[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[C. INSTRUCTIONS TO CONFEREES; MOTIONS TO INSTRUCT]
[Â§ 9. In General]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 547-573]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
C. INSTRUCTIONS TO CONFEREES; MOTIONS TO INSTRUCT
 
Sec.    9. In General

Motions to instruct House managers at a conference of the two Houses 
are in order at three stages of the legislative process. First, one 
such motion is in order after a conference has been requested or agreed 
to and before conferees have been appointed.(1) Although only one 
motion to instruct is in order at this stage, it is subject to germane 
amendment if the previous question has not been ordered on the motion.
(2) 
Additional motions to instruct conferees are in order and are of the 
highest privilege under a House rule when the conferees have failed to 
file a report within 20 calendar days after their appointment or within 
36 hours thereafter during the last six days of any session.(3) And, 
whereas only one valid motion to instruct conferees is in order prior 
to their appointment, this limitation does not apply to motions 
authorized by this rule.(4) 
Finally, the House may instruct its conferees after they have filed 
their report by adopting a motion to recommit the conference report 
with instructions.(5) The disqualification of a motion to instruct does 
not preclude the offering of a proper motion at the same stage in the 
proceedings.(6) When one House adopts a conference report, the 
conferees are thereby discharged and the other House no longer has the 
opportunity to recommit.
Motions to instruct are debatable under the hour rule,(7) although a 
motion to recommit a conference report with instructions to the 
conferees is not subject to debate.(8) The right of recogni-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Sec. 9.1, infra. See Sec.Sec. 9.2, 10.1-10.4, infra.
 2.     Sec.Sec. 9.2, 9.3, infra. See Sec. 9.2, infra, for a discussion 
of the test of germaneness in this situation.
 3.     Rule XXVIII clause 1(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997). 
See generally Sec. 14, infra.
 4.     Sec.Sec.14.14-14.17, infra.
 5.     See, generally, Sec. 32, infra.
 6.     8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3235.
 7.     Sec. 11.4, infra.
 8.     Parliamentarian's Note: On Nov. 15, 1973, Speaker Carl Albert 
(Okla.), ruled that the debate on motions to recommit with instructions 
authorized by Rule XVI clause 4, applied only to such motions affecting 
bills and joint resolutions, and not, in that instance, to a motion to 
recommit a simple resolution with instructions. This ruling also 
precludes debate on the motion to recommit a conference report with 
instructions to the conferees. See 119 CONG. REC. 37141, 37142, 37149-
51, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 548]]

tion to offer the motion belongs to the minority,(9) and the Member 
offering the motion initiates and has the right to close the debate.
(10) 
Under a rule adopted in the 101st Congress, the debate time on such a 
motion is divided between the majority and minority parties.(11) The 
proponent may yield time to another Member(12) although he loses the 
floor if he yields for an amendment.(13) 
Since instructions to managers on the part of the House cannot bind the 
managers on the part of the Senate(14) such instructions are advisory 
in nature,(15) and a conference report may not be ruled out on a point 
of order on the ground that the conferees have violated their 
instructions.(16) 
While a motion to instruct conferees may extend their power by 
authorizing agreement to Senate amendments which would otherwise be out 
of order in the House,(17) it may not instruct them to do what they 
might not do otherwise.(18) 
The motion may be precluded by a resolution which provides for the 
appointment of conferees without intervening motion.(19) 
The motion may be laid on the table(20) without carrying the bill to 
the table with it.(1)
Instructions to conferees expire when their report is filed and have no 
effect if a further conference is held.(2) Therefore, when amendments 
are reported from conference in disagreement and a further conference 
is requested or agreed to, a motion to instruct is again in order 
before the appointment of conferees for this further conference.(3)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     Sec.Sec. 11.1, 11.2, infra.
10.     Sec. 11.12, infra.
11.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a 
(1997). See also Sec. 11.9, infra, for modern practice permitting a 
three-way division of the debate time.
12.     Sec.Sec. 11.6, 11.7, infra.
13.     Sec. 11.13, infra.
14.     Sec. 12.1, infra.
15.     Sec.Sec. 12.2, 12.3, infra.
16.     Sec. 12.6, infra.
17.     Rule XX clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997). See 
Sec. 12.19, infra.
18.     Sec. 12.12, infra.
19.     7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 774; 8 Cannons' Precedents Sec. 3394. 
See Sec. 2.29, supra.
20.     Sec.Sec. 9.8-9.13, infra.
 1.     8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2658.
 2.     Id. at Sec. 3240.
 3.     Id.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 549]]

Number of Motions
Sec.    9.1 Only one motion to instruct conferees is in order before they 
are appointed.
On May 29, 1968,(4) Mr. Richard H. Poff, of Virginia, asked whether a 
motion to instruct House conferees would be in order after the House 
adopted a motion to send to conference H.R. 5037, the Law Enforcement 
and Criminal Justice Assistance Act of 1967. Speaker John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, replied that a motion to instruct conferees would be 
in order before the appointment of the conferees. Mr. Poff then made a 
further parliamentary inquiry.

