
read until a quorum is present. In this instance, both messages were 
laid before the House when it met the following day.
-------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 8]]

When the House met on Oct. 12, 1968, immediately following the 
approval of the Journal, the following message was laid before the 
House.(12) 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE RECEIVED OCTOBER 11
A message from the Senate by Mr. Arrington, one of its clerks, 
announced that the Senate had passed with amendments in which the 
concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the 
following title: . . . 
The message also announced that the Senate had passed concurrent 
resolutions of the following titles:

S. Con. Res. 82. Concurrent resolution authorizing the President of 
the  Senate and the Speaker of the House to sign enrolled bills and
resolutions; and
S. Con. Res. 83. Concurrent resolution establishing that when the two 
Houses of Congress adjourn on Friday, October 11, 1968, they stand 
adjourned sine die.
Receipt of Senate Message After Senate Adjournment


Sec.    1.9 The House may receive a message from the Senate although 
that body may have adjourned.

On Aug. 24, 1935,(13) the House approved House Concurrent Resolution 
38, which provided that upon adjourning that night, both Houses would 
stand adjourned sine die. Subsequently, the Senate notified the House 
of the following actions relating to House Concurrent Resolution 38: 
It agreed to the concurrent resolution; it then requested the House to 
return its message of agreement to the Senate.(14) It later 
reconsidered its vote on agreement and again passed the resolution. 
Mr. James W. Wadsworth, Jr., of New York, was then recognized with a
parliamentary inquiry:

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Senate has informed the House 
that it has rescinded its action in recalling from the House the 
adjournment concurrent resolution, what is the present situation?
THE SPEAKER:(15) The Chair has been informed that the Senate has taken 
a recess until Monday at 12 o'clock. The Chair will ask the House to 
take a recess for a reasonable time until the fact can be 
ascertained. . . .
A further message from the Senate, by Mr. Horne, its enrolling clerk,
announced that the Senate had ordered
---------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     114 CONG. REC. 31116, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
13.     79 CONG. REC. 14583, 14645, 14667, 14669-71, 14673, 74th Cong. 
1st Sess.
14.     See Sec. 1.14, infra.
15.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 9]]

that the secretary be directed to inform the House of Representatives 
that the Senate has reconsidered its action in agreeing to House 
Concurrent Resolution No. 38, providing for the sine die adjournment 
of the first session of the Seventy-fourth Congress.
MR. [BERTRAND H.] SNELL [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order against the message from the Senate because the Senate adjourned 
several minutes ago.
THE SPEAKER: This is a message from the Senate and can be delivered 
to the House even though the Senate has adjourned. The Chair does not
understand that a point of order lies against the reporting of a 
message from the Senate by a regularly accredited official of the 
Senate.

"Deeming Resolutions"-Use in the House

Sec.    1.10 On rare occasions, the House has anticipated legislative 
actions of the Senate and acted in futuro, deeming certain actions to 
be taken by the House if and when a message is received showing that 
the anticipated legislative acts in fact occurred. 

On Dec. 18, 1982,(16) as the House approached the end of the session, 
it was necessary to expedite the conclusion of the further continuing
appropriation bill for fiscal year 1983. The measure was still under
consideration in the Senate, but the House leadership thought it 
essential to begin the conference as quickly as possible.

APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 631, FURTHER 
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, 1983

MR. [JAMES C.] WRIGHT [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that if and when the Clerk receives a message from the Senate
indicating that that body has passed   the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 
631) with amendments, insisted upon its amend-ments and requested a 
conference with the House, that the House be deemed to have disagreed 
to the amendments of the Senate and agreed to the conference asked by 
the Senate, and that the Speaker be deemed to have appointed conferees.
THE SPEAKER:(17) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees: 
Messrs. Whitten, Boland, Natcher, Smith of Iowa, Addabbo, Long of 
Maryland, Yates, Roybal, Bevill, Dicks, Ginn, Sabo, Dixon, Fazio, 
Conte, McDade, Edwards of Alabama, Myers, Robinson, Coughlin, Kemp, 
and Lewis.

When the House reconvened on Dec. 19, 1982,(18) the Speaker laid 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     128 CONG. REC. 32137, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
17.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
18.     128 CONG. REC. 32401, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 10]]

before the House the following communication from the Clerk:

COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
THE SPEAKER: The Chair lays before the House the following communication:

WASHINGTON, D.C.,
December 19, 1982.
Hon. THOMAS P. O'NEILL, Jr.,
The Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to the permission granted in the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Clerk received, at 3:22 p.m. on 
Sunday, December 19, 1982, the following message from the Secretary of 
the Senate: That the Senate passed with amendments H.J. Res. 631 and 
requested a conference thereon.
In accordance with action taken by the House on Saturday, December 18, 
1982, the Clerk has notified the Senate that the House disagreed to the
amendments of the Senate to H.J. Res. 631 and agreed to a conference 
thereon.
With kind regards, I am,
Sincerely,
EDMUND L. HENSHAW, Jr.,
Clerk, House of Representatives.

Parliamentarian's Note: This was the first instance where the House 
took such an action. The procedure is contrary to the principle in 
Jefferson's Manual(19) that the House should not take notice of bills 
in the other body, until the actions are communicated to the House. 
However, procedural steps such as this are used when necessary under 
the modern practice.

House Sometimes Anticipates Senate Action and Acts Before Formal 
Message Is Received

Sec.    1.11 On occasion, the House anticipates Senate action, and, 
by unanimous consent, has established the conditions for a conference 
on a House bill with Senate amendment even before the Senate has acted 
and messaged its request for a conference to the House.

The unanimous-consent request of Sept. 26, 1984,(20) made by the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Jamie L. Whit-ten, of
Mississippi, relating to House Joint Resolution 648, making continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 1985, and the Chair's anticipatory 
appointment of conferees are shown below.

MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that if and when 
the Clerk receives a message from the Senate indicating that that body 
has passed the joint resolution (H.J. Res.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 308 (1997).
20.     130 CONG. REC. 27341, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 11]]

648) with amendments, 
insisted upon its amendments and requested a conference with the 
House, that the House be deemed to have disagreed to the amendments of 
the Senate and agreed to the conference asked by the Senate, and that 
the Speaker be deemed to have appointed conferees.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi? The Chair hears none and, without objection 
in this instance, the Chair appoints the following conferees: Messrs. 
Whitten, Boland, Natcher, Smith of Iowa, Addabbo, Long of Maryland, 
Yates, Roybal, Bevill, Lehman of Florida, Dixon, Fazio, Hefner, Conte, 
McDade, Edwards of Alabama, Myers, Robinson, Coughlin, and Kemp.
There was no objection.

When the Senate finally messaged its action to the House on Oct. 5, 
1984,(1) the Speaker made a further statement for the Record, 
confirming that the action which the House had anticipated had in fact
occurred.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Sparrow, one of its clerks, announced 
that the Senate had passed with amendments in which the concurrence 
of the House is requested, bills of the House of the following titles:

H.R. 4966. An act to recognize the organization known as the Women's 
Army Corps Veterans' Association: . . . 


The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its amendments 
to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 648) "Joint resolution making 
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1985, and for other 
purposes," requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. Hatfield, Mr. 
Stevens, Mr. Weicker, Mr. McClure, Mr. Garn, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Andrews, 
Mr. Abdnor, Mr. Kasten, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Mattingly, Mr. Rudman, Mr. 
Specter, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Stennis, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hollings, 
Mr. Eagleton, Mr. Chiles, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Burdick, 
Mr. Leahy, Mr. DeConcini, and Mr. Bumpers to be the conferees on the 
part of the Senate.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER REGARDING HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 648, 
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS
THE SPEAKER:(2) Pursuant to the order of the House of September 26, 
1984, pertaining to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 648) making 
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1985, and for other 
purposes. The House is deemed to have disagreed to the amendments of 
the Senate and agreed to the conference asked by the Senate and the 
Speaker to have appointed managers on the part of the House as 
appointed on that date.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Id. at p. 30292.
 2.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 12]]

Reception by Committee of the Whole

Sec.    1.12 The Committee of the Whole must rise to receive messages 
from the Senate.
Parliamentarian's Note: On this occasion, Mar. 22, 1961,(3) the 
Speaker(4) wished to sign enrolled bills, prepared in advance, but 
which could not be signed by the Speaker until the message announcing 
their passage by the Senate had been received in the House. Therefore, 
the Committee of the Whole resolved itself back into the House for the
reception of the message from the Senate.

MR. [CARL] VINSON [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do 
now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the 
chair, Mr. Elliott, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on 
the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 5000) to authorize certain construction at
military installations, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
The Speaker then recognized the Senate clerk, who delivered the 
following message.

A further message from the Senate by Mr. McGown, 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 bill (H.R. 4510) entitled "An act to provide a 
special program for feed grains for 1961."
The message also 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 bill (H.R. 4806) entitled "An act 
to provide for the establishment of a temporary program of extended
unemployment compensation, to provide for a temporary increase in the 
rate of the Federal unemployment tax, and for other purposes."

On motion of Mr. Vinson, the House then again resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of H.R. 5000.(5) 
The Committee of the Whole May Rise Informally

Sec.    1.13 Under the more modern practice in the House, the Committee
rises informally, not by motion, both to receive a message or to permit 
the Speaker to lay before

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     107 CONG. REC. 4563, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 5.     107 CONG. REC. 4563, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 22, 1961.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 13]]

the House an enrolled bill which has been signed 
by the Speaker.
The practice whereby the Committee of the Whole rises without a formal 
motion is recognized in Jefferson's Manual: "If a message is announced 
during a committee, the Speaker takes the chair and receives it, 
because the committee can not."(6) A formal motion that the Committee 
rise can provoke a vote in Committee, so in the modern practice the 
informal method of rising is normally employed. The proceedings of Feb. 
8, 1995, and Jan. 28, 1980, are illustrative of the current practice.
On Feb. 8, 1995,(7) the Committee rose informally to enable the Speaker 
to receive a message from the President:

THE CHAIRMAN:(8) The Committee will rise informally in order that the 
House may receive a message.
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Lightfoot) assumed the chair.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will receive a message.
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
A message in writing from the President of the United States was 
communicated to the House by Mr. Edwin Thomas, one of his secretaries.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [MELVIN L.] WATT of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. WATT of North Carolina: How can we rise out of the Committee of 
the Whole without a motion to that effect? I did not hear anybody make 
a motion. It is strictly a technical point, but there are some procedural
rules that apply in this body, I thought.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will inform the gentleman from North
Carolina the Committee of the Whole can rise informally just for the 
purpose of receiving a message.
MR. WATT of North Carolina: Informally.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Yes. A motion is not required just for the 
purpose of receiving a message.
MR. WATT of North Carolina: I thank the Chair for enlightening me.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Committee will resume its sitting.

On Jan. 28, 1980,(9) there is an example of the Committee rising 
informally to lay down an enrolled bill.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     See portions of Jefferson's Manual carried in Sec.Sec. 330, 563, 
House Rules and Manual (1997).
 7.     141 CONG. REC. 4112, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8.     Jim Lightfoot (Iowa).
 9.     126 CONG. REC. 888, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 14]]

THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee will rise informally in order that the 
Speaker may sign an enrolled resolution.
The Speaker resumed the chair.
THE SPEAKER:(10) The Chair lays before the House the following enrolled 
joint resolution:

H.J. Res. 478. Joint resolution to extend by 60 days the expiration 
date of the Defense Production Act of 1950.

THE SPEAKER: The Committee will resume its sitting.
One House Sometimes Asks the Other for the Return of a Message


Sec.    1.14 The Senate, by a second message, may request the return 
of an earlier message informing the House of a legislative action.

On Aug. 24, 1935,(11) the House approved and sent to the Senate House
Concurrent Resolution 38, providing for a sine die adjournment of both 
Houses of Congress at the end of the day. A short time later the House
received a message from the Senate which included the following:

The message also announced that the Senate agreed to concurrent 
resolutions of the House of the following titles:

H. Con. Res. 38. Concurrent resolution providing for the sine die a
djournment of the first session of the Seventy-fourth Congress. . . .

Still later that day the House received this message from the Senate:

A still further message from the Senate, by Mr. Horne, its enrolling 
clerk, announced that the Senate requests the House to return to the 
Senate the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 38) providing for the 
sine die adjournment of the first session of the Seventy-fourth Congress.
Correcting Error in House Engrossment of House Amendment

Sec.    1.15 Where the House belatedly discovered an error in its 
amendment of a Senate bill, it adopted a resolution (by unanimous 
consent) requesting the Senate to re-turn the engrossed House amendment 
and directed the Clerk to prepare a new engrossment eliminating the 
error.
House Resolution 534, requesting the Senate to return the engrossed 
amendment of the House to S. 725, was not reported from 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
11.     79 CONG. REC. 14583, 14645, 14667, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 15]]

a committee but was called up on the floor and considered by unanimous 
consent. The resolution and the debate explaining the necessity for this 
action are included here.(12) 

MR. [HENRY A.] WAXMAN [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
resolution (H. Res. 534) to correct the engrossment of the amendment 
of the House of Representatives to the Senate bill (S. 725), and I 
ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of House Resolution 534 is as follows:
H. RES. 534
Resolved,
SECTION 1. RETURN.
The Senate is requested to return to the House of Representatives the
amendment of the House to the Senate bill (S. 725).
SEC. 2. CORRECTION.
Upon the return of the House amendment to the Senate bill (S. 725), the 
Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the following change 
in the engrossment of the House amendment: Strike section 5 and insert 
the following:
SEC. 3. STATE STANDARDS. . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(13) Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
MR. [CARLOS J.] MOORHEAD [of California]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
right to object, I will not object, but I would like to request that 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] explain exactly what this
unanimous-consent request includes.
MR. WAXMAN: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. MOORHEAD: I yield to the gentleman from California.
MR. WAXMAN: Mr. Speaker, this resolution corrects the engrossment of 
S. 725, a bill passed by the House. The correction replaces two 
paragraphs of the Senate-passed bill which were inadvertently omitted 
in the House-passed version. This will correct, I think, technically 
what we all tried to accomplish.
MR. MOORHEAD: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
There was no objection. The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate could have amended the House 
amendment to correct the error, but this would have required a second 
House action.

Replacing Lost Official Papers

Sec.    1.16 Where the official papers are lost or destroyed, the House 
and Senate can authorize their recreation by the Clerk of the House and
Secretary of the Senate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     See 140 CONG. REC. 24911, 24912, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 20, 1994.
13.     Alcee L. Hastings (Fla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 16]]

The concurrent resolution carried here was considered by unanimous 
consent, adopted by the House (and later by the Senate). It authorized 
the preparation of duplicate original "official papers" where the 
original ones had been misplaced in the Senate.(14) 

MR. [NORMAN Y.] MINETA [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent for the immediate consideration of the concurrent resolution 
(H. Con. Res. 414) directing the preparation of duplicate conference 
papers on H.R. 5930.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(15) Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
MR. [ELLIOTT H.] LEVITAS [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, I do so for the purpose of asking the gentleman from 
California if he would explain the effect of the concurrent resolution.
MR. MINETA: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. LEVITAS: I yield to the gentleman from California.
MR. MINETA: Mr. Speaker, this concurrent resolution merely recreates 
papers which apparently have been lost. It does not approve or 
constitute approval of the conference report.
I expect to bring that conference report before the House tomorrow.
MR. LEVITAS: Further reserving the right to object, and I will not 
object, I wanted to make certain that it did not constitute approval 
of the conference report by the adoption of the concurrent resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. CON. RES. 414
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That 
the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives are authorized and directed to prepare and sign 
official duplicates of the conference papers on the bill (H.R. 5930) 
to extend the aviation insurance program for five years.

The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Modification of Text of Bill Agreed to by Both Houses

Sec.    1.17 Changes in the text of a bill agreed to by the two Houses 
may be made by concurrent resolution.

On Feb. 1, 1937,(16) when the House was considering the Senate 
amendments to the text of House 

-----------------------------------------------------------------
14.     128 CONG. REC. 26058, 97th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 29, 1982.
15.     John P. Murtha, Jr. (Pa.).
16.     81 CONG. REC. 646-48, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
----------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 17]]

Joint Resolution 81, creating a Joint Congressional Committee on 
Government Organization, Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
attempted to offer an amendment to the provisions in the 
House-passed measure.

THE SPEAKER:(17) The gentleman is not confining himself in his 
amendment to the Senate amendment, which deals only with the number of
Senators on the joint committee; but he goes further down in the 
paragraph and adds additional matter to the text, to which both Houses 
have already agreed. . . .
MR. [CLAUDE A.] FULLER [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. FULLER: Cannot that be amended by unanimous consent?
THE SPEAKER: The only way under the rules of the House by which this 
situation could be changed would be by a concurrent resolution, agreed
to by both Houses, changing the text of the matter already passed upon 
by the House and accepted by the Senate.


 
                House-Senate Relations
 
                  A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    2. Messages Relating to Bills

Each House informs the other of the passage of a measure and of any 
subsequent legislative action taken. A House-passed bill is engrossed,
attested to by the Clerk of the House and is messaged to the Senate. 
If the Senate passes the bill without change, that action is formalized,
attested to, and the House is notified. If the Senate amends, its 
amendments are engrossed, attested to by the Secretary and the House 
is informed. Any further amendments by either House are engrossed as 
well. If one House disagrees with amendments of the other a conference 
may result. The request for or agreement to a conference, the 
appointment of conferees, actions taken on the report or amendments 
in disagreement-all are certified by the appropriate official of the 
acting House. The package of actions travels together from one House 
to the other. 
The "bundle" of messages and attested copies of legislative actions 
are called the "official papers." To act on a measure, the body must 
be in possession of these papers. The progression of papers from one 
House to the other normally mirrors the flow of messages.
When the conference meeting is held, the managers of the asking House 
(having possession of the papers because it received the last message-
the agreement to the 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 18]]
conference) carries the papers to the conference 
meeting. When the conference results in agreement, the expectation is 
that the asking House will yield the papers to the agreeing House which 
may act first on the report.(18) However, if the managers of the 
agreeing House release the official papers to the managers of the other 
House, the sequence of actions may be reversed. No point of order lies 
against a conference report which is acted on "out of order" so long 
as the acting House has possession of the papers when the report is
considered.(19) 
When the conference results in disagreement, the managers of the asking 
House are justified in retaining the papers so that the body they 
represent may act first on the amendments in disagreement.(20) 
Messages are also used to communicate a request for a return of a bill 
already transmitted to the other House,(1) to indicate an error in the 
text of an engrossed bill or amendment, and to inform the other House 
of unusual legislative actions.(2) 

Senate Request for Return of Bill

Sec.    2.1 The House, by unanimous consent, agreed to a request of 
the Senate for the return of a Senate bill which had been messaged to 
the House and referred to a committee thereof.
On Jan. 21, 1960,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, laid before the 
House the following message from the Senate:

Ordered, That the House of Representatives be requested to return to 
the Senate the bill (S. 1282) entitled "An act relating to acreage 
allotments for Durum wheat."
THE SPEAKER: Without objection, the request is granted.
There was no objection.
Discharge of Senate Bill From House Committee

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     See Jefferson's Manual Sec. XLVI, House Rules and Manual Sec. 555 
(1997). 
19.     See Sec. 2.19, infra. Once managers have filed a conference report 
in the Senate, with the official papers attached, retrieval of the 
papers-to transfer them to the House-required unanimous consent. 
See Sec. 2.18, infra. 
20.     See Sec. 2.12, infra.
 1.     See Sec.Sec. 2.1, 2.2, infra.
 2.     See Sec. 1.14, supra, and Sec.Sec. 2.3-2.5, infra.
 3.     106 CONG. REC. 1022, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 19]]


Sec.    2.2 The House, responding to a request of the Senate, 
discharged one of its standing committees from consideration of a 
Senate bill and directed the Clerk to return the bill to the Senate.
On July 10, 1969,(4) the following took place in the House:

THE SPEAKER:(5) The Chair lays before the House a request from the 
Senate.
The Clerk read as follows:

That the Secretary be directed to request the House of Representatives 
to return to the Senate the bill (S. 1583) entitled "An Act to provide 
that appointments and promotions in the Post Office Department, 
including the postal field service, be made on the basis of merit and
fitness", together with all accompanying papers. . . .

THE SPEAKER: . . . Without objection, the request of the Senate is 
agreed to, the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service is discharged 
from further consideration of the bill S. 1583, and the Clerk will 
return the bill to the Senate.
There was no objection.
Bills Passed in Closing Hours of Previous Session


Sec.    2.3 At the beginning of a session of Congress, bills are 
messaged to the Senate that were passed by the House in the closing 
hours of a previous session of that Congress and not messaged to the 
Senate before adjournment sine die.
On Jan. 7, 1960,(6) the House sent to the Senate a message concerning 
actions it had taken prior to the adjournment of the first session of 
that Congress.

The message announced that the House had passed the following bills, 
in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:

H.R. 5349. An act to provide for the conveyance to Orange County, 
Calif., of all right, title, and interest of the United States in and 
to certain real property situated in Orange County, Calif.; and
H.R. 8289. An act to accelerate the commencing date of civil service
retirement annuities, and for other purposes.
Veto Overridden


Sec.    2.4 When the House passes a bill over a President's veto, it 
notifies the Senate by message.
On Apr. 2, 1948,(7) this message from the House was received by the 
Senate:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     115 CONG. REC. 19095, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 5.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 6.     106 CONG. REC. 76, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     94 CONG. REC. 4018, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 20]]

IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,
 April 2, 1949. 
The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the bill 
(H.R. 4790) entitled "An act to reduce individual income-tax payments, 
and for other purposes," returned by the President of the United States 
with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in which it 
originated, it was
"Resolved, That the said bill pass, two-thirds of the House of 
Representatives agreeing to pass the same."
Attest:
JOHN ANDREWS,
Clerk.
House Strikes Enacting Clause of Senate Bill

Sec.    2.5 Where the House strikes the enacting clause of a Senate 
bill, the Speaker directs the Clerk to notify the Senate, but the 
original papers are not returned to the Senate.
On Oct. 4, 1972,(8) the Committee of the Whole recommended that the 
House strike out the enacting clause of S. 1316, a bill to amend the 
Federal Meat Inspection Act and Poultry Products Inspection Act.
THE SPEAKER:(9) The question is on the recommendation of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union that the enacting clause 
be stricken out.
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 173, nays 169, not voting 
88. . . .
So the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
of the Union that the enacting clause be stricken out was agreed 
to. . . .
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the House.

Parliamentarian's Note: The last instance where the House struck the 
enacting clause of a Senate bill was June 20, 1946.(10) The message 
from the House to the Senate at that time did not indicate that the 
original papers were returned to the Senate.

Privilege of Senate Request for Return of a Bill

Sec.    2.6 A request of the Senate for the return of a bill is treated 
as privileged in the House.
On Sept. 14, 1959,(11) the Speaker, Sam Rayburn, of Texas, laid before 
the House a request of 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     118 CONG. REC. 33785-87, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 9.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
10.     92 CONG. REC. 7211, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     105 CONG. REC. 19715, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 21]]

the Senate that the House return to the Senate 
H.R. 8392, to amend the District of Columbia Stadium Act of 1957. Mr. 
H. R. Gross, of Iowa, then rose:

Mr. Speaker, is that subject to a reservation of any kind?
THE SPEAKER: It is a privileged matter. It is a request of the Senate 
to return a bill.

Sec.    2.7 Where the Senate, by message, requests the return of a bill 
it has passed, the request is considered as privileged in the House 
and may be disposed of by motion.
On Sept. 9, 1970,(12) the Speaker, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
laid before the House the following communication from the Senate 
relating to a bill which the Senate had passed eight days previously:

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,
September 1, 1970.
Ordered, That the Secretary be directed to request the House of
Representatives to return to the Senate the bill (H.R. 16968) entitled 
"An act to provide for the adjustment of the Government contribution 
with respect to the health benefits coverage of Federal employees and
annuitants, and for other purposes".
Attest:
FRANCIS R. VALEO,
Secretary.
MR. [THADDEUS J.] DULSKI [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
request of the Senate be agreed to.
MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. DULSKI: I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman explain to the House 
briefly the nature of this legislation and the reason for the Senate 
asking the papers and this bill be sent back to that body?
MR. DULSKI: . . . It also is our understanding that upon return of the 
House bill, a motion will be made in the Senate to amend the House 
bill by inserting the language of the Senate-passed bill. The House 
bill with the Senate amendment would then be returned to the House for 
further consideration.
This gives the details of what happened in the Senate.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield further?
MR. DULSKI: I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, in other words, the other body took up the 
bill, apparently on the call of the calendar, and by unanimous 
consent, without debate, passed a bill that was faulty and now asks its 
return by the House.
MR. DULSKI: That would be correct, in substance.
MR. GROSS: I thank the gentleman for yielding. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from New York.
The motion was agreed to.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     116 CONG. REC. 30850, 30851, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 22]]

Sec.    2.8 A request of the Senate for the return of a bill is 
treated as privileged, and the Chair can immediately put the question 
on the request without debate.
On Dec. 29, 1970,(13) Speaker Pro Tempore Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, 
laid before the House this request of the Senate:

DECEMBER 28, 1970.
Ordered, That the Secretary be directed to request the House of
Representatives to return to the Senate the bill (H.R. 14984) entitled "
An Act to provide for the disposition of funds appropriated to pay 
judgments in favor of the Mississippi Sioux Indians in Indian Claims
Commission dockets Nos. 142, 359-363, and for other purposes", together 
with all accompanying papers.
FRANCIS R. VALEO,
Secretary.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on agreeing to the request 
of the Senate. . . .
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 235, nays 20, not voting 
177. . . .
So the request of the Senate was agreed to.

Receipt and Consideration of Senate Request for Return of a Bill

Sec.    2.9 A message from the Senate requesting that the House return 
a bill must be presented to the House for consideration, and the 
question of complying with the request is treated as privileged.
On Sept. 14, 1959,(14) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, laid before the 
House this request of the Senate:

Ordered, That the Secretary of the Senate request the House of 
Representatives to return to the Senate the bill (H.R. 8392) entitled 
"An act to amend the District of Columbia Stadium Act of 1957 with 
respect to motor-vehicle parking areas, and for other purposes," 
together with accompanying papers.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on agreeing to the request of the 
Senate. . . .
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes had it.

Mr. Gross, of Iowa, then asked if consideration of the Senate's request
required unanimous consent. The Speaker stated it was a privileged 
matter. The Speaker then put the question.

MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present, 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     116 CONG. REC. 43776, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
14.     105 CONG. REC. 19715, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 23]]

and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will count. [After counting.] Two hundred and 
thirty-nine Members are present, a quorum.
So the request of the Senate was granted.
House Compliance With Senate Request

Sec.    2.10 On occasion, the House, acting by unanimous consent, 
agrees to a request of the Senate for the return of a House bill.
On Nov. 6, 1963,(15) the following request of the Senate was disposed 
of by the House:

Ordered, That the Secretary of the Senate request the House of 
Representatives to return to the Senate the bill (H.R. 2985) entitled 
"An act to amend section 1391 of title 28 of the United States Code, 
relating to venue generally" together with all accompanying papers.
THE SPEAKER:(16) Without objection, the request is granted.
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.(17) 
Message Requesting Return of Bill 

Sec.    2.11 The two Houses communicate officially by written messages; 
and when the House receives a message from the Senate asking for the 
return of a bill previously sent to the House, the message is laid 
before the House for action. Such requests are frequently agreed to 
without objection.
When the Senate asked for the return of a Senate bill previously 
messaged to the House, the Speaker laid the communication before the 
House for action. The proceedings below show the disposition of such 
a request.(18) 

The Speaker laid before the House the following communication from the 
Senate of the United States:

Ordered, That the Secretary be directed to request the House of
Representatives to return to the Senate the bill (S. 622) entitled 
"An Act to provide standby authority to assure that the essential 
energy needs of the United States are met, to reduce reliance on oil 
imported from insecure sources at high prices, to implement United 
States obligations under international agreements to deal with shortage
conditions, and to authorize and direct the implementation of

---------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     109 CONG. REC. 21122, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
16.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
17.     See also 107 CONG. REC. 20822, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 22, 
1961; and 106 CONG. REC. 9853, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 10, 1960.
18.     121 CONG. REC. 30414, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 26, 1975.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 24]]
Federal 
and State conservation programs consistent with economic recovery", 
together with all accompanying papers.

THE SPEAKER:(19) Without objection, the request is agreed to.
There was no objection.
Progression of Conference "Official Papers"

Sec.    2.12 Where conferees report in total disagreement, the papers 
are normally retained by the asking House so that it may act first on 
the matter in disagreement; but where the only matter remaining in
disagreement is an amendment of the asking House, which cannot amend 
its own amendment, the papers may be transferred so that the agreeing 
House may address the disagreement by amending. 
The conference agreement brought before the House on Oct. 7, 1975, was 
the second report dealing with amendments in disagreement on H.R. 8121, 
the State, Justice, Commerce, and the Judiciary appropriations for 
fiscal 1976. The second conference was asked by the Senate and the 
second report dealt with the sole remaining Senate amendment in 
disagreement, and the conferees agreed to recommend a further amendment 
to that amendment. Since the Senate-the "asking House" which would 
normally entitle it to act first-could not amend its own amendment, the 
report was filed in disagreement, the House retained the papers and acted
first on the managers recommendation. 
The form of the report, the Senate amendment in disagreement, and the 
House action thereon are shown in the Congressional Record excerpt and 
the relevant parts of the statement of the managers are carried here:(20) 
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 94-527)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the Senate numbered 8 to the bill (H.R. 8121) 
"making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, and 
Commerce, the judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1976, and the period ending September 30, 1976, and 
for other purposes," having met, after further full and free conference, 
have been unable to agree.
JOHN M. SLACK . . . 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
20.     121 CONG. REC. 31510, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 2, 1975.
-------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 25]]

JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE . . .
TITLE I-DEPARTMENT OF STATE
General provisions-Department of State
Amendment No. 8: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on 
the part of the House will offer a motion as follows:
Restore the matter stricken by said amendment amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 104. It is the sense of the Congress that any new Panama Canal 
treaty or agreement must protect the vital interests of the United States 
in the Canal Zone and in the operation, maintenance, property and 
defense of the Panama Canal." 
The managers on the part of the Senate will move to concur in the 
amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate.

When the report was called up and read on Oct. 7, 1975, the Speaker(1) 
laid down the amendment in disagreement.(2) 

The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

Senate amendment No. 8: Page 16, line 18, strike out:
"SEC. 104. None of the funds appropriated in this title shall be used 
for the purposes of negotiating the surrender or relinquishment of any 
U.S. rights in the Panama Canal Zone."
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. SLACK
MR. [JOHN M.] SLACK [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Slack moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 8 and concur therein with an amendment, 
as follows: Restore the matter stricken by said amendment amended to 
read as follows:
"SEC. 104. It is the sense of the Congress that any new Panama Canal 
treaty or agreement must protect the vital interests of the United 
States in the Canal Zone and in the operation, maintenance, property 
and defense of the Panama Canal."
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [JOHN J.] FLYNT [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. FLYNT: Mr. Speaker, is a division of the question in order?
THE SPEAKER: Yes, a request for a division of the question is in order.
MR. FLYNT: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division of the question.
THE SPEAKER: The question will be divided.  . . . 
The question is on whether the House shall recede from its disagreement 
to Senate amendment No. 8.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.(3) 

The Speaker later put the question on concurring in the Senate 
amendment with an amendment.

--------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 2.     121 CONG. REC. 32064, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3.     Id. at p. 32075.
--------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 26]]

Message Returning a Bill Passed by the Other Body

Sec.    2.13 Where the House orders a bill returned to the Senate, it 
notifies the Senate of this fact by a message accompanying the returned 
bill.  On May 20, 1965,(4) the following resolution was called up as a
question of the privileges of the House by the chairman of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas:

H. RES. 397
Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 1734) to conserve and protect
domestic fishery resources in the opinion of this House contravenes the 
first clause of the seventh section of the first article of the 
Constitution of the United States, and is an infringement of the 
privileges of this House, and that the said bill be respectfully 
returned to the Senate with a message communicating this resolution.

The resolution was agreed to. This action was communicated to the 
Senate as shown by the following Record proceedings of May 21, 1965.(5) 

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its
reading clerks, notified the Senate that, pursuant to the provisions 
of House Resolution 397, 89th Congress, the engrossed bill (S. 1734) 
to conserve and protect domestic fishery resources, was herewith 
returned to the Senate.
Notice of Senate Proceedings

Sec.    2.14 The Chair does not take public notice of the proceedings 
of the Senate unless formally brought to the attention of the House by 
message from the Senate.
On July 10, 1969,(6) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
directed the Clerk to read a request from the Senate:

That the Secretary be directed to request the House of Representatives 
to return to the Senate the bill (S. 1583) entitled "An Act to provide 
that appointments and promotions in the Post Office Department, 
including the postal field service, be made on the basis of merit and
fitness", together with all accompanying papers.
MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state the parliamentary inquiry.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, is this the bill that was passed by the other 
body on Tuesday morning without any debate whatsoever, the only 
explanation being the bill as printed in the Record?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     111 CONG. REC. 11149, 11150, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5.     Id. at p. 11188. 
 6.     115 CONG. REC. 19095, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 27]]

THE SPEAKER: The Chair is not aware of what action took place in the 
other body.
The Chair is aware of the action of the other body which is now before 
the House.

House Request To Return Message

Sec.    2.15 The House, by unanimous consent, requested the Senate to 
return to the House a message by which the Senate had been erroneously
informed that the House had concurred in the Senate amendments to a 
House bill.
On Dec. 19, 1969,(7) Mr. Olin M. Teague, of Texas, was recognized to 
rectify a mistake made the preceding day, whereby the House had 
inadvertently notified the Senate that it had concurred in the Senate
amendments to H.R. 9634, instead of H.R. 9334, both of which amended 
title 38 of the United States Code.

MR. TEAGUE of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that 
the Clerk be directed to request the Senate to return to the House of
Representatives the message on the bill (H.R. 9634) to amend title 38 
of the United States Code in order to improve and make more effective 
the Veterans' Administration program of sharing specialized medical 
resources.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(8) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Effect of Motion To Postpone Indefinitely

Sec.    2.16 The motion to postpone indefinitely has been used in the 
House to finally dispose of a Senate measure, passed by the House but
identical to a House bill previously passed by both Houses, after the 
Senate had acquiesced in the House's request for its return.
Where the House had inadvertently passed a Senate joint resolution 
identical to a House joint resolution passed by both bodies, it 
requested the Senate return the papers and then put the matter to rest 
by use of a motion to postpone indefinitely.(9) 
Had this action not been taken, the Senate would have enrolled the 
resolution and two identical 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     115 CONG. REC. 40189, 40191, 40215, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 8.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 9.     See 135 CONG. REC. 28222, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 9, 1989; 
and 135 CONG. REC. 29587, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 16, 1989.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 28]]

measures would have been sent to the President. 
DIRECTING THE CLERK TO REQUEST RETURN OF MESSAGE ON SENATE JOINT 
RESOLUTION 216
MR. [THOMAS C.] SAWYER [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Clerk be directed to request the Senate to return to the 
House of Representatives the message on the joint resolution 
(S.J. Res. 216).
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(11) The Chair lays before the House the 
following message from the Senate:

Ordered, That the Secretary be directed to return to the House of
Representatives its message informing the Senate that the House had 
passed the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 216) "Joint resolution 
designating November 12 through 18, 1989, as 'Community Foundation 
Week'.", in compliance with a request of the House for the return 
thereof.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the Senate joint resolution 
is indefinitely postponed.
There was no objection.
House Bill Returned by President Pursuant to Senate Request

Sec.    2.17 Where the Senate by way of a concurrent resolution requests 
the President to return a House bill sent to him for signature, he 
returns the bill to the House and the House messages the same to the 
Senate.
On July 3, 1947,(12) the following occurred on the floor of the House:

The Speaker(13) laid before the House the following message from the 
President of the United States, which was read by the Clerk:

To the House of Representatives:
In compliance with the request contained in the resolution of the 
Senate (the House of Representatives concurring therein), I return 
herewith H.R. 493, an act to amend section 4 of the act entitled "An 
act to control the possession, sale, transfer, and use of pistols and 
other dangerous weapons in the District of Columbia," approved July 8, 
1932 (sec. 22, 3204 D.C. Code, 1940 ed.).
HARRY S. TRUMAN.
THE WHITE HOUSE, July 3, 1947.

Later that day(14) this message from the House was received by the 
Senate:

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its 
reading clerks, informed the Senate 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Ronald Coleman (Tex.).
11.     Peter H. Kostmayer (Pa.).
12.     93 CONG. REC. 8260, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
13.     Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
14.     93 CONG. REC. 8203, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 29]]


that the President of the United 
States having returned to the House of Representatives the enrolled 
bill (H.R. 493) to amend section 4 of the act entitled "An act to 
control the possession, sale, transfer, and use of pistols and other 
dangerous weapons in the District of Columbia," approved July 8, 1932 
(sec. 22, 3204 D.C. Code, 1940 ed.)," in compliance with the request 
contained in Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 22; and returned the 
engrossed copy of said bill to the Senate.
Possession of Official Papers

Sec.    2.18 Where a conference report had been filed in both Houses 
and the original papers were at the Senate desk (the Senate having 
agreed to the House request for a conference and being scheduled to 
act first), unanimous consent was required (and objected to) in the 
Senate to transfer the official papers  to the House to permit the 
House to act first on the conference report.
The following proceedings occurred in the Senate on June 28, 1990:(15) 
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
MR. [EDWARD M.] KENNEDY [of Massachusetts] addressed the Chair.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(16) The Senator from Massachusetts.
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. President, I understand that the papers regarding 
the conference report on the Americans With Disabilities Act are at 
the desk; am I correct?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator is correct.
MR. KENNEDY: I ask unanimous consent to be able to receive those 
papers in order to be able to deliver them to the House of 
Representatives.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there objection? . . . 
MR. [STROM] THURMOND [of South Carolina]: Mr. President, I object.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from South Carolina objects. . . . 
MR. [BOB] DOLE [of Kansas]: Mr. President I reserve the right to 
object to the unanimous-consent request. There is no objection to the 
Senator from Massachusetts. Perhaps the Senator from Nebraska could 
first proceed to make a statement on some other matter.
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. President, I will not object. I just would like to 
inquire of the minority leader what the reluctance is to permit the 
papers from the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) to go over to 
the House of Representatives, which is now waiting, so that they can 
take action prior to Fourth of July recess. As we celebrate 
Independence Day, 43 million disabled Americans would like to have
independence from the kind of physical and mental barriers which they 
have lived with for so long.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     136 CONG. REC. 16249, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
16.     Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 30]]

I just inquire of the minority leader, what in the world is the 
reluctance to release this conference report that bears the signature 
of every Republican and every Democratic Member of the Senate 
conference committee? What is the reluctance to permit this conference 
report to follow the traditional path and be acted on by the House 
of Representatives if that body is prepared to act.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Kansas, the Republican leader, 
has the floor.
MR. DOLE: Mr. President, I do not know that it is any reluctance. They 
can celebrate the Fourth of July and I am part of 43 million that will 
be celebrating the Fourth of July.
In any event, this bill cannot be signed by the President until 
somewhere around the 12th of July, and the primary concern we have-in 
fact initially I had no concern until I checked with the 
Parliamentarian-is to preserve the rights of Members on this side-I am 
not one of them-some Members have some concern with certain provisions 
of the ADA bill, not one-checking true disability, the so-called 
Chapman amendment, and we have another amendment, the Grassley 
amendment.
I am advised by the Parliamentarian and by my staff that they would 
lose certain rights if in fact the papers went to the House, the House 
acted, then there would not be any conference. You could not recommit 
the bill to conference because there would not be any conference left 
because the House will have acted.
So it is that concern. Certainly we have no problem with the bulk of 
the legislation. I think it certainly, as the Senator from 
Massachusetts indicated, is a landmark action by the Congress for 
millions of disabled Americans. But this happened to be a procedure, 
and I think if I consent to the request of the Senator from 
Massachusetts, it would undercut and take away some of the rights of 
my colleagues on this side of the aisle. I cannot do that. Therefore, 
I will object. That will take care of it.
Possession and Transfer of Official Papers

Sec.    2.19 It is customary, at the conclusion of a successful 
conference, for the House which has asked for the conference to 
surrender the original papers to the conferees from the other House 
which has agreed to the conference in order that the latter House may 
act first on the conference report; but the failure of conferees from 
the Senate, which had asked for the conference in question, to 
immediately surrender the original papers to the House conferees at 
the conclusion of a successful conference, deviated from the customary
handling of original papers but did not specifically violate the rules 
of the House.


