[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[C. INSTRUCTIONS TO CONFEREES; MOTIONS TO INSTRUCT]
[Â§ 10. When Instructions Are in Order]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 573-582]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
C. INSTRUCTIONS TO CONFEREES; MOTIONS TO INSTRUCT
 
Sec.    10. When Instructions Are in Order After Agreeing to Conference

Sec.    10.1 A motion to instruct the House managers at a conference is 
in order after the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     Henry Bonilla (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 574]]

House has agreed to a conference and before the appointment of the 
conferees.
On July 24, 1973,(20) Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, offered a motion 
to take from the Speaker's table S. 1888, to amend and extend the 
Agricultural Act of 1970, with a House amendment thereto, insist on the 
House amendment and agree to a conference requested by the Senate.

THE SPEAKER:(1) The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Poage).
The motion was agreed to.
MR. [ROBERT D.] PRICE of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential 
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Price of Texas moves that the managers on the part of the House, at 
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill S. 1888, be 
instructed to insist on the provisions of paragraph (26) of section 1 
of the House amendment at page 38, lines 1 through 8 which read as 
follows:
"(B) by adding a new section 703 as follows:
".'Sec. 703. Title IV of such Act as amended by adding at the end 
thereof the following:
".'Sec. 411. No agricultural commodities shall be sold under title I or 
title III or donated under title II of this Act of North Vietnam, 
unless by an Act of Congress enacted subsequent to July 1, 1973, 
assistance to North Vietnam is specifically authorized.'." . . . 

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Price) to instruct conferees. . . . 
The vote was taken by electronic device; and there were-yeas 371, nays 
35, not voting 27. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to.(2) 
Proper Time To Offer Motion To Instruct
Sec.    10.2 A motion to instruct conferees is in order after the request 
to go to conference has been agreed to and before the Speaker appoints 
the conferees. 
Only one motion to instruct the House managers at a conference is in 
order at the time a bill is sent to conference. Recognition to offer 
this motion is the right of a member of the minority party; and the 
remedy of a Member denied recognition to offer a particular motion is 
to vote down the previous question on whatever motion is offered by 
another. The scenario played 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     119 CONG. REC. 25539-41, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 2.     See also 117 CONG. REC. 22406-30, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., June 28, 
1971; 115 CONG. REC. 38543-45, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 11, 1969; and 
113 CONG. REC. 34128-36, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 29, 1967.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 575]]

out on Dec. 16, 1974,(3) demonstrates the timing and use of a motion to 
instruct.

MR. [HAROLD T.] JOHNSON of California: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the House insist on its amendment to the Senate bill (S. 
3934) just passed, and request a conference with the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(4) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Johnson)?
MR. [EDWARD J.] KOCH [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the 
desk.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman object to the request of 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Johnson)?
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. KOCH: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. KOCH: The motion that I have at the desk is one to instruct the 
managers on the part of the House--
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New York reserves the right
to object. For what purpose now does the gentleman request the opinion 
of the Chair?
MR. KOCH: I would appreciate the Chair advising me whether this is the 
appropriate time to move to instruct the House conferees with respect 
to this bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would advise the gentleman that 
until the unanimous-consent request to send the bill to conference is 
granted, a motion to instruct would be premature; but if the gentleman 
would withdraw his reservation and if the request is granted, then a 
motion to instruct conferees would be in order.
MR. KOCH: 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.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. HARSHA
MR. [WILLIAM H.] HARSHA [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The Clerk read as follows:

Motion offered by Mr. Harsha: Mr. Harsha moves that the managers on the 
part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses on the bill S. 3934, be instructed to insist upon paragraph (6) 
of section 102 and to insist upon section 110 of the House amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha) is 
recognized for 1 hour in support of his motion.
MR. HARSHA: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly not take 1 hour. This is a 
motion to instruct the conferees on the Highway Act of 1974, simply to 
instruct the conferees to insist upon the House provision on the so-
called rural highway provision on the off-system roads.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     120 CONG. REC. 40174, 40175, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     John J. McFall (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 576]]