Am I correct in assuming that only one such motion to instruct would at 
this time be in order?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman's assumption is correct.
Amendments in Order
Sec.    9.2 Prior to the appointment of conferees, only one motion to 
instruct is in order, but before the previous question is ordered on 
this motion it is subject to an amendment, an amendment to this 
amendment, a substitute for the original amendment, and an amendment to 
the substitute; and any such amendment need only be germane to the 
subject matter of either the House or Senate measure as committed to 
conference, and need not be germane to the original motion to instruct.
(5)
On Oct. 31, 1939,(6) the House adopted a resolution sending House Joint 
Resolution 306, the Neutrality Act of 1939, to conference. Mr. James A. 
Shanley, of Connecticut, offered a motion to instruct the House Members 
who would then be appointed conferees. After the Clerk reported this 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     114 CONG. REC. 15499, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5.     Parliamentarian's Note: This more permissive test of germaneness 
is used when amending instructions to conferees, since such 
instructions are advisory in nature, are not binding on the conferees 
and therefore exert only an indirect effect on the matter in 
conference. The more proscriptive test of germaneness, which requires 
an amendment to be germane to the particular measure it proposes to 
amend, is employed in most other cases where the adoption of such an 
amendment has a more direct effect on that particular measure. See Ch. 
32, Sec. 11.26, supra, and generally, Ch. 28, supra.
 6.     85 CONG. REC. 1104, 1105, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 550]]

motion, Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, initiated a series of 
parliamentary inquiries:

MR. MAPES: Mr. Speaker, the question has been frequently asked whether 
subsequent motions to instruct the conferees shall take the form of 
amendments to the pending motion or whether, if this motion should be 
either voted up or voted down, separate motions may be made to instruct 
the conferees on other provisions of the legislation.
THE SPEAKER:(7) In answer to the parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman 
from Michigan, the Chair will state that under the rules of the House 
only one motion to instruct the conferees is permissible, but that 
motion is subject to amendment.
MR. MAPES: So the answer of the Speaker is that other Members who 
desire to have the conferees instructed in other respects must present 
their motions in the form of amendments to the pending motion?
THE SPEAKER: Or in the form of a substitute to the original amendment. . . . 
MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]: How much time for debate do we 
have on this motion, and how is the time to be controlled?
THE SPEAKER: Under the present situation in the House, the gentleman 
from Connecticut is entitled to 1 hour. . . . 
MR. MAPES: There seems to be an idea in the minds of some that the 
amendments that can be offered to this motion are limited to four in 
number. I do not know where that idea comes from. My own thought is 
that, of course, the number that can be pending at any one time is 
limited, but as one amendment is disposed of, further amendments can be 
presented indefinitely. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will read into the Record, in answer to the 
inquiry, Rule XIX of the Rules of the House, "Of Amendments":

When a motion or proposition is under consideration a motion to amend 
and a motion to amend that amendment shall be in order, and it shall 
also be in order to offer a further amendment by way of substitute, to 
which one amendment may be offered, but which shall not be voted on 
until the original matter is perfected, but either may be withdrawn 
before amendment or decision is had thereon. Amendments to the title of 
a bill or resolution shall not be in order until after its passage and 
shall be decided without debate. . . . 

MR. [JOSEPH W.] MARTIN [Jr.] of Massachusetts: For the information of 
the House, is it correct that an amendment to the motion to instruct 
conferees offered by the gentleman from Connecticut is in order at any 
time until the previous question is ordered?
THE SPEAKER: If a Member gets recognition to offer an amendment and it 
is germane to the subject matter of either the House or Senate bill.
The Chair thinks it important in construing the rules, for the 
information of all Members of the House, to state that it must always 
be remembered that an amendment must be germane to the subject matter 
under consideration. In 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 551]]

this instance it means the amendment must be germane to some provision 
in the Senate amendment to the House joint resolution or in the House 
joint resolution itself.
The Chair may state, in order to fully clarify this matter so there may 
be no misunderstanding or confusion about the rights of Members-and 
there is no legitimate ground for confusion on this question-that now 
that a motion has been offered by the gentleman from Connecticut to 
instruct the conferees, an amendment to that motion will be in order if 
germane, and to that amendment an amendment may be offered if germane. 
To the original amendment to the motion a substitute may be offered and 
an amendment to the substitute may be offered, as declared by the rule 
which the Chair has just read, and all five of those propositions may 
be pending at the same time. The rule provides, however, the method in 
which they shall be called for disposition.(8)
Sec.    9.3 If the previous question is voted down on a motion to 
instruct conferees, the motion is subject to germane amendment.
On Oct. 19, 1971,(9) Mr. F. Edward Hï¿½bert, of Louisiana, sought 
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 8687 (military 
procurement authorizations, fiscal 1972) with Senate amendments 
thereto, disagree to those amendments and agree to a conference 
requested by the Senate. The Speaker, Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, then 
recognized Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois:

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I only do so to 
propound a parliamentary inquiry--
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: Assuming the 
gentleman from Illinois proposes to offer a motion to instruct the 
conferees, and assuming that that motion does not contain the so-called 
Mansfield amendment, when the previous question is requested on that 
motion is it in order that if the previous question is voted down to 
offer an amendment to that motion to instruct the conferees?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Illinois in 
response to his parliamentary inquiry that if the previous question on 
the motion to instruct is voted down any germane amendment would be in 
order.(10)
Precedence of Motion To Instruct
Sec.    9.4 Where two Members sought recognition at the same moment, one 
to call up a conference report and the other to instruct conferees 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     See also 85 CONG. REC. 1204-10, 76th Cong. 2d Sess., Nov. 1, 
1939.
 9.     117 CONG. REC. 36832-35, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     See also 114 CONG. REC. 15499-512, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., May 29, 
1968.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 552]]

on another bill which had been in conference for over 20 days, the 
Chair recognized the Member offering the motion to instruct, which, 
under Rule XXVIII clause 1(c),(11) is given "the highest privilege."

On Oct. 22, 1990,(12) when two Members sought recognition, the Chair 
decided to recognize a Member offering a motion to instruct conferees 
instead of another who wanted to call up a conference report. No 
challenge was made to this order of recognition. The proceedings are 
carried as an example of the Chair's use of his power of recognition.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 5400, CAMPAIGN COST REDUCTION AND 
REFORM ACT OF 1990
MR. [WILLIAM M.] THOMAS of California: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
privileged motion to instruct conferees on the bill (H.R. 5400) to 
amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and certain related 
laws to clarify such provisions with respect to Federal elections to 
reduce costs in House of Representatives elections, and for other 
purposes.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(13) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Thomas 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 bill H.R. 5400 be instructed to agree to Section 105 of the House 
passed bill.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Swift] will be recognized for 30 minutes.