[[Page 31]]

The following proceedings relating to H.R. 3982, the Omnibus 
Reconciliation Act of 1981, occurred in the House on July 31, 1981:(17) 

MR. [BRUCE F.] VENTO [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(18) The gentleman will state it.
MR. VENTO: Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the Chair whether the papers of 
the reconciliation package, H.R. 3982, are in the possession of the House.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Yes, they are.
MR. VENTO: Mr. Speaker, I would further inquire, is it customary for 
these papers to remain in the possession of the House at the conclusion 
of a conference committee, and in this instance, were they retained at 
the conclusion of the conference committee, or were they more recently
delivered to the House?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Yes, the Chair would say to the gentleman, it 
is customary for the papers to be transferred to the House which agreed 
to the conference-and is to act first on the report-at the conclusion 
of a successful conference.
MR. VENTO: In this case, Mr. Speaker, were the papers retained by the 
House conferees on the matter of the reconciliation conference?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evidently not, because they were brought back 
to the House this morning at about 9:15 by a messenger from the other 
body.
MR. VENTO: Mr. Speaker, in other words, this violated one of the tenets 
that we have in terms of consideration.
I thank the Chair.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would advise the gentleman that 
this deviated from custom but did not especially violate the rules of 
the House.


 
                House-Senate Relations
 
                  A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    3. House Action on Senate Bills

Senate bills which are messaged to the House may be subject to a 
variety of legislative actions. Senate bills may be referred to the
appropriate House committees in the same fashion as House-introduced
bills,(19) considered in committee, reported to the House with amendments,
considered in the House, where appropriate,(20) or in Committee of the
Whole.(1) Senate measures may be held at the Speaker's table, awaiting 
later legislative action.(2) Some Senate bills are never acted on and 
remain at the rostrum or in committee until sine die adjournment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     127 CONG. REC. 18884, 18885, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Barney Frank (Mass.).
19.     See Sec.Sec. 3.1, 3.12, infra.
20.     See Sec. 3.7, infra.
 1.     See Sec. 3.14, infra.
 2.     See Sec.Sec. 3.3, 3.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 32]]

The generally accepted principles of comity between the two Houses 
fosters the expectation that a bill of the House which acts first on a
legislative measure is the numbered bill that is formally enrolled and
presented to the President.(3) 

Reference to Committee

Sec.    3.1 The reference of a Senate bill on the Speaker's table is 
within the discretion of the Chair.
On Mar. 27, 1936,(4) the House declined to grant unanimous consent to 
consider Senate Concurrent Resolution 238, providing for cancellation 
of mail contracts.

MR. [FREDERICK R.] LEHLBACH [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(5) The gentleman will state it.
MR. LEHLBACH: Mr. Speaker, unanimous consent for the present 
consideration of the Senate joint resolution having been refused, is 
the resolution now referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries?
THE SPEAKER: It is within the discretion of the Chair to refer it.
MR. LEHLBACH: I believe I asked is it now referred?
THE SPEAKER: No; it has not been referred.
Senate Bills Similar to House Bills

Sec.    3.2 A resolution may provide that upon the passage of a House 
bill, a similar Senate bill may be taken from the Speaker's table, all 
after the enacting clause stricken, and in lieu thereof the provisions 
of the House bill as passed be inserted.
On May 6, 1947,(6) Mr. Clarence J. Brown, of Ohio, called up House 
Resolution 205, to make in order the consideration of H.R. 2616, to 
provide for assistance to Greece and Turkey. The resolution contained, 
inter alia, the following provision:

. . . After the passage of the bill H.R. 2616 it shall be in order to 
take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 938 and to move to strike out 
all after the enacting clause of said Senate bill and to insert in lieu
 thereof the provisions contained in H.R. 2616.

Sec.    3.3 Where the rule under which a bill is being considered in 
the House provides 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     See Sec.Sec. 3.4, 3.8, 3.9, 3.13, infra.
 4.     80 CONG. REC. 4547, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
 6.     93 CONG. REC. 4605, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 33]]

that upon passage of the bill a similar Senate bill 
at the Speaker's table shall be taken therefrom, making in order a 
motion to strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
provisions of the House bill in lieu thereof, the House proceeds to 
the disposition of the Senate bill immediately after passage of the 
House bill.
On May 9, 1947,(7) the House had completed consideration of H.R. 2616, 
to provide assistance to Greece and Turkey.

THE SPEAKER:(8) The question is on the passage of the [House] 
bill. . . .
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 287, nays 107, answered 
"present" 2, not voting 35. . . .
THE SPEAKER: Under the rule, it is now in order to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill S. 938 and to move to strike out all after 
the enacting clause of said bill and to insert in lieu thereof the 
provisions contained in the bill H.R. 2616.
The Clerk will report the Senate bill.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
MR. [CHARLES A.] EATON [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I move to strike 
out all after the enacting clause of the bill S. 938 and to insert in 
lieu thereof the provisions contained in the bill H.R. 2616.
The motion was agreed to.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third 
time, and passed.
Amending Senate Bill, Prior to Stage of Disagreement

Sec.    3.4 Unanimous consent request making in order, before the stage 
of disagreement, a debatable motion to take a Senate bill from the 
Speaker's table, to insert the text of a House-passed bill with the 
previous question ordered without intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit.
On several occasions in the 104th Congress, the Senate chose to refer 
a House-passed bill to committees of the Senate, then later pass its 
own version of the measure and message the Senate numbered bill to the 
House. This sequence of events ignores the general practice which 
recognizes that the numbered bill which is first messaged to the other 
House is the one which becomes the vehicle for proceeding to conference.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     93 CONG. REC. 4975, 4976, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8.     Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 34]]

On May 17, 1995,(9) two Senate bills considered in the Senate after 
receipt of the corresponding House bills were taken up in the House. 
S. 4, granting the President power to reduce budget authority (the 
line-item veto bill), and S. 219, the Regulatory Transition Act of 
1995, were called up and amended by motions made in order by such 
unanimous-consent requests. Both measures passed the House, as amended. 
The House then insisted on its amendments to the bills and agreed to the
conferences with the Senate.(10) 
THE SEPARATE ENROLLMENT AND LINE-ITEM VETO ACT OF 1995
MR. [WILLIAM F.] CLINGER [Jr., of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that: First, it be in order to consider in the House
a motion to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 4) to grant the 
power to the President to reduce budget authority, and for other 
purposes, to strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill, 
and to insert the text of H.R. 2 as passed by this House; second, that 
the motion be debatable for not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided 
and controlled among the chairman and ranking minority members of the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the Committee on 
Rules, and third, that the previous question be ordered on the motion 
to final adoption without intervening motion except for one motion to
recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(11) Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania? . . . 
MR. CLINGER: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Clinger moves that the House take from the Speaker's table the 
bill (S. 4) to grant the power to the President to reduce budget 
authority, and for other purposes, strike all after the enacting 
clause of the Senate bill, and insert the text of H.R. 2, as passed 
by the House.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger] will be recognized for 15 minutes, the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Wise] will be recognized for 15 minutes, the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Goss] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
MR. CLINGER: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, on February 6 of this year, this House passed H.R. 2, the 
Line-Item Veto Act, to give the President the power to restrain 
irresponsible Federal spending through a true line-item veto. On March 
23, the Senate followed suit in passing S. 4, which I think we would 
all agree is a weaker

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     141 CONG. REC. 13265, 13266, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     Id. at p. 24030. S. 4 was the enrolled bill eventually
transmitted to the President.
11.     Fred Upton (Mich.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 35]]

bill, which nonetheless moves toward greater 
Federal spending control, so both of our bodies have gone on record 
as saying we encourage and desire to enact something that will act as 
a restraint on further Federal spending control.
Since that time, however, Mr. Speaker, both bills have been stalled 
really in parliamentary limbo awaiting further action in preparation 
for conference. That has been some several months now.
Because of the Senate's unusual handling of the House-passed bill,
unfortunately neither body is currently in a position to request the 
needed conference and the legislation has been at a standstill, just 
literally in limbo. . . . 
REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 1995
MR. CLINGER: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that: First, it be 
in order to consider in the House a motion to take from the Speaker's 
table the Senate bill (S. 219) to ensure economy and efficiency of 
Federal Government operations by establishing a moratorium on 
regulatory rulemaking actions, and for other purposes, to strike all 
after the enacting clause of S. 219 and to insert in lieu the text of 
H.R. 450 as passed by the House;
Second, that the motion be debatable for not to exceed 1 hour, to be 
equally divided and controlled among chairmen and ranking minority 
members of the Committees on Government Reform and Oversight and the
Judiciary; and
Third, that the previous question be ordered on the motion to final 
adoption without intervening motion except one motion to commit. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(12) Is there objection to the request from the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. CLINGER
MR. CLINGER: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Clinger moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 219) 
to grant the power to the President to reduce budget authority, and for 
other purposes, strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate 
bill, and insert the text of H.R. 450 as passed by the House.
Amending Senate Bill Before Stage of Disagreement

Sec.    3.5 Proceedings in the House pursuant to a special rule which 
provided for: (1) taking up a Senate bill; (2) waiving points of order 
against its  consideration; (3) amending the Senate bill in several 
discrete particulars by one indivisible motion; and (4) making in order 
a motion to insist and request a conference with the Senate. 
House Resolution 197, the special order establishing the procedure for 
sending to conference the bill S. 395, the Alaska Power Administration 
Asset Sale and Ter-

----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     Bill Emerson (Mo.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 36]]

mination Act of 1995, was adopted on July 24, 1995. 
The rule provided, first, for the consideration of H.R. 70, relating to
exports of Alaskan North Slope oil. The proceedings to follow passage 
of H.R. 70 were carried in section 2 of that resolution, the text of 
which is set forth here.

SEC. 2. (a) After passage of H.R. 70, it shall be in order to take from 
the Speaker's table the bill S. 395 and to consider the Senate bill 
in the House. All points of order against the Senate bill and against 
its consideration are waived. It shall be in order to consider in the 
House, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, the 
motion to amend described in subsection (b). The motion to amend shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to amend and on 
the Senate bill without intervening motion except one motion to 
recommit the bill with or without instructions. If the motion to amend 
is adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is passed, then it shall 
be in order to move that the House insist on its amendments to S. 395 
and request a conference with the Senate thereon.
(b) The motion to amend the Senate bill made in order by subsection 
(a) is as follows:
"(1) Strike title I.
"(2) Strike sections 201 through 204 and insert the text of H.R. 70, 
as passed by the House.
"(3) Strike section 205.
"(4) Strike section 206.
"(5) Strike title III.".

The proceedings in the House on July 25, 1995,(13) following the 
passage of H.R. 70, are carried here. Noteworthy is the Speaker's 
appointment of specific conferees from the House for each of the five 
House amendments.
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION ASSET SALE AND TERMINATION ACT
MR. [DON] YOUNG of Alaska: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House
Resolution 197, I call up the Senate bill (S. 395) to authorize and 
direct the Secretary of Energy to sell the Alaska Power Administration, 
and to authorize the export of Alaska North Slope crude oil, and for 
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of the Senate bill is as follows:

                S. 395
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

                 TITLE I
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the "Alaska Power Administration Asset Sale 
and Termination Act". . . .
SEC. 102. SALE OF SNETTISHAM AND EKLUTNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS. . . . 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     141 CONG. REC. 20286-89, 20298, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 37]]

                  TITLE II
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE. 
This title may be cited as "Trans-Alaska Pipeline Amendment Act of 
1995". . . . 
SEC. 205. RETIREMENT OF CERTAIN COSTS INCURRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 
NON-FEDERAL PUBLICLY OWNED SHIPYARDS.
(a) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary of Energy shall-
(1) deposit proceeds of sales out of the Naval Petroleum Reserve in a 
special account in amounts sufficient to make payments under 
subsections (b) and (c); and
(2) out of the account described in paragraph (1), provide, in 
accordance with subsections (b) and (c), financial assistance to a port
authority that-
(A) manages a non-Federal publicly owned shipyard on the United States 
west coast that is capable of handling very large crude carrier 
tankers . . . . 
SEC. 206. OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990.
Title VI of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-380; 104 
Stat. 554) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
section:
"SEC. 6005. TOWING VESSEL REQUIRED. . . . 

                  TITLE III

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.
This Title may be referred to as the "Outer Continental Shelf Deep 
Water Royalty Relief Act".
SEC. 302. AMENDMENTS TO THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT. . . . 
AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MR. YOUNG OF ALASKA
MR. YOUNG of Alaska: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2(b) of House 
Resolution 197, I offer amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendments offered by Mr. Young of Alaska: (1) Strike title I.
(2) Strike sections 201 through 204 and insert the text of H.R. 70, 
as passed by the House.
(3) Strike section 205.
(4) Strike section 206.
(5) Strike title III.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(14) The question is on the amendments offered 
by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
The amendments were agreed to.
The Senate bill was read a third time and passed, and a motion to 
reconsider was laid on the table.
The title of the Senate bill was amended so as to read: "A bill to 
permit exports of certain domestically produced crude oil, and for other purposes."
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES
MR. YOUNG of Alaska: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Young moves pursuant to House Resolution 197 that the House insist 
on its amendment to S. 395 and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
The motion was agreed to.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA
MR. [DAN] MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The Clerk read as follows:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     Scott McInnis (Colo.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 38]]

Mr. Miller of California moves that the managers on the part of the 
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 
the House amendments to the bill S. 395 be instructed to insist upon 
the provisions of the House amendments which strike Title III of S. 395.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under the rule, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Miller] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Alaska [Mr. Young] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. . . .

After the motion to instruct was agreed to, the Speaker named managers 
on the part of the House.

Without objection, the Chair appoints the following conferees on 
S. 395: On House amendment No. 1: Messrs. Young of Alaska, Calvert, 
Bliley, Miller of California, and Dingell.
On House amendment No. 2: Messrs. Young of Alaska, Calvert, Thomas, 
Roth, Bliley, Coble, Miller of California, Hamilton, Dingell, and 
Mineta.
On House amendment No. 3: Messrs. Spence, Kasich, and Dellums.
On House amendment No. 4: Mr. Coble, Mrs. Fowler, and Mr. Mineta.
On House amendment No. 5: Messrs. Young of Alaska, Calvert, and Miller 
of California.
There was no objection.

Sec.    3.6 A resolution (reported from the Committee on Rules) making 
in order the disposition of a Senate bill on the Speaker's table after 
passage of a House bill reported by the Committee on Post Office and 
Civil Service, was amended to delete all references to the Senate bill.
On Sept. 9, 1970,(15) Mr. Spark M. Matsunaga, of Hawaii, was recognized 
on the floor of the House.

MR. MATSUNAGA: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1046 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. RES. 1046
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 16542) to amend title 39, United States Code, to regulate 
the mailing of unsolicited credit cards, and for other purposes. . . . 
After the passage of H.R. 16542, it shall then be in order in the House 
to take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 721 and to move to strike 
all after the enacting clause of the said Senate bill and insert in 
lieu thereof the provisions contained in H.R. 16542 as passed by the 
House.

THE SPEAKER:(16) The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized for 1 hour.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     116 CONG. REC. 30873, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
16.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 39]]

MR. MATSUNAGA: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Matsunaga: On page 2, strike out all of the 
last sentence, beginning with "After the passage of" in line 6 and 
ending with the period in line 11.

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Hawaii.
The amendment was agreed to.(17) 

Sec.    3.7 By unanimous consent, the House considered a Senate bill 
under the terms of a resolution adopted for consideration of a similar 
House bill.
On Mar. 12, 1959,(18) the Committee of the Whole rose and reported to 
the House that it had come to no resolution on the bill H.R. 4221.

MR. [JOHN W.] MCCORMACK [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I renew my 
unanimous-consent request, heretofore made, that it may be in order for 
the House to consider the bill S. 50, in lieu of the bill H.R. 4221, 
under the terms and provisions of House Resolution 205 adopted 
yesterday by the House in relation to the Hawaiian statehood bill.(19) 
THE SPEAKER:(20) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts?
MR. [JOHN R.] PILLION [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I do not renew my 
previous objection.
There was no objection. 

After some intervening business, the House again resumed consideration 
of the Hawaiian statehood bill pursuant to the following motion:
HAWAII STATEHOOD
MR. [LEO W.] O'BRIEN of New York: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House 
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
the Union for the consideration of the bill (S. 50) to provide for the
admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union, in lieu of the bill 
H.R. 4221.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
S. 50, with Mr. Kilday in the chair.

Sec.    3.8 Senate bills substantially the same as House bills al-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate bill, S. 721, to amend the 
Truth-in-Lending Act," which was not similar to H.R. 16542, was then 
referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency.
18.     105 CONG. REC. 4005, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
19.     H. Res. 205 had been reported from the Committee on Rules on Mar.
10, 1959. The Senate passed its version of the Hawaiian statehood bill 
S. 50) on Mar. 11, 1959, too late for the rule to reflect its 
availability.
20.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 40]]

ready favorably reported by a committee of the House, and not required
to be considered in Committee of the Whole, may be disposed of as the 
House may determine on motion directed to be made by such committee.
On Jan. 1, 1951,(1) the following occurred on the floor of the House:

MR. [LINDLEY] BECKWORTH [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, I call up from the 
Speaker's table the bill (S. 3295) to amend the Railway Labor Act and 
to authorize agreements providing for union membership and agreements 
for deductions from the wages of carriers' employees for certain 
purposes and under certain conditions, a bill substantially the same 
(H.R. 7789) being on the House Calendar.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
MR. [HOWARD W.] SMITH of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I raise the question 
of consideration.
THE SPEAKER:(2) The gentleman from Virginia raises the question of
consideration.
The question is, Will the House consider the bill? . . .
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 286, nays 48, not voting 
94. . . .
Amending Special Rule for Disposition of Senate Bill

Sec.    3.9 On the day following passage of a House bill, the Committee 
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce was discharged, by unanimous 
consent, from further consideration of a similar Senate bill (which 
had been messaged to the House prior to the reporting of the House 
bill); the Senate bill was then considered, amended to conform to the
provisions of the House bill, passed, and the proceedings whereby the 
House bill was passed were vacated by unanimous consent.
On May 18, 1961,(3) Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, made the following 
request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration 
of the bill S. 610, to strengthen the domestic and foreign commerce 
of the United States by providing for Service within the Department of
Commerce and a Travel Advisory Board, strike out all after the enacting
clause, and insert the provisions of H.R. 4614 as passed by the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     96 CONG. REC. 17046, 17047, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 3.     107 CONG. REC. 8367, 8368, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 41]]

THE SPEAKER:(4) Is there objection to the present consideration of the 
bill?
There was no objection.

Mr. Harris then offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
for S. 610 the provisions of H.R. 4614 as passed by the House.

The amendment was agreed to.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . . .
By unanimous consent the proceedings by which the bill (H.R. 4614) was 
passed were vacated, and that bill was laid on the table.(5) 
Passage of Senate Bill Vacated

Sec.    3.10 By unanimous consent, the House may vacate proceedings 
whereby it has amended and passed a Senate bill.
On Aug. 31, 1962,(6) Mr. John J. McFall, of California, sought unanimous
consent to correct a mistake whereby an amendment to a Senate bill, 
S. 919, removed certain penalties under the Hatch Act instead of merely
modifying those penalties.

MR. MCFALL: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings 
whereby the House passed S. 919, with an amendment, be vacated, and 
that the House proceed to the further consideration of the Senate bill 
for the purpose of considering an amendment thereto.(7) 
THE SPEAKER:(8) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California? . . .
There was no objection. 
Senate Bill Identical to Provision in Conference Report

Sec.    3.11 During debate on a conference report, the House by 
unanimous consent considered and passed a Senate bill which was 
identical to a provision in the conference report then under 
consideration.
On Oct. 18, 1972, the House was considering the conference report 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 5.     See also 80 CONG. REC. 5897, 5898, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 22, 
1936. Compare 105 CONG. REC. 15512, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 11, 
1959, where a similar result was accomplished by use of a special 
order.
 6.     108 CONG. REC. 18300, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     S. 919 had passed the House on the preceding day, Aug. 30, 1962. 
It had not yet been messaged to the Senate so the House did not have to 
request the return of the papers before taking this action.
 8.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 42]]

on S. 3939, authorizing appropriations for the construction of certain 
highways in accordance with title 23 of the United States Code. Mr. 
John C. Culver, of Iowa, was then recognized.(9)

MR. CULVER: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate
consideration of the Senate bill (S. 3822) authorizing the City of 
Clinton Bridge Commission to convey its bridge structures and other 
assets to the State of Iowa and to provide for the completion of a 
partially constructed bridge across the Mississippi River at or near 
Clinton, Iowa, by the State Highway Commission of the State of Iowa.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
THE SPEAKER:(10) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Iowa? . . .
MR. [DURWARD G.] HALL [of Missouri]: It would be redundant if they 
were both to pass, but the gentleman's concern is we might not be in 
a position to operate, and if there are no objections to the bill, I 
have no objection to it. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I have no further objection, and I withdraw my 
reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Iowa?
There was no objection. . . .
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

The consideration of the conference report was then resumed.
Referral of Senate Bill After Recommittal of House Bill

Sec.    3.12 Where a House bill was recommitted, a similar Senate bill 
(which had been held at the Speaker's table pending disposition of the 
House measure) was referred by the Speaker to the appropriate committee 
of the House.
On June 22, 1962,(11) the following entry appeared in the Record:

A bill of the Senate of the following title was taken from the 
Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:

S. 3225. An act to improve and protect farm income, to reduce costs of 
farm programs to the Federal Government, to reduce the Federal 
Government's excessive stocks of agricultural commodities, to maintain
reasonable and stable prices of agricultural commodities and products 
to consumers, to provide adequate supplies of agricultural commodities 
for domestic and foreign needs, to conserve natural resources, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     118 CONG. REC. 37115, 37135-37, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
10.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
11.     108 CONG. REC. 11433, 11434, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 43]]

Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 11222, the food and agricultural bill of 
1962, had been acted on by the House the preceding day and had been
recommitted to the Committee on Agriculture.
Resolution Discharging House Committee and Providing for Consideration 
of Senate Bill Similar to House Measure Already Reported

Sec.    3.13 The House discharged its committee from further 
consideration of a Senate bill, considered and passed the bill, and 
then laid on the table a similar House bill which had been reported 
by the committee.
On Mar. 29, 1961,(12) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, by direction 
of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 238, which 
provided, inter alia:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill (S. 153) to further amend the Reorganization Act of 1949, as 
amended, so that such Act will apply to reorganization plans 
transmitted to the Congress at any time before June 1, 1963, and all 
points of order against said bill are hereby waived. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(13) The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.

After considering S. 153, the Committee of the Whole reported that 
bill back to the House.

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the passage of the bill.
The bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
A similar House bill (H.R. 5742) was laid on the table.
Consideration of Private Senate Bill in Committee of the Whole

Sec.    3.14 The House may adopt a resolution taking a private Senate 
bill from the Speaker's table and providing for its consideration in
Committee of the Whole.
On Mar. 14, 1961,(14) Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, called up 
House Resolution 224.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consid-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     107 CONG. REC. 5267, 5268, 5273, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
13.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
14.     107 CONG. REC. 3911, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 44]

eration of the 
bill (S. 1173) to authorize the appointment of Dwight David Eisenhower 
to the active list of the Regular Army, and for other purposes.(15) 
Senate Bills Included in Omnibus Bills

Sec.    3.15 Where an omnibus private bill is passed containing House 
bills similar to Senate bills on the Speaker's table, the Speaker may
recognize Members for unanimous-consent requests to take up such Senate 
bills for consideration.
On Aug. 21, 1935,(16) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, made the
following statement:

Permit the Chair to make a statement. In the omnibus bills which were 
passed on yesterday there were included several bills which had 
previously passed the Senate and were on the Speaker's table. The Chair 
feels that those Members who are interested in those particular bills 
should have an opportunity to ask unanimous consent for the immediate
consideration of the Senate bills, so that they can be taken out of the
omnibus bills when they are reported to the Senate. The Chair will 
therefore first recognize Members who have such bills. The Chair 
understands there are a number of Members on the floor who have such 
bills.

Parliamentarian's Note: The provisions of Rule XXIV clause 6, provide a
 procedure for the consideration of private bills and resolutions on 
the first and third Tuesdays of the month. On the third Tuesday of the 
month, the Speak-er may entertain omnibus bills, which may contain 
measures objected to when called previously on the Calendar. It was 
within the context of this rule(17) that the Speaker made the statement
carried above.


 
                House-Senate Relations
 
                  A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    4. House Action on Senate Resolutions

Senate resolutions, concurrent and joint, are subject to various 
legislative actions in the House as are Senate-passed bills.(18) Simple 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     Parliamentarian's Note: Since a pri-vate Senate bill resulting in
the expenditure of public funds (and thus requiring consideration in 
the Committee of the Whole) is not privileged and cannot be taken from 
the Speaker's table by motion for direct action by the House, the House 
adopted a resolution taking the bill from the table and providing for 
its consideration.
16.     79 CONG. REC. 13993, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1997).
18.     See Sec.Sec. 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 45]]

Senate resolutions are sent to the House for information only and are
generally held at the Speaker's table and not referred.(19)

Return to Senate

Sec.    4.1 The House agreed to a request of the Senate for the return 
of a Senate concurrent resolution with accompanying papers.
On Sept. 14, 1961,(20) the Speaker Pro Tempore, John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, laid before the House the following request of the Senate:

Ordered, That the House of Representatives be requested to return to  
the Senate the concurrent resolution (Senate Concurrent Resolution 14)
entitled "Concurrent resolution saluting 'Uncle Sam' Wilson, of Troy, 
N.Y., as the progenitor of America's national symbol of 'Uncle Sam'," 
with the accompanying papers.
FELTON M. JOHNSTON,
Secretary.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the request is granted.
There was no objection.
Consideration Under Five-minute Rule

Sec.    4.2 A Senate joint resolution at the Speaker's table may be 
called up by unanimous consent and considered under the five-minute 
rule.
On July 31, 1967,(1) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [JAMES C.] CORMAN [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent for the immediate consideration of the Senate joint resolution 
(S.J. Res. 98) authorizing the National Advisory Commission on Civil 
Disorders to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the
production of evidence.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate joint resolution.
THE SPEAKER:(2) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, 
I should like to ask the sponsor of this Senate joint resolution if 
under this unanimous-consent request the gentleman proposes to yield 
time, and how much time is to be taken in the consideration thereof. . . .
Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Iowa will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     See Sec. 1.2, infra.
20.     107 CONG. REC. 19540, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     113 CONG. REC. 20604, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 46]]

MR. GROSS: How much time will be taken on this Senate joint resolution?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Iowa that if 
the unanimous-consent request is granted, the resolution comes before 
the House under the 5-minute rule.(3) 
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Consideration in Committee of the Whole

Sec.    4.3 The House may adopt a resolution providing for the 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole of a Senate joint 
resolution which had not been referred to a House committee and on 
which there was no House report.
On Sept. 24, 1962,(4) Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 804.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
joint resolution (S.J. Res. 224) to authorize the President to order 
units and members in the Ready Reserve to active duty for not more than 
twelve months, and for other purposes. . . .

THE SPEAKER:(5) The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.

Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate joint resolution was held at the 
Speaker's table and not referred to a committee, since the House 
Committee on Armed Services reported an identical House joint 
resolution the same day the Senate joint resolution was messaged to 
the House.
Provisions of House Resolution Inserted

Sec.    4.4 By unanimous consent a Senate joint resolution was taken 
from the Speaker's ta-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     S.J. Res. 98 was being held at the Speaker's table. While it had 
not been referred to a House committee, it was a measure that if 
reported in the House would have been placed  on the Union Calendar. 
Where the House grants unanimous consent for consideration of a measure 
that would be on the Union Calendar if reported, the bill is considered 
in the House as in the Committee of the Whole. See proceedings of Apr. 
6, 1966, at 112 CONG. REC. 7749, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. and Jefferson's 
Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 424 (1997).
 4.     108 CONG. REC. 20489, 20494, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 47]]

ble, the preamble and all after the resolving 
clause stricken; and preamble and provisions of a similar House joint
resolution were then inserted by amendment.
On Jan. 8, 1964,(6) after the House considered House Joint Resolution 
871, providing for renaming the National Cultural Center the John F. 
Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the following occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(7) The question is on the passage of the [House] joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MR. [ROBERT E.] JONES of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to take from the Speaker's table Senate Joint Resolution 136, a similar 
joint resolution to House Joint Resolution 871 just passed; strike out 
all after the enacting clause of Senate Joint Resolution 136, and 
insert the provisions of House Joint Resolution 871.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama? . . .
MR. JONES of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Jones of Alabama: Strike out the preamble and 
all after the resolving clause of Senate Joint Resolution 136 and 
insert the preamble and provisions of House Joint Resolution 871 as 
passed.

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Alabama.
The amendment was agreed to.
Deletion of Senate Amendment to House Bill

Sec.    4.5 By unanimous consent, the House considered and agreed to a 
Senate concurrent resolution authorizing the Clerk, in the enrollment 
of a House bill, to delete a Senate amendment thereto.
On Sept. 28, 1971,(8) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. 
B. F. Sisk, of California:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration 
of the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 42), providing for a
deletion in the enrollment of H.R. 4713. . . .
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the Senate concurrent resolution.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution as follows:

                    S. CON. RES. 42
Resolved by the Senate (House of Representatives concurring), That the 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     110 CONG. REC. 145, 146, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 8.     117 CONG. REC. 33715, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 48]]

enrollment of H.R. 4713, the Clerk of the House of Representatives be
authorized to delete Senate amendment numbered 5, which inserts at 
page 3, after the second line following line 6, a new section 7.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California? . . . 
There was no objection.
The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate had adopted several numbered 
amendments to the House bill, and the House had agreed to Senate 
amendment number 5. The Senate then decided to recede from that 
amendment, which it could not do except by concurrent action of the 
two Houses in correcting the enrollment of the bill.



 
                House-Senate Relations
 
                  A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    5. House Action on Senate Amendments

House measures with Senate amendments which do not require 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole are privileged for 
consideration in the House and may at once be disposed of on motion 
or as the House may otherwise determine.(9) If any Senate amendment 
requires consideration in the Committee of the Whole, a motion to act 
on the Senate amendment is not privileged, and the rules provide that 
the entire measure be referred to the ap-propriate standing 
committee.(10) Upon being reported from that committee the measure is 
placed on the Union Calendar for consideration in the Committee of the 
Whole. However, as a practical matter this procedure is rarely used 
and such measures are ei-ther considered under the provisions of 
resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules ("special rules")(11) 
or by unanimous consent.(12) The motion to suspend the rules may also 
be used to dispose of such Senate amendments.
Motions for the disposal of these Senate measures or Senate amendments 
to House bills requiring consideration in Committee of the Whole become
privileged after the stage of disagreement is 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     Rule XXIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 882 (1997).
10.     Rule XX clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1997) and Rule 
XXIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec.Sec. 882, 883 (1997).
11.     See Sec.Sec. 5.5, 5.30, 5.31, 5.33, 5.54, infra.
12.     See Sec. 5.7, infra. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 49]]

reached on that particular
measure.(13) This stage is not reached until one House informs the 
other that it disagrees to some provision of that measure.(14) However, 
when these measures are considered under the provisions of a special 
rule, or by unanimous consent, motions for their disposal are thereby
privileged (under the provisions of either the special rule or 
unanimous-consent agreement) despite the fact that the stage of 
disagreement may not have been reached. These measures are often sent 
to conference by unanimous consent,(15) pursuant to the provisions of 
a special rule from the Committee on Rules,(16) or pursuant to a 
committee-authorized motion to request or agree to a conference.(17) 
The provision in Rule XX, clause 1, now permits a motion to send a 
House bill with Senate amendments to conference, if the Speaker in his
discretion recognizes a Member authorized by the committee having 
jurisdiction over the bill, to make such motion. However, motions for 
the disposal of these amendments in the House itself are still not 
privileged at this stage, and they require unanimous consent. While a
privileged motion to go to conference under Rule XX clause 1 is 
pending, preferential motions to concur or to concur with amendments 
are not in order (the stage of disagreement not having been 
reached).(18) 
Senate amendments must be read in full prior to their being taken from 
the Speaker's table.(19) They are debated in the House under the hour 
rule(20) or under the five-minute rule if in Committee of the Whole.(1) 
They are considered in their entirety either in the House(2) or in 
Committee of the Whole.(3) 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     See Sec. 5.4, infra; and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3194.
14.     6 Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 756, 757.
15.     Id. at Sec. 732. See Sec.Sec. 5.6-5.9, infra.
16.     See precedents in Ch. 33, Sec. 2, infra.
17.     Rule XX clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1997), as 
amended by H. Res. 8, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. (1965) at p. 21.
18.     House Practice (104th Cong.), Sec. 11, Senate Bills; Amendments 
Between the Houses, p. 820, 124 CONG. REC. 38724, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 7, 1977.
19.     8 Cannon's Precedents Sec.Sec. 2400, 3232.
20.     See Sec. 5.56, infra. 
 1.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 828 (1997). See also Sec. 5.50, infra.
 2.     See Sec. 5.42, infra.
 3.     5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6194.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 50]]

Amendment of Text to Which Both Houses Have Agreed

Sec.    5.1 During House consideration of Senate amendments to a House 
bill, it is not in order to enlarge the Senate amendment to change the 
text of the bill to which both Houses have agreed.
On June 10, 1940,(4) the House was considering Senate amendments to 
H.R. 9209, appropriations for the military. Mr. J. Buell Snyder, of
Pennsylvania, offered a motion to recede and concur with an amendment. 
Mr. John Taber, of New York, rose with a point of order:

. . . I shall feel obliged to make a point of order against the part 
of the amendment beginning with the comma in the first line thereof and
continuing through the balance of the language, because . . . it is not 
an amendment to an amendment to which it is offered, it being an 
amendment to the language on page 37, line 6 [of the House text], to 
which paragraph the Senate made no amendment whatever. . . .
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(5) Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire 
to be heard on the point of order?
MR. SNYDER: I concede the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair sustains the point of order.
Amending Text Previously Agreed to By Both Houses


Sec.    5.2 Where a Senate amendment struck language in a House bill 
and inserted a new provision, the House concurred with an amendment 
striking the insertion and altering other portions of the House 
engrossment, thus amending its own agreed-upon text. In the Senate, 
the motion to concur in the House action was agreed to.
Under section XLV of his Manual of Parliamentary Practice, Jefferson 
states that "the Commons resolved that it is unparliamentary to strike 
out, at a conference, anything in a bill which hath been agreed and 
passed by both Houses."(6) In the modern practice, the further 
principle has been established in the House of Representatives that 
it may not, even in the slightest degree, change the text to which 
both Houses have agreed.(7) 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     86 CONG. REC. 7895, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 5.     William P. Cole, Jr. (Md.).
 6.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 527 (1997).
 7.     See 5 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 6180; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 
3257; and 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 51]]

While technically at variance with these principles, the House has 
permitted, by sufferance and by special procedures (under suspension 
or pursuant to a special order), the type of amendment illustrated 
below as a way of expediting consideration of amendments between the
Houses.(8) 

MR. [MARK O.] HATFIELD [of Oregon]: Mr. President, I ask that the 
Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of 
Representatives on House Joint Resolution 115, a joint resolution 
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and 
for other purposes.
The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message 
from the House of Representatives:

Resolved, That the House agree to the amendments of the Senate numbered 
1 and 2 to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115) entitled "Joint 
resolution making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal 
year 1996, and for other purposes.".
Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the Senate numbered 
3 to the aforesaid joint resolution with the following amendment:
Delete the matter proposed by said amendment, and beginning on page 
15, line 1 of the House engrossed joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115), 
strike all down to and including line 7, on page 36, and redesignate 
title IV as title III, and renumber sections accordingly.

MR. HATFIELD: Mr. President, I move that the Senate concur in the 
House amendment to the Senate amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(9) The question is on agreeing to the motion.
So the motion was agreed to.
MR. HATFIELD: I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Receding From a House Amendment With a New House Amendment to Senate 
Text

Sec.    5.3 While under section XLV of Jefferson's Manual,(10) the 
House may not recede from its amendment to a Senate measure with an 
amendment, the House may, by unanimous consent, recede from its 
amendment and then amend the Senate text anew with another amendment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
House Rules and Manual Sec. 527 (1997). 
 8.     141 CONG. REC. 32194, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 13, 1995.
Similarly, on Oct. 14, 1986, the House agreed to a resolution 
considered under suspension of the rules, agreeing to a Senate 
amendment which inserted text in a House bill, with an amendment 
changing the text of the original House bill. See 132 CONG. REC. 30729, 
99th Cong. 2d Sess. (H. Res. 589).
 9.     Charles E. Grassley (Iowa).
10.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 526 (1997).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 52]]

On June 21, 1982,(11) it became essential that the House proceed to 
act first on Senate Concurrent Resolution 92, the first concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1983. The conference report 
on the resolution had been filed, showing that the conferees had 
reported in complete disagreement for technical reasons.
The unanimous-consent request proposed by the chairman of the Committee 
on the Budget, James R. Jones, of Oklahoma, was designed to permit the 
House to "act first" on the resolution by a rather unorthodox-and 
rarely used-procedure.

Mr. Jones of Oklahoma submitted the following conference report and 
statement on the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 92) setting 
forth the recommended congressional budget for the U.S. Government for 
the fiscal years 1983, 1984, and 1985, and revising the congressional 
budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal year 1982:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 97-614)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the House to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. 
Res. 92) setting forth the recommended congressional budget for the 
United States Government for the fiscal years 1983, 1984, and 1985, and
revising the congressional budget for the United States Government for 
the fiscal year 1982, having met, after full and free conference, have 
been unable to agree on a conference report because the conference 
decisions have changed certain budget figures outside the scope of 
conference. As set forth in the accompanying joint explanatory 
statement, the conferees do propose a congressional budget incorporated 
in a further amendment for the consideration of the two Houses. . . . 

MR. JONES of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it 
shall be in order tomorrow or any day thereafter to consider a motion 
by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to recede from the House
amendment, reported from conference in disagreement, to Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 92, and to amend the Senate concurrent resolution 
with the text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed 
in the joint statement of managers in the conference report as 
submitted in the House of Representatives, that debate on said motion 
shall continue not to exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Budget, that said motion shall not be subject to a demand for a 
division of the question, and that the previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on said motion to final adoption without 
intervening motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(12) Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     128 CONG. REC. 14470, 14481, 14482, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
12.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 53]]

MR. [TOM] LOEFFLER [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, and I shall not object, I do so solely for the purpose of
clarification.
As I understand the request of the distinguished chairman of the Budget
Committee, this would only allow us to expedite consideration of the 
budget resolution conference report, which was reported in disagreement
because of some minor-scope problems. This motion would, as I 
understand it, allow the House to proceed first to the consideration 
of the conference agreement. . . . 
MR. LOEFFLER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his response, and 
I wish to inform the body that this unanimous-consent request has also 
been cleared by the Republican leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
When Privileged for Consideration

Sec.    5.4 After the stage of disagreement on a House bill with Senate
amendments has been reached, the consideration of the amendments are
privileged.
On May 22, 1936,(13) Speaker    Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, had 
ruled out on a point of order the conference report on H.R. 9496, 
relating to losses suffered by the federal government through delivery 
of checks by mail, whereupon the Senate amendments thereto were again 
before the House for consideration.

MR. [FREDERICK R.] LEHLBACH [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. LEHLBACH: Are amendments put on a House bill by the Senate 
privileged?
THE SPEAKER: After the stage of disagreement has been reached they are. 
For this reason it is necessary that the House take some action upon 
the amendments at this time.
Consequences of Objection to Unanimous-consent Request To Consider 
Senate Amendments

Sec.    5.5 Should objection be made to a unanimous-consent request to 
take from the Speaker's table a House bill with Senate amendments, and 
to disagree to the amendments and agree to a conference, the Speaker 
is not required by Rule XXIV clause 2 to send the bill and amendments 
directly to the legislative committee having jurisdiction thereof, but 
may hold the bill on the table until the Committee on Rules

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     80 CONG. REC. 7790-92, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 54]]

has an opportunity to act or until the House takes other action.
On Mar. 29, 1961,(14) during the pendency of a unanimous-consent 
request of Mr. Harold D. Cooley,  of North Carolina, to take from  
the Speaker's table H.R. 5463, amending the Sugar Act of 1948, with 
Senate amendments thereto, Mr. Walter E. Rogers, of Texas, raised 
the following parliamentary inquiry:

If an objection is made, does the bill go back to the committee having
jurisdiction?
THE SPEAKER:(15) It does not; and the Committee on Rules, I am sure, 
would be called together immediately and asked to report a rule to 
send the bill to conference.(16) 
Consideration by Unanimous Consent

Sec.    5.6 A motion to take from the Speaker's table a House bill with 
Senate amendments (requiring consideration in the Committee of the 
Whole) for consideration in the House is not privileged before the 
stage of disagreement is reached, and such action requires unanimous 
consent.
On May 27, 1946,(17) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Clarence J. Brown, of Ohio, to pose a parliamentary inquiry regarding 
the consideration of H.R. 4908, a bill to provide for the appointment 
of fact-finding boards to investigate labor disputes:

Would it be in order for a Member to move to take from the Speaker's 
desk H.R. 4908 for consideration at this time?
THE SPEAKER: The motion is not a privileged motion at this stage of 
the proceedings.
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Would it be within the discretion of the Speaker?
THE SPEAKER: It would not. It requires unanimous consent.