MR. KOCH: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a brief statement?
MR. HARSHA: I will yield for the purposes of debate only.
MR. KOCH: Yes. As the gentleman knows, because he and I participated a 
few moments ago in the debate on suspension of the rules, I advised the 
body that what I wanted to do was to make certain that the House did 
not accept the Senate provision in the Senate bill with respect to 
increasing the weight of trucks. I said that the scenario we would see 
played out on this floor would be a preemption of my motion to instruct 
by a member of the committee, so as to make it impossible for me to do 
that. My only opportunity would then be to ask the House to vote down 
the previous question when the gentleman from Ohio or someone on that 
committee would make, as the gentleman did frame, in some innocuous 
way, a motion to instruct.
The scenario which I suggested, I think the gentleman would agree, has 
in fact occurred. I will ask the House  at the conclusion of the 
debate-hopefully, we will not go through the charade and agony for an 
hour-to vote down the previous question, so that then I will have an 
opportunity to move to instruct the House conferees to not accede to 
the Senate provision which would increase the weight of trucks from the 
existing 73,000 pounds to 80,000. . . . 
MR. HARSHA: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha).
MR. KOCH: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were refused.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha).
The motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Wright, Kluczynski, Johnson of California, 
Harsha, and Cleveland.
There was no objection.
Before Appointment of Conferees
Sec.    10.3 If a motion to request a conference under Rule XX clause 1 
is agreed to, a motion to instruct the managers on the part of the 
House is in order before the Speaker appoints the conferees.
On May 29, 1968,(5) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, sought unanimous 
consent to request a conference with the Senate on H.R. 5037, the Law 
Enforcement and Criminal Justice Assistance Act of 1967. Speaker John 
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, indicated that if an objection 
was heard, a duly-authorized motion to request this conference would be 
in order. Mr. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     114 CONG. REC. 15499, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 577]]

Richard H. Poff, of Virginia, then posed this parliamentary inquiry:

. . . [I]f that motion is made on the floor and is adopted on the 
floor, will it then be in order to make a motion to instruct the House 
conferees?
THE SPEAKER: Before the appointment of the conferees such a motion 
would be in order.
Sec.    10.4 A motion to instruct conferees on a bill being sent to 
conference is after the House agrees to send the bill to conference and 
before the Speaker appoints the conferees.
The proceedings associated with sending the International Financial 
Institutions Authorization Act (H.R. 5262) to conference on June 16, 
1977,(6) were as indicated.

MR. [HENRY S.] REUSS [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5262) to 
provide for increased participation by the United States in the 
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the 
International Development Association, the International Finance 
Corporation, the Asian Development Bank and the Asian Development Fund, 
and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the 
Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(7) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin? Hearing none, the Chair appoints the following conferees.
PRIVILEGED MOTION OFFERED BY MR. ROUSSELOT
MR. [JOHN H.] ROUSSELOT [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
privileged motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Rousselot 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. 5262 be instructed to insist on the language of the House 
as follows:
SEC. 602. (a) The Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury 
shall initiate a wide consultation, beginning with the industrialized 
democracies, designed to develop a viable standard for the meeting of 
basic human needs and the protection of human rights, and a mechanism 
for acting together to insure that the rewards of international 
economic cooperation are especially available to those who subscribe to 
such standards and are seen to be moving toward making them effective 
in their own systems of governance.
(b) No later than one year from the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to 
the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives on the progress made in carrying out this section.