After disposition of the motion to instruct, the House proceeded to the 
consideration of the conference report.

MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 517, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 5268) 
making appropriations for Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related 
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1991, and 
for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursuant to House Resolution 517, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
Sec.    9.5 The Speaker may at his discretion recognize for a motion to 
suspend the rules, instead of recognizing for a motion to instruct 
conferees, since the "highest privilege" accorded the motion to 
instruct is, in effect, temporar-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
12.     136 CONG. REC. 31942, 31949, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
13.     Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 553]]

ily waived when the Speaker uses his authority to recognize for a 
motion which suspends all rules which would inhibit consideration of 
the measure called up under suspension.
On Mar. 1, 1988,(14) a "sus-pension day," the Speaker had recognized a 
Member to move to suspend the rules and pass a bill. After a second was 
ordered,(15) Mr. William E. Dannemeyer, of California, attempted to 
offer his privileged motion to instruct under Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), 
the "20-day" rule. The Speaker's ruling that under the circumstances, 
the motion to suspend the rules could be considered and the inquiries 
which followed are carried here.

MR. [BRUCE F.] VENTO [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the 
rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 90) to establish the Big Cypress 
National Preserve Addition in the State of Florida, and for other 
purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 90
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
(a) SHORT TITLE.-This Act may be cited as the "Big Cypress National 
Preserve Addition Act". . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(16) Is a second demanded?
MR. [ROBERT J.] LAGOMARSINO [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
second.
ATTEMPT TO OFFER MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 5, SCHOOL 
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1987
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged motion at the desk.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Dannemeyer moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on H.R. 5 and the Senate amendment thereto be instructed to 
agree to section 703 of the Senate amendment.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will have to examine to see whether 
or not the present motion just read is a privileged motion, if the 
gentleman will bear with the Chair for a moment.
The Chair would state to the distinguished gentleman from California 
that this is a highly privileged motion under rule XXVIII but it is not 
more privileged than a motion to suspend the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     134 CONG. REC. 2748-51, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. Seconds on motions to suspend the rules were required until the 
102d Congress, when the procedure was eliminated by the adoption of H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39.    
16.     Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 554]]

rules. Therefore, the Chair could entertain it later today.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. DANNEMEYER: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House provide that after 
the appointment of conferees any Member may file a motion to instruct 
conferees after 20 calendar days have elapsed; is that correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct.
But there was a motion pending at the time the gentleman offered his 
motion and therefore the Chair has ruled that the motion to suspend the 
rules has the same privilege as the gentleman's motion and the Chair is 
in the process of recognizing two Members for 20 minutes each to debate 
the pending bill.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Then I take it, Mr. Speaker, from the ruling of the 
Chair that this Member would be at liberty to renew this motion after 
the conclusion of the motion that was pending at the time the motion 
was made?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct. When no other higher 
motion is pending then the motion the gentleman is offering would be in 
order at that time. . . . 
ATTEMPT TO OFFER MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 5, SCHOOL 
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1987
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged motion at the desk.
MR. [MERVYN M.] DYMALLY [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend 
the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1447).
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, when I made the motion to instruct 
conferees before, there was then pending in the House a procedure to 
take up a specific bill under suspension of the rules and the Chair 
ruled that since that motion had preceded my motion to instruct 
conferees they were of equal dignity and the pending motion would 
proceed. Now I have achieved recognition before the motion to take up 
another bill on suspension, and now it would appear to this Member from 
California that from a parliamentary standpoint I should be recognized 
at this point to go forward on my motion, should I not?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will state to the distinguished 
gentleman from California that the Chair has the power of recognition 
and the Chair stated to the gentleman that today motions to suspend the 
rules have equal privilege with the gentleman's motion. Therefore, the 
Chair is going to dispose of the two suspensions as matters of equal 
privilege, and then the gentleman from California could be recognized 
for the purpose he seeks recognition.


[[page 555]]

Precedence of Previous Question Relative to an Amendment to Motion To 
Instruct
Sec.    9.6 The motion for the previous question takes precedence over an 
amendment to a motion to instruct conferees.
On July 24, 1973,(17) Mr. Robert D. Price, of Texas, offered a 
preferential motion to instruct the House conferees on S. 1888, the 
Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973. After Mr. Price moved 
the previous question on his motion, the following proceedings 
occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(18) The question is on ordering the previous question.
MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I have an 
amendment to the preferential motion.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that ordering the previous question 
is the business before the House at this time.
Effect of Amendment to Motion To Instruct
Sec.    9.7 Whether or not an amendment to a motion to instruct conferees 
replaces or leaves intact the original instructions depends on the form 
of the amendment.
On Nov. 15, 1983,(19) the previous question was rejected on an initial 
motion to instruct conferees on the appropriation bill for the 
Department of Defense, fiscal year 1984. The motion, made before the 
Speaker's appointment of conferees, was offered by a minority Member 
from the Committee on Appropriations.
An amendment to the motion was then offered by another minority Member. 
Because of the manner in which the amendment was drafted, it added 
further instructions to, and did not replace, those initially offered.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4185, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
APPROPRIATIONS, 1984
MR. [JOSEPH P.] ADDABBO [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4185) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1984, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference 
requested by the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     119 CONG. REC. 25539-41, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
19.     129 CONG. REC. 32685, 32686, 32688, 32689, 32693, 98th Cong. 1st 
Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 556]]