Sec.    5.7 The House may, by unanimous consent, take from the 
Speaker's table a House bill with Senate amendments and consider

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     107 CONG. REC. 5288, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
15.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
16.     See also 107 CONG. REC. 21475, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 25, 
1961 (Calendar Day). The motion to send a bill and amendments to 
conference was not made part of the rules until the 89th Congress. See 
H. Res. 8, 111 CONG. REC. 21, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965.
17.     92 CONG. REC. 5864, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 55]]

those amendments in the House.
On Dec. 20, 1963,(18) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 
and consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5945) to establish a procedure 
for the prompt settlement, in a democratic manner, of the political 
status of Puerto Rico, with Senate amendments thereto.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the first Senate amendment.(19) 

The motion to dispose of each Senate amendment was debatable for one hour.


Sec.    5.8 A House bill, with Senate amendments that require 
consideration in Committee of the Whole, may be taken from the 
Speaker's table for consideration, for agreement to the Senate 
amendments, or sent to conference, by unanimous consent.
On Aug. 13, 1957,(20) Mr. Kenneth B. Keating, of New York, made this 
inquiry about the consideration of a civil rights bill:

Specifically with regard to the bill H.R. 6127, which is now on the 
Speaker's desk, I wish the Speaker would advise whether a unanimous-
consent request is necessary from some Member to dispose of it in some 
manner as a preliminary to its being sent to the Committee on Rules?
THE SPEAKER:(1) It requires unanimous consent to take it up for 
consideration, send it to conference, or to agree to the amendments of 
the Senate.

Sec.    5.9 A House bill, with Senate amendments requiring 
consideration in Committee of the Whole, was, by unanimous consent, 
taken from the Speaker's table for consideration; certain of the 
amendments were agreed to; and the House disagreed to the remaining 
amendments and agreed to a conference requested by the Senate.

On July 31, 1961,(2) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Thomas J. Steed, of Oklahoma, to make this request:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     109 CONG. REC. 25365, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
19.     See also 111 CONG. REC. 27412, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 
1965 (H.R. 168).
20.     103 CONG. REC. 14568, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 2.     107 CONG. REC. 14050, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56]]

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 
and consider the bill (H.R. 7208) making appropriations for the 
legislative branch for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1962, and for 
other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
MR. STEED: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House concur 
in the amendments of the Senate numbered 1 through 41, inclusive, and 
in amendments numbered 43 and 49; that the House disagrees to the
 amendments of the Senate numbered 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, and 
52; and that the House agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
The Chair hears none and appoints the following conferees:
Messrs. Steed, Kirwan, Cannon, Horan, and Taber.(3) 
Where  Unanimous-consent  Request Is Pending, Alternative Motions Not 
in Order 

Sec.    5.10 When a unanimous-consent request to take from  the 
Speaker's table a House bill with Senate amendments thereto (which 
require consideration in the Committee of the Whole) is pending, no 
motion for the disposal of those amendments is in order.
On Mar. 29, 1961,(4) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Harold D. Cooley, of North Carolina:

MR. COOLEY: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's desk the bill-H.R. 5463-  to amend and extend the Sugar Act 
of 1948, as amended, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the 
Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
MRS. [CATHERINE D.] MAY [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
right to object, may I propound a parliamentary inquiry?
THE SPEAKER: The gentlewoman will state it.
MRS. MAY: Mr. Speaker, may I offer a preferential motion?
THE SPEAKER: There is nothing before the House except the unanimous-
consent request of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Cooley].


Sec.    5.11 If objection is made to a unanimous-consent request to 
take a House bill with 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     See also 108 CONG. REC. 15854, 15856, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 
8, 1962.
 4.     107 CONG. REC. 5288, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 57]]

Senate amendment from the Speaker's table and concur in the amendment, 
the Speaker has no authority to automatically put the question on 
concurring to a vote. 
The recurring procedural distinctions between unanimous-consent 
requests to concur or to consider a Senate amendment, before the stage 
of disagreement, was again the subject of an inquiry on June 29, 1976.(5) 

MR. [AL] ULLMAN [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 10051) to amend section 815 
of the Internal Revenue Code to allow a life insurance company to 
disregard (for purposes of that section) a distribution during the last 
month of its taxable year, determined to have been made out of the
policyholders surplus account, if such distribution is returned to 
the company not later than the due date for filing its income tax return
(including extensions thereof) for that year, with Senate amendments 
thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:

Page 3, after line 5, insert:
SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM INCOME UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME 
PROGRAM. . . . 

THE SPEAKER:(6) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Ullman) to concur in the Senate amendments?
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, is the question being put on consideration of the bill?
THE SPEAKER: On Senate amendments, to concur in the Senate amendments. 
The question was put.
MR. ULLMAN: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. BAUMAN: Reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman 
from Oregon.
MR. ULLMAN: Mr. Speaker, the unanimous-consent request is to agree to 
the Senate amendments. I attempted to explain what the Senate amendments 
do. This was a House-passed bill which we have already voted on, and 
we are agreeing by this action to the Senate amendments.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, if an objection is lodged to the request, can 
the Chair then put the question?
If an objection is lodged to the request to agree to the Senate 
amendments, would the Chair then be able to put the question?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     122 CONG. REC. 21140, 21141, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 58]]

THE SPEAKER: No.
MR. BAUMAN: In other words, there is no manner in which a Member can 
obtain a rollcall vote on this?
THE SPEAKER: Not on this request.
MR. BAUMAN: It either passes by unanimous consent or not at all?
THE SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. BAUMAN: The gentleman from Maryland thinks that is unfortunate, 
and withdraws his reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oregon?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Interruption of Amendments in Disagreement for Other Business


Sec.    5.12 The House interrupted the consideration of amendments in
disagreement on a general appropriation bill to take up, pursuant to a
unanimous-consent request, a continuing appropriation measure, making 
in order one indivisible motion to  concur in all Senate amendments.
Following a record vote on a motion to dispose of one of the amendments 
in disagreement to the Department of Veterans' Affairs and Housing and 
Urban Development appropriation bill, fiscal 1990 (H.R. 2916), the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations was recognized to offer a
unanimous-consent request, providing for consideration and disposition 
of the final continuing appropriation bill for fiscal 1990. The request 
and the motion made pursuant thereto, as excerpted from the 
Congressional Record of Oct. 25, 1989,(7) are carried here. 
MAKING IN ORDER OFFERING OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE 
AMENDMENTS ON HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 423, FURTHER CONTINUING 
APPROPRIATIONS, 1990
MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that it be in order to offer an indivisible motion to take 
from the Speaker's table the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 423) making
continuing  appropriations for fiscal year 1990,  and for other 
purposes, with Senate amendments numbered 1 through 13 thereto, and 
to concur in such Senate amendments; that such motion be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by myself and the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] and that the previous question be considered 
as ordered on such motion to final adoption without intervening motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(8) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     135 CONG. REC. 25887-90, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
 8.     Frank McCloskey (Ind.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 59]]

MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
right to object, I understand that we are taking up the continuing 
resolution with this. Does that mean that we have now accepted the 
Senate amendments?
MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. WALKER: I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, it means we accept the Senate amendments as 
we have participated in working this out by telephone during the day. 
The Senate amendment carries with it what we thought we needed in 
addition to what we passed yesterday. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [CHALMERS P.] WYLIE [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. WYLIE: Mr. Speaker, concerning the HUD-VA appropriation bill, will 
we get back to that this evening?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Ohio 
that the House will continue with that later today. It will be 
temporarily interrupted.
MR. WYLIE: I thank the Chair.
FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, 1990
MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House just 
agreed to, I move to take from the Speaker's table the joint resolution 
(H.J. Res. 423) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal 
year 1990, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments numbered 1 
through 13 thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:

Senate amendments:
Page 2, line 2, strike out "section" and insert "sections".
Page 2, line 11, after "Fund" insert: "and to remain available until
expended".
Page 2, lines 11 and 12, strike out "120(f)(1) and".
Page 2, line 13, strike out all after "Fund" down to and including 
"1990" in line 16.
Page 2, line 23, after "activities" insert ": Provided, That during 
fiscal year 1990, and within the resources available to carry out 
Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act, as amended, gross obligations 
for new direct loans shall not exceed $1,813,250,000".
Page 3, line 4, after "authorized" insert: "Federal". . . .
Page 3, after line 10, insert: 
"SEC. 109. Section 102(c) shall not apply to sections 107, 108, 109, 
110, 111, 112, and 113."
Page 3, after line 10, insert:
"SEC. 110. Notwithstanding section 120(f) of title 23, United States 
Code, the Federal share payable on account of any project on the 
Interstate and other Federal-aid highway system resulting from 
Hurricane Hugo, September 1989, or the Loma Prieta Earthquake of 
October 17, 1989, with funds made available to carry out section 125 
of such title shall be 100 percent for costs incurred in the 180-day 
period beginning on the date of such natural disaster.". . . .

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: 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. . . . 


[[Page 60]]

MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of our committee and of the Congress. We have 
proved that we can act in a hurry.
Eight days after the worst earthquake since 1906, which wreaked havoc 
on the people of California, with deaths totaling more than 80 and 
destruction of billions of dollars worth of valuable property, we on 
the Committee on Appropriations have worked out a resolution enabling 
the people of the area to go full speed ahead with efforts to relieve 
the suffering and to return, so far as possible, to orderly business 
and lives. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, moving promptly on Friday, October 20, I introduced House 
Joint Resolution 423 for myself and on behalf of the delegations of 
the State of California, the State of South Carolina, and other areas 
affected by natural disasters on a national scale. On Monday, at 7:15 
p.m. the committee reported the resolution.
Yesterday the House passed House Joint Resolution 423 which extends 
the present continuing resolution, Public Law 101-100, from October 
25 to November 15, 1989. The existing resolution expires tonight at 
midnight. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, the Senate earlier today adopted a resolution with 13 
amendments. May I say in an effort to expedite this matter, we did 
work it out and reached an agreement by telephone where the Senate 
provision includes amendments we think important. So, it is a 
combination bill where we have gotten together in advance. I am glad 
to tell my colleagues that is the situation.
Distinction Between Unanimous Consent To Concur or Consider Senate 
Amendment


Sec.    5.13 A request to concur in a Senate action may lead to the 
final disposition of the matter, while a request to "consider" may 
permit a variety of motions and result in a vote on the motion offered. 
Amendments between the Houses are often disposed of in  the House by a
properly phrased unanimous-consent request. The distinction between a 
request to "concur" in a Senate amendment and one to "consider" the 
amendment are shown by the following requests and inquiries:(9) 

MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to take from the Speak-er's desk the bill (H.R. 9524) 
to extend the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, with a Senate
amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     121 CONG. REC. 30415-17, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 26, 1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 61]]

SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Emergency Petroleum Allocation 
Act of 1975". . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [WILLIAM L.] ARMSTRONG [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
right to object, I wonder if I could propound a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(10) The gentleman will state it.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Mr. Speaker, the effect of granting this unanimous-
consent request will be not only that the bill will be considered, but 
it will be by granting the request adopted?
THE SPEAKER: There will be an agreement by the House to the Senate 
amendment.
MR. ARMSTRONG: And to adopt the bill?
THE SPEAKER: It is simply an amendment to the House bill, which would
automatically be agreed to if there is no objection.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I may ask, is there a way to 
divide that question? My interest does not preclude the consideration 
of this matter. My interest is to have a vote on the issue.
THE SPEAKER: This is not a divisible question. This is a unanimous-
consent request. . . . 
MR. ARMSTRONG: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, do 
I understand the gentleman's explanation that if the unanimous-consent 
request is agreed to, the effect is final action by the House; there 
would be no debate?
THE SPEAKER: That would be final action by the House.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, then, Mr. Speaker, reluctantly and not because 
I desire to delay consideration of this issue, but because I think a 
matter of this importance deserves the effort, I will, therefore, 
object to the unanimous-consent request.
THE SPEAKER: Objection is heard.
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 9524) to extend the Emergency Petroleum
Allocation Act of 1973, with a Senate amendment thereto, and consider 
the Senate amendment in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Emergency Petroleum Allocation 
Act of 1975". . . . 

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to consideration of the Senate 
amendment in the House?
MR. ARMSTRONG: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, perhaps I 
am in doubt of our status. The information just given me is that upon 
the adoption of this amendment the bill

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 62]]

will then be before the House in the Committee of the Whole.
THE SPEAKER: No.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Then I have been given the wrong information. I thank 
the Speaker for helping me. I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to consideration of the Senate 
amendment? The Chair hears none. The question is on the adoption of 
the Senate amendment.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that 
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is 
not  present.
THE SPEAKER: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 342, nays 
16, not voting 75. . . . 

Sec.    5.14 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker stated 
the distinction between a unanimous-consent request to concur in Senate
amendments and a request to consider such amendments in the House: 
only the second alternative permits debate and a vote. 
Where a request was made to take from the Speaker's table a House 
measure with the Senate's amendments thereto, and concur in those 
amendments, an inquiry was directed to the Chair as shown in the 
following proceedings:(11) 

MR. PHILLIP BURTON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's desk the joint resolution (H.J. 
Res. 549) to approve the "Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of
America," and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and 
concur in the Senate amendments. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(12) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
MR. [M. G. (GENE)] SNYDER [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, further reserving 
the right to object, I have a parliamentary inquiry on the reservation. 
What was the unanimous-consent request, to take it up or to agree to the
Senate amendments?
THE SPEAKER: To concur in the Senate amendments.
MR. SNYDER: A further inquiry on  my reservation, Mr. Speaker: If that
unanimous-consent request then is granted, am I precluded from asking 
for a vote?
THE SPEAKER: Yes; the request is not for the immediate consideration 
of the Senate amendments. It is a unanimous consent to concur in the 
Senate amendments. . . . 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     122 CONG. REC. 6147, 6148, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 11, 1976.
12.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 63]]

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. SNYDER: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. SNYDER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would be possible for the 
gentleman from California to phrase his unanimous-consent request in 
such a way so that we could have a vote on it and dispose of it? I do 
not wish to unduly delay the proceedings but could that be done?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the only way that that could 
be done would be if the gentleman from California (Mr. Burton) had 
asked unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the Senate
amendments in the House; if that had been done, then the Senate 
amendments could have been debated. . . . 
MR. SNYDER: I would merely like to be able to register a vote against 
the matter.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the procedure we are presently
following is in order.
MR. SNYDER: I understand that.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will further state that Members through the 
whip's notice have been advised that there would be no more voting 
today, so that the Chair would not entertain a unanimous-consent 
request for the consideration of the Senate amendments at this time.
Unusual Unanimous-consent Procedure Providing for En Bloc Amendment of 
Five  Senate Amendments to Five House Bills on a Related Subject


Sec.    5.15 Where the Senate had added components of the comprehensive
National Energy Act (H.R. 8444, 95th Congress) to five private House 
bills, the House, act-ing by unanimous consent, amended four of the 
private bills by concurring in the germane amendments added by the 
Senate to each of them, and concurring in the energy-related amendments 
added by the Senate to each bill with a further amendment consisting of 
the entire text of the House-passed bill. 
The Senate had anticipated the House action described above and had laid 
the foundation by amending the four private bills to set the stage for 
a possible need to invoke cloture. From the perspective of the House, 
adding the complete text of the House-passed measure to the portion of 
the energy regulatory programs added by the Senate put the House in a 
position to have the various aspects of the regulatory provisions of 
H.R. 8444 in conference so that House conferees would not be confined 
in negotiating a compro-


[[Page 64]]

mise bill between the Senate language and existing law. 
After amending the Senate energy-related amendments to the four bills, 
the House insisted on its amendments thereto, requested a conference 
on each, and appointed managers on the part of the House. 
The tax portion of H.R. 8444, which was in title II of that bill, was
addressed by a Senate amendment to a private relief tariff measure, 
which had been reported in the House by the Committee on Ways and Means 
(H.R. 5263) which the House sent to conference on Nov. 3, 1977.
All five private bills became public laws (Public Laws 95-617 through 
95-621).
The pertinent proceedings in the House of Oct. 13, 1977,(13) are set 
out below:
SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 5037, FOR THE RELIEF OF JACK R. MISNER
MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5037) 
for the relief of Jack R. Misner, with Senate amendments thereto and 
concur in Senate amendments No. 1 and No. 2 and concur in Senate 
amendment No. 3 with an amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the House amendment to the Senate amendments, as 
follows:

Strike out the text of the Senate amendment numbered 3 and insert in 
lieu thereof the text of H.R. 8444 as passed the House (other than 
title II thereof and items in the table of contents relating thereto) 
as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.-This Act may be cited as the "National Energy Act".
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.-
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and statement of purposes.
Sec. 3. National energy goals.
Sec. 4. References to Federal Power Commission and Federal Energy Administration.
TITLE I-PRICING, REGULATORY, AND OTHER NONTAX PROVISIONS . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(14) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from West Virginia? . . . 
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, germaneness is out 
the window but I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER: 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.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 5037, FOR THE RELIEF OF JACK R. MISNER

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     123 CONG. REC. 33646, 33647, 33687, 33688, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
14.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 65]]

MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5037)    for the relief of Jack R. 
Misner, with the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto 
numbered 3, insist on the House amendment, and request a conference 
with the Senate thereon.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from  
West Virginia? The Chair hears none and appoints the following 
conferees: Messrs. Staggers, Ashley, Ullman, Bolling, Foley, Dingell, 
Rogers, Eckhardt, Sharp, Moffett, Charles Wilson of Texas, Reuss,
Rostenkowski, Vanik, Corman, Waggonner, Rangel, Anderson of Illinois, 
Brown of Ohio, Horton,   Wydler, Brown of Michigan, Steiger, Collins 
of Texas, and Archer. . . . 
HOUSE AMENDMENT TO SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 5289, FOR THE RELIEF OF 
JOE CORTINA OF TAMPA, FLA.
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5289) for the relief of Joe Cortina of 
Tampa, Fla., with Senate amendments thereto, concur in Senate 
amendments numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and concur in the Senate
amendment numbered 8 with an amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the House amendment to the Senate amendment, as follows:

Strike out the text of the Senate amendment and insert in lieu thereof 
the text of H.R. 8444 as passed by the House (other than title II 
thereof and items, in the table of contents relating thereto). . . .

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, the gentleman 
has repeatedly asked permission to agree to certain Senate amendments 
and to disagree with a substitute amendment to others. The Senate 
amendments we have been asked to agree to, are all these germane to 
the different bills, or do they also deal with other matters?
MR. STAGGERS: They are all technical changes to conform to what the 
House has passed.
MR. BAUMAN: They do not deal with any substantive matters?
MR. STAGGERS: That is correct.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER: 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.

The procedure was similar with the other two private bills, the House
concurring in the Senate amendments relating to the private claims and
concurring with amendment in the energy-related Senate amendment with 
a further amendment.
Referral of House Bill and Senate Amendments

Sec.    5.16 The Speaker's reference of a House bill with Senate 
amendments to a committee 


[[Page 66]]

is entered in the Record after the proceedings 
of the day.
The following entry appeared in the Record of July 26, 1951:(15) 

Under clause 2, of rule XXIV, the following bill with Senate amendments
thereto, was taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

H.R. 2416. An act relating to the exclusion from gross income of income 
from discharge of indebtedness, to the Committee on Ways and Means and 
ordered to be printed with the amendments of the Senate numbered.

Sec.    5.17 The Speaker announced to the House that he had referred a 
general appropriation bill with Senate amendments thereto to the 
Committee on Appropriations.
On July 2, 1945,(16) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made this 
announcement:
The Chair desires to announce that he has referred the bill H.R. 3368, 
the war agencies bill, with Senate amendments thereto, to the Committee 
on Appropriations.
Use of Special Order To Prevent Amendment of Motion To Concur


Sec.    5.18 The House has on occasion utilized a special order to take 
from the Speaker's table a House bill, with Senate amendment thereto, 
and concur in the amendment with a further House amendment "without
intervening motion," thus precluding a motion to recommit the Senate
amendment.
The House bill, H.R. 1643, dealing with the extension of 
most-favored-nation treatment to Bulgaria, had been returned to the 
House with an amendment which was not germane, since it addressed the 
subject of continuing appropriations for the government to avoid a 
"shutdown" during a period of budget impasse. The motion included in 
the report of the Committee on Rules addressed the subject matter of 
the Senate amendment and added further provisions related to the 
operations of government.
Parliamentarian's Note: The special order was within the competence of 
the Committee on Rules and did not violate the restriction placed on 
the authority of that committee by Rule XI clause 4(b), that prohibits 
a rule precluding a motion to recommit from being made as provided in 
Rule XVI 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     97 CONG. REC. 8987, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
16.     91 CONG. REC. 7142, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 67]]

clause 4. That restriction applies to recommittal motions 
after the previous question is ordered on the passage of a bill or 
joint resolution. This distinction is discussed in 
Sec. 729c, House Rules and Manual, 104th Congress.
The proceedings of Jan. 5, 1996,(17) were as follows:

 MR. [DAVID] DREIER [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 334 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 334
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1643) to authorize the
extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favored-nation 
treatment) to the products of Bulgaria, with the Senate amendment 
thereto, and to consider in the House the motion printed in the report 
of the Committee on Rules accompanying 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 chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption
without intervening motion or demand for division of the question.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(18) The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
is recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
The question is on ordering the previous question [on the resolution].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. [JOHN JOSEPH] MOAKLEY [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point 
of order that a quorum is not present.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 228, nays 
187, not voting 18, as follows: . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Later, pursuant to the resolution, Mr. Robert Livingston, of Louisiana, 
called up the bill H.R. 1643, and then offered the specified motion to 
amend the Senate amendment. After debate and unsuccessful attempts to 
modify the motion by unanimous consent, pursuant to the resolution, the
Speaker announced that the previous question was considered as ordered, 
and the question was then put on the motion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     142 CONG. REC. 332, 341, 342, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
18.     Jim Bunning (Ky.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 68]]


Sec.    5.19 A special rule can make in order a single motion to concur 
in several Senate amendments (even before the stage of disagreement is
reached), specify the control of the debate on the motion, and order 
the previous question thereon without intervening motion.
In considering and passing the House-passed bill H.R. 1833, to amend 
title 18, United States Code, relating to partial-birth abortions, the 
Senate added six discrete amendments on that subject. The special order
carried here was crafted to maintain the relationship between the 
amendments and prevent amendments to them. The rule and the motion made 
in order thereby were both passed by the House on Mar. 27, 1996.(19) 
SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 1833, PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT    
MRS. [ENID] WALDHOLTZ [of Utah]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 389 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1833) to amend title 
18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions, with Senate 
amendments thereto, and to consider in the House a single motion to 
concur in each of the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments and the 
motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for 
one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption
without intervening motion or demand for division of the question.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(20) The gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
MRS. WALDHOLTZ: . . . Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 389 provides for
consideration of the Senate amendments to the Partial-Birth Abortion 
Ban Act, H.R. 1833. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate on a single 
motion to concur in each and all of the Senate amendments. The rule 
further provides that the previous question is considered as ordered 
on the motion for final adoption.
Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to consider amendments 
adopted by the Senate to the partial-birth abortion ban including an 
amendment offered by Senator Dole that ensures doctors will be able to 
use this procedure when the life of a woman is in danger. . . . 
So the resolution was agreed to.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     142 CONG. REC. 6632, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     Harold Rogers (Ky.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 69]]

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MR. [CHARLES T.] CANADY of Florida: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 389, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
1833), to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth 
abortions with the Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate
amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the Senate amendments is as follows:

Page 2, line 9, strike out [Whoever] and insert: Any physician who
Page 2, line 12, after "both." insert: This paragraph shall not apply 
to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a 
mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or 
injury: Provided, That no other medical procedure would suffice for 
that purpose. This paragraph shall become effective one day after 
enactment.
Page 2, line 13, strike out [As] and insert: (1) As
Page 2, after line 16, insert:
"(2) As used in this section, the term 'physician' means a doctor of 
medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and 
surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such activity, or any 
other individual legally authorized by the State to perform abortions:
Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician or not 
otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who
nevertheless directly performs a partial-birth abortion, shall be
subject to the provision of this section.
Page 2, line 17, strike out [(c)(1) The father,] and insert: (c)(1) 
The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a 
partial-birth abortion procedure,
Page 3, strike out lines 12 through 20.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. CANADY
MR. CANADY of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will designate the motion.
The Clerk read the motion.
Mr. Canady of Florida moves to concur in each of the six Senate 
amendments to H.R. 1833.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] 
each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
Acting on Senate Amendments Before Stage of Disagreement

Sec.    5.20 Example of the form of motion used where a special order 
has provided for one indivisible motion to dispose of three Senate 
amendments to a House bill, before the stage of disagreement. 
Motions to dispose of Senate amendments, before the stage of 
disagreement, are not privileged, unless given that status by a 
unanimous-consent agreement or a resolution reported from the Committee 
on Rules and adopted by the House. In the proceedings


[[Page 70]]

of Nov. 26, 1991,
(1) carried here, the report of the Committee on Rules on the special 
order specified the amendments to the Senate amendments which would be
included in the nondivisible motion.  
PROVIDING FOR DISPOSITION OF SEN- ATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 3807, 
CONVENTIONAL FORCES IN EUROPE TREATY IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 1991
MS. [LOUISE MCINTOSH] SLAUGHTER of New York: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 316 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 316
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to
consider a nondivisible motion to take from the Speaker's table the 
bill (H.R. 3807) to amend the Arms Export Control Act to authorize the 
President to transfer battle tanks, artillery pieces, and armored 
combat vehicles to member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization in conjunction with the Treaty of Conventional Armed 
Forces in Europe, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to concur in 
the Senate amendments with amendments printed in the report of the 
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The motion and the 
Senate amendments shall be considered as having been read. Debate on 
said motion shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The previous question shall be 
considered as having been ordered on the motion to final adoption 
without intervening motion. All points of order against the motion are 
hereby waived.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(2) The question is, Will the House now 
consider House Resolution 316?
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) 
the House agreed to consider House Resolution 316.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
MS. SLAUGHTER of New York: . . . Mr. Speaker, this House resolution 
makes in order a nondivisible motion to take H.R. 3807 from the 
Speaker's table, and agree to the Senate amendments with three House
amendments. The House amendments are printed in the report to accompany 
the rule, and all points of order are waived against the motion. 
Finally, the rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion. . . . 
During its deliberations last night the Senate added three amendments 
relating to nuclear weapons destruction and emergency humanitarian 
assistance for the Soviet Union. Members of the Foreign Affairs and 
Armed Services Committees have met with their counterparts in the 
Senate and devised language which is mutually agreeable to all parties 
and-as I understand it-will be agreed to by the Senate once we have 
returned the legislation to that body. . . . 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     137 CONG. REC. 35487-90, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 71]]

MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FASCELL
MR. [DANTE B.] FASCELL [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 316, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
(H.R. 3807) to amend the Arms Export Control Act to authorize the 
President to transfer battle tanks, artillery pieces, and armored 
combat vehicles to member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization in conjunction with implementation of the Treaty on 
Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, with Senate amendments thereto, 
and concur in the Senate amendments with amendments.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will designate the motion and the 
House amendments.
The text of the motion and the text of the House amendments are as 
follows:

Mr. Fascell moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3807) 
to amend the Arms Export Control Act to authorize the President to 
transfer battle tanks, artillery pieces, and armored combat vehicles to 
member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in conjunction 
with implementation of the Treaty  on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe,
with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments with
amendments, as follows:
Amendment to Senate amendment numbered 1:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, 
insert the following:
TITLE II-SOVIET WEAPONS DESTRUCTION
PART A-SHORT TITLE

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the "Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 
1991".
PART B-FINDINGS AND PROGRAM AUTHORITY
SEC. 211. NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SOVIET WEAPONS DESTRUCTION. . . . 
Amendment to Senate amendment numbered 2:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, 
insert the following:
TITLE III-EMERGENCY AIRLIFT AND OTHER SUPPORT
SEC. 301. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER CERTAIN FUNDS TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY 
AIRLIFT AND OTHER SUPPORT. . . . 
Amendment to Senate amendment numbered 3:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, 
insert the following:
TITLE IV-ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT ACT
SEC. 401. ARMS CONTROL AND DIS-ARMAMENT AGENCY.
Agreement to Senate Amendment Pursuant to Special Order

Sec.    5.21 A special order can provide either for consideration of a 
motion to concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment (as in the 
preceding precedent), or it can "self-execute" the concurrence, so that 
the only vote is on the special order itself, 


[[Page 72]]

obviating the necessity for further debate and a second vote 
implementing the terms of the motion. 
On Jan. 5, 1996,(3) H. Res. 338, making in order H.R. 1358, conveying a
National Marine Fisheries laboratory to Gloucester, Massachusetts, was 
called up in the House. The Senate amendment to H.R. 1358 was not 
germane, since it also addressed continuing appropriations of the 
government. As in the preceding precedent noted in this section, the 
special order precluded a motion to recommit without expressly so stating.

  MR. [DAVID] DREIER [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 338 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 338
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution the House shall be 
considered to have taken from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1358) 
to require the Secretary of Commerce  to convey to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts the National Marine Fisheries Service laboratory located 
on Emerson Avenue in Gloucester, Massachusetts, with the Senate 
amendment thereto, and to have concurred in the Senate amendment with 
an amendment consisting of the text printed in the report of the 
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution.

The text of the Senate amendment and the House amendment to the Senate
amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: . . . 

MR. DREIER: . . . Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(4) The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. [MARTIN] FROST [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 344, noes 
24, not voting 65, as follows: . . . 
So the resolution was agreed to.
Disposing of Amendment by Resolution Offered Under Suspension of Rules

Sec.    5.22 The Speaker recognized a Member to offer a resolution, 
under suspension of the rules, which provided  for concurring in a 
Senate amendment to a House bill 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     142 CONG. REC. 454, 465, 466, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     Bill Emerson (Mo.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 73]]

on the Speaker's table with a further amendment which was stated in the 
text of the resolution.
On Dec. 20, 1973,(5) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. 
Wright Patman, of Texas, to move to suspend the rules and agree to 
House Resolution 753:

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the House 
resolution (H. Res. 753) to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
(H.R. 8449) to expand the national flood insurance program by 
substantially increasing limits of coverage and total amount of 
insurance authorized to be outstanding and by requiring known 
flood-prone communities to participate in the program, and for other 
purposes, with Senate amendment thereto, and agree to the Senate 
amendments with an amendment to strike out title III of the Senate 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. RES. 753
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill H.R. 8449, together with the Senate amendment thereto be, and the 
same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end that the 
Senate amendment be, and the same is hereby, agreed to with an 
amendment as follows:
"Strike out title III of the Senate amendment in the nature of a 
substitute."

Parliamentarian's Note: The resolution being drafted with this language, 
the Member did not need to offer a motion from the floor which would 
spell out the text of the amendment to the Senate amendment. Had the
suspension motion merely made in order the offering of a motion to 
amend the Senate amendment, the Speaker would have directed the reading 
of the proposed motion after the suspension motion was agreed to.

Sec.    5.23 The Speaker recognized a Member to offer a resolution, 
under suspension of the rules, which provided for concurring in two 
Senate amendments to a House bill on the Speaker's table and for 
concurring in another Senate amendment with a further amendment.
On Dec. 20, 1973,(6) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. 
Charles C. Diggs, Jr., of Michigan, to move to suspend the rules and 
agree to House Resolution 754:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     119 CONG. REC. 42883, 42884, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 6.     119 CONG. REC. 42917, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 74]]

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the House 
resolution (H. Res. 754) to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
(H.R. 6186) to amend the District of Columbia Revenue Act of 1947 
regarding taxability of dividends received by a corporation from 
insurance companies, banks, and other savings institutions, with Senate
amendments thereto, and agree to the Senate amendments numbered 1 and 2 
and agree to Senate amendment numbered 3, with an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. RES. 754
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill H.R. 6186, with the Senate amendments thereto, be, and the same 
is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end that (1) Senate
amendments numbered 1 and 2 be, and the same are hereby, agreed to; 
and (2) Senate amendment numbered 3 be, and the same is hereby, agreed 
to with an amendment as follows: . . .
Reading of the lengthy amendment carried in the text of the resolution 
was dispensed with by unanimous consent; after the motion was seconded, 
the resolution was debated and approved.
The Speaker did not state for the Record that the Senate amendments 
were disposed of pursuant to the terms of the resolution, nor did the 
Record carry the text of the Senate amendments Nos. 1 and 2.(7) 

Sec.    5.24 The House adopted a motion to suspend the rules and agree 
to a resolution which provided for taking a House joint resolution with 
a Senate amendment from the Speaker's table and agreeing to the Senate
amendment.
On Oct. 14, 1972,(8) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. 
Wright Patman, of Texas, to move to suspend the rules and agree to 
House Resolution 1165:

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution 
(H. Res. 1165) to extend the authority of the Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development with respect to the insurance of loans and mortgages 
under the National Housing Act.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. RES. 1165
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1301) to extend the authority of the 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development with respect to the 
insurance of loans and mortgages under the National Housing Act, 
together with the Sen-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     See Sec. 5.50, where the text of amendments concurred in were 
printed. In this instance, the Journal did carry the texts.
 8.     118 CONG. REC. 36408, 36409, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 75]]

ate amendment thereto, be, and the same is hereby, 
taken from the Speaker's table to the end that the Senate amendment be, 
and the same is hereby, agreed to.

THE SPEAKER: Is a second demanded?
MR. [STEWART B.] MCKINNEY [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
THE SPEAKER: Without objection, a second will be considered as ordered.
There was no objection. . . .
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(9) The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Patman) that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to House Resolution 1165.
The question was taken; and-two-thirds having voted in favor thereof-the 
rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Sec.    5.25 The Speaker recognized the Chairman of the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce to move to suspend the rules and agree 
to a resolution taking a House bill with a Senate amendment from the 
Speaker's table and agreeing to the Senate amendment.
On Aug. 27, 1962,(10) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, to offer a motion relating to 
H.R. 11040, the Communications Satellite Act of 1962:

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to House Resolution 769.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. RES. 769
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the bill 
H.R. 11040, with the Senate amendment thereto, be, and the same is 
hereby, taken from the Speaker's table, to the end that the Senate 
amendment be, and the same is hereby, agreed to.

THE SPEAKER: Is a second demanded?
MR. [WILLIAM L.] SPRINGER [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
MR. [WILLIAM FITTS] RYAN [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
second. . . .
THE SPEAKER: Without objection, a second will be considered as ordered.
There was no objection. . . .
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 372, nays 10, not voting 
53. . . .
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended 
and the resolution was passed.

Parliamentarian's Note: The resolution was introduced by the chairman 
of the committee when he was recognized to move to suspend the rules 
and agree to the amendment. Prior introduction would, under the rules, 
have re-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     Hale Boggs (La.).
10.     108 CONG. REC. 17671, 17681, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 76]]


quired reference to the Committee on Rules.

Motion To Suspend Rules Not Subject to Amendment

Sec.    5.26 When a motion to suspend the rules and concur in a Senate
amendment is pending, a motion to concur in such amendment with an 
amendment is not in order.
On July 27, 1946,(11) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas:

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate 
amendment to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 225) to quiet the titles 
of the respective States, and others, to lands beneath tidewaters and 
lands beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of such States 
and to prevent further clouding of such titles. . . .
THE SPEAKER: Is a second demanded?
MR. [SAM] HOBBS [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second. . . .
MR. SUMNERS of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a 
second be considered as ordered.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
There was no objection.
MR. HOBBS: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
THE SPEAKER: No amendment is in order.
MR. HOBBS: Mr. Speaker, I move to concur in the Senate amendment with 
an amendment.
THE SPEAKER: That motion is not in order.
MR. HOBBS: Mr. Speaker, I have an agreement with the gentleman from 
Texas that I would be permitted to offer an amendment to the Senate 
amendment.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair knows nothing about that agreement. An amendment 
to this motion is not in order.
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sumners] is recognized for 20 minutes and 
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hobbs] is recognized for 20 minutes.
Speaker's Authority To Refer House Bill and Senate Amendments to 
Committee

Sec.    5.27 If objection is made to    a unanimous-consent request to 
take a House bill with Senate amendments from the Speaker's table, 
disagree to the amendments and agree to a conference, the Speaker may 
hold the bill on the table for a reasonable length of time, may refer 
it to the legislative committee having jurisdiction over it, or may 
await a rule from the Committee on Rules.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     92 CONG. REC. 10310, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 77]]


Parliamentarian's Note: The events in this and following precedents 
occurred before the 1989 amendment to Rule XX clause 1, which permits 
a privileged motion to send a Senate or House bill with amendments of 
the other House to conference.(12) 
On July 6, 1937,(13) Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, requested unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the farm tenan-   cy bill, 
H.R. 7562, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the amendments 
and agree to the conference requested by the Senate. Mr. Charles W. 
Tobey, of New Hampshire, objected, and Mr. Scott W. Lucas, of Illinois, 
made the following inquiry:

In the event objection is made to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas, am I correct in my understanding that then the bill will be 
referred back to the Rules Committee?
THE SPEAKER:(14) Will the gentleman from Illinois kindly restate his
parliamentary inquiry?
MR. LUCAS: If objection is made to the unanimous-consent request 
submitted by the distinguished gentleman from Texas, my inquiry is what 
will then happen to the bill as presented to the House?
THE SPEAKER: In answer to the inquiry, the Chair will state that it is 
within the discretion of the Chair to allow the bill to lie on the 
Speaker's table for a reasonable length of time, or to refer the bill 
and Senate amendments to the Committee on Agriculture.
MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the question further by a 
parliamentary inquiry? Would it not be in order for the chairman of 
the Committee on Agriculture to apply to the Rules Committee for a rule 
to send the bill to conference?
THE SPEAKER: Undoubtedly.

Sec.    5.28 The Speaker has referred a House bill with Senate 
amendments to a standing committee instead of the Committee of the 
Whole.
On Aug. 26, 1935,(15) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, recognized 
Mr. James P. Buchanan, of Texas, and the following occurred:

MR. BUCHANAN: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
of the House, I request the Speaker to refer the third deficiency bill-
H.R. 9215-now on the Speaker's table, to the Appropriations Committee 
of the House. This bill passed the 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1997); 111 CONG. REC. 21, 89th
Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965. See also Sec. 5.48 (Parliamentarian's 
Note), infra.
13.     81 CONG. REC. 6815, 6816, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
14.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
15.     79 CONG. REC. 14757-59, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 78]]

House on Thursday, August 22, and, 
as usual, was promptly sent to the Senate, and was held there until 8 
o'clock on the evening of Saturday, August 24, when it was messaged to 
the House, together with the resolution providing for the sine die 
adjournment of Congress at 12 o'clock on the same day, thus requiring 
action by the House on this bill within 4 hours, notwithstanding the 
fact that the Senate had placed amendments on the bill involving a 
possible outlay by the Government of from $800,000,000 to $2,000,000,000 
by way of loans which were not in the bill as passed by the House and 
which had never received any consideration by  the Appropriations 
Committee of the House or Senate and about which no Member of either 
branch of Congress was fully informed. Manifestly, if we are going to 
apply business methods to the conduct of the Government involving such 
vast outlays of public funds, hearings should be held by some committee 
of Congress in which all the facts should be developed in order to 
permit an intelligent determination of the soundness of the policy 
involved, the approximate obligations incurred, and whether or not the
Government could raise the money without financial embarrassment or in 
any way affecting its credit. . . .
THE SPEAKER: The bill (H.R. 9215) making appropriations for 
deficiencies, known as the "third deficiency appropriation bill," is 
now on the Speaker's table. It is, of course, within the discretion of 
the Chair, under the rules of the House, to send it to the Committee on
 Appropriations. The ordinary course of procedure is to send it to 
conference, under a unanimous-consent request. The chairman of the 
committee having jurisdiction of the bill having made no such request, 
the Chair feels in view of the request of the chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations and the importance of the questions involved, both of
legislation and appropriation, as set forth briefly by the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Buchanan], that this bill should be referred to the 
committee having charge of the bill, in order that that committee may 
conduct such hearings and take such measures looking to recommendations 
as it may choose. The Chair accordingly refers the bill to the Committee 
on Appropriations under the established practice of the House which 
requires the Chair to take that course. [Applause.] In taking this 
action the Chair is following a similar action taken by a former Speaker 
of the House on January 23, 1931 (Record, p. 2975), when Mr. Speaker 
Longworth referred the Interior Department appropriation bill to the 
Committee on Appropriations.
MR. [CARL] VINSON of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. VINSON of Georgia: Why is it not in order that the House consider 
this appropriation bill in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union?
THE SPEAKER: That will be in order if the Committee on Appropriations 
reports it, as is required under the established practice of the House.
MR. VINSON of Georgia: But before the Speaker announced his decision, 
it would have been in order for the House by substitute motion to have
referred 


[[Page 79]]

this bill to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union?
THE SPEAKER: It would not, because that motion would not have been 
privileged, as the Chair ruled on Saturday. When a House bill with 
Senate amendments involving new matter of appropriations comes from 
the Senate it may be sent to conference by unanimous consent; otherwise, 
the duty of the Chair under the established practice of the House is 
to refer to it the standing committee having jurisdiction of it. The 
Chair has taken that course in this instance, and no motion of the kind
referred to by the gentleman from Georgia is in order as a matter of
privilege.
HOUSE BILL REFERRED
A bill of the House of the following title was taken from the Speaker's 
table, with Senate amendments thereto, and under the rule, referred as
follows:
H.R. 9215. An act making appropriations to provide urgent supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, to supply
deficiencies in certain appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 
30, 1935, and for prior fiscal years, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Appropriations.

