[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[C. INSTRUCTIONS TO CONFEREES; MOTIONS TO INSTRUCT]
[Â§ 11. Recognition To Offer; Debate]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 582-604]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
C. INSTRUCTIONS TO CONFEREES; MOTIONS TO INSTRUCT
 
Sec.    11. Recognition To Offer; Debate 

Minority Prerogative
Sec.    11.1 Recognition to offer a motion to instruct House conferees is 
the prerogative of the minority, and the Speaker recognizes the ranking 
minority member of the committee reporting the bill when that member 
seeks recognition to offer the motion.
On Oct. 19, 1971,(1) after the House agreed to a motion to send H.R. 
8687, the military procurement authorization bill, fiscal 1972, to 
conference, Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. Leslie C. 
Arends, a Republican from Illinois.(2) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     See 134 CONG. REC. 1199, 100th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 8, 1988.
20.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
 1.     117 CONG. REC. 36832-35, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     See also 85 CONG. REC. 1104, 76th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 31, 1939.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 583]]

MR. ARENDS: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
MS. [BELLA] ABZUG [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Chair, according to the precedents 
as I read them, on 784,(3) the minority have no special privileges as 
to asking for instructions as to the conferees. I want to know what the 
point of order is in recognizing the minority on this motion.
THE SPEAKER: This is under the precedents of the House, I will ad-   
vise the gentlewoman, starting with Speaker Cannon and consistently so 
held since then.
The Clerk will report the motion offered by the gentleman from 
llinois.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Arends 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. 
8687, are hereby instructed not to agree to any portions of the text of 
the Senate amendment that is not germane to the House bill, H.R. 8687.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 1 hour.
Recognition for Motions To Instruct
Sec.    11.2 While recognition to offer an "initial" motion to instruct 
House conferees is the prerogative of the minority party, if two 
minority members of a committee having jurisdiction over a matter seek 
recognition to offer motions to instruct, the Speaker recognizes the 
more senior member of that committee. 
The Speaker had appointed conferees on H.R. 5, the School Improvement 
Act, several days previously, pursuant to a special order granted by 
the House.(4) A motion to instruct was therefore anticipated on this 
day, but the Speaker had hoped to defer recognition until after the 
one-minute period. 
On an earlier occasion, when Speaker O'Neill was confronted with a 
conflict between a Member who wished to offer a question of privilege 
during the "one-minute period," he had continued to entertain one-
minute requests, on the theory that even privileged motions could be 
delayed as long as the House granted unanimous consent for a 
nonprivileged speech.(5) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     Referring to 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6525, p. 784, does not 
support Ms. Abzug's contention, as it relates only to recognition to 
ask for conferences, not to recognition for motions to instruct 
conferees.
 4.     See 134 CONG. REC. 1224, 100th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 9, 1988.
 5.     See the proceedings of July 10, 1985, where Speaker Thomas P. 
O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that un-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 584]]

The proceedings, as excerpted from the Congressional Record of Feb. 17, 
1988,(6) and carried here, illustrate not only the Speaker's power of 
recognition, but how it is exercised and when a Member actually is 
recognized and entitled to the floor. 
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 5, SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1987
THE SPEAKER:(7) For what purpose does the gentleman from California 
seek recognition?
MR. [WILLIAM E.] DANNEMEYER [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
motion at the desk to instruct conferees.
THE SPEAKER: For what purpose does the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Madigan] rise?
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
MR. [EDWARD R.] MADIGAN [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that before any 
consideration would be given to a motion to instruct conferees that the 
Speaker was going to conclude the 1-minute speeches.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair would like to accommodate Members seeking to be 
heard on the 1-minute rule but under the rule a motion such as would be 
proposed, as the Chair understands it, to instruct conferees would take 
precedence if a Member sought to press that matter at this time and 
under the rule would be more privileged.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, that is my request.
MR. MADIGAN: Further pursuing my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, 
does the Chair then as a matter of custom in the House recognize people 
on the basis of seniority with regard to committee assignments on 
matters such as this?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct. If two or more Members seek 
recognition for motions of equal privilege, it would be the custom of 
the Chair to recognize the Member most senior on the committee of 
jurisdiction.
MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Speaker, the Speaker has just described my situation. 
I am the senior member and pursuant to a previous order of the House I 
have a motion at the desk.
MR. DANNEMEYER: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Since the Speaker previously recognized this Member and 
this Member responded that I have a motion at the desk to instruct 
conferees and I choose to go forward with it at this time pursuant to a 
unanimous-consent request of last week, does that 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
der his power of recognition in Rule XIV clause 2, he could continue to 
entertain unanimous consent requests pending recognition for a question 
of privilege, since unanimous-consent requests, if granted, can waive 
standing rules unless Members lodge an objection. 
 6.     134 CONG. REC. 1583, 1584, 1589, 1590, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 585]]