THE SPEAKER:(20) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New York?
There was no objection.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. YOUNG OF FLORIDA
MR. [C. W. (BILL)] YOUNG of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Young of Florida moves that the managers on the part of the House, 
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
bill H.R. 4185, be instructed to insist on the House position on Senate 
amendments numbered 188 and 191.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is recognized for 1 
hour.
MR. YOUNG of Florida: I would be happy to yield to the gentleman, but I 
would prefer to yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) 
because she had asked first. For the purpose of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey.
MRS. [MARGE] ROUKEMA [of New Jersey]: First a parliamentary inquiry, 
then debate, Mr. Speaker.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MRS. ROUKEMA: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(1) The gentlewoman will state it.
MRS. ROUKEMA: Mr. Speaker, what is the precise nature of the debate 
time?
The gentleman from Florida now controls the time. If the motion to 
instruct is defeated, will there then be time for debate controlled by 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter)?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: There is only one motion to instruct on which 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is proceeding. That is why he 
controls the time.
If the previous question is voted down, an amendment may be offered to 
the motion and would be debatable for 1 hour.
MRS. ROUKEMA: I thank the Chair. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [JAMES] WEAVER [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. WEAVER: Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is voted down and an 
amendment is then offered, the motion offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) would remain intact, would it not, if the amendment 
dealt with binary nerve gas?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It would depend on the amendment offered at 
the time, if there were such an amendment offered of any sort.
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. YOUNG of Florida: 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
 1.     Dennis M. Hertel (Mich.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 557]]

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 164, nays 
256, not voting 14, as follows: . . . 
So the previous question was not ordered. . . . 
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. PORTER TO THE MOTION OFFERED BY MR. YOUNG OF 
FLORIDA
MR. [JOHN EDWARD] PORTER [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
amendment to the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Porter to the motion offered by Mr. Young of 
Florida: At the end of the motion before the period on the last line 
add: "and to insist on disagreement to that part of the Senate 
amendment numbered 73 to 'Procurement of Ammunition, Army' which 
provides $124,400,000 for production facilities for and procurement of 
chemical munitions, and the accompanying provision."

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) to the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. PORTER: 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 258, nays 
166, not voting 10, as follows:
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to instruct, as 
amended, offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
The motion to instruct, as amended, was agreed to. 
Tabling Motion To Instruct
Sec.    9.8 A motion to lay on the table a motion to instruct House 
managers is in order.
On Feb. 28, 1950,(2) after the House adopted a motion to agree to the 
further conference requested by the Senate on S. 1008, a bill to define 
the application of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act 
to certain pricing practices, the following proceedings occurred:

MR. [JOHN A.] CARROLL [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Carroll moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference of the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill S. 
1008 be instructed to insist upon the House amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     96 CONG. REC. 2501-16, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 558]]

MR. [FRANCIS E.] WALTER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
motion to instruct conferees be laid on the table.
THE SPEAKER:(3) The question is on the motion of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania to lay on the table the motion to instruct conferees.

The motion to lay on the table the motion to instruct the House 
conferees was agreed to.
Sec.    9.9 A motion to instruct conferees is subject to the motion to 
table, which must be submitted in writing if any Member so demands.
The effort to respond to the Senate's request for a conference on S. 
21, the California Desert Protection Act of 1994, resulted in 
protracted proceedings in the House. Nine electronic votes, 17 motions, 
and several points of order intervened between the time the chairman of 
the Natural Resources Committee, George Miller, of California, was 
recognized to offer the motion to go to conference under Rule XX clause 
1,(4) and the Speaker's appointment of conferees some six hours later. 
The final steps in this long process are noted here.(5) 
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON S. 21, CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT 
OF 1994
MR. [JERRY] LEWIS of California: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Lewis of California moves to instruct the House conferees on the 
Senate bill (S. 21) to designate certain lands in the California desert 
as wilderness, to establish Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and Mojave 
National Parks, and for other purposes, to insist on the following 
amendments of the House:
Section 102(l)-Argus Range Wilderness (Bill Thomas Amendment).
Section 112-Law Enforcement Access.
Section 113-Fish and Wildlife Management.
Section 208-Death Valley National Park Advisory Commission.
Section 308-Joshua Tree National Park Advisory Commission.
Title IV-Mojave National Preserve.
Section 416-Mojave National Preserve Advisory Commission.
Section 417-No Adverse Affect on Land Until Acquired.
Section 606-Native American Uses-Timbisha Shoshone Land Study.
Section 702-Authorization of Appropriations.
Section 703-Land Appraisal-Endangered Species Amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 4.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1997).
 5.     See 140 CONG. REC. 27655-57, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 4, 1994. 
For other proceedings relating to this conference, see also Sec.Sec. 
2.2-2.4, 2.12, supra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 559]]

Section 901-Buy American Act.

MR. LEWIS of California (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:(6) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
MR. [GEORGE] MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read. . . . 
MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MR. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA
MR. MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the 
motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis].
 THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
moves to table the motion to instruct.
MR. LEWIS of California: Mr. Speaker, is it in writing?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis] that the motion to table is a preferential 
motion.
MR. LEWIS of California: Mr. Speaker, is the motion in writing?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The motion is in writing.
The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows: 

Mr. Miller of California moves to lay the motion to instruct on the 
table.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] to lay on the table the motion 
to instruct offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. LEWIS of California: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 274, noes 
147, not voting 13. . . . 
MR. MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the motion 
to table the motion to instruct.
MR. [BRUCE F.] VENTO [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the 
table the motion to reconsider.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] to lay on the table the motion to 
reconsider.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. [RANDY (DUKE)] CUNNINGHAM [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 271, noes 
142, not voting 21. . . . 
So the motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider was agreed 
to. . . . 
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     William J. Hughes (N.J.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 560]]

Sec.    9.10 When a motion to instruct House managers at a conference is
pending, a motion to lay that motion on the table is in order; if the 
motion to table is voted down, the question next occurs on ordering the 
previous question on the motion to instruct.
On Aug. 3, 1961,(7) Mr. James E. Van Zandt, of Pennsylvania, offered a 
motion to instruct the House conferees on H.R. 7576, authorizing 
appropriations for the Atomic Energy Commission. Af- ter debate had 
been completed thereon, Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, moved to lay 
that motion on the table. Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, then 
rose.