Sec.    5.29 A Senate amendment to a House bill may be referred to a 
House committee having jurisdiction of the subject matter addressed in 
part of the amendment, even though the House bill was reported from 
another committee.
On Mar. 26, 1981,(16) the Speaker, pursuant to the authority granted 
him in Rule X clause 2, and Rule XXIV clause 2, referred the Senate 
amendment to the bill H.R. 31, amending the Truth in Lending Act, to 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for consideration of a portion of 
the Senate amendment within that committee's jurisdiction. 
The bill itself had been reported from the Committee on Banking, Finance 
and Urban Affairs. The portion of the Senate amendment which was 
controversial dealt with the qualifications of the Surgeon General of 
the United States, a matter within the competence of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce. The Speaker's referral was for a time certain.
The referral statement of the Speaker is carried here, and a portion of 
the proceedings of Apr. 8, 1981,(17) as well, to show the discharge of 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce from further consideration of the 
matter. Conferees were appointed from both of the committees.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     127 CONG. REC. 5397, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Id. at p. 6826.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 80]]

The excerpt from the Mar. 26 Congressional Record follows:
REFERRAL OF SENATE AMENDMENT UNDER TIME LIMITATION
Pursuant to clause 5, rule X and clause 2, rule XXIV, the Senate 
amendment to the bill (H.R. 31) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to 
encourage cash discounts, and for oth-er purposes, was referred from 
the Speaker's table to the Committee on Energy and Commerce for a 
period ending not later than April 8, 1981, solely for consideration 
of such provisions of section 303 of the Senate amendment as fall 
within the jurisdiction of that committee under clause 1(h), rule X.

The pertinent proceedings of Apr. 8 are set out below:

MR. [FRANK] ANNUNZIO [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be discharged from further
consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 31) to amend 
the Truth in Lending Act to encourage cash discounts, and for other 
purposes, and that the House disagree to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
31 and request       a conference with the Senate thereon. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(18) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Illinois? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following 
conferees:
Solely for consideration of all the provisions of the Senate amendment 
in the nature of a substitute except section 303, and modifications 
thereof committed to conference, the following Members on the part of 
the House: Messrs. St Germain, Annunzio, Gonzalez, Minish, Stanton of 
Ohio, Evans of Delaware, and Wylie; and
Solely for the consideration of section 303 of the Senate amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, and modifications thereof committed to 
conference, the following Members on the part of the House: Messrs. 
Dingell, Waxman, Scheuer, Broyhill, and Madigan.
Initiating Action on Special Order To Dispose of Senate Amendments

Sec.    5.30 Any Member may request that the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules call a meeting of that committee to consider reporting a 
resolution making in order disposition of a House bill, with Senate 
amendments that require consideration in the Committee of the Whole,
notwithstanding Rule XXIV clause 2.
On Aug. 13, 1957,(19) after objections had been made to two requests 
relating to H.R. 6127, the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and Senate
amendments thereto, Mr. Kenneth B. Keating, of New York, 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
19.     103 CONG. REC. 14568, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 81]]


was recognized with a parliamentary inquiry:

Would the Speaker advise what action is necessary now in order to get 
the bill to the Committee on Rules?
THE SPEAKER:(20) Anyone can make the request of the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules to call a meeting of the committee to consider the 
whole matter.
MR. KEATING: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. KEATING: Mr. Speaker, if that were done, would the bill which is 
now on the Speaker's desk be before the Rules Committee?
THE SPEAKER: It would not be before the Committee on Rules. The 
Committee on Rules could consider the matter of what procedure to 
recommend to the House for the disposition of this whole matter.
Authority of the Committee on Rules

Sec.    5.31 The Committee on Rules has jurisdiction to report 
resolutions providing for   the disposition of Senate amendments.
On May 29, 1968,(1) the House was considering the bill, H.R. 5037, the 
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Assistance Act of 1968, and the 
Senate amendments thereto. Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, Chairman of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, had asked for unanimous consent to take   
the bill and Senate amendments thereto from the Speaker's table, disagree 
with the amendments, and request a conference with the Senate. Mr. 
Richard H. Poff, of Virginia, then posed a series of parliamentary 
inquiries including the following:

If the motion to go to conference is not adopted by the House, in such 
case would it be in order for the Committee on Rules to report a 
resolution making it in order to move to recede and concur?(2) 
THE SPEAKER:(3) Under the rules of the House, it is within the 
authority and jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules to report a 
resolution providing for the disposition of the Senate amendments.
Use of Special Order To Send Multiply-referred Bill to Conference

Sec.    5.32 Where the authorization of four House committees 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 1.     114 CONG. REC. 15499, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     The stage of disagreement not having been reached, the proper 
motion was "to concur," not to "recede and concur."
 3.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 82]]

was required to authorize the motion to go to conference under Rule XX 
clause   1, the Committee on Rules reported, and the House adopted, a 
special order     providing that the House disagree with the Senate 
amendment and request a conference. 
On July 30, 1979,(4) the House agreed to a resolution sending 
H.R. 111, the Panama Canal Act of 1979, to conference, a 
unanimous-consent request to accomplish this step having been objected 
to. Following the adoption of the resolution, a motion was made to 
instruct the managers at the conference to "adhere" to the House 
position set forth in certain sections of the House text. 
PROVIDING FOR SENDING H.R. 111 TO CONFERENCE
MR. [LEO C.] ZEFERETTI [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 390 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 390
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the bill (H.R. 111) 
to enable the United States to maintain American security and interests
respecting the Panama Canal, for the duration of the Panama Canal Treaty 
of 1977, with the Senate amendments thereto, is taken from the Speaker's 
table to the end that    the House disagrees to the Senate amendments 
and requests a conference with the Senate thereof.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(5) The gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeferetti) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. ZEFERETTI: . . . [L]ast week on a motion to send House Resolution 
111 to conference an objection was raised by an opponent of the measure. 
In this instance it would require the four committees who have 
jurisdiction over this bill to meet and vote on whether to direct the 
chairmen of these respective committees to offer a motion on the floor 
to request a conference. Unfortunately, such a procedure would require 
a significant amount of time and would have delayed further 
consideration of this bill.
The Rules Committee has been informed by the chairman of the Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries Committee that it is imperative for the House and 
Senate conferees to begin deliberation immediately so as to effectively 
come to agreement at the earliest possible date. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     125 CONG. REC. 21298, 21302, 21309, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5.     George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 83]]

MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BAUMAN
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bauman moves that the conferees on the part of the House on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill H.R. 111, be instructed 
to adhere to the language of sections 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 110 of 
chapter 1; sections 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, and 250 of chapter 5;
sections 371, 372, 373, and 374 of chapter 9 of H.R. 111 as passed by 
the House with respect to the matters considered therein.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) is
recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
MR. BAUMAN: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to.

Parliamentarian's Note: While the House cannot "adhere and ask a 
conference," since adherence is inconsistent with the request for a
conference(6) and the willingness to negotiate, the form of the motion 
to instruct conferees did not render it subject to a point of order, 
and none was raised. See 8 Cannon's Precedents 
Sec. Sec. 3230, 3237, which indicate that consistency in motions to 
instruct is for the House, not the Chair, to decide. 

Special Order To Refer House Bill and Senate Amendments

Sec.    5.33 The Chair indicated that the Committee on Rules could 
report out a resolution, taking a House bill with Senate amendments 
(requiring consideration in the Committee of the Whole) from the 
Speaker's table and sending it to the legislative committee of the 
House having jurisdiction thereof.
On the legislative day of Sept. 26, 1961,(7) Speaker Pro Tempore John 
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, 
and the following discussion of the treatment of House bills with 
Senate amendments ensued:

MR. THOMAS: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 9169) making supplemental appropriations 
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1962, and for other purposes, with 
Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments and agree 
to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6303.
 7.     107 CONG. REC. 21475, 21476, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 25, 
1961 (Calendar Day).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 84]]

MR. [FRANK T.] BOW [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, and I do so in order to propound a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. BOW: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: If an objection 
is made to sending this to conference, the supplemental appropriation 
bill, whether or not the Speaker will then refer the bill to the 
committee having charge of the bill and that committee return the bill 
to the House in the Committee of the Whole House for the consideration 
of the Senate amendments as provided in "Cannon's Precedents" on page 
115, and whether or not the House then can work its will in the 
Committee of the Whole House on each amendment of the Senate under the 
5-minute rule, report the bill back to the House, and then move to 
send the bill to conference?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The parliamentary inquiry involves several 
different fields, related, but nevertheless separate.
MR. BOW: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to state them separately.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is clearly within his rights. 
In the first place, this is a procedure that the present occupant of 
the chair has no recollection of ever having taken place during his 
period of service in this body, and the Chair is informed, for many 
years prior thereto.
When objection is made the leadership of the House is confronted with 
the problem as to what action should be taken in order to get the bill 
to conference as quickly as possible. The Chair, while not answering 
the parliamentary inquiry with reference to the committee and committee 
action and coming back to the House, and then to the Committee of the 
Whole, would frankly state to the gentleman that the present occupant 
of the chair would employ every method under the rules in order to get 
the bill from the Speaker's desk to conference.
MR. BOW: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BOW: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as these amendments of the Senate are 
in the nature of charges against the Treasury of the United States, 
I will ask this parliamentary inquiry:
Is it not then necessary under the rules and procedures as found in 
volume 5 of the Procedure of the House of Representatives that the bill 
be sent to the committee and then considered in the Committee of the 
Whole before sending it to conference?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It is the opinion of the Chair that the answer 
which the Chair gave to the first part of the gentleman's parliamentary
inquiry also answers this inquiry: that if objection is made, the Chair 
would feel constrained, insofar as the Chair is capable of accomplishing 
it, to have the bill taken from the Speaker's desk and sent to conference
under the rules without reference to the committee.
MR. BOW: I thank the Chair, and withdraw my reservation.
MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to


[[Page 85]]

 object, if the conference report(8) should go to the Rules Committee 
for a rule, would it be possible for the Rules Committee to vote out a 
rule sending the bill to committee?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The answer is in the affirmative to that
parliamentary inquiry.
Uses of Special Order Before Stage of Disagreement 

Sec.    5.34 Before the stage of disagreement has been reached, a motion 
to take a House bill with a Senate amendment thereto which requires
consideration in the Committee  of the Whole from the Speaker's table 
and concur in the amendment is not privileged; but by adoption of a 
special order the House can: (1) bestow privilege to such a motion; 
(2) limit other options for disposition of the Senate amendment; and 
(3) prevent amendment of the motion to concur. 
As the time for sine die adjournment of the 95th Congress, 1st Session,
approached, the passage of a continuing appropriations bill became a 
high priority. As with the Labor-HEW appropriation bill, which remained 
in disagreement because of a restriction on abortion funding, the 
continuing appropriation bill also had a similar restriction remaining 
in disagreement.
On Dec. 7, 1977,(9) the House considered and adopted the following 
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules:

Mr. Dodd, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
privileged resolution (H. Res. 928, Rept. No. 95-833), which was 
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:
H. RES. 928
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
House shall proceed to consider a motion to take from the Speaker's 
table the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 662) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 1978, and for other purposes, with 
the Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments, 
without any intervening motion, and at the conclusion of the debate 
thereon the previous question shall be considered as ordered, and the 
question shall be put on the motion to concur without any intervening motion.

MR. [CHRISTOPHER J.] DODD [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
of the Committee on Rules, I call up 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     Mr. Gross apparently intended to refer to the House bill with 
Senate amendments, because a conference report does not require a rule 
from the Committee on Rules for its consideration.
 9.     123 CONG. REC. 38721, 38722, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 86]]

House Resolution 928 and ask for its immediate consideration.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is, will the House now consider 
House Resolution 928?
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, does not the consideration of this resolution 
require a two-thirds vote?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will state that that is correct.
MR. BAUMAN: Is there no debate permitted on consideration of the 
question?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will state that no debate is 
permitted on consideration of the question.
The question is, will the House now consider House Resolution 928?
The question was taken.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 251, nays 
86, not voting 97. . . . 
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the House agreed to 
consider House Joint Resolution 662.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Later on the same day,(11) the resolution was adopted and the prescribed
action undertaken:

MR. DODD: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I move 
the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken and on a     division (demanded by Mr. Bauman) 
there were-yeas 54; nays 40.
So the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Mahon).
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule 
just adopted, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Mahon moves to take from the Speaker's table the joint resolution 
(H.J. Res. 662) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal 
year 1978, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and 
concur in the Senate amendments.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the title of the joint

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     K. Gunn McKay (Utah).
11.     123 CONG. REC. 38723, 38724, 38728, 38729, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 87]]

resolution and the Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:

(1) Page 2, lines 15 and 16, strike out "as modified by the House of
Representatives on August 2, 1977".
(2) Page 2, line 17, after "resolution" insert: "Provided, however, 
that none of the funds provided for in this paragraph shall be used 
to perform abortions: except where the life of the mother would be 
endangered if the fetus were carried to term; or except for such 
medical procedures necessary for the victims of rape or incest, when 
such rape or incest has been reported promptly to a law enforcement 
agency or public health service; or except in those instances where 
severe and long-lasting physical health damage to the mother would 
result if the pregnancy were carried to term.
"Nor are payments prohibited for drugs or devices to prevent 
implantation of the fertilized ovum, or for medical procedures 
necessary for the termination of an ectopic pregnancy.
"The Secretary shall promptly issue regulations and establish 
procedures to ensure that the provisions of this section are rigorously
enforced."
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, if the motion offered to concur in the Senate
amendments is defeated, is it still not in order for a Member to be 
recognized to offer a motion to concur in the Senate amendments with 
an amendment?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will inform the gentleman that it 
would take unanimous consent.
MR. BAUMAN: Because of the rule that was adopted, that would not be in 
order?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: No, it would not.
MR. BAUMAN: So, Mr. Speaker, the rule totally precludes any possibility 
of offering an amendment?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct, other than by 
unanimous consent or by the adoption of another rule.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
Under the normal order of procedure, which the rule has changed, such 
a motion would be first in order now instead of the pending motion, 
would it not? 
The rule mentions nothing about precluding a motion to concur in the 
Senate amendments with an amendment. Would that not have been in order 
if this motion were defeated?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The rule makes in order one motion to concur 
and nothing else. Rejection of that motion would not at that stage 
permit other privileged motions in the House to dispose of the Senate
amendment.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I understand, and I thank the Chair.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) is 
recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
All time has expired.
Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Mahon).


[[Page 88]]

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 171, nays 
178, answered "present" 1, not voting 84. . . . 
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

When the motion made in order by the special order was defeated, the 
Committee on Rules met once more and reported a new resolution, not 
specifying the text of a motion but permitting consideration of the 
Senate amendments in the House.(12) 

Mr. Dodd, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following privileged
resolution (H. Res. 929, Rept. No. 95-834), which was referred to the 
House Calendar and ordered to be printed:
H. RES. 929
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it 
shall be in order to take from the Speak-er's table the joint 
resolution (H.J. Res. 662) making further continuing appropriations 
for the fiscal year 1978, and for other purposes, together with the 
Senate amendments thereto, and to consider the Senate amendments in 
the House.

MR. DODD: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 929 and ask for its immediate consideration.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(13) The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is, Will the House now consider 
House Resolution 929?
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Bauman) 
there were-yeas 110, nays 31.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 240, nays 
109, not voting 85. . . . 
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the House agreed to 
consider House Resolution 929.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is
recognized for 1 hour. . . .
MR. DODD: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule just adopted in the House, 
I move to take from the Speaker's table 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     Id. at pp. 38780-82.
13.     W. C. (Dan) Daniel (Va.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 89]]

the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 662) making further continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 1978, and for other purposes, 
together with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider 
the Senate amendments in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
SENATE AMENDMENTS
THE SPEAKER:(14) The Clerk will report the first Senate amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 1: Page 2, lines 15 and 16, strike "as modified 
by the House of Representatives on August 2, 1977".

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

Mr. Mahon moves that the House concur in the amendment of the Senate 
numbered 1.

MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, this is purely a technical amendment. It should 
be clear that the continuing resolution provides for the operation of 
the Departments of Labor and HEW at the conference rate and also that 
these departments operate under the provisions of the conference 
agreement on the Labor-HEW bill. I do not know of any other conflict 
on this.
The motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the second Senate amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 2; page 2, line 17, after "resolution" insert: 
"Provided, however, That none of the funds provided for in this 
paragraph shall be used to perform abortions: except where the life of 
the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term; or 
except for such medical procedures necessary for the victims of rape 
or incest, when such rape or incest has been report-ed promptly to a 
law enforcement agency or public health service; or except in those 
instances where severe and long-lasting physical health damage to the 
mother would result if the pregnancy were carried to term.
"Nor are payments prohibited for drugs or devices to prevent 
implantation of the fertilized ovum, or for medical procedures 
necessary for the termination of an ectopic pregnancy.
"The Secretary shall promptly issue regulations and establish 
procedures to ensure that the provisions of this section are rigorously
enforced.".

THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel).
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MICHEL
MR. [ROBERT H.] MICHEL [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Michel moves that the House concur in the amendment of the Senate 
numbered 2 with an amendment, as follows: "Provided, That none of the 
funds provided for in this paragraph shall be used to perform abortions 
except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus 
were carried to term; or except for such medical procedures necessary 
for the victims of rape or incest, when such rape or incest has been 
reported promptly to a law enforcement agency or public health service; 
or except in those instances where severe and long-lasting physical 
health damage to the mother would 

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


[[Page 90]]

result if the pregnancy were carried to term when so determined by 
two physicians.
"Nor are payments prohibited for drugs or devices to prevent 
implantation of the fertilized ovum, or for medical procedures 
necessary for the termination of an ectopic pregnancy.
"The Secretary shall promptly issue regulations and establish 
procedures to ensure that the provisions of this section are rigorously
enforced.".

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) is recognized for 
1 hour.
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the chairman of our 
committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon), and pending that I 
will proceed for just a few moments.

The motion offered to the second Senate amendment, relating to abortion
restrictions, was agreed to. Later in the same day, the Senate 
concurred in the House action and H.J. Res. 662, providing further 
continuing appropriations for fiscal 1978, was cleared for presentation 
to the President.
Special Orders (Resolutions) for Consideration of Senate Amendments

Sec.    5.35 Before the stage of disagreement is reached, a motion to 
concur in a Senate amendment to a House bill is not privileged; but a 
special order can be adopted which makes such a motion in order, divides
debate time, and protects the motion from amendment or being displaced 
by a more privileged motion to dispose of the Senate amendment. 
A special order which provides for concurrence in a Senate amendment 
can take several forms. The choice is whether to make in order a motion 
to concur, which is then debatable when offered and which permits a 
vote on the motion, or to "self-execute" the concurrence: "Upon the 
adoption of this resolution, the Senate amendment is hereby agreed to." 
The resolution is carried here to illustrate one of the approaches which 
can be utilized to dispose of a Senate amendment before the stage of
disagreement:(15) 

MR. [BUTLER] DERRICK [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 251 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                 H. RES. 251
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House a motion to take from the Speaker's 
table the bill (H.R. 20) to amend title 5, United 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     139 CONG. REC. 21805, 21806, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 21, 1993.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 91]]

States Code, to restore to Federal civilian employees their right to 
participate voluntarily, as private citizens, in the political 
processes of the Nation, to protect such employees from improper 
political solicitations, and for other purposes, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, and to concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate
amendment shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable 
for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final 
adoption without intervening motion.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(16) The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Derrick] is recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
MR. DERRICK: Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 251 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 20, the Federal Employees Political Activities 
Act. The rule provides for a motion to take H.R. 20 from the Speaker's 
table with a Senate amendment and to concur in the Senate amendment. 
The rule provides that the Senate amendment shall be considered as 
read. The rule further provides that the motion will be debatable for 
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
Service . . . . 
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MR. [WILLIAM L.] CLAY [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 251, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
20) to amend title 5, United States Code, to restore to Federal 
civilian employees their right to participate voluntarily, as private 
citizens, in the political processes of the Nation, to protect such 
employees from improper political solicitations, and for other 
purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate 
amendment.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Clay moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill, H.R. 20, with 
a Senate amendment thereto, and to concur in the Senate amendment.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to the rule, the Senate amendment is
considered as read.
The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

Amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

That this Act may be cited as the "Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993".
Parliamentarian's Note: In this instance, the Committee on Rules chose 
to make the motion to concur in order, rather than a "hereby" 
resolution, to avoid a possible point of order under section 308 of the 
Budget Act (requiring a CBO estimate of cost in the report on any bill 
or resolution containing new budget au-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     Barney Frank (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 92]]

thority. On Feb. 24, 1993,(17) 
a discussion occurred in the House about the susceptibility of a 
special order providing for the consideration of a House bill and 
"self-executing" the adoption of an amendment to such a Budget Act 
point of order. The Chair ruled on that occasion that a special order 
for the consideration of a House bill that "self-executes" the adoption 
of an amendment providing new budget authority into the bill to be
subsequently considered does not, itself, provide the new budget 
authority and is not subject to the point of order. 

Sec.    5.36 Although House rules preclude dividing a Senate amendment 
which strikes House text and inserts new language, such a division can 
be made in order by a spe-cial order reported from the Committee on 
Rules and adopted by the House.
When the Senate considered for amendment H.R. 9209, the Emergency 
Unemployment Compensation Act Amendments of 1993, it struck out all 
after the enacting clause of the House bill and added a new text, 
consisting of seven sections. The House wished to address section 7 
of the Senate amendment, which dealt with congressional pay, by a 
separate vote. The following special order was reported from the 
Committee on Rules, debated and agreed to on Mar. 4, 1993.(18) The 
rule, pertinent debate, and the procedure in the House are carried 
here. 
EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION AMENDMENTS OF 1993
Mr. Moakley, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report 
(Rept. No. 103-26) on the resolution (H. Res. 115) providing for the
consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 920) to extend 
the emergency unemployment compensation program, and for other purposes, 
which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:
H. RES. 115
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House, any rule of the House to the contrary
notwithstanding, a motion to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
(H.R. 920) to extend the emergency unemployment compensation program, 
and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to 
concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment shall be 
considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     See 139 CONG. REC. 3554, 3555, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     139 CONG. REC. 4157-59, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 93]]

on Ways and Means or their respective designees. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final
adoption without intervening motion. The motion shall be divided for a
separate vote on concurring in section 7 of the Senate amendment, any 
rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding.

MR. [JOHN JOSEPH] MOAKLEY [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 115 and ask for 
its immediate consideration. 
The Clerk read the resolution. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(19) The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. MOAKLEY: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. . . . 
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate. The rule also automatically
divides the question, allowing a separate vote on the last section of 
the bill, elimination of cost of living adjustment for Members of 
Congress in 1994. Mr. Speaker, the division is in order any rule of the 
House to the contrary notwithstanding. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . . . 
MR. [ROBERT T.] MATSUI [of California]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House
Resolution 115, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
920) "An act to extend the emergency unemployment compensation program, 
and for other purposes," with the Senate amendment thereto, and to 
concur in the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under the rule, the Senate amendment is 
considered as read.
The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the 
"Emergency Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993".
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM.
(a) GENERAL RULE.-Sections 102(f)(1) and 106(a)(2) of the Emergency
Unemployment Compensation Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-164, as amended) 
are each amended by striking "March 6, 1993" and inserting "October 2, 
1993". . . . 
SEC. 7. ELIMINATION OF COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS IN 1994.
(a) COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT.-Notwithstanding section 601(a)(2) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31(2)), the cost of 
living adjustment (relating to pay for Members of Congress) which would 
become effective under such provision of law during calendar year 1994 
shall not take effect.
(b) SEVERABILITY.-If any provision of this Act, or an amendment made by 
this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or 
circumstance, is held to be invalid, the re-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 94]]


mainder of this Act, or an
amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision to 
other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under the rule, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Matsui] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui].

Sec.    5.37 Before the stage of disagreement is reached, a motion to 
take from the Speaker's table a House bill, with the Senate amendment
thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment, is not privileged; but 
the motion can be made in order by a special order which provides for 
debate time and prohibits any intervening motion. 
On Apr. 22, 1993,(20) in an attempt to conclude consideration of an 
emergency supplemental appropriation bill, fiscal 1993 (H.R. 1335), the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations made a unanimous-consent 
request in the following form. 
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1993
MR. [WILLIAM H.] NATCHER [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that it be in order today to consider in the House, any rule of 
the House to the contrary notwithstanding, a motion to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill, H.R. 1335, making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993, and for 
other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and to concur in the 
Senate amendment; that the Senate amendment be considered as read; that 
the motion be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations 
or their designees; and that the previous question be considered as 
ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(1) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky? . . . 
There was no objection.
For text of H.R. 1335, see proceedings of the House of March 18, 1993, 
at page H 1508.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. NATCHER
MR. NATCHER: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House, I offer 
a motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Natcher moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1335) 
making emergency supplemen-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     139 CONG. REC. 8108, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (Miss.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 95]]

tal appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1993, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment
thereto, and to concur in the Senate amendment.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will designate the Senate amendment.
The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:
SENATE AMENDMENT
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
"That the following sum is appropriated out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to provide emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993, and for 
other purposes, namely:
"DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
"ADVANCES TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND AND OTHER FUNDS
"For an additional amount for "Advances to the unemployment trust fund 
and other funds", $4,000,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1994.".

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher] will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher].
MR. NATCHER: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as the Members know, late on March 18, this body passed 
H.R. 1335. The House-passed version of this bill included $16.2 billion 
of new emergency funding and $3.2 billion in obligation ceiling 
increases for transportation programs that the President recommended to 
help get our country moving again. The Senate completed action on this 
bill yesterday and amended it so that only $4 billion for unemployment
benefits remain in the bill. 
Motion To Dispose of Senate Amendments, En Bloc, Before Stage of 
Disagreement

Sec.    5.38 Example of the use of a special order to permit the House 
to consider one privileged motion to dispose of Senate amendments to a 
House bill, waiving all points of order against the motion and 
specifying that the motion is not subject to a demand for division of 
the question unless demanded by the Majority Leader or his designee.
On Nov. 10, 1995,(2) the Committee on Rules called up House Resolution 
261, permitting disposition of amendments on a continuing appropriations 
bill.
The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations(3) offered the motion
permitted by the special 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     141 CONG. REC. 32112, 32113, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3.     Robert Livingston (La.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 96]]

order later on that same day.(4) The Senate amendment numbered 
3 proposed to strike a portion of the House bill and insert a 
new provision. This motion to strike out and insert not being 
subject   to a division, Mr. Livingston's amendment proposed to
delete the Senate's insertion and then to strike the portions of the 
House text-thus removing from the bill all provisions dealing with the 
use of federal subsidies or grants to lobby government officials or 
agencies.  The rule, the motion, and a portion of the debate on both 
are carried here.

MR. [DAVID] DREIER [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 261 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 261
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to take from the Speaker's 
table the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes, with 
any Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House a motion 
offered by the majority leader or his designee to dispose of all Senate
amendments. Any Senate amendments and motions shall be considered as 
read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their 
designees. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
motion to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for 
division of the question except any such demand made by the majority 
leader or his designee.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(5) The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
is recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
MR. DREIER: Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration in the 
House, without intervening point of order, of a motion if offered by 
the majority leader or his designee to dispose of Senate amendments to 
House Joint Resolution 115, a continuing resolution making 
appropriations for fiscal year 1996 through December 1, 1995.
This rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the 
majority leader and the minority leader or their designees, and further
provides that the previous question is ordered to adoption of the 
motion without intervening motion or demand for a division of the 
question unless the demand is made by the majority leader or his 
designee. . . . 
MR. LIVINGSTON: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 261, I call 
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115), making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes, with 
Senate amendments thereto, and I offer a motion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     141 CONG. REC. 32135-37, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5.     John D. Hayworth, Jr. (Ariz.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 97]]

The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) Pursuant to House Resolution 261, the Senate
amendments are considered as read.
The text of the Senate amendments is as follows:

Senate amendments:
Page 2, line 20, after "1948," insert: section 313 of the Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 
103-236),
Page 10, line 19, after "resolution." Insert: Included in the 
apportionment for the Federal Payment to the District of Columbia shall 
be an additional $15,000,000 above the amount otherwise made available 
by this joint resolution, for purposes of certain capital construction 
loan repayments pursuant to Public Law 85-451, as amended.
Page 15, strike out line 1 and all that follows over to and including 
line 7 on page 36, and insert:
TITLE III
PROHIBITION  ON  SUBSIDIZING POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS WITH TAXPAYER 
FUNDS
SEC. 301. (a) LIMITATIONS.-(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, any organization receiving Federal grants in an amount that,   in 
the aggregate, is greater than $125,000 in the most recent Federal 
fiscal year, shall be subject to the limitations on lobbying activity
expenditures under section 4911(c)(2) (B) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986, except that, if exempt purpose expenditures are over 
$17,000,000 then the organization shall also be subject to a limitation 
on lobbying of 1 percent of the excess of the exempt purpose 
expenditures over $17,000,-000 unless otherwise subject to section
4911(c)(2)(A) based on an election made under section 501(h) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986. . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will designate the motion.
The text of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Livingston moves:
(1) That the House concur in the amendment of the Senate numbered 1,
(2) That the House concur in the amendment of the Senate numbered 2,
(3) That the House concur in the amendment of the Senate numbered 3 
with an amendment as follows:
Delete the matter proposed by said amendment, and beginning on page 15, 
line 1 of the House engrossed joint resolution, H.J. Res. 115, strike 
all down to and including line 7, on page 36, and redesignate Title IV 
as Title III, and renumber sections accordingly.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to House Resolution 261, the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized 
for 30 minutes. . . . 
MR. LIVINGSTON: . . . Mr. Speaker, I am offering a motion to dispose 
of these amendments. The first two are not controversial and make 
improvements to the CR and my motion is to concur with these amendments, 
for they are fine. The modification to the Simpson-Istook-McIntosh 
language unfortunately is technically insufficient and therefore, is 
not acceptable. There is agreement that we can not get an acceptable 
version on this matter agreed to on this CR. Therefore, my motion is 
to delete 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     David Dreier (Calif.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 98]]

the Senate proposed modification and to delete the underlying
Simpson-Istook-McIntosh language, so that it hopefully will be 
addressed at another time.
Special Order To Make Particular Disposition of Senate Amendment Only 
Option

Sec.    5.39 Before the stage of disagreement, a request to take a 
House bill, with a Senate amendment and concur in the amendment is not
privileged; and where other options for disposition of the Senate 
amendment are to be avoided, a special order is sometimes employed.
The special order reported from the Committee on Rules and a summary 
of the explanation, as excerpted from the Congressional Record of Aug. 
25, 1980,(7) are carried here as well as the procedural steps which 
followed the adoption of the resolution.
MULTIEMPLOYER PENSION PLAN AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1979
MR. [GILLIS W.] LONG of Louisiana: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 764 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 764
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider a motion to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
(H.R. 3904) to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to improve retirement income
security under private multiemployer pension plans by strengthening the
funding requirements for those plans, to authorize plan preservation 
measures for financially troubled multiemployer pension plans, and to 
revise the manner in which the pension plan termination insurance 
provisions apply to multiemployer plans, and for other purposes, with 
the Senate amendment thereto, and to concur in the Senate amendment 
with an amendment printed in the Congressional Record of August 21, 
1980, by Representative Thompson of New Jersey, without any intervening
motion, and at the conclusion of debate thereon the previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on said motion to final adoption without
intervening motion. . . .

MR. LONG of Louisiana: Mr. Speaker, I yield the usual 30 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Quillen) for purposes of debate only, 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 764 makes in order the consideration of 
H.R. 3904, the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments of 1980, as 
amended by the Senate. The rule provides for a motion to concur in 
the Senate amendment with an amendment, as printed in the Congressional 
Record of August 21 by Representative Thomp-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     126 CONG. REC. 23003, 23008, 23038, 23049, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 99]]

son, without intervening motion. Upon conclusion of debate, the 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the final 
adoption of the motion, also without intervening motion.
In effect, this rule allows the House to vote on a motion to return 
H.R. 3904 to the Senate, in essentially the same form it overwhelmingly 
passed this body by a vote of 374 to 0 on May 22. It was the hope at 
that time that the Senate would act quickly on the matter. Instead 
the Senate waited until July 29 to consider the measure. Though the 
bill reported in the Senate was generally consistent with the aims of 
H.R. 3904, several nongermane amendments were added on the Senate 
floor. . . . 

The resolution was agreed to.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. THOMPSON
MR. [FRANK] THOMPSON [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
House Resolution 764, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
(H.R. 3904) to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to improve retirement income
security under private multiemployer pension plans by strengthening the
funding requirements for those plans, to authorize plan preservation 
measures for financially troubled multiemployer pension plans, and to 
revise the manner in which the pension plan termination insurance 
provisions apply to    multiemployer plans, and for other purposes, 
with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment 
with an amendment printed in the Congressional Record of August 21, 1980.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the House amendment to the Senate amendment, as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment 
to the bill (H.R. 3904), insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act 
of 1980". . . .

MR. THOMPSON (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(8) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Thompson) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, my amendment, in its broad outlines, does the following:
It deletes the crippling nongermane amendments. It restores certain 
House provisions of H.R. 3904. Some of these are essential to better 
protect the interests of retirees of our inflation ravaged society. 
Other provisions reflect compromises between the majority and minority 
members of both committees. Finally certain provisions inserted by the 
other body at the 11th hour, re-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     George E. Danielson (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 100]

quired technical changes to make them workable. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to House Resolution 764, the previous
question is ordered.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Thompson).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 363, nays 
0, not voting 69.
Intervening Motion Precluded by Special Rule

Sec.    5.40 The House may agree to a resolution reported from the 
Committee on Rules, providing for disagreeing to Senate amendments to 
a House bill on the Speaker's table and for messaging of the House's 
action to the Senate without intervening motion.
On Nov. 29, 1973,(9) Mr. Claude Pepper, of Florida, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 721, which the House 
approved:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill (H.R. 11104) to provide for a temporary increase of 
$10,700,000,000 in the public debt limit and to extend the period to 
which this temporary limit applies to June 30, 1974, together with the 
Senate amendments thereto, be, and the same is hereby, taken from the
Speaker's table, to the end that the Senate amendments be, and the same 
are hereby disagreed to, and the Clerk is hereby directed to message 
that action of the House to the Senate without any intervening motion.

Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate had added amendments to H.R. 
11104-relating to election campaign financing and establishing an 
election reform commission-which were not germane to the House bill, 
a measure dealing with the public debt. The leadership decided to send 
the amendments back to the Senate in order to expedite enactment of the 
debt-limit bill. To accomplish that end, and to avoid a possible motion 
to send the bill to conference, the resolution was drafted to provide 
for the disagreement to, and immediate return of, the Senate 
amendments. A motion to agree to the conference requested by the Senate 
would have been privileged and could have been offered immediately upon 
the adoption of 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     119 CONG. REC. 38675, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 101]]

House Resolution 721, had it not precluded all intervening motions, 
since the stage of disagreement would then have been reached and the 
amendments would have been before the House.  

Providing for Consideration of Senate Amendments Before Stage of 
Disagreement and Before Receipt of Papers 

Sec.    5.41 The House adopted a special order, by unanimous consent, 
making it in order for the Majority Leader or his designee to move to 
concur, with one indivisible motion, in various Senate amendments 
to a House-passed bill (which had not yet been messaged to the House). 
H.R. 3660, the Government Ethics Reform Act of 1989, passed the House 
on Nov. 16, 1989;(10) the Senate acted on the following day.(11) The 
request of Mr. Steny H. Hoyer, of Maryland, was made just before a 
late-night recess on Nov. 17;(12) the message of the Senate action was
received in the House after midnight on that same legislative day.(13) 
The House concurred, pursuant to the special order carried here, in 
the early morning hours of Nov. 18, 1989.(14) 
MAKING IN ORDER AT ANY TIME MOTION TO CONSIDER SENATE AMENDMENTS TO 
H.R. 3660, GOVERNMENT ETHICS REFORM ACT OF 1989
MR. HOYER: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to
consider at any time a motion, if offered by the majority leader, or 
his designee, after consultation with the minority leader, to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3660), and for other purposes, 
with the Senate amendment or amendments thereto, and to dispose of the 
Senate amendment or amendments; that such motion be debatable for not 
to exceed 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader 
and the minority leader, or their designees; that the previous question 
be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without 
intervening motion; that all points of order against the motion be 
waived; that such motion shall be considered as having been read; and 
that such motion not be subject to a demand for a division of the 
question.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     See 135 CONG. REC. 29513, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
11.     See 135 CONG. REC. 29679, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 17, 1989.
12.     Id. at p. 29982.
13.     Id. at p. 30011.
14.     135 CONG. REC. 30029, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 102]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(15) Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection. . . . 
RECESS
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The House will now stand in recess subject to 
the call of the Chair.
Members will be given an hour's notice before any legislative business 
by the whip system, and bells will be rung 15 minutes prior to 
reconvening.
The House is now in recess.
Accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.) the House stood in recess
subject to the call of the Chair.
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the Speaker 
at 1 o'clock and 20 minutes a.m.
FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A further message from the Senate by Mr. Hallen, one of its clerks, 
announced that the Senate had passed with amendments in which the 
concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the 
following title:

H.R. 3660. An act to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives 
and the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to provide for governmentwide 
ethics reform, and for other purposes.
GOVERNMENT ETHICS REFORM ACT OF 1989
MR. [VIC] FAZIO [of California]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of 
the House of earlier today, I move to take from the Speaker's table the 
bill (H.R. 3660) to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to provide for governmentwide 
ethics reform, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments 
thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the Senate amendments is as follows:

Senate amendments: Page 2, strike out lines 1 to 4, and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Ethics Reform Act of 1989". . . . 

MRS. [LYNN] MARTIN of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
MR. FAZIO: Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
MRS. MARTIN of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
THE SPEAKER:(16) Pursuant to the order of the House of earlier today, 
the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Fazio].
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Debate on Motion Before Stage of Disagreement


Sec.    5.42 Where a motion to consider and dispose of Senate amendments
is made, prior 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     Gillespie V. (Sonny) Montgomery (Miss.).
16.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 103]]

to the stage of disagreement, the proponent of the 
motion is entitled to one hour and may yield time as he sees fit.
Rule XXVIII clause 2(a),(17) providing for a division of time between 
the majority and the minority parties is applicable only to conference 
reports and amendments in disagreement. While there have been occasions
where the Speaker has allocated time, without objection, on an initial 
motion to dispose of Senate amendments in the House, the practice 
prescribed in the standing rules is as carried here.(18) 

MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the joint resolution 
(H.J. Res. 666) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal 
year 1991, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and
consider the Senate amendments in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:

Senate amendments:
In subsection 101(b), after "the Senate as of October 1, 1990," insert 
"or at a rate for operations not exceeding the current rate and under 
the authority and conditions provided in applicable appropriations Acts 
for the fiscal year 1990,".
In section 103, strike out "$262,969,000,000" and insert "$265,369,000,000".
In subsection 108(c), strike out "October 20, 1990" and insert "October 
19, 1990". . . . 

There being no objection to the request, the chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations was recognized to offer a motion.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. WHITTEN
MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, I move to concur in Senate amendments Nos. 
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
THE SPEAKER:(19) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Whitten moves to concur in Senate amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 
5. . . . 