MR. REUSS: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     123 CONG. REC. 19414, 19415, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 578]]

THE SPEAKER: Under the rules the gentleman from California is entitled 
to 1 hour.
The gentleman from Wisconsin will state his point of order.
MR. REUSS: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the motion comes 
prematurely. I do not believe I heard the Speaker complete his listing 
of the conferees.
THE SPEAKER: The motion in the opinion of the Chair is in order. The 
conferees have not been named so the motion is in order. The point of 
order is not well taken.
The gentleman from California is entitled to 1 hour. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rousselot). The gentleman from California is entitled to 1 hour.
In view of the procedures we have been following, the Chair would 
entertain a unanimous-consent request to put this matter over until 
tomorrow. . . . 
Without objection, the gentleman's motion will be the unfinished 
business tomorrow.
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
to object, will it be the first order of business tomorrow?
THE SPEAKER: That is right.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection?
There was no objection. 
Motion for Conference Disposed of Before Instructions Are Considered
Sec.    10.5 A motion to instruct conferees on the part of the House is 
not in order until the House has voted to go to conference.
On Mar. 3, 1970,(8) Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of Pennsylvania, offered a 
motion to agree to the conference requested by the Senate on H.R. 
15931, the 1970 appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor and 
Health, Education, and Welfare. Before the House could consider Mr. 
Flood's motion, Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, made a point of order 
that a quorum was not present. A call of the House was then ordered 
pursuant to a motion by Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma.
After this quorum call, the following occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(9) The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. CONTE: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk, and as I was about 
to offer the motion the gentleman from Missouri raised the point of 
order that a quorum was not present, and that 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     116 CONG. REC. 5722, 5723, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 9.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 579]]

was the status of the House at the time that the quorum was called.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard? My reason for addressing the 
Chair was--
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will ask the gentleman from Massachusetts: Does 
he make a point of order that a quorum is not present?
MR. CONTE: No. The gentleman from Massachusetts states he was on his 
feet seeking recognition as the Clerk read the motion of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Hall) raised the point of order that a quorum was not present. We are 
standing in this position at this time.
THE SPEAKER: If the gentleman has a point of order, he can state it 
now.
MR. CONTE: I have a motion at the desk to instruct the conferees.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that is not in order at this 
particular moment. It will be in order later, after the motion of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) is acted on.
MR. CONTE: I want to thank the Chair.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) is recognized 
for 1 hour.
Requests To Move To Instruct at Future Time
Sec.    10.6 The House granted unanimous consent that on a future day it 
would be in order to make two motions to instruct the managers on the 
part of the House who had been appointed two weeks earlier.
On Sept. 13, 1944,(10) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [ROBERT L.] DOUGHTON [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that it may be in order on Monday next(11) for me to 
make two motions to instruct the managers on the part of the House at 
the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill 
(S. 2051) entitled "An act to amend the Social Security Act, as 
amended, to provide a national program for war mobilization and 
reconversion, and for other purposes." . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(12) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from North Carolina?
There was no objection.

Parliamentarian's Note: In this case there appeared to be a deadlock in 
conference just before an adjournment to a day certain. In order to 
expedite the matter, the above request was made, the two motions (to 
instruct the conferees to insist on their disagreement to two 
amendments of the Senate to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
of the House for the Senate bill) were later agreed 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     90 CONG. REC. 7731, 7732, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. 
11.     Sept. 18, 1944.
12.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 580]]

to,(13) the Senate conferees abided by the action of the House,(14) and 
the bill was finally adopted.
Since the conferees had been appointed on Aug. 31,(15) it was necessary 
to obtain unanimous consent to offer any motion to instruct the 
conferees at this time, because such motions to instruct subsequent to 
the appointment of conferees, made pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), 
would not be in order until Sept. 20.
Resolution Requesting Conference as Precluding Motion To Instruct
Sec.    10.7 The adoption of a resolution asking for a conference does 
not preclude a motion to instruct the House managers.
On Oct. 31, 1939,(16) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
recognized Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois.

MR. SABATH: Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 320, which I send 
to the desk and ask to have read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. RES. 320
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, the 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 306), the Neutrality Act of 1939, with 
Senate amendments thereto, be, and the same is hereby, taken from the 
Speaker's table to the end that the amendments of the Senate be, and 
the same are hereby, disagreed to and a conference is requested with 
the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.

MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Illinois yield for a parliamentary 
inquiry?
MR. SABATH: Yes.
MR. RANKIN: To ask whether or not the resolution will shut off the 
right to offer a motion to instruct the conferees?
THE SPEAKER: It will not. The resolution now pending makes it in order 
to consider such matters as that propounded by the gentleman from 
Mississippi. If the resolution is adopted, it will in no way prohibit 
subsequent proceedings, or offering a motion to instruct the conferees, 
or amendments thereto.

Unanimous Consent To Agree to Conference Does Not Preclude Motion To 
Instruct
Sec.    10.8 The granting of a unanimous-consent request 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     90 CONG. REC. 7822, 7829, 7830, 7840, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 
18, 1944.
14.     See the statement of the House managers at 90 CONG. REC. 8016, 
78th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 20, 1944.
15.     Id. at p. 7473.
16.     85 CONG. REC. 1092, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 581]]

to disagree to the Senate amendments to a House bill and agree to a 
conference with the Senate does not preclude a later motion to instruct 
the managers on the part of the House to insist on disagreement to a 
particular Senate amendment.
On Oct. 9, 1969,(17) the House granted unanimous consent to take H.R. 
11612, the 1970 appropriations bill for the Department of Agriculture 
and related agencies, from the Speaker's table, with Senate amendments 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference 
asked by the Senate. After Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, 
offered a motion to instruct the House conferees to insist on its 
disagreement to a particular Senate amendment, Mr. Jamie L. Whitten, of 
Mississippi, rose with a point of order.

THE SPEAKER:(18) The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. WHITTEN: The bill itself will show that the so-called Conte 
amendment was stricken out by the Senate on page 23 of the bill as 
printed by the Senate. It is identified as amendment 37 of the Senate.
I would call the attention of the Speaker to the fact that the 
unanimous-consent request I asked for, and which was accepted, called 
on the conferees to disagree to the amendments of the Senate. So we 
have, by unanimous consent, just instructed the conferees to disagree 
to the Senate amendments, of which amendment 37 is one, so any further 
instruction would be superfluous and would be out of order, because we 
have by unanimous consent agreed that the conferees would disagree to 
the Senate amendments, of which the Conte amendment repeal is one.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Massachusetts desire to be heard 
on the point of order?
MR. CONTE: I believe the point of order is out of order, Mr. Speaker. 
Certainly the gentleman is putting the cart before the horse.
The House has a right to work its will here and to instruct the 
conferees in any manner it pleases. The only thing we have before us 
now is the unanimous consent to go to conference and to appoint 
conferees. At this point any Member can get up to ask for instruction 
of conferees to go to conference and sustain and substantiate the will 
of the House in regard to this particular amendment.
Therefore, I feel the Chair should overrule the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule.
This question has been passed upon on a number of occasions, and the 
Chair calls attention to previous rulings made on this same question to 
be found in Cannon's Procedure, page 126:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     115 CONG. REC. 29315, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 582]]

Adoption of a motion to disagree or to insist on disagreement to a 
Senate amendment does not preclude consideration of subsequent motions 
instructing conferees to take other action on such amendments or parts 
thereof, and the question as to whether a motion to instruct is 
inconsistent with action previously taken is a question for the House, 
and not the Chair. (Cannon Precedents VIII 3237-9, 3230)

The Chair overrules the point of order.
Naming Conferees but Preserving a Motion To Instruct
Sec.    10.9 By unanimous consent, the House reserved to the minority the 
right to make an initial motion to instruct conferees on a date certain 
a week following the Speaker's appointment of the conferees.
The purpose of this request was to accommodate the minority who had 
indicated a desire to instruct the managers on one portion of the 
measure being sent to conference.(19) 

MR. [DAVID R.] OBEY [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that notwithstanding the Speaker's appointment of conferees on 
H.R. 5, that one motion to instruct conferees be in order on Wednesday, 
February 17, 1988.
THE SPEAKER:(20) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.