Mr. HALLECK: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(8) The gentleman will state it.
MR. HALLECK: Under the rules of the House, is this motion to table in 
order?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The motion is in order.
MR. HALLECK: If the motion to table is voted down, will the vote then 
come on the motion itself?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: On ordering the previous question on the 
motion.
Sec.    9.11 The House adopted a preferential motion to lay on the table 
a motion to instruct House conferees to agree to  a Senate amendment to 
a House bill.
On July 27, 1971,(9) the following proceedings occurred in regard to 
H.R. 9272, the 1972 appropriations bill for the Departments of State, 
Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies.

MR. [DON] EDWARDS of California: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Edwards of California moves that the managers on the part of the 
House in the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 
the bill (H.R. 9272) be instructed to agree to the amendment of the 
Senate numbered 35. . . .

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

Mr. Rooney of New York moves to lay on the table the motion of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards).

THE SPEAKER:(10) The question is on the preferential motion offered by 
the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     107 CONG. REC. 14957-59, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 9.     117 CONG. REC. 27305-12, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 561]]

gentleman from New York (Mr. Rooney).

The motion to table was agreed to.(11) 
Sec.    9.12 The House rejected a preferential motion to lay on the table 
a motion to instruct the House managers at a conference, and then 
proceeded to agree to the motion to instruct.
On Dec. 18, 1969,(12) the House had just agreed to a request by Mr. 
Daniel J. Flood, of Pennsylvania, to agree to the conference requested 
by the Senate on H.R. 13111, appropriations for fiscal 1970 for the 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Department of Labor, 
and other related agencies. Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, then 
made the following motion:

Mr. Conte moves that the Managers on the part of the House, at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, H.R. 
13111, be instructed to agree to the amendments of the Senate numbered 
87 and 88.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Flood moves to lay on the table the motion of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).

THE SPEAKER:(13) The question is on the preferential motion. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 181, nays 216, not voting 
36. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
The motion was agreed to.

Sec.    9.13 The House rejected a preferential motion to lay on the table 
a motion to instruct House conferees, and then agreed to the motion to 
instruct its conference managers to insist on a provision in the House-
passed bill.
On July 9, 1970,(14) the House gave its consent to a request of Mr. 
Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New York, to disagree to the Senate amendments 
to H.R. 17070, the Postal Reform Act of 1970, and to request a 
conference with the Senate thereon. Mr. David N. Henderson, of North 
Carolina, then offered the following motion:

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Henderson moves that the managers on the part of the House at 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     See also 116 CONG. REC. 40271-89, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 8, 
1970.
12.     115 CONG. REC. 39826-30, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
13.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
14.     116 CONG. REC. 23525-28, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 562]]

the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, 
H.R. 17070, be instructed to insist on the provision beginning on page 
32, line 6, which reads as follows:
"(b) Each employee of the Postal Service has the right, freely and 
without fear of penalty or reprisal, to form, join, and assist a labor 
organization or to refrain from any such activity, and each employee 
shall be protected in the exercise of this right."

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

Mr. Dulski moves to lay on the table the motion offered by Mr. Henderson.

THE SPEAKER:(15) The question is on the motion to table offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Dulski). . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 154, nays 229, not voting 
48. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Henderson) is 
recognized.

After a brief discussion of his motion, Mr. Henderson moved the 
previous question thereon.

MR. HENDERSON: 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 North Carolina (Mr. Henderson). . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 228, nays 158, not voting 
45. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to.
Withdrawal of Motion To Instruct
Sec.    9.14 A motion to instruct the House managers at a conference 
was, after debate thereon, withdrawn.
On Dec. 11, 1969,(16) Mr. Charles A. Vanik, of Ohio, offered the 
following motion to instruct the House conferees on H.R. 13270, the Tax 
Reform Act of 1969:

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

Mr. Vanik moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill H.R. 
13270 be instructed to insist on the House provisions relating to the 
oil and gas depletion allowance and to provide tax relief by way of 
increased dependency exemptions.
 
After debate on the motion, it was withdrawn by Mr. Vanik:

MR. VANIK: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished chairman.(17) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
16.     115 CONG. REC. 38543-45, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Referring to Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.), Chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, who was a conferee on H.R. 13270. During the debate on 
Mr. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 563]]

The conferees and managers on the part of the House have our best 
wishes, and I ask that they speak for the average taxpayers of America 
who need to get some relief out of this tax program which will be 
before the conference.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my motion.
THE SPEAKER:(18) The gentleman from Ohio withdraws his preferential 
motion.
Example of Several Instructions Regarding Portions of Senate Substitute
Sec.    9.15 Where the Senate had amended a continuing appropriation bill 
with the text of five general bills not yet enacted, the House, when 
appointing conferees, entertained a motion to instruct its managers to 
agree to certain described Senate positions on specific issues 
addressed in the Senate substitute. 