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] is recognized 
for 1 hour.
MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] for purpose of debate only 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Division of Time Before Stage of Disagreement

Sec.    5.43 The Chair has on occasion divided debate time under the 
hour rule into 20-

-------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
18.     See 136 CONG. REC. 28013, 101st Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1990.
19.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
-------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 104]]

minute segments on a motion relating to Senate 
amendments before the stage of disagreement, following the formula for 
debate on a motion to dispose of an amendment in disagreement 
prescribed in Rule XXVIII clause 2(b).
On Nov. 17, 1989,(20) the House was considering Senate amendments to 
H.R. 3566, the Labor and Health and Human Services appropriation bill 
for fiscal year 1990. Consideration was pursuant to a unanimous-consent
agreement permitting individual motions to dispose of seven Senate 
amendments. The last amendment was controversial and time for debate 
was demanded. The proceedings and the Chair's allocation of the time 
are carried here.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(1) The Clerk will designate the next Senate
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Senate Amendment No. 7: Page 74, after line 7, insert:
SEC. 521. RESTORATION AND CORRECTION OF DIAL-A-PORN SANCTIONS.
(1) AMENDMENT.-Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 
(47 U.S.C. 223) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting 
the following: . . . 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. NATCHER
MR. [WILLIAM H.] NATCHER [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Natcher moves that the House disagree to the amendment of the 
Senate numbered 7.

MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts] (during the reading): Mr. 
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read 
and printed in the Record.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: Reserving the right to object, 
Mr. Speaker, I would propound first a parliamentary inquiry.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, it is our desire at this point to attempt to 
defeat this particular motion; so I assume at this point that we would 
object to the unanimous-consent request and then an hour would be 
allocated for debate on the motion; is that correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman wish debate time?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     135 CONG. REC. 29904, 29905, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     Brian J. Donnally (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 105]]

MR. WALKER: Yes, we do wish debate time, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Conte] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, if they are both in favor, the time could be
allocated, 20 minutes to the various sides, is that correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct.
MR. CONTE: We have no objection to that, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman from Massachusetts in favor 
of the motion?
MR. CONTE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If that is the case, the Chair will allocate 
the time three ways. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher] will be
recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] 
will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the    gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
Amending Special Order Providing for Disposition of Senate Amendments


Sec.    5.44 If the previous question is voted down on a resolution 
providing for agreeing to Senate amendments to a House bill, the 
resolution is open to amendment.
On June 17, 1970,(2) Mr. Spark M. Matsunaga, of Hawaii, by direction 
of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 914:

Resolved, That, immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, the 
bill (H.R. 4249) to extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with respect 
to the discriminatory use of tests and devices, with Senate amendments
thereto, be, and the same hereby is, taken from the Speaker's table, 
to the end that the Senate amendments are, and the same are hereby, 
agreed to.
THE SPEAKER:(3) The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized for 1 hour.

After one hour of debate, Mr. Matsunaga moved the previous question on 
the resolution.

MR. GERALD R. FORD [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. GERALD R. FORD: Mr. Speaker, a "no" vote on the previous question 
does give an opportunity for one of those who led the fight against the
resolution to amend the resolution now pending before the House?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state in response to the parliamentary 
inquiry of the gentleman from Michigan that if the previous question is 
voted down, the resolution is open to amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     116 CONG. REC. 20159, 20198-200, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 106]]

Effect of Rejection of Special Rule


Sec.    5.45 The Chair indicated that should a resolution providing 
for concurring in Senate amendments to a House bill be rejected, the 
bill and amendments would remain on the Speaker's table for further 
action by the House.
On June 17, 1970,(4) the House was considering House Resolution 914, 
which provided for the taking of H.R. 4249, to extend the Voting Rights 
Act of 1964, with Senate amendments thereto, from the Speaker's table, 
to the end that those amendments be agreed to. Mr. Albert W. Watson, of 
South Carolina, raised a parliamentary inquiry:

Mr. Speaker, if this resolution is voted down then, further, it will 
mean we will follow the orderly procedure and let this matter go to 
conference and reconcile the differences?
THE SPEAKER:(5) The Chair will state that if the resolution is voted 
down the matter will lie on the Speaker's desk until the House 
determines what it wants to do with the matter.
MR. WATSON: I thank the Speaker.
Reading of Senate Amendment

Sec.    5.46 Where the House has before it a resolution providing for
concurrence in a Senate amendment, such Senate amendment may be read by
unanimous consent.
On Mar. 31, 1950,(6) Mr. John E. Lyle, Jr., of Texas, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 531:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill (H.R. 1758) to amend the Natural Gas Act approved June 21, 1938, 
as amended, with Senate amendment thereto, be, and the same is hereby 
taken from the Speaker's table to the end that the Senate amendment be, 
and the same is hereby, agreed to. . . .
MR. LYLE: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Allen].
MR. [LEO E.] ALLEN of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may desire.
MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
MR. ALLEN of Illinois: I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of this rule we are asked to 
approve an amendment which has been added by the other body.  Is it in 
order to request that that amendment, which 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     116 CONG. REC. 20159, 20198-200, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 5.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 6.     96 CONG. REC. 4553, 4554, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 107]]

has not been read to the House, be read at this time?
THE SPEAKER: It may be done by unanimous consent.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
added by the other body be read to the House at this time.
THE SPEAKER: That will come out of the time of the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Allen].
MR. ALLEN of Illinois: I yield for that purpose, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
There was no objection.
Senate Amendment Printed in Record


Sec.    5.47 Where the House adopts a resolution taking from the 
Speaker's table a House joint resolution with a Senate amendment and 
agreeing to the Senate amendment, the text of the Senate amendment is 
printed in the Record after the vote agreeing to the resolution.
On Sept. 25, 1972,(7) Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, of the 
Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 1133:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1227) approval and authorization for the 
President of the United States to accept an Interim Agreement Between 
the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics on Certain Measures with Respect to the Limitation of 
Strategic Offensive Arms, together with the Senate amendment thereto, 
be, and the same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end 
that the Senate amendment be, and the same is hereby, agreed to. . . .
THE SPEAKER:(8) The question is on the resolution. . . .
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 308, nays 4, answered "
present" 2, not voting 116. . . .
So the resolution was agreed to. . . .
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The Senate amendment, concurred in, reads as follows:(9) 
Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:
That the Congress hereby endorses those portions of the Declaration of 
Basic Principles of Mutual Relations Between the United States of 
America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics signed by President 
Nixon 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     118 CONG. REC. 31995-99, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 8.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 9.     An effort is made in the House to assure that where the House 
concurs, or concurs with a further amendment, the Senate amendment is 
printed in the Record proceedings. If the Senate amendment is lengthy 
and has already been printed in the proceedings of that body, the House 
Record may refer to the Senate proceedings rather than reprinting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 108]]

and General Secretary Brezhnev at Moscow on May 29, 1972, which 
relate to the dangers of military confrontation and which read as 
follows: . . . 

Initial Consideration of Senate Amendments; in House or in Committee of 
the Whole


Sec.    5.48 Parliamentarian's Note: Any amendment of the Senate to a 
House bill is subject to the point of order that it must first be 
considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union, if, originating in the House, it would be subject to that point.
However, a motion to disagree with the amendments of the Senate to a 
House bill or resolution and to request or agree to a conference with 
the Senate, or a motion to insist on the House amendments to a Senate 
bill or resolution and request or agree to a conference with the 
Senate, is always in order if the Speaker, in his discretion, 
recognizes for that purpose and if the motion is made by direction of 
the committee having jurisdiction of the subject matter of the bill or
resolution.(10) And House bills with Senate amendments which do not 
require consideration in a Committee of the Whole may be at once 
disposed of as the House may determine.(11) 
Timing of Point of Order That Senate Amendment Requires Committee of 
the Whole Consideration


Sec.    5.49 A point of order under Rule XX clause 1 that a particular 
Senate amendment should have been considered in the Committee of the 
Whole comes too late after conferees have been appointed and have 
reported.
On Oct. 20, 1966,(12) the House was considering the conference report 
on H.R. 13103, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Mr. 
Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, rose to a point of order against title 
III of the conference 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Rule XX clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1997); and 
Deschler's Procedure (93d Cong.), Ch. 32 Sec. 5.1.
11.     Rule XXIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 882 (1997); and 
Deschler's Procedure (93d Cong.), Ch. 32 Sec. 5.1.
12.     112 CONG. REC. 28240, 28241, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 109]]

report, which consisted entirely of a Senate amendment:

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask this question:
If that amendment had been offered when the bill was under 
consideration in the House it would have had to be under rule XX, and
considered under rule XX that I have just read.
Now, because it is a bill which is an appropriation bill we cannot 
consider it except in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
the Union. This rule provides that if there is put on it a Senate 
amendment and it comes back it is subject to a point of order that it 
has not been considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
State of the Union. . . .
THE SPEAKER:(13) The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Virginia makes the point of order that title III of 
the conference report contravenes the first sentence of rule XX:

Any amendment of the Senate to any House bill shall be subject to the 
point of order that it shall first be considered in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union, if, originating in the 
House, it would be subject to that point:(14) 

Without passing upon the germaneness of the amendment, because that 
point was not raised, the Chair calls attention to the fact that the 
Senate amendment went to conference by unanimous consent. Where 
unanimous consent was obtained, the effect of that is to circuit rule 
XX, in other words, to waive or vitiate that portion of rule XX.
If objection had been made at the point when the unanimous-consent 
request was made to send the bill to conference, then the bill could 
have been referred to the proper standing committee, and then, if and 
when reported out of the committee would have been brought up for
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union.
At this point, and under the parliamentary situation, the bill was sent 
to conference by unanimous consent; and this applies to all bills that 
go to conference by unanimous consent, if there be provisions therein 
that might be subject to the first sentence of rule XX. If there is no
objection made at that time the bill goes to conference; which in this 
case had the effect of suspending that portion of rule XX. Therefore, 
it is properly before the House at the present time as part of the 
conference report and the Chair overrules the point of order.
-Debate in Committee of the Whole

Sec.    5.50 Senate amendments to an appropriation bill are considered 
in the Committee of the Whole under the five-minute rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
14.     The pertinent part of Rule XX clause 1, quoted by the Speaker, 
had been part of the rules since 1880. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 
827 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 110]]

On July 12, 1945,(15) the following occurred in the House:
NATIONAL WAR AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL, 1946
MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House 
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3368) making 
appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1946, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments. Pending that 
motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with general 
debate.
THE SPEAKER:(16) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Missouri?
MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, that is satisfactory to me. That would not mean, of course, 
that there could be no debate on amendments?
MR. CANNON of Missouri: Amendments will be considered under the 
5-minute rule.(17) 
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion of the gentleman from 
Missouri.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3368) making appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1946, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments, 
with Mr. Sparkman in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE CHAIRMAN:(18) The Clerk will report the first Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

Senate amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 9, insert:
"COMMITTEE ON FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE
"Salaries and expenses: For all     expenses necessary to enable the 
Committee on Fair Employment Practice to carry out any functions 
lawfully vested in it by Executive Orders Nos. 8802 and 9346, including 
salary of a Chairman at not to exceed $8,000 per annum and 6 other 
members at not to exceed $25 per diem when actually engaged; travel 
expenses (not to exceed $63,800); expenses of witnesses in attendance 
at Committee hearings, when necessary; printing and binding (not to 
exceed $4,800); purchase of newspapers and periodicals (not to exceed 
$500); not to exceed $694 for deposit in the general fund of the 
Treasury for cost of penalty mail as required by section 2 of the act 
of June 28, 1944 (Public Law 364); and the temporary employment of 
persons, by contract or otherwise, without regard to section 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     91 CONG. REC. 7474, 7493, 7494, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
16.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
17.     For an example of the procedure in considering Senate amendments 
to a general appropriation bill in Committee of the Whole, see 91 CONG. 
REC. 7474, 7493, 7494, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., July 12, 1945.
18.     John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 111]]

3709 of the Revised Statutes and the civil-service and classification laws 
(not to exceed $8,900); $250,000: Provided, That no part of the funds 
herein appropriated shall be used to pay the compensation of any person 
to initiate, investigate, or prosecute any complaint against any 
defendant where such defendant does not have the same right to appeal 
an adverse decision of the Committee on Fair Employment Practice to 
the President of the United States, or to refer said complaint to the
President of the United States for final disposition, as is asserted by 
or allowed the said Committee on Fair Employment Practice in cases 
where persons complained against refuse to abide by its orders: 
Provided further, That no part of this appropriation shall be used to 
pay the compensation of any person to initiate, investigate, or 
prosecute any proceedings against any person, firm, or corporation 
which seeks to effect the seizure or operation of any plant or other 
property of such person, firm, or corporation by Federal authority for 
failure to abide by any rule or regulation of the Committee on Fair 
Employment Practice, or for failure to abide by any order passed by the
Committee on Fair Employment Practice: Provided further, That no part 
of the funds herein appropriated shall be used to pay the compensation 
of any person employed by said Committee on Fair Employment Practice 
who issues or attempts to enforce any rule, regulation, or order which
repeals, amends, or modifies any law enacted by the Congress."

MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which I 
send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Cannon of Missouri moves that the House concur in Senate amendment 
No. 1 with an amendment as follows:
"Strike out the matter proposed to be inserted by said amendment and 
insert the following in lieu thereof:
".'COMMITTEE ON FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE
".'Salaries and expenses: For completely terminating the functions and 
duties of the Committee on Fair Employment Practice, including such of 
the objects and limitations specified in the appropriation for such 
agency for the fiscal year 1945 as may be incidental to its 
liquidation, $250,000: Provided, That if and until the Committee on 
Fair Employment Practice is continued by an act of Congress, the amount 
named herein may be used for its continued operation until an 
additional appropriation shall have been provided.'."

MR. [WILLIAM M.] COLMER [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment to the committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Colmer to the amendment offered by Mr. Cannon 
of Missouri: On line 7 of the committee substitute after the word "if", 
strike out the words "and until".

MR. COLMER: Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. We might 
just as well understand that to begin with. If my amendment is adopted 
it means that the funds appropriated must be used for the liquidation 
of the FEPC. If my amendment is rejected it means that the $250,000 
thus appropriated can be used for the continued operation of the 
FEPC. . . . 
THE CHAIRMAN: The time of the gentleman from Missouri has expired. All 
time has expired.


[[Page 112]]

The question recurs on the amendment as amended by the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Missouri.
The amendment as amended was agreed to.
MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I think there is no disagreement 
on the remaining amendments.
In order to conserve the time of the House and get the conference 
report back this afternoon, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
Senate amendments be taken up en bloc and that they be considered as read.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri? . . . 
MR. [ANDREW J.] MAY [of Kentucky]: . . . What I am trying to get at is 
this: Did your statement to the effect that this is the only way by 
which a bill could be enacted which would take care of the several war
agencies for which appropriations are carried in this bill, mean that 
the other body at the other end of the Capitol is so obstinate about 
the one proposition of the FEPC that it will block all of the war 
agencies rather than take it out?
MR. CANNON of Missouri: May I say to the gentleman from Kentucky that 
the intransigents were not confined to any one House.
MR. MAY: Then the gentleman proposes to surrender without a reason?
MR. CANNON of Missouri: We are not surrendering; we are winning.
MR. [HOWARD W.] SMITH of Virginia: Reserving the right to object, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to understand from the gentleman from Missouri 
whether his unanimous-consent request is that we consider the amendments
en bloc and disagree to the Senate amendments and send them to 
conference? We do not agree by this to any Senate amendment?
MR. CANNON of Missouri: When we have secured consent to consider them
simultaneously, I will then move to disagree to the Senate amendments 
and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
MR. [VITO A.] MARCANTONIO [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
right to object, in reply to the gentleman from Virginia, so as to 
clear up any misunderstanding, we are not disagreeing to the Senate 
amendment on FEPC except by the action taken in the Committee of the 
Whole. The gentleman's motion refers merely to the remaining Senate
amendments?
MR. CANNON of Missouri: The request refers to the remaining amendments 
only.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise and report the bill back to the House with Senate amendments, with
recommendation in accordance with action taken by the Committee.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the 
chair, Mr. Sparkman, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on 
the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under
consideration the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 3368) making
appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1946, and for other purposes, 


[[Page 113]]

directed him to report the same back to 
the House with the recommendation that the House concur in Senate 
amendment numbered 1, with an amendment, and that the House disagree 
to Senate amendments numbered 2 to 33, inclusive, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses thereon.
MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the first recommendation of the 
Committee.
The Clerk read as follows:

The Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union recommends 
that the House concur in Senate amendment No. 1, with the following 
amendment:
"Strike out the matter proposed to be inserted by Senate amendment No. 
1 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
".'COMMITTEE ON FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE
".'Salaries and expenses: For completely terminating the functions and 
duties of the Committee on Fair Employment Practice, including such of 
the objects and limitations specified in the appropriation for such 
agency for the fiscal year 1945 as may be incidental to its 
liquidation, $250,000: Provided, That if and until the Committee on 
Fair Employment Practice is continued by an act of Congress, the amount 
named herein may be used for its continued operation until an 
additional appropriation shall have been provided: Provided further, 
That in no case shall this fund be available for expenditure beyond 
June 30, 1946.'."

THE SPEAKER: The question is on agreeing to the recommendation.
MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. RANKIN: As I understand it, this entire amendment, beginning on 
line 9, page 1, and ending on line 14, page 3, as amended, is a Senate
amendment. It is brought in here as a Senate amendment. Now the 
question is on adopting that Senate amendment, the entire amendment; 
not adopting the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri to 
the amendment, but on adopting the entire FEPC amendment?
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion agreed to in Committee of 
the Whole. That is, to agree to the Senate amendment with an amendment. 
There is no division of the question, if that is what the gentleman is 
asking.
MR. RANKIN: Then we have a right to vote on whether or not we will 
adopt the Senate amendment as amended.
THE SPEAKER: There is just one question before the House. That is, to 
concur in the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole.
MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on this entire Senate
amendment. The rules of the House provide that when an amendment is 
brought in, even though it is amended in Committee of the Whole, when 
we get back to the House we do not vote on amendments to the amendment 
but we vote on the amendment as amended.
THE SPEAKER: We vote on the recommendation which the Committee of the 
Whole made to the House. That is 


[[Page 114]]

all there is before the House at this time.
MR. RANKIN: That is that the amendment as amended be adopted?
THE SPEAKER: That is the question. . . . 
The yeas and nays were refused.
So the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole was agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Cannon of Missouri a motion to reconsider was laid on 
the table.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the remainder of the recommendation of 
the Committee of the Whole that the House disagree to the Senate 
amendments numbered from 2 to 33, inclusive, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
The recommendation was agreed to and a motion to reconsider was laid 
on the table.
-Voting on Recommendation of Committee of the Whole in the House

Sec.    5.51 The recommendation of the Committee of the Whole that the 
House concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment may not be divided 
for a vote in the House.
On July 12, 1945,(19) the Committee of the Whole, having considered 
H.R. 3368, war agency appropriations for fiscal 1946, with Senate 
amendments thereto, recommended that the House concur in Senate 
amendment No. 1 with an amendment.

THE SPEAKER:(20) The question is on agreeing to the recommendation.
MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. RANKIN: As I understand it, this entire amendment, beginning on 
line 9, page 1, and ending on line 14, page 3, as amended, is a Senate
amendment. It is brought in here as a Senate amendment. Now the 
question is on adopting that Senate amendment, the entire amendment; 
not adopting the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri to 
the amendment, but on adopting the entire FEPC amendment?
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion agreed to in Committee of 
the Whole. That is, to agree to the Senate amendment with an amendment. 
There is no division of the question, if that is what the gentleman is 
asking.
MR. RANKIN: Then we have a right to vote on whether or not we will 
adopt the Senate amendment as amended.
THE SPEAKER: There is just one question before the House. That is, to 
concur in the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole.
MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on this entire Senate
amendment. The rules of the House provide that when an amendment is 
brought in, even though it is amended in Committee of the Whole, when we 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     91 CONG. REC. 7494, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
20.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 115]]

get back to the House we do not vote on amendments to the amendment 
but we vote on the amendment as amended.
THE SPEAKER: We vote on the recommendation which the Committee of the 
Whole made to the House. That is all there is before the House at this 
time.
-If House Rejects Committee of the Whole Recommendation


Sec.    5.52 If the House disagrees to the recommendation of the 
Committee of the Whole that the House concur in a Senate amendment with 
an amendment, such Senate amendment is before the House for 
consideration.
On July 12, 1945,(1) the Committee of the Whole recommended that the 
House concur with an amendment to a Senate amendment to H.R. 3368, war 
agency appropriations for fiscal 1946. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
recognized Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, to pose a
parliamentary inquiry:

If we do not adopt the amendment which was just adopted in Committee 
of the Whole, we will then take the Senate amendment as it 
stands? . . .
THE SPEAKER: The Senate amendment itself will be in order for 
consideration.
-Senate Amendments Sent to Conference Do Not Thereaf-ter Require 
Consideration in Committee of the Whole


Sec.    5.53 Amendments between the Houses that have been sent to 
conference do not require consideration in the Committee of the Whole 
in the event the conference report is ruled out of order.
On Aug. 19, 1937,(2) the conference report on H.R. 7646, relating to 
flood walls and drainage structures in the Ohio River Basin, was ruled 
out on a point of order. Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, was 
recognized by Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, to raise a point 
of order:

When a conference report has been thrown out on a point of order is it 
not the same as if it had been rejected by the House?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New York makes a parliamentary inquiry 
as to whether, when a point of order to a conference report is 
sustained ipso facto, the Senate amendments come before the House for 
fur-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     91 CONG. REC. 7494, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     81 CONG. REC. 9376-79, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 116]]

ther consideration. Is that the parliamentary inquiry?
MR. SNELL: Yes.
THE SPEAKER: In reply to the gentleman the Chair calls the gentleman's
attention to section 3257, volume 8, Cannon's Precedents:

When a conference report is ruled out of order, the bill and amendments 
are again before the House as when first presented, and motions 
relating to amendments and conference are again in order.

MR. SNELL: When this first came back from the Senate there was an 
important matter that should have gone before the committee for 
consideration because it entailed expenditure of large amounts of 
money, and is it a privileged motion to move to consider that in the 
House at the present time?
THE SPEAKER: It is in the opinion of the Chair, because by sending the 
bill and Senate amendments to conference, the provisions of the rules
requiring consideration in Committee of the Whole were waived.
Consideration of Senate Amendments in the House


Sec.    5.54 The House may adopt a resolution taking a House bill with 
Senate amendments thereto from the Speaker's table and making it in 
order to consider the amendments in the House, rather than in Committee 
of the Whole, as required by Rule XX clause 1.
On July 2, 1960,(3) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, reported House
Resolution 596:

Mr. Bolling, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
privileged resolution (H. Res. 596-Rept. No. 2085), which was referred 
to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, the 
bill H.R. 12740 making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1961, and for other purposes, with the Senate 
amendments thereto, shall be taken from the Speaker's table and the 
Senate amendments considered in the House.

MR. BOLLING: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 596 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, the 
bill H.R. 12740 making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1961, and for other purposes, with the Senate 
amendments thereto, shall be taken from the Speaker's table and the 
Senate amendments considered in the House.

THE SPEAKER:(4) The question is, Will the House now consider the 
resolution?
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the yeas had it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     106 CONG. REC. 15775, 15785, 15786, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 117]]

MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, does not consideration require unanimous 
consent?
THE SPEAKER: It requires a two-thirds vote.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
THE SPEAKER: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will notify 
absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 291, nays 79, not voting 
62. . . .
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the House agreed to 
consider the resolution.(5) 

Debate then occurred on the resolution, it was agreed to, and the 
Senate amendments were considered.


Sec.    5.55 House bills with Senate amendments which do not require
consideration in the Committee of the Whole may at once be disposed of 
as the House may determine and are privileged matters on the Speaker's table.
On Feb. 1, 1937,(6) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, recognized 
Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York:

Mr. Speaker, I call up House Joint Resolution 81, to create a Joint
Congressional Committee on Government Organization, with a Senate 
amendment, for immediate consideration as a privileged resolution. . . .
MR. [BERTRAND H.] SNELL [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. SNELL: I understood the gentleman called this up as a privileged 
matter. On what ground is this a privileged matter?
THE SPEAKER: In reply to the inquiry of the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Snell], under paragraph 2 of rule XXIV of the House Manual it is stated: . . .

But House bills with Senate amendments which do not require 
consideration in a Committee of the Whole may be at once disposed of 
as the House may determine, as may also Senate bills substantially the 
same as House bills.

MR. SNELL: I appreciate that, and I have no objection to the 
consideration of this matter, but I wonder if it was a matter that 
could be taken up without 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     Parliamentarian's Note: A two-thirds vote was required to 
consider this resolution from the Committee on Rules on the same day on 
which it was reported to the House. Only a majority vote was required 
for its adoption.
 6.     81 CONG. REC. 644, 645, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 118]]

being referred back to the committee for consideration.
THE SPEAKER: Under the rule which the Chair has just read, the Chair 
is clearly of the opinion that it may be brought up in this manner.(7) 
Debate in House


Sec.    5.56 Senate amendments con-sidered in the House are debatable 
under the hour rule.
On Feb. 1, 1937,(8) Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, had called up, 
and the House was considering, House Joint Resolution 81, to create a 
Joint Committee on Government Organization, with  a Senate amendment 
thereto. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, recognized Mr. John 
E. Rankin, of Mississippi:

If this matter is debatable, I want to be heard in opposition.
MR. O'CONNOR of New York: How much time does the gentleman desire?
MR. RANKIN: How much time has the gentleman at his disposal?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Connor] is entitled to 
1 hour, and he may yield such part as he desires.(9) 
Amendments Considered in Their Entirety


Sec.    5.57 Senate amendments are considered in their entirety and it 
is not in order to consider separate items contained therein.
On May 20, 1936,(10) the House was considering the Senate amendments to 
the Interior Department appropriations bill for 1937 which had been 
reported back from conference in disagreement. After the Clerk read one
amendment which contained seven separate projects, Mr. Fred Cummings, 
of Colorado, raised a parliamentary inquiry:

Will a motion be in order to consider these items separately?
THE SPEAKER:(11) No; there is only one Senate amendment.
-Unless Special Rule Permits Division


Sec.    5.58 Although House rules preclude dividing a Senate amendment 
which strikes House text and inserts new language, such a division can 
be made in order by a special order reported from the 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     See also 106 CONG. REC. 18357, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 30, 1960.
 8.     81 CONG. REC. 645, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9.     See also 106 CONG. REC. 18357, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 30, 1960.
10.     80 CONG. REC. 7623, 7624, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 119]]

Committee on Rules and adopted by the House.
When the Senate considered for amendment H.R. 9209, the Emergency 
Unemployment Compensation Act Amendments of 1993, it struck out all 
after the enacting clause of the House bill and added a new text, 
consisting of seven sections. The House wished to address section 7 of 
the Senate amendment, which dealt with congressional pay, by a separate 
vote. The following special order was reported from the Committee on 
Rules, debated and agreed to on Mar. 4, 1993.(12) The rule, pertinent 
debate, and the procedure in the House are carried here. 
EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION AMENDMENTS OF 1993
Mr. Moakley, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report 
(Rept. No. 103-26) on the resolution (H. Res. 115) providing for the
consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 920) to extend 
the emergency unemployment compensation program, and for other purposes, 
which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:
H. RES. 115
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
to consider in the House, any rule of the House to the contrary
notwithstanding, a motion to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
(H.R. 920) to extend the emergency unemployment compensation program, 
and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to 
concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment shall be 
considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final
adoption without intervening motion. The motion shall be divided for a
separate vote on concurring in section 7 of the Senate amendment, any 
rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding.

MR. [JOHN JOSEPH] MOAKLEY [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 115 and ask for 
its immediate consideration. 
The Clerk read the resolution. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(13) The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. MOAKLEY: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. . . . 
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate. The rule also automatically
divides the question, allowing a separate vote on the last section of 
the bill, elimination of cost of living adjustment for Members of 
Congress in 1994. Mr. Speaker, the division is in order any 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     139 CONG. REC. 4157-59, 4163, 4164, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
13.     Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 120]]

rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . . . 
MR. [ROBERT T.] MATSUI [of California]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House
Resolution 115, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
(H.R. 920) "An act to extend the emergency unemployment compensation 
program, and for other purposes," with the Senate amendment thereto, 
and to concur in the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under the rule, the Senate amendment is 
considered as read.
The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the 
"Emergency Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993".
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM.
(a) GENERAL RULE.-Sections 102 (f)(1) and 106(a)(2) of the Emergency
Unemployment Compensation Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-164, as amended) 
are each amended by striking "March 6, 1993" and inserting "October 2, 
1993". . . . 
SEC. 7. ELIMINATION OF COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS IN 1994.
(a) COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT.-Notwithstanding section 601(a)(2) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31(2)), the cost of 
living adjustment (relating to pay for Members of Congress) which would 
become effective under such provision of law during calendar year 1994 
shall not take effect.
(b) SEVERABILITY.-If any provision of this Act, or an amendment made 
by this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or
circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this Act, or an
amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision to 
other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under the rule, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Matsui] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui]. . . .
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: All time has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 115, the previous question is ordered on 
the motion, and pursuant to House Resolution 115, the question on 
concurring in the Senate amendment will be divided.
The first question before the House is on concurring in sections 1 
through 6 of the Senate amendment. . . . 
So sections 1 through 6 of the Senate amendment to H.R. 920 were 
concurred in. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will advise the Members that the 
question, having been divided, now before the House is on concurring in
section 7 of the Senate amendment . . . . 


[[Page 121]]

The question, therefore, is on concurring in section 7 of the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 920. . . . 
So section 7 of the Senate amendment to H.R. 920 was concurred in.
Who May Call Up

Sec.    5.59 House bills with Senate amendments which do not require
consideration in a Committee of the Whole may be called up for 
consideration by a Member authorized by the committee reporting the 
bill to take such action.
On Aug. 24, 1935,(14) the following occurred on the floor of the House:

MR. [VIRGIL M.] CHAPMAN [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce I call up from the 
Speaker's table the bill, H.R. 9070, the omnibus bridge bill, with 
Senate amendments thereto.
THE SPEAKER:(15) The gentleman from Kentucky, by direction of the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, calls up a bill with 
Senate amendments thereto.
The Clerk reported the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the Senate amendments. . . .
MR. [WILLIAM D.] MCFARLANE [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, under what right 
is this bill called up?
THE SPEAKER: Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, which authorizes any member 
of a committee, when directed by the committee, to call up House bills 
with Senate amendments, on the Speaker's desk.
MR. MCFARLANE: Mr. Speaker, I raise the point that the committee has 
not had a meeting since the bill was passed.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair cannot go behind the statement of the gentleman 
from Kentucky.
MR. MCFARLANE: Then, I ask the gentleman from Kentucky whether the 
committee has met and considered this bill?
MR. CHAPMAN: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kentucky will reply by 
repeating what he said in the beginning, that by the direction of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce I call this bill from the
Speaker's table.
THE SPEAKER: Clause 2 of rule XXIV provides:

House bills with Senate amendments which do not require consideration 
in a Committee of the Whole may be at once disposed of as the House may
determine, as may also Senate bills substantially the same as House 
bills already favorably reported by a committee of the House, and not 
required to be considered in Committee of the Whole [be disposed of in
the same manner on motion directed to be made by such committee].

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     79 CONG. REC. 14645, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
15.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 122]]

Motion To Disagree in House To Permit Reconsideration in Senate


Sec.    5.60 A Senate amendment was disagreed to by the House for the 
purpose of permitting the Senate to reconsider its action in amending 
a House bill.
On Feb. 1, 1937,(16) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, proposed an 
amendment to a Senate amendment to House Joint Resolution 81, creating 
a Joint Committee on Government Organization. Speaker William B. 
Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled out Mr. Rankin's amendment on the ground 
that it would have amended the text of the joint resolution, not the 
Senate amendment thereto. Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, then raised a
parliamentary inquiry:

If it is not in order to offer an amendment such as the gentleman from
Mississippi proposes, if the Senate amendment were rejected and sent 
back to the Senate the purpose of the amendment could be accomplished.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state to the gentleman that on the premise
laid by him if the Senate amendment were voted down the Senate could
reconsider its action and increase the number of the House committee.
MR. JONES: If it were sent back to the Senate would not it go as an 
original proposition so they could recede from their amendment and take 
up the bill as an original measure and put in nine Members of the House?
THE SPEAKER: The Senate could reconsider its action. . . .
MR. [JOHN J.] O'CONNOR of New York: I think I can solve this by 
proceeding in accordance with my heart.
I will withdraw my motion to concur in the Senate amendment and move 
to disagree to the Senate amendment. . . .
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Connor] withdraws his 
motion to agree to the Senate amendment and now moves to disagree to 
the Senate amendment.
The question is on the motion of the gentleman from New York.
The motion was agreed to.
Considering Senate Amendment to House Joint Resolution Amending 
Constitution

Sec.    5.61 Senate amendments to a House joint resolution proposing a
constitutional amendment are considered in the House.
On Mar. 21, 1947,(17) Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, called up 
House Joint Resolution 27, with the Senate amendments thereto. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     81 CONG. REC. 646-48, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     93 CONG. REC. 2389, 2392, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 123]]

Since the matter did not require consideration in the Committee of the Whole, 
the matter could be disposed of by motion under Rule XXIV clause 2:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Speaker to lay before the House for immediate
consideration House Joint Resolution 27, a joint resolution proposing 
an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the 
terms of office of the President, with Senate amendments. 
THE SPEAKER:(18) The Clerk will report the title of the joint 
resolution and the Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:

Page 1, line 9, strike out all after "SECTION 1." over to and including
"term." in line 4, page 2, and insert "No person shall be elected to 
the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held 
the office of President, or acted as President, for more than 2 years 
of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be 
elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article 
shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this
article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person 
who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, 
during the term within which this article becomes operative from 
holding the office of President or acting as President during the 
remainder of such term."
MR. MICHENER: Mr. Speaker, this bill with the Senate amendment was 
returned to the House on March 13. It was taken informally before the 
full Committee on the Judiciary, and I am instructed by that committee 
to call the resolution up at this time for the purpose of agreeing to 
the Senate amendment. I have followed precedent and cleared through 
the majority leader and the minority leader.
I therefore move that the House concur in the Senate amendment.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Michener moves that the House concur in the Senate amendment.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 1 
hour. . . . 
MR. MICHENER: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The question was taken; and on a ivision (demanded by Mr. Thomason) 
there were-ayes 81, noes 29.
MR. [AIME J.] FORAND [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the 
vote on the ground a quorum is not present and make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will count.
MR. FORAND: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the point of order.
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the Senate amendments 
were concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 124]]

Senate Amendment to Concurrent Resolution for Adjournment


Sec.    5.62  A  concurrent  resolution providing that the two Houses 
adjourn to a day certain is not operative until agreed to by both, and 
where the Senate amends the resolution changing the date, such 
amendment must be concurred in before the adjournment can take place.
On Mar. 30, 1944,(19) the following took place in the House:

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(20) The Chair lays before the House, House 
Concurrent Resolution No. 75, with a Senate amendment, which the Clerk 
will report.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment: On page 2, line 3, strike out "Thursday, March 30" 
and insert "Saturday, April 1."

Amend the title so as to read: "Concurrent resolution providing for the
adjournment of Congress from Saturday, April 1, 1944, to Wednesday, 
April 12, 1944."
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
MR. [CLARE E.] HOFFMAN [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, I make a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. HOFFMAN: What is the procedure?
MR. [ROBERT] RAMSPECK [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House 
concur in the Senate amendment.
MR. HOFFMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman propounding a parliamentary 
inquiry?
MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. HOFFMAN: What is the procedure on this resolution?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It is a privileged resolution, and the 
procedure would be for some Member - and the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Ramspeck] has done so - to make a motion that the House concur in 
the Senate amendment.
MR. HOFFMAN: And then a vote is taken on the motion?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is correct.
MR. HOFFMAN: Does that require a quorum?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Any action by the House requires a quorum if 
the one who takes such step raises that question.
MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. RANKIN: As I understand the situation, whether there is a quorum 
present or not, unless this amendment 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     90 CONG. REC. 3318, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 125]]

is agreed to the resolution does not become final until this amendment 
is disposed of. That is correct, is it not?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct.
Procedure Leading to Correction of Error in Senate Amendment

Sec.    5.63 A concurrent resolution may authorize the Secretary of the 
Senate to reengross the amendment of the Senate to a House bill and 
make a correction in such re-engrossment.
On June 27, 1951,(1) the following occurred on the floor of the House:

MR. [ALBERT] THOMAS [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
for the immediate consideration of the concurrent resolution 
(S. Con. Res. 35) ordering the reengrossment of the Senate amendment 
to H.R. 3880, the independent offices appropriation bill for 1952.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That 
the Secretary of the Senate be, and he is hereby, authorized and 
directed to reengross the amendments of the Senate to the bill 
(H.R. 3880) making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry
independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, corporations, 
agencies, and offices for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1952, and for 
other purposes; and to reengross Senate amendment numbered 79 so as to 
read as follows:
On page 35, line 23, strike out "$875,163,335" and insert "$873,105,770."

THE SPEAKER:(2) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
MR. [JOHN] PHILLIPS [of California]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, will the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thomas] please explain 
the reason for the request on the part of the other body?
MR. THOMAS: Mr. Speaker, this resolution authorizes reengrossment of 
amendment No. 79 of the independent offices appropriation bill. It all 
adds up to this: Apparently the other body has made a mistake in 
printing or engrossing this amendment. Amendment No. 79 deals with 
salaries and expenses for the Veterans' Administration. What happened 
was that they show a reduction in that appropriation of about 
$1,200,000 more than the figure actually agreed upon by the Senate.


 
                House-Senate Relations
 
                  A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    6. -Amending Senate Amendments; Degree of Amendment

When amending a Senate amendment the House need not confine itself 
within the limits set 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     97 CONG. REC. 7254, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 126]]

by its bill and the Senate amendment,(3) but the 
House amendment must be germane to the Senate amendment and not merely 
to the provisions of the House bill.(4) 
A House bill with a Senate amendment is considered as the original text 
of a Senate proposal, according to Jefferson's Manual.(5) Therefore, 
an amendment of the House to a Senate amendment to  a House bill is an
amendment in the first degree which may be amended further by the 
Senate. However, a House amendment to this further Senate amendment 
would be in the third degree and therefore not in order.(6) 
The principle set forth in Jefferson's Manual(7) touching on the 
permissible degree of amendments between the Houses is as follows:
"A bill originating in one House is passed by the other with an 
amendment.
"The originating House agrees to their amendment with an amendment. 
The other may agree to  their amendment with an amendment, that being 
only in the second and not the third degree; for, as to the amending 
House, the first amendment with which they passed the bill is a part 
of its text. It is the only text they have agreed to. The amendment to 
that text by the originating House therefore is only in the first 
degree, and the amendment to that again by the amending House is only 
in the second degree, to wit, an amendment to an amendment and so 
admissible."
The proscription against extending the amendment process beyond the 
second degree may be waived in the House by a special rule, a motion 
under the suspension procedure, or unanimous consent.(8) 

Immediate Consideration of Senate Amendment to House Substitute for 
Senate Measure

Sec.    6.1 Senate amendments to a House amendment in the nature of a
substitute for a Senate bill which do not 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3189, cited at Sec. 6.12, infra. 
 4.     See Sec.Sec. 6.13-6.16, infra. 
 5.     House Rules and Manual, Jefferson's Manual Sec. 529 (1997). See 
Sec. 6.3, infra, especially the Parliamentarian's Note, for a discussion 
of the degree of amendments between the Houses and within a particular House.
 6.     See Sec.Sec. 6.4, 6.5, infra.
 7.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 529 (1997).
 8.     See Sec.Sec. 6.5-6.11, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 127]]

require consideration in a Committee of the Whole may be called up and 
be at once disposed of as the House may determine pursuant to Rule XXIV 
clause 2.(9) On Aug. 30, 1960,(10) Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, was 
recognized by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas:

Mr. Speaker, I call up from the Speaker's desk the bill (S. 1898) to 
amend the Communications Act of 1934 with respect to the procedure in
obtaining a license and for rehearings under such act, with Senate 
amendments thereto to the House amendments, and ask for its immediate
consideration.

After the Clerk read the Senate amendments, Mr. Harris offered the 
following motion:

Mr. Harris moves that the House concur in the Senate amendments to the 
House amendments. . . .
MR. [CHARLES A.] HALLECK [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. HALLECK: I would like to know what the request of the gentleman 
was, whether it was for the immediate consideration of the Senate 
amendments.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman called up from the Speaker's table a Senate 
bill with Senate amendments to the House amendments. . . . 
MR. HALLECK: I might say to the gentleman, as I understand under the
parliamentary situation, it is now a matter before the House to be 
acted upon one way or the other and that no objection could be made. 
I have learned since the gentleman called it up that the members on my 
side on the committee were consulted with reference to this procedure, 
and as I understand have no objection to it now.
Suspension of the Rules


Sec.    6.2 The House adopted a motion to suspend the rules and agree 
to a resolution which provided for taking a House bill with a Senate 
amendment from the Speaker's table and agreeing to the Senate amendment 
with a designated amendment.
On Oct. 14, 1972,(11) Mr. Harold T. Johnson, of California, was 
recognized to offer the following motion:

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution 
(H. Res. 1166) providing for concurring the Senate amendment to 
H.R. 16071, to amend the Public Works and Economic 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 882 (1997).
10.     106 CONG. REC. 18357, 18358, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     118 CONG. REC. 36477-83, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 128]]

Development Act of 1965, with an amendment.(12) 

After the motion was read and debated, Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
put the question thereon:

The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Johnson) that the House suspend the rules and pass House 
Resolution 1166. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 155, nays 64, not voting 
212. . . . 
So the resolution was agreed to.
Degree of Amendment


Sec.    6.3 Where a bill of one House is passed in the other House with 
an amendment,(13) the originating House may concur therein with an 
amendment, whereupon the second House may concur with still another 
amendment; but here the process stops, for a further amendment between 
the Houses would be in the third degree.
On June 17, 1959,(14) Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, called up the 
conference report in total disagreement on S. 1, to amend the Federal 
Airport Act. After the Clerk read the conference report, Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, directed the Clerk to read the amendment in 
disagreement.