not give this Member since I was recognized for that purpose priority 
to proceed at this time?
THE SPEAKER: Well, the gentleman is correct, the gentleman did seek 
recognition for the purpose of making a motion and then the gentleman 
from Illinois rose with a parliamentary inquiry and the Chair 
recognized the gentleman from Illinois for that purpose. And it is the 
Chair's understanding that each of the two gentlemen standing desires 
to offer a motion to instruct conferees. Is that correct?
MR. DANNEMEYER: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
MR. MADIGAN: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Well, the Chair, under those circumstances, following the 
general precedents of the House would recognize the more senior 
minority member of the two minority members on the committee of 
jurisdiction.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry. I 
appreciate that the Speaker is hesitating a little with respect to his 
tentative decision, but this Member actually was recognized before my 
colleague from Illinois was recognized and I would think on that basis 
that this Member should have priority for making this motion.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman's motion had not been placed before the 
House. The gentleman had sought recognition and the Chair had said, 
"For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?" The gentleman 
from California had said, "For the purpose of offering a motion to 
instruct conferees."
MR. DANNEMEYER: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: And the Chair was about to ask the Clerk to report the 
motion when the gentleman from Illinois stood and sought recognition. 
The Chair said to the gentleman from Illinois, "For what purpose does 
the gentleman rise?"
MR. DANNEMEYER: If I may further be heard on my inquiry, if I 
understand the gentleman from Illinois correctly, he achieved 
recognition on the basis of a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MADIGAN
MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to a previous order of the House, I 
offer a motion.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Madigan moves that the managers on the part of the House appointed 
for consideration of section 7003 of the Senate amendment to H.R. 5 be 
instructed to agree to language that offers a solution to the dial-a-
porn problem.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, when a motion to instruct conferees is 
pending, as is the situation with the gentleman from California having 
made such a motion, is it in order for the House to then consider 
another motion to instruct conferees?


[[Page 586]]

THE SPEAKER: Is the gentleman asking would it be in order for him to 
offer an amendment to the motion?
MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is advised that the gentleman from California 
could offer an amendment to the motion of the gentleman from Illinois 
but only if the previous question were voted down. If the previous 
question on the motion of the gentleman from Illinois should be 
ordered, then his motion would have to be voted upon without 
intervening motion.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, if I might be heard further on my 
parliamentary inquiry, I do not quite see how we could get to the point 
where we could consider the motion offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois to instruct conferees when, at the time the gentleman from 
Illinois is making his motion, there is already a motion by this 
gentleman from California to instruct conferees pending at the desk. 
And I have not withdrawn that motion.
THE SPEAKER: The motion of the gentleman from California had not been 
stated and was not pending before the House. The gentleman had sought 
recognition for the purpose of offering a motion to instruct conferees. 
The gentleman from Illinois asked, on a parliamentary inquiry, in a 
situation involving two minority Members, each seeking recognition for 
the purpose of offering a motion to instruct conferees, as to which of 
the two Members under the precedents would be recognized. The Chair 
replied that the senior of the two on the Committee of Jurisdiction, 
under the precedents, would be recognized, and the gentleman from 
Illinois offered a motion, he being the senior of those seeking 
recognition for the purpose of offering a motion. 
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the indulgence of 
the House for the purpose of having the record read back for the 
purpose of determining whether this gentleman from California was 
recognized for the purpose of making a motion to instruct conferees.
MR. DINGELL: I would have an objection, Mr. Speaker. I would have to 
observe that I think that is a unanimous-consent request, and it is 
taking a great amount of the time of the House at a time when we have 
other business pending. I would have to object.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Illinois, and 
the gentleman's motion has been read and is now pending before the 
House. The gentleman is entitled to 1 hour on the motion.
MR. DANNEMEYER: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
What happened to my motion?
MR. MADIGAN: It was never read.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Yes, it was.
MR. [GERALD B. H.] SOLOMON [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, he was 
recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment, and the record 
will show that.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state again the situation.
The gentleman from California sought recognition. The Chair asked the 
purpose of his seeking recognition, and he said he sought recognition 
for the purpose of offering a motion to instruct conferees. The motion 
was not made prior to the rising of the gentle-