H.R. 3019 was a "long-term" continuing appropriation bill. As of March 
21, 1996, the government was being funded under a "short-term" 
continuing resolution, which carried funding through Apr. 3, 1996.(19) 
The motion to instruct carried here was offered by the ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations but was defeated on a roll 
call vote of 194-207.
One of the major impediments to wrapping up the general appropriation 
bill for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare was 
an amendment offered by Mr. Ernest J. Istook, Jr., of Oklahoma, 
relating to family planning. Because of the special interest 
surrounding this bill, the Speaker appointed the subcommittee chairs 
and ranking members on all parts of the bill except for the Istook 
amendment, where only managers from the Labor, HHS subcommittee were 
named. The pertinent proceedings of Mar. 21, 1996,(20) are carried 
below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vanik's motion, Mr. Mills indicated that at the conference he 
intended to insist on those items referred to in the motion.
18.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
19.     H.J. Res. 165, passed by both the House and the Senate on Mar. 
21, 1996, carried the funding for those appropriation accounts not yet 
enacted into law until Apr. 3, 1996. This was the seventh in a series 
of nine joint resolutions passed by the House continuing appropriations 
for fiscal 1996. 
20.     142 CONG. REC. 6028, 6030, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 564]]

APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 3019, BALANCED BUDGET DOWN- PAYMENT 
ACT, II
MR. [ROBERT] LIVINGSTON [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3019) making 
appropriations for fiscal year 1996 to make a further downpayment 
toward a balanced budget, and for other purposes, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(1) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. OBEY
MR. [DAVID R.] OBEY [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
instruct.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference of the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment 
of the Senate to the bill, H.R. 3019, be instructed to:
(a) agree to the position in the Senate amendment increasing funding 
above the levels in the House bill for programs of the Department of 
Education;
(b) agree to the position in the Senate amendment increasing funding 
above the levels in the House bill for programs of the Environmental 
Protection Agency;
(c) agree to the position in the Senate amendment that provides a 
minimum of $975,000,000 from within the $1,903,000,000 provided for 
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants within the Department of Justice for 
the Public Safety and Community Policing grants pursuant to title I of 
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (COPS on the 
beat program);
(d) agree to the position in the Senate amendment increasing funding 
above the levels in the House bill for job training and worker 
protection programs of the Department of Labor;
(e) agree to the position in the Senate amendment deleting Title V of 
the House bill placing onerous new red tape requirements on Federal 
grantees; and
(f) agree to the position in the Senate amendment specifying a maximum 
grant award of $2500 under the Pell Grant Program; and
(g) agree to the position in the Senate amendment providing fiscal year 
1997 funding of $1,000,000,000 for the Low-Income Energy Assistance 
Program of the Department of Health and Human Services. . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees:
For consideration of the House bill (except for section 101(c)) and the 
Senate amendment (except for section 101(d)), and modifications 
committed to conference:
Messrs. Livingston, Myers of Indiana, Young of Florida, Regula, Lewis 
of California, Porter, Rogers, Skeen, and Wolf, Mrs. Vucanovich, and 
Messrs. Lightfoot, Callahan, Walsh, Obey, Yates, Stokes, Bevill, 
Murtha, Wilson, Dixon, Hefner, and Mollohan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Joel Hefley (Colo.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 565]]

For consideration of section 101(c) of the House bill, and section 101
(d) of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Porter, Young of Florida, Bonilla, Istook, Miller of Florida, 
Dickey, Riggs, Wicker, Livingston, Obey, Stokes, and Hoyer, Ms. Pelosi, 
and Mrs. Lowey.

There was no objection.
Example of a General Motion To Instruct Conferees
Sec.    9.16 Instructions to conferees may be specific or general; and 
managers on the part of the House have been urged, by a motion offered 
under the 20-day rule, "to meet with" the Senate conferees where no 
conference meeting had been scheduled.
Where the managers on the part of the House on the urgent supplemental 
appropriation bill for the Department of Agriculture, 1984, had been 
appointed for over 20 days without having a meeting with their Senate 
counterparts, a motion to instruct was offered under Rule XXVIII clause 
1(c).
The motion, made on May 2, 1984,(2) although not adopted by the House, 
is carried as an example of a "general" instruction to conferees.

MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(3) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Conte moves that the managers on the part of the House be 
instructed to meet with the managers on the part of the Senate on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on House Joint Resolution 492.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. CONTE: . . . I now give notice that whenever I yield during 
consideration of this motion, I yield for purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I have offered a motion which so far as I know is unique 
in the history of the House of Representatives; namely, to instruct 
conferees simply to go to conference.
Under clause B of rule 28 of the House, after conferees have been 
appointed for 20 calendar days, and have failed to make a report, it is 
highly privileged to move to instruct conferees, or to discharge and 
appoint new conferees.
This clause of rule 28 was intended to be used to break a deadlock 
between House and the Senate conferees.
The current situation, and the motion, are unique because we do not 
have a deadlock. We have not even had a conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     130 CONG. REC. 10732, 10733, 10735, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 566]]

On March 6, the House passed House Joint Resolution 492, which 
appropriated $150 million for food assistance for Africa through title 
II of Public Law 480, and made available another $90 million in 
commodities from the stocks of the Commodity Credit Corporation, for 
barter or sale on a competitive bid basis.
On April 5, the Senate passed that bill with 36 amendments, appointed 
conferees, and requested a conference with the House.
On April 11, I asked my chairman, in a letter and in a statement on the 
floor, to appoint conferees and to go to conference with the Senate 
before the Easter recess. Later that day we did appoint conferees, 6 
days after the Senate had passed the bill.
Three weeks later we have not gone to conference. . . .  
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the preferential motion.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the preferential motion 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Conte) there 
were-ayes 13, noes 10.
MR. [HAROLD L.] VOLKMER [of Missouri]: 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 159, nays 
245, not voting 29, as follows: . . .

Parliamentarian's Note: General motions to instruct are rare and have 
been viewed with some scepticism. A ruling by Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, 
of Tennessee, on Aug. 1, 1935,(4) held in order a motion to instruct 
conferees under the 20-day rule to hold a conference under "fair 
conditions."