The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment 
of the House of Representatives to the above-entitled bill and agree to 
the same with an amendment. . . . 

After the reading of the Senate amendment to the House amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to S. 1, the Speaker again recognized Mr. Harris.

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

Mr. Harris moves to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment
. . . . 

Parliamentarian's Note: After Mr. Harris offered his motion to 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     H. Res. 1166 provided for concurring in the Senate amendment with 
a lengthy amendment in the nature of a substitute. The proposed 
amendment was included in the text of H. Res. 1166.
13.     Jefferson's Manual states that when calculating the degree of 
amendments between the Houses, an amendment of one House resulting from 
its initial consideration of a bill of the other House is not 
considered an amendment, but is construed to be the original text of 
the amending House. House Rules and Manual Sec. 529 (1997).
14.     105 CONG. REC. 11108, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 129]]

concur with an amendment in the Senate amendment to the House amendment 
to the Senate bill, an issue arose concerning the possibility of 
introducing a substi- tute for Mr. Harris' motion. The Speaker 
indicated erroneously that such a substitute would be in the third 
degree, and hence not in order. The Speaker did indicate correctly, 
however, that the substitute would be in order if Mr. Harris' motion 
were defeated. Amendments between the Houses may not go beyond the 
second degree, nor may they do so internally within either House. 
However, an amendment pending in one House to the original text of the 
other House or to an amendment in the first degree of that other House, 
may itself be amended to the second degree. Contra, 5 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 6176 (Senate precedent).


Sec.    6.4 Where a Senate amendment to a House bill had been reported 
from conference in disagreement and  the Senate had amended a further 
House amendment thereto, motions in the House to agree or disagree to 
the Senate amendment to the House amendment are privileged in the 
House (the stage of disagreement having been reached on the initial 
Senate amendment); but in response to a parliamentary inquiry, the 
Chair implied that a motion to concur with a further amendment would 
be in the third degree and not in order.
On Oct. 18, 1973,(15) Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, offered the 
following motion:

Mr. Speaker, I move to take from the Speaker's desk the bill 
(H.R. 9639) to amend the National School Lunch and Child Nutrition 
Acts for the purpose of providing additional Federal financial 
assistance to the school lunch and school breakfast programs, with a 
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment No. 5 
thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment No. 5. . . . 
MR. [ALBERT H.] QUIE [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(16) The gentleman will state it.
MR. QUIE: Mr. Speaker, since the House has already adopted the 
conference report and since the other body added an amendment afterward 
when they adopted the conference report, is there anything we can do 
other than defeat the motion before us? Is there any way we can have a 
separate amendment to strike out?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     119 CONG. REC. 34699, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. 
16.     Carl Albert (Okla.). 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 130]]

THE SPEAKER: The House can either accept or reject the Senate 
amendment.
Third Degree by Special Order


Sec.    6.5 A special order can make in order the consideration of 
amendments in the third degree as a way of resolving differences on 
amendments in disagreement between the House and Senate.
The special order in this instance made it in order in the House to 
consider motions to concur in Senate amendments to House amendments to 
a Senate amendment in disagreement between the Houses, with further
amendments. In this situation,(17) the amendments in the third degree 
were spelled out in the report of the Committee on Rules, and the 
resolution provided for one hour of debate on each motion and ordered 
the previous question, without intervening motion, to prevent other
amendments.

MR. [BART] GORDON [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 260 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 260
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2493) making appropriations for
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1994, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments to the House
amendments to the Senate amendments numbered 29 and 164 thereto, and 
to consider: (1) a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment 
to the House amendment to the Senate amendment numbered 29 with the 
amendment printed in section 2 of this resolution; and (2) a motion 
that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment 
to the Senate amendment numbered 164 with the amendment printed in 
section 3 of this resolution. Each Senate amendment shall be considered 
as read. Each motion shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations. The previous question shall be considered 
as ordered on each motion to final adoption without intervening motion.
SEC. 2. The House amendment to the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment numbered 29 is as follows: In the 
matter proposed to be added by the Senate amendment, insert after the 
word "operations" the following: ", except for marketing year 1993".  

After debate, the resolution was agreed to. The two motions permitted 
by the rule were debated and agreed to.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     See 139 CONG. REC. 23061, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 29, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 131]]

Third Degree Amendments Between the Houses


Sec.    6.6 Example of a special order providing that on its adoption, 
the House shall be considered to have receded from its disagreement to 
a third degree Senate amendment to a House amendment to a Senate 
amendment, and concurred in the final Sen-ate amendment with a new 
House amendment. 
In the 99th Congress,(18) the Committee on Rules reported several 
"hereby" resolutions, designed to accomplish a legislative objective 
by their adoption rather than making in order motions to accomplish 
the same result. 
The special order on this occasion(19) permitted the House to dispose 
of an amendment between the Houses by a further amendment in the third 
degree. 
Proceedings were as indicated below:

MR. [BUTLER] DERRICK [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 390, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 390
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall be
considered to have taken from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3128) 
to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 2 of the first 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1986 
(S. Con. Res. 32, Ninety-ninth Congress), with the Senate amendment to 
the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, to have receded 
from its disagreement to the Senate amendment, and to have concurred 
in the Senate amendment with an amendment printed in the Congressional 
Record of March 4, 1986, by Representative Gray of Pennsylvania.

THE SPEAKER:(20) The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
MR. DERRICK: Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes, for 
purposes of debate only, to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], 
and pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

After debate, the resolution was agreed to.
Since the special resolution was drafted as a "self-executing" motion, 
its adoption concluded the disposition of the amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     See 131 CONG. REC. 4347, 4361, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 5, 1985 
(H. Res. 92); 132 CONG. REC. 3783, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 6, 1986 
(H. Res. 390); 132 CONG. REC. 29608, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1986.
19.     132 CONG. REC. 3783, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 6, 1986.
20.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 132]]

Disposing of Amendments in Third Degree and Beyond


Sec.    6.7 A motion in the House to concur in a Senate amendment (even 
in the fourth degree) is privileged if offered by any Member, the stage 
of disagreement having been reached, but is subject to a motion to table.
On Mar. 18, 1986,(1) the House considered a series of motions dealing 
with the final amendment in disagreement on H.R. 3128, the deficit 
reduction amendments of 1985. 
The admonition in section 526 of Jefferson's Manual is not an absolute
prohibition against amendments between the Houses progressing beyond the
second degree. The rationale for the limit on amendments is that it 
provides a procedural signal that it is time to compromise. Once that
threshold has been passed, where the House has waived the rule to amend 
in the third degree and the Senate has done likewise, no point of order 
lies in the House against a privileged motion to agree to the Senate
amendment.
When the Speaker recognized Mrs. Lynn Martin, of Illinois, to offer the
initial motion to concur in the fourth degree Senate amendment, the
proceedings were as follows:
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Hallen, one of its clerks, announced 
that the Senate agrees to the amendment of the House to the amendment 
of the Senate to the amendment of the House to the amendment of the 
Senate to the bill (H.R. 3128) "An Act to make changes in spending and 
revenue provisions for purposes of deficit reduction and program 
improvement, consistent with the budget process," with an amendment
. . . .
DEFICIT REDUCTION AMENDMENTS OF 1985 
MRS. MARTIN of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(2) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mrs. Martin of Illinois moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill, 
H.R. 3128, with the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the 
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment 
thereto, and to concur in the Senate amendment.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the 
Senate amendment to the House 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     132 CONG. REC. 5195, 5205, 5206, 5210, 5216, 5217, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     William V. Alexander (Ark.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 133]]

amendment to the Senate amendment, as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the said amendment, 
insert:
In section 4016, insert "or seasonal suspension" after "adjustment in
frequency"; and insert "adjustment or" after "service unless such".
In subparagraph (F)(ii) of paragraph (10) of section 204(b) of the 
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as proposed to be 
amended by section 6021, strike out "from such nations". . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Martin] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Gray] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Martin]. . . . 
MR. [WILLIAM H.] GRAY [III] of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I would 
inquire of the gentlewoman from Illinois how many speakers the 
gentlewoman has remaining.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under the rules, the gentlewoman from Illinois 
[Mrs. Martin] is entitled to close the debate.
MRS. MARTIN of Illinois: I will be closing, Mr. Speaker. That will be 
the last speaker, Mr. Speaker. . . . 
Please vote to concur and not to table.
I yield back the balance of my time.
MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MR. GRAY OF PENNSYLVANIA
MR. GRAY of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Gray of Pennsylvania moves to table the motion to concur.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gray] to table the motion to concur 
offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Martin].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MRS. MARTIN of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not  present.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 217, nays 
192, not voting 25. . . . 
Instance Where House Agreed to Amendment in Third Degree Between the 
Houses


Sec.    6.8 Instance where, by unan-imous consent, the House agreed to 
an amendment in the third degree to a Senate amendment.
In the 95th Congress, on Sept. 30, 1977,(3) the House by unanimous 
consent, took from the Speaker's table a House bill, with a Senate 
amendment to the House 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     123 CONG. REC. 31704, 31705, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 134]]

amendment to the Senate amendment and concurred therein with a further 
amendment. The request by the bill manager is shown below.
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR TERRITORIES OF THE UNITED STATES
MR. PHILLIP BURTON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 6550) to 
authorize certain appropriations for the territories of the United 
States, to amend certain acts relating thereto, and for other purposes, 
with a Senate amendment to  the House amendment to the Senate amendment 
No. 10 thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER:(4) The Clerk will report the Senate amendment to the House
amendment to the Senate amendment No. 10. . . . 
The Clerk will report the House amendment to the Senate amendment to 
the House amendment to Senate amendment No. 10.
The Clerk read the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the House
amendment to Senate amendment No. 10, as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, 
insert the following: . . . 

MR. DON H. CLAUSEN [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my 
reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Amendment in Third Degree Between Houses


Sec.    6.9 The stage of disagreement having been reached on a House 
amendment to a Senate amendment to a House proposition, the House, by 
motion, receded from its last amendment and, having receded, then 
concurred in the Senate amendment with a different amendment.
The proceedings of Oct. 12, 1977,(5) relating to Senate amendment 82, 
reported in disagreement from the conference on H.R. 7555, the Labor 
and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill for fiscal 1978, 
show one method which has been used on rare occasions when the House 
was faced with a problem of an amendment in the third degree. The
Parliamentarian's note which follows the Record proceedings provides 
some historical insight into this rarely used practice.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
 5.     123 CONG. REC. 33445, 33447, 33448, 33454, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 135]]

MR. [DANIEL J.] FLOOD [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on Senate amendment No. 82 to H.R. 7555 making
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and
Welfare, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1978, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
August 2, 1977.)
After the conference report was agreed to, the remaining Senate 
amendment in disagreement was reported:

THE SPEAKER:(6) The Clerk will report the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
House amendment to Senate amendment No. 82: Insert the following:
SEC. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be 
endangered if the fetus were carried to term.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FLOOD
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Motion offered by Mr. Flood: Mr. Flood moves that the House recede from 
its amendment to the amendment of the Senate numbered 82.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) will be recognized for 30 minutes 
each.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
MR. FLOOD: . . . The House conferees suggested new language to 
accommodate the view of the Senate, especially the many Senators who 
were concerned over rape and incest, but again this proposal was 
rejected.
At this point it became very apparent that nothing could be 
accomplished by further conference and the conferees decided to report 
that they could not agree.
Mr. Speaker, if the motion I just offered is agreed to, I shall then 
offer the following language:
SEC. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be 
endangered if the fetus were carried to term. This section does not 
prohibit payment for medical procedures, nor are payments prohibited 
for drugs or devices to prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum, 
or for medical procedures necessary for the termination of an ectopic
pregnancy.

We hope the Senate will accept this language today and clear this bill 
for the President. I would urge the Members to vote for the pending 
motion and to vote for the motion which I shall offer if the pending 
motion is agreed to. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).

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


[[Page 136]]

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Bauman) 
there were-yeas 80, nays 62.
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote 
on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order 
that a quorum is not present.
THE SPEAKER: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 209, nays 
206, not voting 19 . . .
So the motion [to recede] was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FLOOD
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Flood moves that the House concur in the amendment of the Senate 
numbered 82 with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter 
stricken and inserted by said amendment, insert the following:
SEC. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be 
endangered if the fetus were carried to term. This section does not 
prohibit payment for medical procedures, performed before the fact of
pregnancy is established, necessary for the prompt treatment of the 
victims of forced rape or incest reported to a law enforcement agency. 
Nor are payments prohibited for drugs or devices to prevent 
implantation of the fertilized ovum, or for medical procedures 
necessary for the termination of an ectopic pregnancy.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) are recognized for 30 minutes 
each.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood)
. . . . 
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(7) The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MS. [ELIZABETH] HOLTZMAN [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the 
vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of 
order that a quorum is not present.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 263, nays 
142, answered "present" 1, not voting 28.

Parliamentarian's Note: Section 526 of Jefferson's Manual, states as a
principle of parliamentary law that the House may not recede from or 
insist on its own amendment with a further amendment. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     John Brademas (Ind.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 137]]

The precedents cited there (5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6216-6218) 
all involved situations where the Speaker ruled that the House could not, 
in a single motion, recede from its amendment with an amendment. 
The more recent practice in the House has been to permit the 
two-step approach suggested in 8 Cannon's Precedents 
Sec. 3199, on the theory that a motion to recede from a House amendment 
and concur in the Senate amendment was divisible, and that if the 
question were   divided and the House receded from its amendment, the 
Senate amendment was not thereby agreed to but that a further motion 
to concur with an amendment could be offered.

Senate Action When Faced With Amending in Third Degree

Sec.    6.10 Instance where the Senate, faced with a situation where 
any further amendment between the Houses on an amendment in disagreement 
would be in the third degree, adopted a unanimous consent agreement to 
permit it to recede from its last amendment and, if that motion were 
agreed to, to concur with a new amendment.
On Nov. 29, 1977,(8) a unanimous-consent request relating to an 
amendment in the third degree was made in the Senate, as indicated 
below:

MR. ROBERT C. BYRD [of West Virginia]: Mr. President, I ask the Chair 
to lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives 
on H.R. 7555.
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 82 to 
the bill (H.R. 7555) entitled "An Act making appropriations for the
Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare, and related
agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, and for other
purposes."

MR. ROBERT C. BYRD: Mr. President, anent the unanimous-consent 
agreement that was entered into a moment ago with respect to the 
message from the House of Representatives on H.R. 7555, I ask unanimous
consent that at 3:55 p.m. today the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina be allowed to make a motion to recede with respect to the 
Senate amendment to the House amendment, which motion shall be decided 
without debate, and if that motion is agreed to Mr. Brooke will then 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     123 CONG. REC. 37981, 37982, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 138]]

be allowed to move to concur in the House amendment with an amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

In 1977, the bill H.R. 7555, making appropriations for the Departments 
of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare never did become law. The 
dispute between the House and Senate over Senate amendment 82, dealing 
with the restriction of funds for abortions, could not be resolved and
remained in disagreement at sine die adjournment.
Amendment Between Houses in Third Degree 


Sec.    6.11 On occasion, by unanimous consent, the House progresses 
to a third degree amendment-in this instance by amending a Senate 
amendment to a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House bill.
The proceedings excerpted from the Record of Dec. 19, 1979,(9) and 
carried here are self-explanatory but illustrate the type of request 
that is sometimes entertained to expedite consideration of a measure 
and avoid the time delays involved in the various steps required to 
proceed through a conference.

MR. [FERNAND J.] ST GERMAIN [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 4998) 
to amend the Federal Reserve Act to require that detailed minutes of 
Federal Open Market Committee meetings shall be published on a deferred 
basis, with a Senate amendment to House amendments to Senate amendments, 
and concur in the Senate amendment to House amendments to Senate 
amendments with an amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The Clerk will report the Senate amendment 
to House amendments to Senate amendments and the proposed House 
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House engrossed 
amendment to the Senate amendment to the text of the bill, insert: . . .
[The Senate amendment was reported.]

The House amendment to the Senate amendment in the second degree was as
follows:

SEC. 106. The President shall convene an interagency task force 
consisting of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Housing 
and Urban Development, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the Board of

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     125 CONG. REC. 36903, 36906, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     Joseph G. Minish (N.J.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 139]]

Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Board of Directors of the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Comptroller of the Currency, 
and the National Credit Union Administration Board. . . .

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Rhode Island?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Scope of Amendment


Sec.    6.12 In amending a Senate amendment to an appropriation bill, 
reported from conference in disagreement, the House is not confined 
within the limits of amount set by the original bill and the Senate 
amendment.
On May 15, 1940,(11) the House was considering the amendments in 
disagreement to H.R. 8202, the agriculture appropriation bill. Mr. 
Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, offered a motion to recede and concur 
with an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Cannon of Missouri moves that the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 110 and agree to the 
same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum of $40,000,000 
named in said amendment insert "$100,000,000."

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order 
that this amount exceeds the amount carried in the Senate amendment 
and is not in order at this time.
MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, the only requirement is that it 
be germane, and this is certainly germane to the Senate amendment to 
which it is offered. The gentleman's point of order is not well taken.
THE SPEAKER:(12) The point of order raised by the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Taber] has heretofore been very thoroughly passed upon. The 
Chair cites section 3189, of Cannon's Precedents, volume 8:

In amending a Senate amendment the House is not confined within the 
limits of amount set by the original bill and the Senate amendment.

The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.
Amendment to Senate Amendment Must Be Germane


Sec.    6.13 A motion to recede from disagreement to a Senate amendment 
and to concur therein with a further amendment must be germane to the 
Senate amendment; and the proper rule to cite in expressing a point of 
order that the test has not been met is Rule XVI clause 7, and 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     86 CONG. REC. 6184, 6185, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. 
12.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.). 
        
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 140]]

not the more complicated mechanism of Rule XXVIII clause 5.
On June 30, 1987,(13) during consideration of the supplemental 
appropriation bill for fiscal year 1987, Mr. Bill Frenzel, of 
Minnesota, raised a point of order against the motion offered by 
Chairman Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi, to recede and concur with 
an amendment in one of the Senate amendments reported from conference 
in disagreement. 
The proceedings were as shown:

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(14) The Clerk will designate the next 
amendment in disagreement.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment No. 5: Page 3, after line 7, insert:
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds 
appropriated for fiscal year 1987 shall be used for the purpose of 
granting any patent for vertebrate or invertebrate animals, modified, 
altered, or in any way changed through engineering technology, 
including genetic engineering.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. WHITTEN
MR. WHITTEN: 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. Whitten moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 5 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed by said 
amendment, insert the following:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Not to exceed $14,100,000 appropriated and available for obligation 
and expenditure under section 108(a)(1) of Public Law 99-190, as 
amended, shall remain available for obligation through September 30, 
1988: Provided, That the Economic Development Administration shall 
close out the audits concerning grants to New York, New York pursuant 
to title I of the Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment 
Act of 1976, not later than August 1, 1987.
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES
None of the funds appropriated by this or any prior Act to the Patent 
and Trademark Office shall be used to purchase the mass storage 
requirement (PTO-10) portion of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Automation Project.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. FRENZEL: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against Senate 
amendment No. 5.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     133 CONG. REC. 18294, 18295, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
14.     Daniel R. Glickman (Kans.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 141]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. FRENZEL: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against [the proposed 
House amendment to] amendment No. 5 reported in disagreement of the
supplemental appropriation conference report on page 13 of the report, 
and on page 3 lines 19 through 23 of the printed bill now before us 
which relates to procurement by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
automation project pursuant to rule XXVIII, clause 5(a)(1). This rule 
relates to nongermane matter in amendments in disagreement.
As I interpret it, the rule states that any matter introduced as a new 
issue in a conference committee which would have been otherwise ruled 
out of order if it came before the House, would likewise be made 
eligible for a point of order as reported in amendments in disagreement 
from the conference committee should there be a motion from the House 
to recede from its disagreement with the Senate. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Frenzel] is 
raising a point of order against the motion, is that correct as being 
not germane to the Senate amendment under rule XVI, clause 7?
MR. FRENZEL: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does anybody else desire to be heard on the 
point of order?
MR. [NEAL] SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] concedes 
the point of order and the point of order is sustained against the 
motion.
Proper Time To Raise a Point of Order That Senate Amendment Is Not 
Germane


Sec.    6.14 Pending a unanimous-consent request to concur with an 
amendment in a Senate amendment, no point of  order  lies  against  
the Senate amendment on the ground it is not germane.
In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker Pro Tempore(15) 
explained the alternatives available to a Member where a 
unanimous-consent request was pending to take H.R. 5398, the Emergency
Homeowners' Relief Act, to which the Senate had appended an amendment 
that was not germane, from the table and concur with a further 
amendment.(16) 

MR. [HENRY S.] REUSS [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5398) to 
authorize temporary assistance to help defray mortgage payments on 
homes owned by persons who are temporarily unemployed or underemployed 
as the result of adverse economic conditions, with a Senate amendment 
thereto, as printed in the Congressional Record dated June 25, 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     John J. McFall (Calif.).
16.     121 CONG. REC. 20977, 20979, 20980, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., June 26, 1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 142]]

1975, at pages 20794-97, and concur in the Senate amendment with amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. That this Act may be cited as the "Emergency Housing Act of 
1975". . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the House amendment to 
the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the House amendment to the Senate amendment, as follows:

Section 203, strike the whole section and renumber accordingly.
Section 205, strike the whole section and renumber accordingly.
Section 303, insert a new section 303.
SEC. 303. Section 202(b) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 
is amended by inserting before the period at the end thereof a comma 
and the following: "except that the prohibition contained in this 
sentence shall not apply to any loan made prior to January 1, 1976, to 
finance the acquisition of a previously occupied residential dwelling".

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Reuss)? . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Chair whether or not 
there is any way an individual Member can attack the nongermaneness of 
that particular amendment, or is it includ-ed in the unanimous-consent
request, which would mean that one would have to object to the request 
in order to request a division on the nongermane provisions.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would advise the gentleman, in 
answer to his parliamentary inquiry, that it is all under one 
unanimous-consent request; it is all one package.
MR. BAUMAN: But the gentleman could withdraw from his request 
concerning that amendment, could he not?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If there was an objection, the gentleman then 
could ask unanimous consent for something else. That is correct.
Amendments to Senate Amend-ments to Appropriation Bills; Germaneness
Requirements

Sec.    6.15 Senate amendments pro-posing legislation on an 
appropriation bill may be amended by germane amend-ments.
On June 15, 1943,(17) the House was considering the amendments in 
disagreement to H.R. 1648, Treasury and Post Office appropriations for 
1944. A motion offered by Mr. Louis Ludlow, of 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     89 CONG. REC. 5899, 5900, 78th Cong. 1st Sess. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 143]]

Indiana, to recede and concur was divided on demand of Mr. John Taber, 
of New York, and the House voted to recede. Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of 
Wisconsin, then offered a preferential motion to concur with an amendment 
which included a provision prohibiting the use of funds for certain 
purposes after Jan.1, 1944. Mr. Emmet O'Neal, of Kentucky, then raised 
a point of order:

Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the amendment is not 
germane to the paragraph under discussion. It goes beyond the matters
considered in the paragraph.
MR. LUDLOW: I supplement that with the suggestion, Mr. Speaker, also 
that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
THE SPEAKER:(18) But the Senate amendment is legislation on an 
appropriation bill, or the matter would not be here. The only 
difference that the Chair can see is that there is a further 
proviso-a difference in the date.
MR. O'NEAL: Which is beyond the scope of the paragraph and, therefore, 
is not germane. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair has great respect for the opinion of the 
gentleman from Kentucky upon this and all other matters, but he cannot 
agree with the point that the gentleman makes. The only difference that 
the Chair can see between the motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
and what was in the House bill and is now in the bill as it comes from 
the Senate is fixing the dates January 1, 1944, and June 30, 1944. The 
Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.


Sec.    6.16 Where a Senate amendment on a general appropriation bill 
proposes an expenditure not authorized by law, it is in order in the 
House to perfect such Senate amendment by germane amendments.
On Feb. 8, 1937,(19) the House was considering amendments in 
disagreement to H.R. 3587, a deficiency appropriation bill. A motion 
was offered by Mr. Clifton A. Woodrum, of Virginia, to recede and 
concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment. Mr. Henry Ellenbogen, 
of Pennsylvania, offered a preferential motion to recede and concur, 
and Mr. Woodrum demanded a division of that question. The motion to 
recede was agreed to, whereupon Mr. Woodrum moved to concur in the 
Senate amendment with an amendment. After the Clerk read Mr. Woodrum's 
motion, Mr. Ellenbogen rose with a point of order:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.). 
19.     81 CONG. REC. 975, 976, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 144]]

Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the motion of the gentleman 
from Virginia violates the rules of the House in that it is legislation 
on an appropriation bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(20) The Chair will state that the Senate 
amendment is legislation and the amendment to that amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Virginia is not out of order because it contains
legislation. The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.
MR. [THOMAS] O'MALLEY [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. O'MALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the amendment 
of the gentleman from Virginia is not germane, since it limits the 
Senate amendment by date.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will state that it deals with the 
same subject matter, and the mere limitation of the Senate amendment 
by date does not destroy its germaneness, and the Chair therefore 
overrules the point of order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     John J. O'Connor (N.Y.). 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 145]]

B. DISPOSING OF AMENDMENTS BETWEEN THE HOUSES; MOTIONS


 
                House-Senate Relations
 
                  A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    7. In General; Precedence

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

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


[[Page 146]]

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

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


[[Page 147]]

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 148]]

pended until an authorization shall have been enacted into law.

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

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

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

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


[[Page 149]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 150]]

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

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

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

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


[[Page 151]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 152]]

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

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

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

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

THE SPEAKER:(13) The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) is recognized for 
1 hour. . . . 
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
preferential motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the preferential motion offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
MR. GIAIMO: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
THE SPEAKER: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 323, nays 
99, not voting 10. . . . 
So the preferential motion was agreed to.
Stage of Disagreement, Once Reached, Continues as Additional Amendments 
Are Considered

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


[[Page 153]]

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

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

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

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


[[Page 154]]

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 155]]

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

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

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


[[Page 156]]

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

When a conference report is ruled out of order the bill and amendments 
are again before the House as when first presented, and motions 
relating to amendments and conference are again in order.

The Chair thinks that completely answers the gentleman from Michigan.
MR. MAPES: That seems to cover the matter.
MR. [FREDERICK R.] LEHLBACH [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. LEHLBACH: Are amendments put on a House bill by the Senate 
privileged?
THE SPEAKER: After the stage of disagreement has been reached they are. 
For this reason it is necessary that the House take some action upon 
the amendments at this time.
Recognition Following Rejection of Conference Report
Sec.    7.7 Upon rejection of a conference report on a House bill with 
Senate amendments, the manager is entitled to priority in recognition 
to offer a motion to dispose of the amendments; and he may move to 
disagree with all the amendments and request a further conference, 
although this motion is not of the highest priority.
On Oct. 20, 1990,(1) the House ordered the previous question on, and 
then rejected, the conference report on H.R. 5311, the District  

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


[[Page 157]]

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 158]]

Administration hospital at Bay Pines, Florida.".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 159]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[Page 160]

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


[Page 161]]

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

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

Motion offered by Mr. Gray of Pennsylvania: Mr. Gray of Pennsylvania 
moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill H.R. 3128 with the 
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the 
House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto and to disagree to the 
Senate amendment.

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

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


[[Page 162]]

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

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

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


[[Page 163]]

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


[[Page 164]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[Page 165]]

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

The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 166]]

ous question on the motion offered by Mr. Giaimo.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

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


[[Page 167]]

Education, and Welfare, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1978, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment 
to the House amendment to Senate amendment numbered 82, disagree to 
the amendment of the Senate, and request a conference with the Senate 
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER:(1) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FLOOD
Mr. Flood moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill H.R. 7555, 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and Health, 
Education, and Welfare, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1978, and for other purposes, with a Senate 
amendment to the House amendment to Senate amendment numbered 82, 
disagree to the amendment of the Senate, and request a conference with 
the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. STEERS
MR. [NEWTON J.] STEERS [Jr., of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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


[[Page 168]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 169]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 170]]

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

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

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


[[Page 171]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 172]]

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

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

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


[[Page 173]]

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

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

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


[[Page 174]]

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

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

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


[[Page 175]]

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 176]]

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

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


[[Page 177]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 178]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 179]]

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

I offer the following amendment to the Senate amendment.

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


[[Page 180]]

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 181]]

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 182]]

MOTION OFFERED BY MR. NATCHER
MR. [WILLIAM H.] NATCHER [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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


[[Page 183]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the preferential motion 
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present, and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 190, nays 
199, answered "present" 1, not voting 44. . . . 
So the preferential motion to table was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
MR. NATCHER: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion 
now pending.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the preferential motion offered by the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) to concur in the Senate amendment No. 37, with 
an amendment.
The question is on the preferential motion offered by the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. [JOHN H.] ROUSSELOT [of California]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 199, nays 
183, answered "present" 1, not voting 51.

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

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


[[Page 184]]

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

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



 
                House-Senate Relations
 
                  A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    8. Recognition To Offer Motions; Control of the Floor

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

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


[[Page 185]]

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

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

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


[[Page 186]]

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

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

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

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


[[Page 187]]

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

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

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


[[Page 188]]

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

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

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the preferential motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present. . . . 
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 133, nays 
259, answered "present" 15, not voting 27. . . .


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

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


[[Page 190]]

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 191]]

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

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

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

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

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



[[Page 192]]

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

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

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

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


[[Page 193]]

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 194]]

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


[[Page 195]]

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

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

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


[[Page 196]]

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

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

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


[[Page 197]]

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

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

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

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


[[Page 198]]

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

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


[[Page 199]]

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

The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 200]]

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

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

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

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


[[Page 201]

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


[[Page 202]]

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

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


[[Page 203]]

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 204]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 205]]

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

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

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

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


[[Page 206]]

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 207]]

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

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

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

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


[[Page 208]]

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) is recognized 
for 1 hour.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the preferential motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the preferential motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes appeared 
to have it.
MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
THE SPEAKER: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 198, 
nays 195, not voting 37.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 209]]

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

THE SPEAKER:(12) The Clerk will report the Senate amendments in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

After controlling one hour of debate, Mr. Evins moved the previous 
question on the motion offered by Mr. Giaimo.

MR. EVINS of Tennessee: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question 
and urge that you vote against the preferential motion. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the preferential motion offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Giaimo] that the House recede from its
disagreement to Senate amendments No. 58 and No. 59, and concur therein.
MR. EVINS of Tennessee: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 156, nays 241, not voting 
35. . . . 
So the preferential motion was rejected. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Evins] that the House insist upon its disagreement 
to the amendments of the Senate No. 58 and No. 59.
The motion was agreed to.

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


[[Page 210]]

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

MR. [J. VAUGHAN] GARY [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I send a motion to 
the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 211]]

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

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


[[Page 212]]

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 213]]

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 214]]

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

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

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


[[Page 215]]

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

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

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


[[Page 216]]

The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

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

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


[[Page 217]]

utes, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] will be recognized for 
20 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes. . . . 
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Skeen].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. FAWELL: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were yeas 140, nays 
274, not voting 19. . . . 
So the House refused to recede and concur in the amendment of the 
Senate numbered 164 with an amendment.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FAWELL
MR. FAWELL: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

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

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


[[Page 218]]

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 219]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 220]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 221]]

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

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

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


[[Page 222]]

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

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


 
                House-Senate Relations
 
                  A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    9. To Agree or Concur

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

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


[[Page 223]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 224]]

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 225]]

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 226]]

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

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

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

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


[[Page 227]]

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 228]]

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 229]]

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

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

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

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


[[Page 230]]

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

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

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

[[Page 231]]

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

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

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

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


[[Page 232]]

THE SPEAKER: It could be.


 
                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.


 
                House-Senate Relations
 
                  A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    11. To Concur With an Amendment; To Recede and Concur With an
Amendment

A motion to concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment, or to recede 
from disagreement to a particular Senate amendment and amend it 
further, if adopted, adds another level to the degree of amendments 
between the Houses.(11) 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     John J. McFall (Calif.).
11.     See Sec.Sec. 523-525, House Rules and Manual (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 269]]

Motions of this character may or may not be privileged, depending on 
whether the stage of disagreement has been reached.

Concurrence With an Amendment by Unanimous Consent
Sec.    11.1 The House may by unanimous consent take from the Speaker's 
table a House bill with a Senate amendment, and concur in the Senate 
amendment with an amendment.
On Mar. 12, 1942,(12) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [SCHUYLER OTIS] BLAND [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 6550) to extend 
and amend Subtitle-Insurance of Title II of the Merchant Marine Act, 
1936, as amended (Public, No. 677, 76th Cong.), approved June 29, 1940, 
and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment, and concur in the 
Senate amendment with the following amendment, which I send to the desk.
THE SPEAKER:(13) The Clerk will report the title of the bill and the 
Senate amendment, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bland asks unanimous consent to concur in the Senate amendment to 
the bill H.R. 6550, with an amendment as follows: After the word 
"repeal," in line 12, page 1, of the engrossed bill, insert the 
following before the period: "and such authority is hereby vested in 
the Administrator of the War Shipping Administration in conformity with 
the President's Executive order of February 7, 1942, No. 9054-7-FR-873."

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection?
There was no objection.
The Senate amendment as amended was agreed to.
Sec.    11.2 A unanimous-consent request to take a House bill with a 
Senate amendment from the Speaker's table and concur with a further 
amendment is self-executing if not objected to, and is not severable, 
so that a vote is not permitted on the Senate amendment or amendment 
thereto. 
The parliamentary exchanges between Speaker Thomas P.  O'Neill, Jr., 
of Massachusetts, Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland, and Mr. William 
E. Dannemeyer, of California, on Dec. 15, 1980,(14) illustrate the 
concept of a self-executing unanimous-consent re-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     88 CONG. REC. 1843, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
13.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
14.     126 CONG. REC. 34184-89, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 270]]

quest. On this occasion, when an objection was lodged against the 
unanimous-consent request, the legislative action was accomplished by a 
motion to suspend the rules, since suspension motions happened to be 
in order on that day under Rule XXVII. 

MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the joint resolution 
(H.J. Res. 644) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal 
year 1981, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and 
concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment and the House amendment to the 
Senate amendment, as follows:

Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of applicable corporate or 
other revenues, receipts, and funds, for the several departments, 
agencies, corporations, and other organizational units of the 
Government for the fiscal year 1981, and for other purposes, namely:
SEC. 101. (a)(1) Such amounts as may be necessary for projects or 
activities (not otherwise specifically provided for in this joint 
resolution) for which appropriations, funds, or other authority would 
be available in the following appropriation Acts: . . . 
House amendment to Senate amendment: In lieu of the matter inserted by 
said amendment, insert the following:
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of applicable corporate 
or other revenue, receipts, and funds, for the several departments, 
agencies, corporations, and other organizational units of the 
Government for the fiscal year 1981, and for other purposes, namely: 
. . . 

MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dannemeyer)
informs me his concern is getting a rollcall vote on agreeing to the
amendments proposed by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten). 
Would it be in order to ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays 
be ordered on this; the amendments the gentleman from Mississippi 
offers at the appropriate time?
THE SPEAKER: There is a manner in which the House can grant unanimous 
consent to consider the Senate amendment, and to then offer an 
amendment which would require a vote. There must be 217 Members voting.
The Chair has glanced around the Chamber and finds at the present a 
precarious number present on the floor. The Chair does not know whether 
the House can get a sufficient number or not. I would hope at the same 
time the gentleman appreciates, as he understands the law, that the 
Social Security Offices close in the morning. Any person who wanted 
social security could not go into an office. The courts in this country
legally are supposed to close 


[[Page 271]]

tomorrow if the Congress has not passed the bill.
If there is a negotiating team negotiating at the present time with 
regards to the hostages, that negotiating team has no funds to pay 
salaries to negotiate.
Those are the complications that are apparent at the present time. It 
is of a serious nature. The Chair would hope that the gentleman would
reconsider his action, because this matter would have to go to the 
other body, at which time the other body, as the Chair understands, has
recessed until 12:30 to see what action this House is going to take.
The Chair does not truly know what the action of the other body would 
be if this were to pass here.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from California withdraws 
his objection to the unanimous-consent request, what would then be the
procedure whereby a Member of the House could ask for an amendment on 
the proposal that the gentleman from Mississippi has talked about to 
the proposal which came from the other body?
THE SPEAKER: There is no method by which an amendment could be offered 
without a change in the request by the gentleman from Mississippi. He 
is in charge of it. His all one unanimous-consent request. . . . 
Does the Chair understand that the gentleman from New York will stop 
the Government running because of a $2 million debt that is owed to 
the Olympic team?
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
MR. [SAMUEL S.] STRATTON [of New York]: I object, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Mississippi?
MR. STRATTON: I object, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) objects.
Objection is heard. . . . 
MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and take from the
Speaker's table the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 644) making further 
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1981, and for other purposes, 
with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment 
with an amendment.
The Clerk read the amendment to the Senate amendment, as follows:

In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment, insert the following:
Vacating Concurrence
Sec.    11.3 The House, by unanimous consent, vacated proceedings 
whereby it had concurred in a Senate amendment with an amendment, and 
then agreed to a motion to concur with a further amendment.


[[Page 272]]

On June 14, 1967,(15) Mr. Edward A. Garmatz, of Maryland, made the 
following request regarding H.R. 5424, appropriations for vessels, 
aircraft, and the construction of Coast Guard establishments:

MR. GARMATZ: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the 
proceedings whereby the House concurred, with an amendment to Senate 
amendment No. 2 to the bill, H.R. 5424.
THE SPEAKER:(16) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Maryland?
There was no objection.
MR. GARMATZ: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House concur in the Senate 
amendment No. 2 with an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Garmatz moves that the House concur in Senate amendment No. 2 with 
the following amendment: In lieu of "$37,663,000" insert "$37,963,000".

The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Agreement to Resolution for Concurrence Under Suspension of Rules
Sec.    11.4 The House agreed to a motion to suspend the rules and 
agree to a resolution offered by a Member which provided for taking 
a House bill with a Senate amendment from the Speaker's table and 
concurring in the Senate amendment with a designated amendment.
On Dec. 20, 1973,(17) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. 
Wright Patman, of Texas, to offer the following motion:

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the House 
resolution (H. Res. 753) to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
(H.R. 8449) to expand the national flood insurance program by 
substantially increasing limits of coverage and total amount of 
insurance authorized to be outstanding and by requiring known 
flood-prone communities to participate in the program, and for other 
purposes, with Senate amendment thereto, and agree to the Senate 
amendments with an amendment to strike out title III of the Senate 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. RES. 753
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
bill H.R. 8449, together with the Senate amendment thereto be, and the 
same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end that the 
Senate amendment be, and the same 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     113 CONG. REC. 15843, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
16.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
17.     119 CONG. REC. 42883, 42884, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 273]]

is hereby, agreed to with an amendment as follows:
"Strike out title III of the Senate amendment in the nature of a 
substitute."

After a brief debate the question was taken, and the motion to suspend 
the rules and agree to the resolution was adopted by a two-thirds 
majority.
Effect of Rejection of Committee of the Whole Recommendation
Sec.    11.5 If the House disagrees to the recommendation of the 
Committee of the Whole that the House concur in a Senate amendment with 
an amendment, such Senate amendment is before the House for 
consideration.
On July 12, 1945,(18) the Committee of the Whole upon consideration of 
Senate amendments to H.R. 3368, war agencies appropriations for 1946,
recommended, inter alia, that the House concur in Senate amendment No. 
1 with an amendment. Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, rose 
in the House:

If we do not adopt the amendment which was just adopted in Committee of 
the Whole, we will then take the Senate amendment as it stands?
MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]: No, sir.
THE SPEAKER:(19) The Senate amendment itself will be in order for
consideration.
Divisibility
Sec.    11.6 A motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with 
an amendment is divisible.
On May 20, 1936,(20) the House was considering Senate amendments to 
the Department of the Interior appropriations bill, reported from 
conference in disagreement.

