[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[A. INTRODUCTORY]
[Â§ 3. When Motion Is in Order]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 391-395]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
        A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec.    3. When Motion Is in Order

Possession of Official Papers

Sec.    3.1 A request to agree to a conference on a bill and appoint 
conferees is not in order until the bill and papers are received from 
the Senate.

On June 18, 1947,(17) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, and the following 
proceedings occurred:

MR. ANDREWS of New York: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the House passed the 
bill H.R. 3303, the so-called War Department enlistment bill. The 
Senate passed Senate 1213, striking out all after the enacting clause 
in the House bill and substituting the Senate provisions. By motion of 
the Senate today, they request a conference. That is being messaged 
over to the House. I move that we agree to the conference and that the 
Speaker appoint conferees.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     93 CONG. REC. 7252, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 392]]

THE SPEAKER: The Chair would inform the gentleman from New York that 
the papers have not yet arrived, and the request to agree to the 
conference and appoint conferees is not in order at this time.

Stage of Disagreement

Sec.    3.2 Rule XX clause 1 (au-thorizing a single motion to disagree to 
Senate amendments to a House bill on the Speaker's table and to request 
or agree to a conference if that motion is authorized by the committee 
having jurisdiction of the bill and if the Speaker recognizes for that 
purpose) was held to supersede those precedents established prior to 
the adoption of that rule which precluded the motion to go to 
conference until the stage of disagreement had been reached.

On Aug. 1, 1972,(18) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Carl 
D. Perkins, of Kentucky, Chairman of the Committee on Education and 
Labor:

Mr. Speaker, upon direction of the Committee on Education and Labor, I 
move to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 7130) to amend the 
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the minimum wage under 
that act, to extend its coverage, to establish procedures to relieve 
domestic industries and workers injured by increased imports from low-
wage areas, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, 
disagree to the Senate amendments, and request a conference with the 
Senate thereon.
MR. [JOHN N.] ERLENBORN [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order against the motion.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. ERLENBORN: Mr. Speaker, the motion to request a conference is not 
in order until a motion to disagree to the Senate amendments has been 
made and disposed of. I should like to be heard on the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear the gentleman on the point of order.
MR. ERLENBORN: Mr. Speaker, Jefferson's Manual, section 535, on page 
265, states:

The motion to ask a conference is distinct from motions to agree or 
disagree to amendments of the other House and is not in order until the 
House has disposed of the preferential motions to agree, recede, or 
insist. . . . 

THE SPEAKER: The rule which the gentleman is talking about has been 
superseded by clause 1 of Rule XX which provides a procedure for 
sending bills to conference. The Chair overrules the point of order.
The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Kentucky. . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     118 CONG. REC. 26153, 26156, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 393]]

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 190, nays 198, not voting 44.

After Conference Report Ruled Out

Sec.    3.3 Where a point of order against a conference report is 
sustained, the amendments of the Senate are again before the House, and 
a motion to send the bill and amendments to conference is again in 
order.

On Oct. 4, 1962,(19) after Speaker Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, sustained a point of order against a conference report on 
H.R. 7927, a bill to adjust postal rates, Mr. Tom Murray, of Tennessee, 
offered a motion to send the bill and amendments in disagreement to 
conference again.

MR. MURRAY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House insist upon its 
disagreement with the amendments of the Senate and request a conference 
with the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee.
The motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Murray, Morrison, and Corbett.
There was no objection. 

Where Preferential Motions Are Pending

Sec.    3.4 A motion to request a further conference on an amendment 
reported in disagreement by conferees is not in order so long as 
preferential motions to dispose of amendments in disagreement are 
pending.

On Oct. 17, 1967,(20) the House was considering the amendment in 
disagreement reported back from a conference on H.R. 11476, Department 
of Transportation appropriations for fiscal 1968. Mr. Edward P. Boland, 
of Massachusetts, moved that the House recede from its disagreement to 
Senate amendment No. 13 and concur therein. Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of 
Illinois, posed the following parliamentary inquiry:

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?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     108 CONG. REC. 22332, 22333, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     113 CONG. REC. 29044, 29048, 29049, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 394]]

THE SPEAKER:(1) 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. . . . 
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Massachusetts will yield 
further for a parliamentary inquiry, is it in order, in the event the 
motion to recede and concur is voted down?
THE SPEAKER: After the House has taken some specific action with 
relation to the amendment of the other body, the Chair assumes that a 
further conference could be requested.

Same Day as Receipt of Senate Message

Sec.    3.5 A motion to disagree to a Senate amendment to a House joint 
resolution and request a conference with the Senate is in order under 
Rule XX clause 1 on the same day the joint resolution and Senate 
amendment are messaged back from the Senate, if the Speaker in his 
discretion recognizes for that purpose and if the motion is authorized 
by the committee which had reported the measure to the House.

On Nov. 16, 1971,(2) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, made a motion to 
take from the Speaker's table House Joint Resolution 946, making 
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1972, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, and request a conference with the Senate. Mr. H. R. 
Gross, of Iowa, raised a parliamentary inquiry:

Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 2.     117 CONG. REC. 41555, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 395]]

Can this kind of a motion be made on the same day the message is 
received from the Senate?
THE SPEAKER:(3) The Chair will state to the gentleman that the answer 
to his question is "Yes; it can be."