"General" Motions To Instruct Conferees
Sec.    9.17 Motions to instruct House conferees are sometimes phrased as 
"general" instructions, not addressing specific provisions in the bill 
and amendment committed to conference but urging conferees to work 
toward the achievement of broad purposes. 
Any motion to instruct must urge action which is "within the scope of 
conference."
In this instance,(5) a prior example of a motion urging conferees to 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     79 CONG. REC. 12272, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5.     131 CONG. REC. 27366, 27367, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 11, 1985.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 567]]

"promptly report" had not been noted in recent precedents.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MICHEL
MR. [ROBERT H.] MICHEL [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Michel moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes on the two Houses on the joint 
resolution, H.J. Res. 372, be instructed to promptly report amendments 
to the Budget Control and Impoundment Act which provide mechanisms for 
deficit reductions, including specific and mandatory budget goals for 
achieving a balanced budget within the next 6 years.

THE SPEAKER:(6) The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel] is recognized 
for 1 hour.
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I would not expect to use the complete hour.
THE SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield a half hour to the Democratic 
side?
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 15 minutes for the 
moment and 15 minutes for our side and let us see where we go.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman want to ask unanimous consent that the 
debate be 30 minutes instead of 1 hour?
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to do anything that is going to 
upset some Members here, but if we can put a little bit of restraint--
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman intend to yield equal time to the 
opponents of the motion, if there is opposition?
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly intend that the time be 
equally divided.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel] is recognized for 
30 minutes and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski] is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mack].

Parliamentarian's Note: Another example of a "general" motion to 
instruct was offered to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, at the time the 
Speaker appointed conferees, on July 16, 1986.(7) That motion is 
carried here as an additional example of a nonspecific motion.

MR. [JOHN J.] DUNCAN [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Duncan moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing vote of the two houses on the bill, H.R. 
3838, be instructed to insist that the conference report result in:
1. A fair tax burden for all taxpayers, both corporate and individual, 
coupled with marginal tax rates no higher than the Senate bill.
2. Fair treatment of families in the lower and middle income groups, 
which requires a full $2,000 personal exemption for both itemizers and 
nonitemizers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
 7.     132 CONG. REC. 16703, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 568]]

3. Preservation of the House position with respect to individual 
retirement accounts to the extent consistent with preserving retirement 
and savings incentives for low and middle income taxpayers.
4. No net increase in Federal taxes.
Nature of Instructions to Conferees
Sec.    9.18 An initial motion to instruct conferees, before their 
appointment, has been targeted at the conference agenda, stating 
priorities with respect to the issues to be addressed.
The motion to instruct, which was not challenged as to its form or 
content, is carried as an example of a general motion.(8) 

MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2072) making 
dire emergency supplemental appropriations and transfers, urgent 
supplementals, and correcting enrollment errors for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1989, and for other purposes, with Senate 
amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER:(9) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Mississippi?
There was no objection.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. CONTE
MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Conte moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill H.R. 
2072 be instructed not to meet with the managers on the part of the 
Senate on other issues until resolution of supplemental funding for 
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
Whitten] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
Forms of Motion To Instruct on Budget Resolutions
Sec.    9.19 Form of a motion to recommit a conference report with 
instructions general in scope: to agree to a financing mechanism 
"within the scope of the conference" and which will permit early 
enactment of the bill into law.
On Aug. 3, 1989, the House ordered the previous question on H.R. 1278, 
when a motion to recommit was offered by the Major-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     135 CONG. REC. 11572, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1989.
 9.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 569]]

ity Leader. The form of the motion offered is carried below:(10) 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(11) Without objection, the previous question 
is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. MICHEL
MR. [ROBERT H.] MICHEL [of Illi-nois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
MR. MICHEL: Under the rule, I am obliged to say that I am, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Michel of Illinois moves to recommit the Conference Report to 
accompany the bill, H.R. 1278, to the committee of conference with 
instructions that the Managers on the part of the House agree to a 
financing mechanism which is properly within the scope of the 
conference and which will allow the bill to be signed into law as 
quickly as possible.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
MR. MICHEL: 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:(12) Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule XV, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote, by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the 
question of agreeing to the conference report.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 170, nays 
250, answered "present" 3, not voting 8. . . . 
Sec.    9.20 Where a motion to instruct conferees on a budget resolution 
called for a reduction in budget authority and outlays and at the same 
time called on the conferees to insist on the "highest level of 
funding" for defense, it protected the motion from a possible point-of-
order challenge by including the phrase that the levels had to be 
"within the scope of conference."
The construction of motions to instruct conferees on budget resolutions 
has become something of an art form. Some such motions are necessarily 
obtuse; others are specific. The inclusion of such a 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     See 135 CONG. REC. 18590, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
11.     John P. Murtha, Jr. (Pa.).
12.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 570]]

prophylactic phrase sometimes avoids an argument that the instruction 
cannot be effected without exceeding scope.(13) 
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H. CON. RES. 218, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON
THE BUDGET-FISCAL YEAR 1995
MR. [MARTIN OLAV] SABO [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (H. 
Con. Res. 218) setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. 
Government for the fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, with 
a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree 
to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(14) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. KASICH
Mr. Kasich moves that the managers on the part of the House to the 
conference on the disagreeing votes on H. Con. Res. 218, be instructed 
to agree to the Senate amendment reflecting a $26 billion reduction in 
the deficit over five years by agreeing to reduce the total spending 
levels specified in section 2(2) and 2(3) of the House-passed 
resolution as follows:
Fiscal year 1995-$4.4 billion in budget authority and $1.6 billion in 
outlays;
Fiscal year 1996-$4.9 billion in budget authority and $1.5 billion in 
outlays;
Fiscal year 1997-$5.8 billion in budget authority and $4 billion in 
outlays;
Fiscal year 1998-$9.9 billion in budget authority and $7 billion in 
outlays; and
Fiscal year 1999-$21.8 billion in budget authority and $9.9 billion in 
outlays.
Provided further, That conferees be instructed to agree to that portion 
of section 50 of the Senate amendment which provides that "If the 
President's defense budget request is approved, since 1985 real defense 
spending will have been reduced by 45 percent by 1999; and President 
Clinton, during his State of the Union Address on January 25, 1994, 
promised no further cuts in defense spending" and therefore insist that 
no further cuts be made in defense by agreeing to the highest possible 
level of funding for defense (within the scope of the conference).