MR. [EDWARD T.] TAYLOR of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House 
recede and concur in the Sen- ate amendment with the following 
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Taylor of Colorado moves that the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate no. 24, with an amendment, 
as follows:
"In line 10, the first line of the second paragraph of said amendment, 
after the word 'by' insert the following: 'and in accordance with.'."

MR. [JAMES P.] BUCHANAN [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     91 CONG. REC. 7474, 7493, 7494, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
19.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
20.     80 CONG. REC. 7616, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 274]]

 further insist on its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate no. 
24.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that the motion to recede and concur is a 
preferential motion. I ask a division of the motion to recede and 
concur.
THE SPEAKER:(1) The gentleman is entitled to a division of the motion. 
The question is, Will the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate?

Parliamentarian's Note: The two parts of the proposition which are 
distinct and hence divisible are first, that the House recede from its
disagreement to the Senate amendment, and second, that the House concur 
in that amendment with an amendment. Although the motions to concur in 
an amendment or to concur in a further amendment with an amendment may 
each be offered separately, the motion to concur (in an amendment) with 
an amendment, once offered as an entity, may not be divided. See Sec. 
11.8, infra.
Dividing Question on Motion To Recede and Concur
Sec.    11.7 A motion to recede and concur with an amendment in a 
Senate amendment reported from conference in disagreement may be 
divided, and the Chair will entertain the demand for a division 
immediately after the motion is offered. 
The proceedings of Sept. 24, 1975,(2) relating to the proper time to 
ask for a division of the question where a motion to recede and concur 
in a Senate amendment is pending are carried herein. The Chair may, as
indicated, entertain the demand for a division but may proceed with 
debate before putting the question on the first part of the motion.

THE SPEAKER:(3) The Clerk will report the first amendment in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 8: Page 16, line 18, strike:
"SEC. 104. None of the funds appropriated in this title shall be used 
for the purposes of negotiating the surrender or relinquishment of any 
U.S. rights in the Panama Canal Zone."
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. SLACK
MR. [JOHN M.] SLACK [Jr., of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Slack moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 8 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: Restore the 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
 2.     121 CONG. REC. 30071, 30080, 30081, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 275]]

matter stricken by said amendment amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 104. It is the sense of the Congress that any new Panama Canal 
treaty or agreement must protect the vital interests of the United 
States in the operation, maintenance, property and defense of the 
Panama Canal."
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [M. G. (GENE)] SNYDER [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. SNYDER: Mr. Speaker, is this the proper time for the gentleman from
Kentucky to demand a division of the question?
THE SPEAKER: It is.
MR. SNYDER: Mr. Speaker, then I demand a division of the question.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is entitled to a division of the question.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Slack) for 
30 minutes.
MR. SLACK: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, on June 26 the House adopted the Snyder amendment to H.R. 
8121 by a vote of 246 to 164. The House language read as follows:

SEC. 104. None of the funds appropriated in this title shall be used 
for the purposes of negotiating the surrender or relinquishment of any 
United States rights in the Panama Canal Zone.

The Senate amendment No. 8 struck this provision from the bill. After a
lengthy discussion, the conferees agreed on the following language:

SEC. 104. It is the sense of the Congress that any new Panama Canal 
treaty or agreement must protect the vital interests of the United 
States in the operation, maintenance, property and defense of the 
Panama Canal. . . . 

MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, we are facing a 
replay of the issue which this House decisively voted on last June 26. 
At that time by a majority of more than 80 votes, the House supported 
the Snyder amendment which simply forbids the State Department to use 
any funds to negotiate the surrender of our sovereign rights in the 
Panama Canal Zone. . . . 
I would sincerely request that every Member examine his conscience and 
vote again today in favor of the Snyder amendment, and that can be done 
by voting against the committee's motion to recede from our past strong 
stand.
THE SPEAKER: Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
MR. SNYDER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. SNYDER: Mr. Speaker, am I correct that the parliamentary situation 
is such that an "aye" vote would be agreeing to the committee's 
recommendation and a "no" vote would be to reject it?
THE SPEAKER: An "aye" vote would be that the House will recede from
disagreement to Senate amendment No. 8. A "no" vote is not to recede. 
In other words, a "no" vote is to vote for the po-


[[Page 276]]

sition of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Snyder).
MR. [JAMES C.] WRIGHT [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a further
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. WRIGHT: In order that all of us may understand this in exactly the 
same way, an "aye" vote would support the language recommended in the
conference committee report; is that correct?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct.
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. . . . 
Divisibility of Motion To Concur With an Amendment
Sec.    11.8 An amendment proposed in a motion to recede and concur in 
a Senate amendment with a further amendment is divisible only if the 
proposed House amendment is in a form amenable to division, and a 
motion to strike out and insert is not subject to the demand.
Where a motion is pending to concur with an amendment in a Senate 
amendment and the proposed House amendment is in the form of a motion 
to strike out and insert, precedents do not permit a division of the 
question between aspects of the matter to be inserted.(4) The motion 
offered by Mr. William Lehman, of Florida, on Oct. 15, 1986,(5) was 
not in a form which permitted the Chair to divide the question.

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

Senate Amendment No. 124, page 71, line 13: insert the following 
language:
TITLE VII
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS
SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
This title may be cited as the "Metropolitan Washington Airports Act 
of 1986". . . . 
SEC. 712. NONSTOP FLIGHTS.
A person may not operate an aircraft nonstop in air transportation 
between Washington National Airport and another airport that is more 
than 1,000 statute miles away from Washington National Airport.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     See Rule XVI clause 7 which states that "A motion to strike out 
and insert is indivisible . . .". House Rules and Manual Sec. 793 (1997).
 5.     132 CONG. REC. 32127, 32131, 32134, 32135, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 277]]

MOTION OFFERED BY MR. LEHMAN OF FLORIDA
MR. LEHMAN of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Lehman moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 124 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert the following:
TITLE VI-METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS
SEC. 6001. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the "Metropolitan Washington Airports Act 
of 1986". . . .
SEC. 6011. SEPARABILITY.
Except as provided in section 6007(h), if any provision of this title 
or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held 
invalid, the remainder of this title and the application of such 
provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected 
thereby.
SEC. 6012. NONSTOP FLIGHTS.
PERIMETER RULE.-An air carrier may not operate an aircraft non-stop 
in air transportation between Washington National Airport and another 
airport that is more than 1,250 statute miles away from Washington 
National Airport. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
right to object, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. CONTE: Mr. Speaker, is it permissible to separate or divide the 
question on the perimeter rule?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The answer is in the negative. In the form 
submitted the proposed House amendment is not divisible.
MR. CONTE: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Sec.    11.9 A privileged motion to concur in a Senate amendment with 
an amendment was held not subject to a demand for a division.
On Aug. 3, 1973,(7) the House was considering the conference report 
on S. 1888, the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973. The 
conferees had been unable to agree so the amendment in disagreement 
was before the House. Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, offered a motion 
to recede and concur in the Senate amendment to a House amendment with 
an amendment. After the previous question was ordered on that motion, 
Mr. William A. Steiger, of Wisconsin, rose:

Mr. Speaker, is the demand for a division of the question to concur 
with an amendment in order?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.      119 CONG. REC. 28121, 28124, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 278]]

THE SPEAKER:(8) Under the present conditions such a demand is not in 
order. 
Putting Motions To Recede and Concur With Amendment En Bloc
Sec.    11.10 The use of unanimous-consent agreements to permit the 
en bloc consideration of motions to recede and concur with amendments 
in a series of Senate amendments reported from conference in 
disagreement has been used to expedite consideration where the printed 
motions and proposed amendments are available, since printed in the 
joint statement of the managers, and there is no controversy. 
The form of a unanimous-consent request to consolidate the many 
motions to recede and concur with amendment into one, and make it not 
subject to a demand for a division of the question, is shown here. 
This truncated procedure, as excerpted from the Record of Sept. 25, 
1992,(9) was frowned upon by the Committee on Appropriations and the 
Chair in earlier Congresses, but is seeing more use in the modern 
House. 
AMENDMENTS IN DISAGREEMENT
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) Pursuant to House Resolution 579, the 
amendments in disagreement and motions printed in the joint explanatory
statement of the committee of conference to dispose of amendments in
disagreement are considered as read.
The Clerk will designate the first amendment in disagreement.
MR. [BOB] TRAXLER [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that Senate amendments numbered 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15, 27, 28 . . . 244, 
246 . . . 267, 269, 272 . . . and 303 be considered en bloc and printed 
in the Record, and that the motions to dispose of said amendments as 
printed in the joint statement of managers be considered as read and 
that the motions not be subject to a division of the question.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
MR. [DANA] ROHRABACHER [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
right to object.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to have some kind of assurance that amendment 267 
will not be part of this unanimous-consent request.
MR. TRAXLER: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. ROHRABACHER: I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
8.      Carl Albert (Okla.).
 9.     138 CONG. REC. 27710, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
10.     Jim McDermott (Wash.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 279]]

MR. TRAXLER: Mr. Speaker, I will amend my request to include amendment 
267, to have it removed from my request.
MR. ROHRABACHER: And also amendment 245?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Amendment 245 is already excluded.
(The text of unanimous-consent request, as modified, is as follows:)
MR. TRAXLER: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Senate amendments
numbered 1, 5, 7, 9, 10,  15, 27, 28, 29 . . . 244, 246 . . . 266, 
269 . . . and 303 be considered en bloc and printed in the Record, and 
that the motions to dispose of said amendments as printed in the joint
statement of managers be considered as read and that the motions not be
subject to a division of the question.
MR. ROHRABACHER: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: With that modification, is there objection to 
the request of the gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
(The texts of the various Senate amendments referred to in the 
unanimous-consent request are as follows:)

Senate amendment No. 1: Page 3, line 2, strike out "transferred" and 
insert "reimbursed".
Senate amendment No. 5: Page 4, line 22, strike out "to" and insert 
"which may". . . . 
Second Motion as Not Preferential
Sec.    11.11 When a motion that   the House recede from its 
disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur in the same with an 
amendment is pending, another motion to recede and concur with an 
amendment is not preferential.
On Dec. 16, 1943,(11) during consideration of the Senate amendments to 
H.R. 3598, the first national defense appropriation bill of 1944, the
following occurred:

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House 
recede from its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 49 and concur in 
the same with an amendment which I have sent to the desk.
THE SPEAKER:(12) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

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

MR. [CLINTON P.] ANDERSON of New Mexico: I make a preferential motion, 
which I send to the desk.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     89 CONG. REC. 10777, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 280]]

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Anderson of New Mexico moves that the House recede from its 
disagreement to Senate amendment No. 49, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows: On page 34, line 8, strike out the figure 
"$2,800,000" and insert the figure "$1,400,000".

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman has not made a preferential motion. He has 
made a motion to recede from its disagreement to the Senate amendment 
and concur in the same, and a motion to recede and concur in the Senate
amendment is already pending.(13) 
Rejection of Motion as Permitting Subsequent Motion; Recognition for
Subsequent Motion
Sec.    11.12 Where one motion to recede and concur with an amendment 
is rejected, another motion to recede and concur with a different 
amendment may be offered.
On Oct. 25, 1967,(14) the House was considering Senate amendments to 
H.R. 11641, public works appropriations for fiscal 1968.

MR. [MICHAEL J.] KIRWAN [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Kirwan moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 2 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed, insert: 
"$968,474,000, of which $875,000 shall be available to continue 
planning on the Dickey-Lincoln School Dam and Reservoirs, Maine,".

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(15) The gentleman from Ohio is recognized. . . . 
MR. KIRWAN: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kirwan] that the House recede from its 
disagreement to Senate amendment No. 2 and concur therein with an 
amendment. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 162, nays 236, answered 
"present" 1, not voting 33. . . . 
So the motion was rejected. . . . 
MR. KIRWAN: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Kirwan moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 2 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed, insert 
"$967,599,000".

THE SPEAKER:(16) The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Kirwan] that the House recede from its disagreement to 
Senate 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     See also 84 CONG. REC. 7747, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 22, 
1939.
14.     113 CONG. REC. 29933, 29942, 29943, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
15.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
16.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 281]]

amendment No. 2 and concur therein with an amendment.(17) 
Sec.    11.13 After agreeing to a conference report, a motion to recede 
and concur in a Senate amendment was rejected and (when the manager of 
the conference report did not seek further recognition) the Chair 
recognized another Member who offered a motion to further insist on
disagreement.
On Dec. 3, 1969,(18) the House had just adopted the conference report 
on H.R. 14159, public works appropriations for fiscal 1970, when the 
manager of the conference report, Mr. Joseph L. Evins, of Tennessee, 
was recognized:

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

Mr. Evins of Tennessee moves that the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 5 and concur 
therein. . . . 

MR. EVINS of Tennessee: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on 
the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(19) The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Evins).
The motion was rejected.
MR. GLENN B. DAVIS of Wisconsin:(20) Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Davis of Wisconsin moves that the House insist upon its 
disagreement to Senate amendment numbered 5.

The motion was agreed to.
Sec.    11.14 A motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with 
an amendment having been defeated, the Speaker recognized a Member, who 
was opposed to    the original motion, to offer  a second motion to 
recede and concur with a different amendment.
On Oct. 13, 1962,(1) the House resumed its consideration of the Senate
amendments to H.R. 12900, public works appropriations for fiscal 1963.

THE SPEAKER:(2) The unfinished business is the vote on the motion of 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     See also 110 CONG. REC. 20625, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 20, 
1964.
18.     115 CONG. REC. 36759, 36760, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
19.     Charles M. Price (Ill.).
20.     Mr. Davis was a member of the minority and on the Committee on
Appropriations.
 1.     108 CONG. REC. 23474-76, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 282]]

the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon].
Without objection, the Clerk will again report the motion of the 
gentleman from Missouri.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. [Clarence] Cannon moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 2 and concur therein with an
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment, 
insert "$791,580,500".

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 93, nays 143, not voting 
199. . . . 
So the motion was rejected. . . . 
MR. [ROBERT L. F.] SIKES [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Sikes moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 2 and concur therein with an amendment, 
as follows: in lieu of the  sum proposed by said amendment insert
"$792,845,500".
Sec.    11.15 Where the House rejects a motion by the manager of a 
bill to dispose of a Senate amendment remaining in disagreement, 
recognition to offer another amendment is accorded a Member who led the
opposition to the rejected motion. 
On Sept. 30, 1976, a conference report relating to the State and Local 
Fiscal Assistance Amendments of 1976(3) was ruled out on a point of 
order because a provision therein violated the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974. 
Following the Speaker's ruling on the point of order, the Senate 
amendment in disagreement was reported and the manager of the 
conference report then offered a motion to recede and concur therein 
with an amendment.  After the reading of the motion was dispensed with, 
in response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair announced that by 
custom, he would divide the time on the motion between its proponent 
and a member of the minority party,  Mr. Frank Horton, of New York.
During the 30 minutes allocated to him, Mr. Horton then proceeded to 
ask Members to defeat the motion; and when this in fact occurred, he 
was then recognized to offer another motion to dispose of the Senate 
amendment in disagreement. 
The point of order, the parliamentary inquiries and the rele-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3.      H.R. 13367.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 283]]

vant proceedings are carried below:(4) 

THE SPEAKER:(5) The Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Adams) makes a point of order 
against the conference report on the bill H.R. 13367 on the ground that
section 5(a) of the conference report provides new spending authority 
and entitlement increment for fiscal years 1978 and 1979 over the 
amounts provided for in fiscal year 1977, in violation of section 
303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown) rebut this argument by contending that a mere incremental 
increase in an entitlement for subsequent fiscal years is not new 
spending authority as prescribed in section 401(c)(2)(c) to become 
effective during the subsequent fiscal years, but rather, a 
continuation of the spending authority for fiscal year 1977, which is
permitted under section 303(a).
The Chair has examined the conference report, and section 5(a) is 
structured so as to provide separate authorization for entitlement 
payments for each of the fiscal years 1977, 1978, and 1979, with a 
higher authorization for 1978 and 1979 than for 1977.
In the opinion of the Chair, such a separate increase in entitlement
authorizations is new spending authority to become effective during 
those subsequent fiscal years, which may not be included in a bill or 
an amendment prior to the adoption of the first concurrent resolution 
for fiscal years 1978 and 1979, which does not come within the 
exception contained in section 303(b) for new budget authority, and 
which does not come within the section 401(d) revenue-sharing exception
-applicable only to contract or borrowing spending authority as defined 
in subsections (a) and (b) of section 401(c)-cited by the gentleman 
from Ohio.
The Chair therefore sustains the point of order against the conference 
report.
AMENDMENT IN DISAGREEMENT
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the Senate amendment in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "State and Local Fiscal Assistance 
Amendments of 1976". . . .

MR. [JACK B.] BROOKS [of Texas] (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I 
ask unanimous consent that the Senate amendment in disagreement be 
considered as read and printed in the Record.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
There was no objection.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BROOKS
MR. BROOKS: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     122 CONG. REC. 34075, 34080, 34085, 34090, 34092, 34097, 94th 
Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 30, 1976.
 5.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 284]]

Mr. Brooks moves that the House recede from its disagreement and concur 
in the Senate amendment to the House bill (H.R. 13367) to extend and 
amend the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 and for other
purposes, with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment 
insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This Act may be cited as the "State and Local Fiscal Assistance 
Amendments of 1976". . . . 
  
MR. BROOKS (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
MR. HORTON: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I am reserving the right to object on the unanimous-
consent request to have the motion considered as read.
I wanted to ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) whether he is 
going to explain the motion to the House.
MR. BROOKS: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I look forward to 
that opportunity to explain it as my distinguished friend, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) desires. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to make a brief 
explanation of the amendment? If not, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown) desires to have the amendment read.
MR. BROOKS: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I am recognized, I will be pleased 
to explain the amendment in detail.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that at this time the gentleman from 
Texas can be recognized only if the gentleman from Ohio yields under 
his reservation.
MR. [CLARENCE J.] BROWN of Ohio: I yield.
MR. [JOHN W.] WYDLER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will read the amendment.
The Clerk continued to read the amendment.
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection 
and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair understands the gentleman to withdraw his 
reservation of his point of order and to ask to dispense with further 
reading.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. HORTON: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. HORTON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask what the allocation of 
time is on this particular motion.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the rule provides, of course, 
for 30 minutes on a side under consideration of a conference report but 
the practice has been followed, if the Chair recalls correctly, of 
allotting 30 minutes to a side on a motion when a conference report is 
ruled out on a point of order.


[[Page 285]]

Under that procedure, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair would inquire who will be handling the matter on the minority 
side?
MR. HORTON: Mr. Speaker, I will be handling time on this side.
THE SPEAKER: And the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) will be 
recognized for 30 minutes for debate only.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) for 30 
minutes. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) 
is recognized for 3 minutes.
MR. HORTON: Mr. Speaker, I take this time to explain briefly what the
parliamentary situation is and what it is that we will be voting 
on. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Members to vote against the Brooks 
amendment and to vote for an amendment which I subsequently will offer, 
which will provide for the $600 million. It would also provide that it 
will be indexed so that it will not be subject to a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to vote "no" on the Brooks amendment 
and vote "aye" on the amendment which I will offer, for myself and on 
behalf of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Fountain), the 
chairman of the subcommittee, on behalf of the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Fuqua); a conferee and a member of the subcommittee; on behalf of 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Wydler); and also on behalf of the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), all members of the subcommittee who 
also were conferees. . . . 
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. HORTON
MR. HORTON: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Horton moves that the House recede and concur in the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 13367, with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the 
matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment insert the 
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "State and Local Fiscal Assistance 
Amendments of 1976". . . .

MR. HORTON (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I move that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with and that it be printed in 
the Record.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Sec.    11.16 Following the adop- tion of a conference report on a
supplemental appro-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     Richard W. Bolling (Mo.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 286]]

priation bill, the House rejected a motion to recede from disagreement 
to a Senate amendment and concur therein with an amendment, and then 
agreed to a motion to recede and concur with another amendment.
On May 20, 1971,(7) the House was considering the Senate amendments 
reported back from conference in disagreement to H.R. 8190, 
supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1971.

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 57 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment
insert:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
CIVIL SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT DEVELOPMENT  TERMINATION
For expenses necessary for the termination of the civil supersonic 
aircraft program, and for refund of amounts contributed by airlines 
toward the civil supersonic aircraft research and development program,
$155,800,000, to remain available until expended.

THE SPEAKER:(8) The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Texas. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 118, nays 156, answered 
"present" 1, not voting 157. . . . 
So the motion was rejected.

The Speaker again recognized Mr. Mahon:

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

Mr. Mahon moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 57 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment,
insert the following: 
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY   
CIVIL SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT DEVELOPMENT TERMINATION
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the termination 
of development of the civil supersonic aircraft and to refund the 
contractors' cost shares, $97,300,000, to remain available until 
expended.
Debate
Sec.    11.17 Debate on a motion to concur in a Senate amendment with 
an amendment is under the hour rule.
On June 15, 1943,(9) the House was considering Senate amend-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     117 CONG. REC. 16197, 16198, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 8.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 287]]

ments in disagreement to H.R. 1648, Treasury and Post Office 
appropriations for fiscal 1944. Mr. Louis E. Ludlow, of Indiana, 
offered a motion to recede and concur which was divided on demand of 
Mr. John Taber, of New York. After the House voted to recede, Mr. Frank 
B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, offered a preferential motion to concur with 
an amendment.

MR. KEEFE: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(10) The gentleman will state it.
MR. KEEFE: Am I correct in the assumption that there is now 1 hour's 
time for discussion of this subject and that the time is under the 
control of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Ludlow]?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct. The gentleman from Indiana made 
the original motion.

Parliamentarian's Note: See Rule XXVIII clause 2(a),(11) for current 
procedure for debating amendments in disagreement.
Sec.    11.18 Debate on a motion to recede and concur with an amendment 
is not in order after the yeas and nays have been ordered.
On Oct. 25, 1967,(12) the House was considering amendments of the 
Senate in disagreement to H.R. 11641, public works appropriations for 
fiscal 1968. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized 
Mr. Michael J. Kirwan, of Ohio:

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

Mr. Kirwan moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 2 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed, insert 
"$967,599,000".

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Kirwan] that the House recede from its disagreement to 
Senate amendment No. 2 and concur therein with an amendment.
MR. [JOHN J.] RHODES of Arizona: Mr. Speaker on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
MR. [ROBERT N.] GIAIMO [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. GIAIMO: Mr. Speaker, is it the parliamentary situation at the 
present time in regard to the amendment No. 2 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     89 CONG. REC. 5899, 5900, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
11.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997).
12.     113 CONG. REC. 29943, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 288]]

such that it would provide almost $1 billion for construction by the 
Corps of Engineers, and that we are voting on these funds without the 
$875,000 for Dickey-Lincoln?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the House has before it the 
motion by the gentleman from Ohio that the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 2, and concur 
therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed, 
insert "$967,599,000".
MR. GIAIMO: In other words, Mr. Speaker, this takes out the $875,000 
for Dickey-Lincoln?
THE SPEAKER: That is not within the prerogative of the Chair to state.
MR. GIAIMO: Mr. Speaker, can we get an explanation from the committee?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that it is too late for that. However, 
it is the understanding of the Chair that would be the result.
Where Manager Yields for Amendment
Sec.    11.19 The manager of a conference report controlling the floor 
on a motion to dispose of an amendment in disagreement, by yielding to 
another to offer an amendment to his motion, loses the floor and the 
Member to whom yielded then controls one hour of debate on his 
amendment and has the right to move the previous question on the 
amendment and the original motion. 
On Sept. 8, 1977,(13) after adoption of the conference report on  the 
Defense appropriation bill for fiscal 1978, an amendment in 
disagreement pertaining to the funding of the B-1 bomber was reported. 
Mr. Mahon's original motion was to fund the program. Mr. Addabbo's 
amendment reduced the funding. The proceedings show the consequences of
yielding for an amendment to the manager's motion. 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
MR. [GEORGE E.] 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 41 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment 
insert: "$7,693,400,000". . . .

MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, I hope we have had a fair debate on the issues. 
My motion provides for the continuation of the B-1 program, and I rise 
in further support of my motion and in opposition to the Addabbo 
amendment.
By previous arrangement, in order to be absolutely fair with the House 
and give the House an opportunity to work its will, I yield to the 
gentleman from 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     123 CONG. REC. 28122, 28130-32, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 289]]

New York (Mr. Addabbo) for the purpose of offering an amendment.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ADDABBO TO THE MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
MR. [JOSEPH P.] ADDABBO [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
amendment to the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon).
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Addabbo to the motion offered by Mr. Mahon: 
In lieu of the sum proposed to be inserted by said motion insert:
"$6,262,000,000".

MR. ADDABBO: Mr. Speaker, I will not take the hour. By previous 
arrangement and agreement with the chairman of the full committee, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon), who has been kind enough to 
recognize me at this time for the purpose of offering this amendment, 
the agreement was that I would after offering the substitute move the 
previous question so that we would have a clear vote on the question of
whether or not to fund the B-1. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment to the 
motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(14) The question is on the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Addabbo) to the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
MR. ADDABBO: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 202, 
nays 199, not voting 33. . . . 
So the amendment to the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon), as amended.
The motion, as amended, was agreed to.
Effect of Rejection of Previous Question
Sec.    11.20 Where a motion to concur in a Senate amendment with an 
amendment is pending, defeat of the previous question permits the 
offering of any proper motion.
On May 14, 1963,(15) the House was considering the Senate amendments 
in disagreement to H.R. 5517, supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
1963. A motion 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
15.     109 CONG. REC. 8506, 8509, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 290]]

to recede and concur was divided and the House voted to recede from its
disagreement to Senate amendment No. 76, whereupon Mr. Albert Thomas, of
Texas, moved to concur with an amendment.

MR. [AUGUST E.] JOHANSEN [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(16) The gentleman will state it.
MR. JOHANSEN: If the previous question is defeated, will it then be in 
order for the gentleman from Iowa to offer his motion?(17) 
THE SPEAKER: If the previous question is defeated, any proper motion 
can be made at that time.
MR. JOHANSEN: I thank the Speaker.
Sec.    11.21 A motion to recede and concur with an amendment to a 
Senate amendment in disagreement is subject to amendment if the 
previous question is voted down.
On Dec. 11, 1967,(18) the House was considering Senate amendments 
reported in disagreement from a conference on H.R. 7977, the Postal 
Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967. After Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Thaddeus J. Dulski, of 
New York, to offer a motion to recede and concur with an amendment, 
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, rose:

Mr. Speaker, at this point may I make a parliamentary inquiry?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, would the Senate amendment be subject to 
amendment if this motion is adopted, or prior to the adoption of this
amendment?
THE SPEAKER: The motion is to recede from disagreement to the Senate 
amendment and concur therein with an amendment.
MR. GROSS: With an amendment?
THE SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. GROSS: Would that be subject to an amendment, Mr. Speaker?
THE SPEAKER: It would be, if the previous question on the motion is 
voted down.
MR. GROSS: I thank the Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
Where Previous Question Is Defeated on Original Motion To Dispose of 
Senate Amendment

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
17.     Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, had signaled his intention to offer 
an amendment
18.     113 CONG. REC. 35811, 35833, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 291]]

Sec.    11.22 After rejection of the previous question on an original 
motion to dispose of a Senate amendment reported from conference in
disagreement, the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
question was recognized for an undivided hour on his amendment to the 
pending motion. 
During the proceedings of Sept. 17, 1992,(19) Mr. George E. Brown, of
California, waged the previous question fight against the motion 
offered by the manager of the bill, Mr. Tom Bevill, of Alabama, the
subcommittee chairman so that he would be entitled to recognition to 
offer his own amendment. The debate time on a motion following defeat 
of the previous question is governed by Rule XIV clause 2.(20) 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(1) The Clerk will designate the next amendment 
in disagreement.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Senate Amendment No. 37: Page 33, line 4, strike out all after "only)," 
down to and including "research" in line 9 and insert "$2,971,583,000, 
to remain available until expended, of which $300,000 shall be available 
only for planning funds for the Bishop Science Center, State of Hawaii; 
the Ambulatory Research and Education Building, Oregon Health Sciences
University; and the Center for Energy and Environmental Resources, 
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and of which 
$4,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from the Geothermal Resources
Development Fund".
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BEVILL
MR. BEVILL: 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. Bevill moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 37 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by 
said amendment, insert "$3,015,793,000 to remain available until 
expended, of which $94,800,000 shall be available only for the Bishop 
Science Center, State of Hawaii; the Ambulatory Research and Education
Building, Oregon Health Sciences University; the Center for Energy and
Environmental Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 
Louisiana; the Advanced Technologies Institute, University of 
Connecticut; the Biomedical Research Facility, University of Alabama 
at Birmingham; the Cancer Treatment Facility for the Indiana University 
School of Medicine at Indianapolis, Indiana; the Cancer Institute of 
New Jersey; the Northeast Environmental Resource and Renewal Facility,
Mayfield, Pennsylvania; Center for Advanced Industrial Process, 
Washington State University, Washington; and the Hahnemann University
Ambulatory 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     138 CONG. REC. 25432, 25433, 25437, 25438, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 758 (1997).
 1.     John W. Cox, Jr. (Ill.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 292]]

Care and Teaching Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.".

MR. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the motion and I ask for 20 
minutes of the time allotted for debate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] 
opposed to the motion?
MR. [JOHN T.] MYERS of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] will 
be recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] 
will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Myers] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill].
MR. BEVILL: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
MR. BEVILL: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evidently a quorum is not present. The Sergeant 
at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 157, nays 
203, not voting 72, as follows: . . . 
So the previous question was not ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BROWN TO THE MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BEVILL
MR. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] on amendment No. 37.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the amendment to the 
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Brown to the motion offered by Mr. Bevill: 
Strike "the Bishop Science Center" and all that follows through 
"Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" and insert in lieu thereof "making 
competitive, merit-review awards to academic research facilities, to 
the extent otherwise authorized by law".

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] is
recognized for 1 hour.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. MYERS of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. MYERS of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, a Member in opposition to this 
motion is not entitled to half the time?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: On an amendment to a motion, the hour is 
controlled by the proponent of the amendment.
MR. MYERS of Indiana: I thank the Chair. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection the previous question is 
ordered.
There was no objection.


[[Page 293]]

Yielding for Amendment
Sec.    11.23 An amendment to a motion to concur in a Senate amendment 
with an amendment may not be offered unless the Member having the floor 
yields for that purpose.
On July 21, 1947,(2) the House was considering amendments of the Senate
reported back in disagreement from a conference on H.R. 3123, 
Department of the Interior appropriations for fiscal 1948. Mr. Robert 
F. Jones, of Ohio, obtained a division of a motion to recede and concur
offered by Mr. Matthew H. Ellsworth, of Oregon. The House voted to 
recede and Mr. Jones offered a motion to recede and concur with an 
amendment.

MR. ELLSWORTH: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(3) The gentleman will state it.
MR. ELLSWORTH: Is an amendment to that motion in order or a substitute 
for that motion?
THE SPEAKER: Not unless the gentleman from Ohio yields for that 
purpose.
MR. JONES of Ohio: I do not yield for that purpose.
MR. ELLSWORTH: Is an amendment to that motion in order?
THE SPEAKER: Only if the gentleman from Ohio would yield.(4) 
Amendment of Language Not in Disagreement
Sec.    11.24 After the stage of disagreement between the two Houses 
has been reached it is not in order by way of a motion to recede and 
concur with an amendment to amend a part of the bill not in 
disagreement.
On June 10, 1940,(5) the House was considering Senate amendment No. 
78 to H.R. 9209, military establishment appropriations, which had been
reported back from conference still in disagreement. Speaker William B.
Bankhead, of Alabama, recognized Mr. John B. Snyder, of Pennsylvania:

Mr. Speaker, I move to recede and concur with an amendment which I send 
to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     93 CONG. REC. 9621, 9622, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3.     Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
 4.     See also 109 CONG. REC. 8506, 8509, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., 
May 14, 1963. The motion would also be amendable if the previous 
question thereon were defeated.
 5.     86 CONG. REC. 7895, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 294]]

Mr. Snyder moves to recede and concur in the Senate amendment No. 78 
with an amendment as follows: Strike out the matter inserted by said
amendment, and in line 17, page 33 of the House engrossed bill, insert 
before the period the following: "and, in addition, $470,000 for the
acquisition of a site for such building, the design for which shall be
prepared under the direction and supervision of the Secretary of War 
and Surgeon General of the Army, who shall select the architect".

MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of 
order. . . . 
I shall feel obliged to make a point of order against the part of the
amendment beginning with the comma in   the first line thereof and 
continuing through the balance of the language, because it is 
legislation on an appropriation bill; not authorized by law; and that 
it is not an amendment to an amendment to which it is offered, it 
being an amendment to the language on page 37, line 6, to which 
paragraph the Senate made no amendment whatever. On the further ground 
that it is an amendment beyond the range of those that might be offered 
to an amendment in disagreement at this time.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire 
to be heard on the point of order?
MR. SNYDER: I concede the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair sustains the point of order.
Germaneness of Amendment Contained in Motion
Sec.    11.25 An amendment contained in a motion to recede and concur 
in a Senate amendment with an amendment need not be confined  to the
differences between the House bill and the Sen-ate amendment, but must 
be germane to such Senate amendment.
On May 29, 1936,(7) the House was considering Senate amendments 
reported from conference still in disagreement on the agriculture
appropriations bill for fiscal 1937. Mr. William M. Colmer, of 
Mississippi, offered a motion to recede and concur with an amendment. 
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, rose with a point of order:

Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the proposed amendment to 
the Senate amendment embraces provisions that are not in conference; 
that the gentleman can propose only such things as are embraced within 
the jurisdiction of the conference; and the amendment exceeds that 
matter by releasing restrictions that have already been agreed to by 
the conferees.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------                       
 6.     William P. Cole, Jr. (Md.).
 7.     80 CONG. REC. 8341-44, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 295]]

THE SPEAKER:(8) As the Chair reads the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi, it contains exactly the same language as 
the first portion of the Senate amendment except the amount is $40,000 
instead of $80,000.
MR. BLANTON: But, Mr. Speaker, it releases restrictions that have been 
agreed upon.
THE SPEAKER: In the opinion of the Chair the amendment is germane.
MR. BLANTON: Mr. Speaker, only those matters that were embraced within 
the jurisdiction of the conferees may be offered as amendments.
THE SPEAKER: This Senate amendment was reported back to the House still 
in disagreement, as a matter of fact, and is now before the House for 
such action as the House may see fit to take. The gentleman from 
Mississippi has offered a motion to recede and concur in the Senate 
amendment with an amendment. The Chair has held that the amendment is 
germane and therefore overrules the point of order.(9) 
Sec.    11.26 In considering a Senate amendment in disagreement, a 
motion to recede from disagreement and concur in the amendment of the 
Senate with an amendment not relevant to the subject matter, and which 
in effect sought to amend a part of the bill not in disagreement, was 
held not germane.
On July 2, 1943,(10) the House was considering the amendments in 
disagreement to H.R. 2481, agriculture appropriations for fiscal 1944.
MR. [STEPHEN] PACE [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion which is 
at the Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Pace moves that the House recede and concur in the amendment of 
the Senate with an amendment as passed by the House (lines 13 to 24 on
 page 76 and lines 1 and 2 on page 77) and insert the following in lieu
thereof:
"FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE ACT
"Administrative and operating expenses: For operating and 
administrative expenses under the Fed- eral Crop Insurance Act, 
approved February 16, 1938, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1501-1518; 55 Stat. 
255-256) $3,500,000, including the employment of persons and means 
in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, printing and binding, 
purchase of lawbooks, books of reference, periodicals, and newspapers,
together with the unobligated balance of the appropriation for this 
purpose for the fiscal year 1943."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
 9.     See also 86 CONG. REC. 6184, 6185, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., 
May 15, 1940; and 81 CONG. REC. 971, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 8, 
1937.
10.     89 CONG. REC. 7041, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 296]]

MR. [MALCOLM C.] TARVER [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of 
order against the language of the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Georgia that it is not relevant to the subject matter. The motion 
is offered in part in lieu of language which has not been stricken from 
the bill and in regard to which the two Houses are not in disagreement.
THE SPEAKER:(11) Does the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Pace] desire to 
be heard upon the point of order?
MR. PACE: Mr. Speaker, I think that technically the point of order is 
good. I ask unanimous consent to have the opportunity to restate the
amendment. It will be observed by the Chair that while it does strike 
out the House language, it immediately reinserts it word for word. It 
is not in substance a striking out of a single word in the House 
language, except that it inserts an amendment word for word that 
incorporates the House language with the suggested changes.
THE SPEAKER: That does not cure the situation. As the matter stands, 
the gentleman has offered a motion to strike out certain language that 
the two Houses have agreed to. The Chair sustains the point of order 
made by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Tarver].
Germaneness of Amendment to Motion
Sec.    11.27 Where there was pending a motion to concur in a Senate 
amendment to a House amendment to a Senate bill with a further 
amendment, the Speaker indicated, in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry, that any amendment offered to the pending motion upon 
rejection of the previous question thereon must be germane to the 
amendment contained in the motion.
On Aug. 3, 1973,(12) the House was considering the Senate substitute 
for the House amendment in the nature of a substitute for S. 1888, 
the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973, which the 
conferees had reported in total disagreement. Mr. William R. Poage, 
of Texas, offered a motion to concur in the Senate substitute with an
amendment. During the debate on this motion, Mr. William L. Dickinson, 
of Alabama, raised a parliamentary inquiry:

Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situation now, it is a very delicate
parliamentary situation. What we are voting on is a Senate amendment 
to a House amendment to a Senate bill. That means it has been amended 
to the first degree, and with the chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture adding this innocuous amendment, that is an 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
12.     119 CONG. REC. 28121, 28122, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 297]]

amendment to the second degree, and no more are allowed.
My question is, On the motion for the previous question, if the 
question is voted down, should a substitute or an amendment be offered 
to the motion of the chairman, must it be germane to the innocuous 
amendment?
THE SPEAKER:(13) The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Texas is 
now before the House. The amendment contained in the motion of the 
gentleman from Texas would be subject to a germane amendment if the 
previous question on this motion were rejected.


 
                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


 
                House-Senate Relations
 
                  A. INTRODUCTORY
 
           INDEX TO PRECEDENTS


Adhere, significance of motion to, Sec. 12.1
Adjourn, Senate amendments to, resolution not operable until agreed to 
in both Houses, Sec. 6.62
Amendments
altering text passed by both Houses, on occasion House has agreed to, 
Sec. 5.2
appropriation bill, where Senate amendment proposes legislation on, 
further House amendment must be germane, Sec.Sec. 6.15, 6.16
constitutional, and Senate amendments thereto are considered in the 
House, Sec. 5.61
degree of, formula for determining, Sec. 6.3
degree, third, not in order, Sec. 6.4
House
division of, to Senate amendment, when in order, Sec. 11.8
House cannot recede from or insist on, with amendment, Sec. 7.24
House may recede from, Sec. 10.1
receding from, and concurring with further, Sec.Sec. 10.5, 10.6
receding from, effect of House, Sec. 10.3
receding from, where Senate has amended, effect of, Sec. 10.7
Senate bill passed when House recedes from, thereto, Sec. 10.2
Senate 
action on, by special rule (under suspension) before stage of 
disagreement, Sec. 11.4
adjournment, concurrent resolution providing for not operable until, 
agreed to, Sec. 6.62
agreeing to some, disagreeing with others, Sec. 5.9
agreeing to, with further amendment may be accomplished under 
suspension of the rules, Sec. 6.2
Amendments-Cont.
Senate-Cont. 
amendment to, cannot touch House-passed text, Sec. 11.24
amendment to, must be germane, Sec.Sec. 11.25-11.27
appropriation bill, where, proposes legislation on, further House 
amendment must be germane, Sec.Sec. 6.15, 6.16
calling up House bill with, which does not require consideration in 
Committee of the Whole, Sec. 5.59
Committee of the Whole consideration of, voting on recommendation in 
House, Sec. 5.51
Committee on Rules, role of, in disposing of, Sec.Sec. 5.30, 5.31
concur in, debate on motion to, Sec. 11.17
concur in, motion to, with amendment may be amended if proponent yields 
for that purpose, Sec. 11.23
concur in, with further amendment not divisible, motion to, Sec. 11.9
concurrence in, instance where House vacated motion, and offered 
different amendment thereto, Sec. 11.3
concurrence in, with amendment by unanimous consent, Sec. 11.1
concurring in, before stage of disagreement, Sec. 11.1
concurring in, considered more privileged than committing, Senate 
having ignored request for conference and amended, Sec. 7.5
concurring in, with amendment by unanimous consent, no vote possible, 
Sec. 11.2
concurring in, with amendment without intervening motion, Sec. 5.18


[[page 314]]

Amendments-Cont.
Senate-Cont. 
consideration in Committee of the Whole no longer required once, are 
sent to conference, Sec. 5.53
considering in House, Sec. 5.7
consideration of and debate on, in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 5.50
consideration of, by suspension does not permit alternative motion, 
Sec. 5.26
consideration of, if House rejects recommendation of Committee of the 
Whole, Sec. 11.5
consideration of, in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 5.49
consideration of, remains before House where recommendation of 
Committee of the Whole is rejected, Sec. 5.52
constitutional amendments and, thereto are considered in the House, 
Sec. 5.61
debate on motion to concur in, Sec. 11.17
debate on motion to dispose of, division of time, Sec. 5.43
debate on motion to dispose of, hour rule, Sec. 5.42
debate on, when considered in House, Sec. 5.56
difference between unanimous-con-sent requests to concur in or to 
consider, Sec.Sec. 5.13, 5.14
disagreed to in House to permit Senate to reconsider, Sec. 5.60
disposition of, by special rule, Sec.Sec. 5.21, 9.1, 9.2
disposition of, by unanimous consent does not permit alternative 
motion, Sec. 5.10


Amendments-Cont.
Senate-Cont. 
disposition of, to House amendments to Senate bill not requiring 
consideration in Committee of the Whole, by motion in House, Sec. 6.1
disposition of, where consideration in Committee of the Whole not 
required, Sec. 5.55
disposition of, where special rule is defeated, Sec. 5.45
division of, not in order, considered in entirety, Sec. 5.57
effect of receding or not receding when question of receding and 
concurring in, is divided, Sec. 7.9
germane, amendment to, must be, Sec.Sec. 11.25-11.27
germaneness of, cannot be reached by point of order when a 
unanimous-consent request to concur therein is pending, Sec. 6.14
House action on, to House appropriation bill, figures in further 
amendment not confined to differences, Sec. 6.12
House amendment to, must be germane, Sec. 6.13
House bill with, and House amendment thereto, motion to concur with 
further House amendment in third degree, Sec. 6.4
House has receded from its amendment to a, and concurred therein with 
new amendment (to avoid amending in third degree), Sec. 6.9
jurisdiction of Committee on Rules in disposing of, Sec.Sec. 5.30, 5.31
motion to act on, privileged in House when stage of disagreement 
reached, Sec.Sec. 5.4, 7.3, 7.5
motion to amend, cannot touch House-passed text, Sec. 11.24


[[Page 315]]

Amendments-Cont.
Senate-Cont. 
motion to concur in, deemed more privileged than motion to commit where 
Senate ignored request for conference on, and further amended, Sec. 7.5
motion to concur in, with amendment being pending, another of same 
class not in order, Sec. 11.11
motion to concur in, with amendment may be amended if proponent yields 
for that purpose, Sec. 11.23
motion to refer (commit) where previous question rejected on concurring, 
Sec. 10.16
objection to unanimous-consent request to consider, does not permit 
vote on issue, Sec. 5.11
previous question on motion to dispose of, where defeated, Sec. 11.22
printing of text of, in Record where agreed to by special rule, Sec. 
5.47
privilege of motion to act on, when in stage of disagreement, Sec.Sec. 
5.4, 7.3, 7.5
procedure for taking up, where amendments require consideration in 
Committee of the Whole, Sec. 5.8
reading of text where, being considered under special rule, Sec. 5.46
receding from, where House has amended, Sec.Sec. 10.8, 10.9
receding or not receding when question of receding and concurring in, 
is divided, effect of, Sec. 7.9
recognition to proceed to consideration of, by unanimous consent, 
Sec. 8.23
recognition where, is disposed of under suspension of rules, Sec. 8.22


Amendments-Cont.
Senate-Cont. 
recognition where manager's motion regarding, in disagreement is 
rejected, Sec. 8.21
recommendation of Committee of the Whole if rejected, brings, before 
House for consideration, Sec. 11.5
refer (commit) where previous question rejected on concurring, motion 
to, Sec. 10.16
referral is to committee having jurisdiction over, not House bill, Sec. 
5.29
referral of, placed in Record, Sec. 5.16
referral of, Speaker sometimes announces his, Sec. 5.17
relative precedence of motions to table and motion to refer, Sec. 7.23
requiring consideration in Committee of the Whole, intervention by 
Committee on Rules, Sec.Sec. 5.30, 5.31
Senate recedes from, bill not passed where House has amended, Sec.Sec. 
10.8, 10.9
Speaker's discretionary authority to refer, Sec.Sec. 5.27, 5.28
special order used to dispose of several, Sec. 5.20
special rule disposing of, to House amendment, Sec. 9.8
special rule disposing of, variations of, Sec.Sec. 9.3, 9.5, 9.6
special rule making in order motion to concur in, Sec. 5.19
special rule providing for agreeing to, effect of defeat of previous 
question on, Sec. 9.7
special rule providing for agreeing to, previous question defeated on, 
Sec. 5.44
special rule providing for division of, Sec. 5.58


[[page 316]]

Amendments-Cont.
Senate-Cont. 
special rule, use of, called up under suspension, to dispose of, Sec. 
5.23
special rule, use of, to concur in, Sec.Sec. 5.24, 5.25
special rule, use of, to consider, before stage of disagreement, 
prohibiting other amendments, Sec. 5.38
special rule, use of, to consider, in House, Sec. 5.54
special rule, use of, to dispose of, before stage of disagreement, 
Sec.Sec. 5.34, 5.35, 5.37
special rule, use of, to refer, Sec. 5.33
special rule, use of, where disposing of, by motion requires action by 
several committees, Sec. 5.32
special rule used to amend, Sec. 5.22
special rule used to limit options when, is being considered, Sec.Sec. 
5.38-5.41
special rule used to "self-execute" disposition of, Sec. 5.21
standing rules of House and procedures for disposition of, Sec. 5.48
striking and inserting, division thereof not in order, Sec. 5.58
striking and inserting, special order permitting division of question, 
Sec. 5.36
tabling motion to dispose of, in disagreement, Sec. 7.27
third degree, when, becomes, Sec. 6.3
vacating concurrence in, and offering different amendment thereto, 
Sec. 11.3
voting on recommendation of Committee of the Whole on, in House, Sec. 
5.51



Amendments-Cont.
Senate-Cont. 
where objection raised to pending request to consider, no question is 
left on which a vote can be demanded, Sec. 5.11
where suspension procedure is used to consider, alternative motion not
in order, Sec. 5.26
where unanimous-consent request to dispose of, is pending, no 
alternative motion in order, Sec. 5.10
text passed by both Houses cannot be altered by, Sec. 5.2
third degree, acting on by unanimous consent, Sec. 6.8
third degree, made in order by special rule, Sec.Sec. 6.5, 6.6
third degree, not in order, Sec. 6.4
third degree, prohibition against considering may be waived, Sec. 6.8
third degree, when pending, can be disposed of by privileged motion if 
stage of disagreement reached, Sec. 6.7
Amendments between Houses
control and division of time, degree of, Sec. 6.3
debate may occur on both portions where motion to recede and concur is
divided, Sec. 7.25
debate on motions to dispose of, controlling and allocating time, 
Sec.Sec. 8.5, 8.6
debate on privileged motion to dispose of, control and division of 
time, Sec. 8.7
House has first receded then concurred with a further amendment by a 
two-step process, Sec. 5.3
House may not recede from its amendment with an amendment, Sec. 5.3
not in order if amending text agreed to by both Houses, Sec. 5.1


[[Page 317]]

Amendments between Houses-Cont.
recede and concur, division of motion to, Sec.Sec. 10.10, 10.11
recede and concur with amendment, division of motion to, Sec. 10.12
receding from an amendment, the other House having concurred with a 
further amendment, effect of, Sec.Sec. 10.7, 10.8, 10.9
Amendments in disagreement
"amendments in technical disagreement," concept of, Sec. 7.26
control of floor during consideration of, Sec. 8.2
control of floor where preferential motion intervenes, Sec.Sec. 8.9, 
8.10, 8.13, 8.14, 8.15
debate on, Sec. 7.20
debate on and division of time, Sec. 8.1
debate on, control of floor during, Sec. 8.8
debate time on, development of current rule on, Sec. 8.12
differences on all, must be resolved, Sec.Sec. 12.6, 12.7
effect of House receding from its amendment, Sec. 10.3
House cannot recede from or insist on House amendment with amendment, 
Sec. 7.24
House receded from its amendment to Senate amendment and concurred 
with new amendment, by special order, Sec. 10.5
interruption of consideration of, to take up another measure, Sec. 5.12
order of consideration of, Sec. 8.4
printing requirements under Rule XXVIII, Sec. 8.24
reading of, and motions to dispose of, Sec. 8.25
recede and concur in, division of question and effect of receding, 
Sec.Sec. 8.16, 8.18
Amendments in disagreement-Cont.
recede and concur in, recognition where House refuses to, Sec. 8.19
receding from its amendment, effect of House, Sec. 10.3
recognition, order of, and division of time for debate on, Sec. 8.8
recognition to offer motions on, Sec. 8.11
recognition where pending privileged motion is defeated, Sec.Sec. 
8.20, 8.21
tabling motion to dispose of Senate amendment in disagreement, 
Sec. 7.27
withdrawal of motion to dispose of, Sec. 8.3
Amendments in technical disagreement, use of, Sec. 7.26
Appropriation bill
precedence of motions where dealing with Senate legislative amendment 
on, Sec.Sec. 12.3, 12.4
Senate amendment proposes legislation on, further House amendment must 
be germane, Sec.Sec. 6.15, 6.16
Bills
engrossed, concurrent resolution authorizing correction in, 
Sec. 5.63
engrossed, sent to other House when new session convenes, Sec. 2.3
House
substituting provision of similar Senate bill for text of, after 
passage, Sec. 3.3
vacating passage of, substituting text for previously passed similar 
Senate bill, Sec. 3.9
message accompanies, ordered returned to other House, Sec. 2.3
messaged to other House when new session convenes, Sec. 2.3
passed over veto, other House informed, Sec. 2.4
private, see Private bills


[[Page 318]]

Bills-Cont.
Senate 
amending, before stage of disagreement, Sec. 3.4
committee discharged from consideration of, similar to House-passed 
measure, taken up amended, and sent to Senate in lieu of House version, Sec. 3.9
concurring in nongermane, before stage of disagreement, Sec. 9.12
consideration of, and sending to conference of, before stage of 
disagreement, Sec. 3.5
consideration of, in Committee of the Whole, when required, Sec. 9.15
consideration of, under provision of rule providing for consideration 
of House version, Sec. 3.7
disposing of, by special rule, Sec.Sec. 9.1, 9.2
disposition of, in House if similar to House measure just passed, 
Sec. 3.2
disposition of, options where first motion defeated, Sec. 9.17
erroneously passed, later disposed of in House by motion to postpone
indefinitely, Sec. 2.16
not requiring consideration in Committee of the Whole and similar to 
reported House measure can be considered by motion, Sec. 3.8
passage vacated by unanimous consent, Sec. 3.10
passed in lieu of similar House measure, Sec. 3.13
preferential motion disposing of, being rejected, question recurs on
underlying motion, Sec. 9.16
receded from, with an amendment, Senate has, Sec. 10.4
recognition where, is disposed of under suspension of rules, Sec.Sec. 
8.22, 9.9
Bills-Cont.
Senate-Cont.
referral of, following recommittal of House version, Sec. 3.12
referral of, in House at Speaker's discretion, Sec.Sec. 3.1, 3.12
roll call vote on, precluded where unanimous-consent request pending, 
Sec. 9.14
Senate has receded from, with amendment, Sec. 10.4
special rule disposing of, Sec.Sec. 9.1, 9.2, 9.4
special rule to dispose of, variations of, Sec.Sec. 9.3, 9.5
stage of disagreement, action in House before, Sec. 3.5
substituting, amended, after passage of House measure, procedure 
under special rule, Sec. 3.3
substituting, for House bill after passage, Sec. 3.2
suspension of rule, disposing of, not subjection to amendment under, 
Sec.Sec. 9.10, 9.11
taking up, waiving points of order against, limited amendments, sending 
to conference, all before stage of disagreement, Sec. 3.5
Senate request for return of bill 
action on, by motion, Sec.Sec. 2.7, 2.8
House action on, Sec. 2.1
House committee discharged, Sec. 2.2
House may concur by unanimous consent, Sec. 2.10
laid before House for action, Sec. 2.11
must be acted on by House, Sec. 2.9
privileged in House, Sec. 2.6
Comity
refusal to receive message, breach of, Sec. 1.3


[[Page 319]]

Committee of the Whole
consideration in, no longer required once Senate amendments are sent 
to conference, Sec. 5.53
consideration in, when required for Senate amendments, Sec. 9.15
consideration of and debate on Senate amendments in, Sec. 5.50
consideration of Senate amendment in, Sec. 5.49
consideration of Senate amendment remains before House where 
recommendation of, is rejected, Sec. 5.52
messages not received in, Sec. 1.12
Committee on Rules
role of in disposing of Senate amendments, Sec.Sec. 5.30, 5.31
Concurrent resolution
text of bill agreed to by both Houses, changing by use of, Sec. 1.17
uses of, Sec. 1.17
Conferees, discharging, Sec. 9.13
Conference
"deeming" resolutions used to set conditions for, pending receipt of 
official papers, Sec. 1.11
motion to send House bill with Senate amendments to, not privileged 
before stage of disagreement, Sec. 5.6
progression of, official papers where conferees report in disagreement, 
Sec. 2.12
request for, rejected by Senate, and Senate further amends, motion to 
dispose of is privileged, Sec. 10.16
transfer of official papers at conclusion of successful, Sec. 2.19
Conference report
amendments in disagreement, printing requirements under Rule XXVIII, 
Sec. 8.24


Conference report-Cont.
amendments in technical disagreement, use of to resolve disputes, 
Sec. 7.26
controlling debate on, and amending amendments in disagreement, 
Sec. 7.20
defeated, manager thereof may offer privileged motions, Sec. 7.7
during consideration of, Senate bill similar to portion thereof was 
taken up and considered, Sec. 3.11
interruption of consideration of, to take up other business, Sec. 3.11
precedence of insisting and laying Senate amendment on table where, is
rejected, Sec. 7.22
recognition to offer motions on amendments in disagreement 
accompanying, Sec. 8.11
rejection of, motions in order following, Sec. 12.13
rejection of, Speaker has recognition discretion following, Sec. 12.14
relative privilege of motions when, defeated, Sec. 7.7
ruled out of order, stage of disagreement continues and motions to 
dispose of amendments remain privileged, Sec. 7.6
Constitutional amendments
Senate amendments to, considered in House, Sec. 5.61
Control of floor when amendments in disagreement pending, Sec. 8.2
Debate
amendments between Houses, controlling and allocating time on motions 
to dispose of, Sec.Sec. 8.5, 8.6
amendments in disagreement, control and division of time on privileged 
motion to dispose of, Sec. 8.7
amendments in disagreement, control of floor during consideration of, 
Sec. 8.2


[[Page 320]]

Debate-Cont.
amendments in disagreement, debate on and division of time, Sec.Sec. 
8.1, 8.8
division of time, on amendment in disagreement, Sec. 8.7
motion to concur in Senate amendment with amendment under hour rule, 
Sec. 11.17
motion to dispose of Senate amendment, division of time on, Sec. 5.43
motion to dispose of Senate amendment, hour rule, Sec. 5.42
motion to recede and concur is divided, where, Sec. 7.25
not permitted after yeas and nays ordered on motion to recede and 
concur, Sec. 11.18
Senate amendment, House consideration of, Sec. 5.56
"Deeming" resolutions
expedite consideration of, House sometimes uses, Sec. 1.10
setting conditions for, pending receipt of official papers, Sec. 1.11
Degree of amendment
acting on third degree amendment by unanimous consent, Sec. 6.8
amendment in third degree, made in order by special rule, Sec.Sec. 6.5, 
6.6
amendments in third degree not in order, Sec. 6.4
formula for determining, Sec. 6.3
House bill, Senate amendment, House amendment thereto, motion to 
concur with further House amendment in third degree, Sec. 6.4
House has receded from its amendment to a Senate amendment and 
concurred therein with new amendment (to avoid amending in third degree), 
Sec. 6.9


Degree of amendment-Cont.
House sometimes acts on third degree amendments by unanimous consent, 
Sec.Sec. 6.8, 6.11
Senate action on amendment being in third degree, Senate receded from 
its own amendment and concurred with another, Sec. 6.10
third-degree amendment, acting on by unanimous consent, Sec.Sec. 6.8, 
6.11
third-degree amendment pending, motions to dispose thereof are 
privileged once stage of disagreement is reached, Sec. 6.7
third-degree amendment, prohibition against considering may be waived, 
Sec. 6.8
Division
Senate amendment not subject to, Sec. 5.58
Division of question, procedure when, is demanded, Sec.Sec. 8.16-8.18
Division of time, on amendment in disagreement, Sec. 8.7
Enacting clause
Senate informed when House strikes, of Senate bill, Sec. 2.5
Engrossed bills
concurrent resolution authorizing correction in, Sec. 5.63
sent to other House at reconvening of Congress, Sec. 2.3
Engrossment
correcting errors in, Sec. 1.15
Enrolled bills
concurrent resolution, directing Clerk to delete Senate amendment in
preparation of, Sec. 4.5
House, returned by President at request of Senate goes first to House, 
Sec. 2.17
laid before House, not Committee of the Whole, Sec. 1.13


[[Page 321]]

Enrolled bills-Cont.
President asked to return, Sec. 2.17
returned to House of origin by President, then messaged to House which
requested its return, Sec. 2.17
House amendment
division of, to Senate amendment, when in order, Sec. 11.8
House cannot recede from or insist on, with amendment, Sec. 7.24
House may recede from, Sec. 10.1
House receding from its amendment, effect of, Sec. 10.3
receding from, and concurring with further, Sec.Sec. 10.5, 10.6
receding from, where Senate has amended, effect of, Sec. 10.7
Senate bill passed when House recedes from, thereto, Sec. 10.2 
House bill
substituting provision of similar Senate bill for text of, after 
passage, Sec. 3.3
vacating passage of, substituting text for previously passed similar 
Senate bill, Sec. 3.9
Insist on disagreement 
motion to, falls where recede and concur agreed to, Sec. 10.25
motion to, when appropriate, Sec. 10.26
recede and concur, rejection of motion to, not equivalent to insisting 
on disagreement, Sec. 10.26
Insist, motion to
effect where both Houses insist, Sec. 12.11
further insist, motion to, Sec. 12.17
rejection of, further action required, Sec. 12.15
resolution to insist and ask conference, Sec. 12.16
unanimous consent to further insist, Sec. 12.17


Journal
receipt of message before approval of, Sec. 1.6
Jurisdiction
Committee on Rules, over disposition of Senate amendments, Sec.Sec. 
5.30, 5.31
Messages
action on veto, informing other House, Sec. 2.4
Committee of the Whole, not received in, Sec. 1.12
Committee of the Whole, rises to receive, Sec. 1.13
correcting earlier erroneous message, Sec. 1.14
correcting error in engrossment, Sec. 1.15
erroneous House action, Senate informed by, Sec. 2.15
held at Speaker's desk pending presence of quorum, Sec. 1.8
House, accompanies bill returned to Senate, Sec. 2.13
House may ask return of erroneous, Sec. 2.15
Houses communicate by written, not informal oral communications, Sec. 
2.14
informing other House of organizational matters, Sec. 1.2
receipt of, before approval of Journal, Sec. 1.6
receipt of, in absence of quorum, Sec.Sec. 1.7, 1.8
receipt of, in House, when Senate has adjourned, Sec. 1.9
receipt of, refusal of, as breach of comity, Sec. 1.3
reception of, privileged, Sec. 1.4
reception of, when in order, Sec. 1.4
requesting Senate to return engrossment, Sec. 1.15
second Senate, requesting return of earlier, Sec. 1.14


[[Page 322]]

Messages-Cont.
Senate request for return of bill 
action on, by motion, Sec.Sec. 2.7, 2.8
House action on, Sec. 2.1
House committee discharged, Sec. 2.2
Senate request for return of bill-Cont. 
House may concur by unanimous consent, Sec. 2.10
laid before House for action, Sec. 2.11
must be acted on by House, Sec. 2.9
privileged in House, Sec. 2.6
Senate, requesting return of earlier, Sec. 1.5
two Houses communicate by written, Sec. 2.11
used to correct earlier erroneous message, Sec. 1.14
uses of 
beginning of session, Sec. 1.1
correcting earlier erroneous message, Sec. 1.14
correcting error in engrossment, Sec. 1.15
informing other body of bills passed in earlier session, Sec. 2.3
informing other House of organizational matters, Sec. 1.2
Motion to insist
further insist, motion to, Sec. 12.17
rejection of, further action required, Sec. 12.15
resolution to insist and ask conference, Sec. 12.16
result where both Houses insist, Sec. 12.11
unanimous consent to further insist, Sec. 12.17
Official papers
acting in anticipation of receipt of, Sec. 1.10
discharging conferees where, in possession of House, Sec. 9.13

Official  papers-Cont.
progression of 
between Houses, Sec. 2.12
dictated by custom, not rule, Sec. 2.19
replacing lost, Sec. 1.16
resolutions, anticipating Senate actions before receipt of, Sec. 1.10
Senate request for return of, vote required, Sec. 1.5
unusual transfer of, may require consent of House having possession, 
Sec. 2.18
Passage
vacating, to take further legislative action, Sec. 3.9
President, asked to return enrollment, Sec. 2.17
Printing
amendments in disagreement, requirements for, Sec. 8.24
text of Senate amendment in Record, where agreed to by special rule, 
Sec. 5.47
Private bills
considered in Committee of the Whole pursuant to rule, Sec. 3.14
individual Senate, taken up and considered following passage of 
omnibus measure incorporating House versions, Sec. 3.15
Senate use of, to put nongermane amendments before House, Sec. 5.15
Privileged business
action on Senate request for return of bill, considered as, Sec. 2.7
complying with Senate request for return of bill, treated as, Sec. 2.9
Senate bill similar to reported House bill and on House calendar can 
be disposed of by motion as, Sec. 3.8
Senate request for return of bill, in House, Sec. 2.6


[[Page 323]]

Privileged motions
control and division of time on, to dispose of amendments in 
disagreement, Sec. 8.7
offering of more privileged does not deprive Member of floor, 
Sec.Sec. 7.12, 7.14
on defeat of more, question recurs on less, Sec. 7.15
precedence of motions to recede and concur and recede and concur 
with amendment, Sec.Sec. 7.17, 7.18
precedence of, on general appropriation bill, Sec.Sec. 12.3, 12.4
precedence of, when motion to recede and concur is divided and motion 
to concur with amendment defeated, Sec. 7.19
recede and concur in amendments in disagreement, recognition where 
House refuses to, Sec. 8.19
recognition where motions to adhere and recede and concur are pending 
and division of question is demanded, Sec. 7.16
recognition where pending, is defeated, Sec.Sec. 8.20, 8.21
recognition where previous question defeated on motion to dispose of 
Senate amendment, Sec. 11.22
refusal to recede pending motions to recede and concur and recede and 
concur with amendment, both motions fall, Sec. 7.21
withdrawal of and modification of, to recede and concur with amendment, 
Sec. 8.3
Quorum
one House informs the other when, has assembled, Sec. 1.1
receipt of messages in absence of, Sec.Sec. 1.7, 1.8

Recede and concur in amendment in disagreement
alternatives where motion to recede defeated, Sec.Sec. 12.8-12.10
concurrence as precluding motion to further disagree, Sec. 12.12
concurring with amendment where motion to, divided, Sec. 10.19
debate on, not permitted after yeas and nays ordered, Sec. 11.18
defeat of motion to, interpretation of, Sec. 10.29
defeat of motion to recede, alternatives where, Sec.Sec. 12.8-12.10
dividing debate time where initial motion to recede and concur with 
amendment defeated, Sec. 11.15
divisibility of motion to, with an amendment, Sec. 11.8
division demanded, application of previous question when, Sec. 10.20
division of motion to, Sec.Sec. 10.10, 10.11, 11.6, 11.7
division of motion to, debate after, Sec.Sec. 10.13, 10.14
division of motion to, effects thereof, Sec.Sec. 10.15, 10.18
division of motion to, requesting division of, Sec. 11.7
division of motion to, with amendment, Sec. 10.12
en bloc motions to, with amendments, putting, Sec. 11.10
motion to, defeated, further motion in order, Sec. 10.27
motion to, defeated, interpretation of, Sec.Sec. 10.29, 12.5
motion to, effect of adoption of, on motion to insist, Sec. 10.25
motion to, fails, motion to insist in order, Sec. 10.28
motion to, with amendment fails, motion to insist in order, Sec. 10.26


[[Page 324]]

Recede and concur in amendment in disagreement-Cont.
motion to, with amendment pending, another not in order, Sec. 11.11
motion to, with amendment rejected, second in order, Sec.Sec. 11.12, 
11.15
motion to refer not in order where motion to, has been divided and 
previous question ordered, Sec. 10.17
previous question on motion to, with amendment, effect of defeat of, 
Sec.Sec. 11.20, 11.21
procedure where division of question is demanded, Sec.Sec. 8.16-8.18
putting motions en bloc, recede and concur with amendments, Sec. 11.10
recede, interpretation of refusal to, Sec. 10.24
recede, where House refuses to, Sec.Sec. 10.21-10.23
recognition where first motion to, is rejected, Sec.Sec. 11.13, 11.14
recognition where House refuses to, Sec. 8.19
rejection of, effect of, Sec. 12.2
rejection of first motion to, with amendment, another may be offered, 
Sec.Sec. 11.12, 11.16
rejection of motion to, meaning of, Sec.Sec. 10.29, 12.5
withdrawal of motion to, Sec.Sec. 10.30, 10.31
yields for amendment, where proponent, Sec. 11.19
Recognition, order of, when debating amendment in disagreement, 
Sec. 8.8
Reconsider
Senate amendment disagreed to in House to permit Senate to, Sec. 5.60
Referral
to committee having jurisdiction over Senate amendment, not House 
bill, Sec. 5.29
Referral-Cont.
Senate bills, notice placed in Record, Sec. 5.16
Senate
informs House when organized, Sec. 1.2
Senate amendments
acted on in House if House rejects recommendation of Committee of the 
Whole, Sec. 11.5
action on, by special rule (under suspension) before stage of 
disagreement, Sec. 11.4
adjournment, concurrent resolution providing for not operable until, 
agreed to, Sec. 5.62
agreeing to some, disagreeing with others, Sec. 5.9
agreeing to, with further amendment may be accomplished under 
suspension of the rules, Sec. 6.2
amend, motion to, cannot touch House-passed text, Sec. 11.24
amendment to, must be germane, Sec.Sec. 11.25-11.27
appropriation bill, where, proposes legislation on appropriation bill, 
further House amendment must be germane, Sec.Sec. 6.15, 6.16
calling up House bill with, which does not require consideration in 
Committee of the Whole, Sec. 5.59
Committee of the Whole consideration no longer required once, are sent 
to conference, Sec. 5.53
Committee of the Whole consideration of, voting on recommendation in 
House, Sec. 5.51
Committee of the Whole consideration of, when required, Sec. 9.15
Committee on Rules, role of, in disposing of, Sec.Sec. 5.30, 5.31
concur in, debate on motion to, Sec. 11.17


[[Page 325]]

Senate amendments-Cont.
concur in, motion to, with amendment may be amended if proponent yields 
for that purpose, Sec. 11.23
concur in, with further amendment not divisible, motion to, Sec. 11.9
concurrence in, instance where House vacated, and offered different 
amendment thereto, Sec. 11.3
concurrence in, with an amendment by unanimous consent, Sec. 11.1
concurring in, before stage of disagreement, Sec. 11.1
concurring in nongermane, before stage of disagreement, Sec. 9.12
concurring in, with amendment by unanimous consent, no vote possible, 
Sec. 11.2
concurring in, with amendment without intervening motion, Sec. 5.18
consideration of and debate on, in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 5.50
consideration of, if House rejects recommendation of Committee of the 
Whole, Sec. 11.5
consideration of, in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 5.49
consideration of, remains before House where recommendation of 
Committee of  the Whole is rejected, Sec. 5.52
considering, in House, Sec. 5.7
Constitutional amendments and, thereto are considered in the House, 
Sec. 5.61
debate on motion to concur in, Sec. 11.17
debate on motion to dispose of, division of time, Sec. 5.43
debate on motion to dispose of, hour rule, Sec. 5.42
debate on, when considered in House, Sec. 5.56
deletion of, in enrollment of House bill, Sec. 4.5
Senate amendments-Cont.
difference between unanimous-consent requests to concur or to consider,
Sec.Sec. 5.13, 5.14
disagreed to in House to permit Senate to reconsider, Sec. 5.60
disposition of, by special rule, Sec.Sec. 5.21, 9.1, 9.2
disposition of, options where first motion defeated, Sec. 9.17
disposition of, to House amendments to Senate bill not requiring 
consideration in Committee of the Whole, by motion, Sec. 6.1
disposition of, where consideration in Committee of the Whole not 
required, Sec. 5.55
disposition of, where special rule is defeated, Sec. 5.45
division of debate time on motion to dispose of, Sec. 5.43
division of, not in order, considered in entirety, Sec. 5.57
effect of receding or not receding when question of receding and 
concurring in, is divided, Sec. 7.9
germane, amendment to, must be, Sec.Sec. 11.25-11.27
germaneness of, cannot be reached by point of order when a 
unanimous-consent request to concur therein is pending, Sec. 6.14
House action on, to House appropriation bill, figures in further 
amendment not confined to differences, Sec. 6.12
House amendment to, must be germane, Sec. 6.13
House amendments to Senate bill not requiring consideration in 
Committee of the Whole may be disposed of in House by motion, Sec. 6.1


[[Page 326]]

Senate amendments-Cont.
House bill with, and House amendment thereto, motion to concur with 
further House amendment in third degree, Sec. 6.4
House has receded from its amendment to a, and concurred therein with 
new amendment (to avoid amending in third degree), Sec. 6.9
House, when, are disposed of in, Sec. 6.1
motion to act on, privileged in House when stage of disagreement 
reached, Sec.Sec. 5.4, 7.3, 7.5
motion to amend, cannot touch House-passed text, Sec. 11.24
motion to concur in House was deemed more privileged than motion to 
commit where Senate ignored request for conference on, and further 
amended, Sec. 7.5
motion to concur in, with amendment being pending, another of same 
class not in order, Sec. 11.11
motion to concur in, with amendment may be amended if proponent yields 
for that purpose, Sec. 11.23
motion to refer (commit) where previous question rejected on 
concurring, Sec. 10.16
not in order if it changes House text agreed to by both bodies, 
Sec. 5.1
preferential motion disposing of, being rejected, question recurs on
underlying motion, Sec. 9.16
previous question on motion to dispose of, where defeated, Sec. 11.22
printing of text of, in Record where agreed to by special rule, 
Sec. 5.47
procedure for taking up, where amendments require consideration in 
Committee of the Whole, Sec. 5.8
reading of text where, being considered under special rule, Sec. 5.46
Senate amendments-Cont.
receded from, with an amendment, Senate practice, Sec. 10.4
receding from, bill not passed where House has amended, Sec.Sec. 10.8, 
10.9
receding or not receding when question of receding and concurring in, 
is divided, effect of, Sec. 7.9
recognition to proceed to consideration of, by unanimous consent, 
Sec. 8.23
recognition where, are considered under suspension, Sec.Sec. 8.22, 
9.9
recognition where manager's motion regarding, in disagreement is 
rejected, Sec. 8.21
refer (commit) where previous question rejected on concurring, motion 
to, Sec. 10.16
referral
committee having jurisdiction over, not House bill, Sec. 5.29
placed in Record, Sec. 5.16
Speaker sometimes announces his, Sec. 5.17
relative precedence of motion to table and motion to refer, Sec. 7.23
requiring consideration in Committee of the Whole, intervention by 
Committee on Rules, Sec.Sec. 5.30, 5.31
roll call vote on, precluded where unanimous-consent request pending, 
Sec. 9.14
Senate amendment striking House text and inserting, House has amended
insertion to achieve amendment of House-passed text, Sec. 5.2
Senate has receded from, with amendment, Sec. 10.4
Senate having ignored request for conference on, and further amended, 
the motion to concur in House was deemed more privileged than motion 
to commit, Sec. 7.5


[[Page 327]]

Senate amendments-Cont. 
Senate recedes from, bill not passed where House has amended, 
Sec.Sec. 10.8, 10.9
Speaker sometimes announces his referral of, Sec. 5.17
Speaker's discretionary authority to refer, Sec.Sec. 5.27, 5.28
special order used to dispose of several, Sec. 5.20
special rule disposing of, Sec.Sec. 9.1, 9.2, 9.4
special rule disposing of, to House amendment, Sec. 9.8
special rule disposing of, variations of, Sec.Sec. 9.3, 9.5, 9.6
special rule making in order motion to concur in, Sec. 5.19 
special rule providing for agreeing to, effect of defeat of previous 
question on, Sec. 9.7
special rule providing for agreeing to, previous question on, defeated, 
Sec. 5.44
special rule providing for division of, Sec. 5.58
special rule (under suspension) before stage of disagreement, action 
on, by, Sec. 11.4
special rule, use of, called up under suspension, to dispose of, Sec. 
5.23
special rule, use of, to concur in, Sec.Sec. 5.24, 5.25
special rule, use of, to consider, before stage of disagreement, 
prohibiting other amendments, Sec. 5.38
special rule, use of, to consider, in House, Sec. 5.54
special rule, use of, to dispose of Senate amendment before stage of
disagreement, Sec.Sec. 5.34, 5.35, 5.37
special rule, use of, to limit options when Senate amendment is being
considered, Sec.Sec. 5.38-5.41
special rule, use of, to refer, Sec. 5.33
Senate amendments-Cont.
special rule, use of, where disposing of Senate amendments by motion 
requires action by several committees, Sec. 5.32
special rule used to amend, Sec. 5.22
special rule used to "self-execute" disposition of, Sec. 5.21
standing rules of House and procedures for disposition of, Sec. 5.48
striking and inserting, division thereof not in order, Sec. 5.58
striking and inserting, special order permitting division of question, 
Sec. 5.36
suspension motion to consider, no alternative motion in order, Sec. 5.26
suspension of rule, disposing of, not subject to amendment under, 
Sec.Sec. 9.10, 9.11
tabling motion to dispose of, in disagreement, Sec. 7.27
third degree, when, becomes, Sec. 6.3
unanimous-consent request to dispose of, cannot be displaced by 
alternative motion, Sec. 5.10
vacating concurrence in, and offering different amendment thereto, 
Sec. 11.3
vote cannot be demanded where objection raised to pending request to 
consider, no question being left, Sec. 5.11
voting on recommendation of Committee of the Whole on, in House, 
Sec. 5.51
Senate bill
amending, before stage of disagreement, Sec. 3.4
committee discharged, similar to House-passed measure, taken up 
amended, and sent to Senate in lieu of House version, Sec. 3.9
consideration of, and sending to conference of, before stage of 
disagreement, Sec. 3.5


[[Page 328]]

Senate bill-Cont.
consideration of, under provision of rule providing for consideration 
of House version, Sec. 3.7
disposition of, in House if similar to House measure just passed, 
Sec. 3.2
erroneously passed, later disposed of in House by motion to postpone
indefinitely, Sec. 2.16
not requiring consideration in Committee of the Whole and similar to 
reported House measure can be considered by motion, Sec. 3.8
passage vacated by unanimous consent, Sec. 3.10
passed in lieu of similar House measure, Sec. 3.13
referral of, following recommittal of House version, Sec. 3.12
referral of, in House at Speaker's discretion, Sec.Sec. 3.1, 3.12
special order, amending Senate bill with House text, allowing debate 
but not intervening amendment, Sec. 3.4
stage of disagreement, action in House before, Sec. 3.5
substituting, for House bill after passage, Sec. 3.2
taking up, waiving points of order against, limited amendments, 
sending to conference, all before stage of disagreement, Sec. 3.5
Senate concurrent resolution
House returned, at request of Senate, Sec. 4.1
Senate joint resolution
consideration in House of, calling up, considering under five-minute 
rule, Sec. 4.2
consideration of
amending text and preamble with House version, Sec. 4.4
in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 4.3
Senate proceedings
House takes public notice of, when informed by written message, 
Sec. 2.14
Special rule
amending Senate amendment by, Sec. 5.22
concurring in Senate amendments by, Sec.Sec. 5.24, 5.25
considering Senate amendment before stage of disagreement, prohibiting 
other amendments by, Sec. 5.38
considering Senate amendments in House by use of, Sec. 5.54
"deeming" resolutions, anticipating Senate action, Sec. 1.11
disposing of Senate amendment before stage of disagreement by, 
Sec.Sec. 5.34, 5.35, 5.37
disposing of Senate amendment to House amendment, Sec. 9.8
disposing of Senate amendments, called up by suspension, Sec. 5.23
disposing of Senate amendments, variations of, Sec.Sec. 9.3, 9.5, 9.6
disposition of Senate amendment where, is defeated, Sec. 5.45
disposition of Senate amendments by, Sec.Sec. 5.21, 9.1, 9.2, 9.4
division of Senate amendment, providing for, by, Sec. 5.58
House considered Senate joint resolution in Committee of the Whole 
under provisions of, Sec. 4.3
limiting options when Senate amendment is being considered by, 
Sec.Sec. 5.38-5.41
making in order motion to concur in Senate amendments, Sec. 5.19
permitting division of question on Senate amendment striking and 
inserting, Sec. 5.36


[[Page 329]]

Special rule-Cont.
previous question defeated on, providing for agreeing to Senate 
amendment, Sec. 5.44
previous question on, effect of defeat of, Sec. 9.7
procedure under, substituting Senate bill, amended, after passage of 
House measure, Sec. 3.3
referring Senate amendment by, Sec. 5.33
"self-executing" disposition of Senate amendments by, Sec. 5.21
Senate amendments in House, use of to consider, Sec. 5.54
Senate bill considered under, reported for consideration of House 
measure, Sec. 3.7
taking up, amending on House floor, Sec. 3.6
taking up House bill with Senate amendments before stage of 
disagreement by, Sec. 5.5
third-degree amendment, action on by, Sec.Sec. 6.5, 6.6
use of, where disposing of Senate amendments by motion requires action 
by several committees, Sec. 5.32
use of to dispose of several Senate amendments, Sec. 5.20
Stage of disagreement
action in House before, Sec. 3.5
before, concurring in nongermane Senate amendment, Sec. 9.12
before, House has several options at Speaker's discretion: referral, 
sending to conference, action by special rule, Sec. 5.5
before, motion to send House bill with Senate amendments to conference 
not privileged, Sec. 5.6



Stage of disagreement-Cont.
conference report ruled out of order, stage of disagreement continues 
and motions to dispose of amendments remain privileged, Sec. 7.6
consideration by motion of Senate bill before, where similar to 
reported House measure on House calendar, Sec. 3.8
motion to concur has precedence over motion to disagree when in, 
Sec. 7.11
motion to dispose of amendment becomes privileged after, is reached, 
Sec. 6.4
motion to dispose of Senate amendment before, use of special rule, 
Sec.Sec. 5.34, 5.35, 5.37
motion to dispose of third-degree amendment privileged once, is 
reached, Sec. 6.7
motions to dispose of Senate amendments become privileged when, is 
reached, Sec.Sec. 5.4, 7.3, 7.5
precedence of motions in House when, is reached, Sec. 7.4
precedence of motions in Senate when, is reached, Sec. 7.1
privileged motions when, is reached, Sec. 10.16
procedure for taking up Senate bill before, protected consideration 
and sending to conference, Sec. 3.5
relative precedence of motions
disagree and request conference and to simply disagree, Sec. 7.10
recede and concur over insisting on disagreement, Sec. 7.13
relative privilege of motions when in, Sec.Sec. 7.5, 7.8
when, is reached, Sec. 10.16
Suspension of rules
disposing of Senate amendment not subject to amendment, Sec.Sec. 9.10, 
9.11


[[Page 330]]

Suspension of rules-Cont.
recognition where Senate amendment is disposed of under, Sec.Sec. 8.22, 
9.9
Suspension procedure
where, is used to consider Senate amendments, alternative motion not 
in order, Sec. 5.26
Table, motion to
precedence of, Sec. 7.23
Senate amendments in disagreement, use of, when considering, Sec. 7.27
Third degree, motions to dispose of Senate amendment in, privileged, 
Sec. 6.7
Third degree, when amendments reach, Sec. 6.3
Vacating
passage of House bill, substituting text for previously passed similar 
Senate bill, Sec. 3.9
passage of Senate bill, by unanimous consent, Sec. 3.10
Veto
other House informed of action on, Sec. 2.4
Senate informed of House action on, Sec. 2.4