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
Senate Motion To Instruct Conferees Regarding Meeting Location
Sec.    9.21 The Senate agreed to a motion to instruct conferees to call 
upon the managers to meet in certain designated rooms in the Capitol, 
to hold the meetings at times when the Senate was in session, and that 
the conference be open to the public and the press.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     See 140 CONG. REC. 7460, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 14, 1994.
14.     Walter R. Tucker III (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 571]]

The motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 3355, amending the Omnibus 
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, is carried here as an 
example of a motion direct-ed toward conference procedure rather than 
to resolving the matters in disagreement.(15) 
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES
MR. [JOSEPH R.] BIDEN [Jr., of Delaware]: I have a unanimous-consent 
agreement that has to be made before 4 o'clock. It will only take 30 
seconds. It relates to an agreement I made with my Republican colleague 
on a motion to instruct that I agreed to accept. But I am told it was 
never sent to the desk. It must be done by 4 o'clock.
I send a motion to instruct the conferees, a motion to instruct, 
submitted by Senators Hatch, Simpson, Dole, and Biden, and I ask for 
its immediate consideration.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there objection to setting aside the 
preceding motions?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion to instruct conferees is as follows:

Mr. Hatch, Mr. Simpson, and Mr. Dole move that the conferees on the 
part of the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
bill H.R. 3355 be instructed to insist that the committee of 
conference-
(1) hold all meetings in one of the following rooms:
(A) SR 325;
(B) SH 216; or
(C) SD 106;
(2) ensure that all of the meetings of the committee are open to the 
public and the print and electronic media; and
(3) hold all meetings during reasonable hours at times when the Senate 
is in session.

MR. BIDEN: Madam President, is the motion adopted? I urge the adoption 
of the motion. I ask unanimous consent that the motion be agreed to.
Form of "General" Motion To Instruct Conferees
Sec.    9.22 Illustration of a general motion to instruct conferees on an 
emergency supplemental appropriation bill to form a conference report 
which does not add to the national deficit.
Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to instruct carried below(16) is an 
example of a motion designed to give general policy direction to the 
conferees.
The motion to instruct is illustrative of a very general motion but one 
which could be adhered to by the conferees while remaining within the 
differences committed to the conference.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 889, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL 
APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     See 140 CONG. REC. 11181, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., May 19, 1994.
16.     See 141 CONG. REC. 9509, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 28, 1995.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 572]

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
MR. [ROBERT] LIVINGSTON [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 889) making 
emergency supplemental appropriations and rescissions to preserve and 
enhance the military readiness of the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, 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:(17) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT 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 managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, H.R. 
889, be instructed to form a conference agreement that does not add to 
the national deficit in the current fiscal year and cumulatively 
through fiscal year 1999.
Example of Instructions to Conferees To Take Specified Actions but 
"Remain Within Scope of Differences"
Sec.    9.23 Form of a general motion to instruct conferees to resolve 
differences on health insurance programs, referring to a program not 
covered in either version of the bill in conference, but protected 
against a Rule XXVIII clause 3 point of order by including in the 
motion the prophylactic mandate to "re-main within scope."
After the House had agreed to   a unanimous-consent request to send the 
bill H.R. 483 to conference, a motion to instruct the managers was 
offered as described above. The motion and some of the debate which 
illustrates the collateral uses of a motion to instruct are carried 
here.(18) 
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 483, MEDICARE SELECT EXPANSION
MR. [THOMAS J.] BLILEY [Jr., of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 483) to amend 
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit medicare select 
policies to be offered in all States, and for other purposes, with a 
Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and request 
a conference with the Senate thereon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     Frank D. Riggs (Calif.).
18.     141 CONG. REC. 14413-15, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., May 25, 1995.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 573]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(19) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. DOGGETT
MR. [LLOYD] DOGGETT [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Doggett moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate 
amendment to the House bill, H.R. 483, be instructed to resolve the 
difference between the House's 81/2-year program and the Senate's 5-
year program of medicare select policies, within the scope of the 
conference, in light of the changes in Medicare-the program that 
medicare select policies supplement-to increase beneficiary cost-
sharing and to limit choice of provider as contemplated in this year's 
budget process.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes. . . . 
MR. [WILLIAM M.] THOMAS [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding time to me.
. . . What is in front of us is a motion to instruct conferees. The 
House passed 408 to 14 a measure to extend Medicare Select. Medicare 
Select is a so-called MediGap. It is one of those insurance policies 
available to folk to create a whole package around part A and part B 
Medicare. There are currently 10 MediGap insurance type policies that 
have been approved by the Department of Health and Human Services. 
Medicare select is simply an 11th offering.
. . . It is simply the 11th, the addition to 10 other small programs.
What the minority is trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is argue the entire 
Medicare issue on their motion to instruct. What a bizarre motion to 
instruct. It says that "will be instructed to resolve the differences 
between the House 81/2-year extension and the Senate 5-year extension 
of Medicare Select policies." Eight and one-half years, 5 years? The 
House bill that was passed said extend it for 5 years. The Senate bill 
that was passed said extend it for 18 months. Extension in the 
unabridged dictionary right over here says "An additional period of 
time from the current time;" adding time, an extension. Where in the 
world the Democrats got 81/2 years and 5 years as extensions is beyond 
me. . . . 
In addition, to make this motion germane, they say the scope of the 
conference, but what they really want to do is talk about the large 
program of Medicare.