[[Page 587]]

man from Illinois to ask by unanimous consent if it were proper to 
entertain such a motion before the completion of the 1-minute 
unanimous-consent requests. The Chair replied that the Chair would 
prefer to accommodate Members seeking to be heard under the 1-minute 
rule first and then entertain the motion, but that the motion really 
does have priority under the rules to a unanimous-consent request to be 
heard for 1 minute, and that if the gentleman insists upon offering the 
motion at that time, the Chair would entertain the motion.
Then the gentleman from Illinois asked if two Members, each desiring to 
offer such a motion, were simultaneously to seek recognition, which of 
two Members should be recognized under the precedents of the House, and 
the Chair replied: The senior of the two on the Committee of 
Jurisdiction.
MR. DANNEMEYER: At that point, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the Chair's 
own analysis, with all due respect, when I stood for recognition, there 
was not someone else asking for recognition. It was not done 
simultaneously.
MR. DINGELL: Mr. Speaker, may I call for the regular order?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is trying to preserve the regular order and 
thinks that the Members are entitled to understand exactly what is 
going on and are entitled to ask questions and to be accommodated to 
the extent of the Chair's ability to accommodate them.
The fact is that two Members sought recognition for the same kind of 
motion, for a motion to instruct conferees. The motions having equal 
precedence and priority, the question arose as to which of the two 
Members should be recognized for the purpose of making a motion. The 
Chair replied that the precedents hold that the senior of the two or 
more Members seeking recognition is entitled to be recognized. The 
gentleman from Illinois asked then to be recognized for the purpose of 
offering that motion. The Chair recognized the gentleman from Illinois. 
The motion has been read. The motion offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois to instruct conferees on H.R. 5 is the pending order of 
business.
The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Madigan] is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. . 
. . 
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on my motion to instruct.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on ordering the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not    
present.
THE SPEAKER: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 200, nays 
179, not voting 54, as follows: . . . 
So the previous question was ordered. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(8) The question is on the motion to instruct 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 588]]

offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Madigan].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 382, nays 
0, not voting 51, as follows: . . . 
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
Sec.    11.3 Where two members of the committee having jurisdiction over 
a bill seek recognition for a motion to instruct conferees, the Speaker 
gives recognition to the member of the minority.
On Oct. 31, 1939,(9) after the House agreed to a resolution to send 
House Joint Resolution 306, the Neutrality Act of 1939, to conference, 
the following proceedings occurred:

Mr. Shanley and Mr. Fish rose.(10) 
MR. SHANLEY: Mr. Speaker, I send to the Clerk's desk a motion to 
instruct the conferees.
THE SPEAKER:(11) The gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] is entitled to 
be recognized if he so desires.
MR. FISH: Mr. Speaker, I gladly yield to the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shanley] because he has a similar motion. I yield to him to offer 
the motion to instruct the conferees.
Hour Rule Applies on Debate on Motion To Instruct
Sec.    11.4 A motion to instruct the managers on the part of the House 
at a conference is debatable under the hour rule.
On July 2, 1946,(12) after the House granted unanimous consent to agree 
to the conference requested by the Senate on H.R. 6777, the 1947 
government corporations appropriation bill, Mr. Robert F. Rich, of 
Pennsylvania, offered a motion to instruct the House conferees. Mr. 
Harold D. Cooley, of North Carolina, was then recognized for the 
purpose of propounding a parliamentary inquiry.

MR. COOLEY: Do the rules of the House permit a discussion of the motion 
just made?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     85 CONG. REC. 1092, 1104, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
10.     Mr. James A. Shanley, a Democrat from Connecticut, and Mr. 
Hamilton Fish, Jr., a Republican from New York, were both members of 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
11.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
12.     92 CONG. REC. 8181-92, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 589]]

THE SPEAKER:(13) It is debatable under the 1-hour rule.(14) 

Controlling Debate Time on Motion To Instruct (Practice Prior to 1989)
Sec.    11.5 Prior to 1989, a Member recognized to offer a motion to 
instruct House conferees controls one hour of debate on the motion.
On July 9, 1970,(15) after Mr. Donald W. Riegle, of Michigan, offered a 
motion to instruct House conferees on H.R. 15628, the Foreign Military 
Sales Act of 1970, the following proceedings occurred:

MR. [WAYNE L.] HAYS [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(16) The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. HAYS: Mr. Speaker, in the event a motion to table the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Riegle) is not made, and 
there is an hour's debate on the motion, who will control the time?

THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Riegle) will control the time.(17) 

Parliamentarian's Note: In 1989, the House amended Rule XXVIII clause 1
(b) to provide for a division of time between minority and majority 
parties.(18) 
Yielding Debate Time (Precedents Before 1989)
Sec.    11.6 A Member making a motion to instruct House conferees is 
recognized for one hour, and may yield a portion of that time to 
another Member.
On Dec. 8, 1970,(19) after the House granted unanimous consent to agree 
to the conference requested by the Senate on H.R. 17755, the 1971 
appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation and related 
agencies, the following occurred:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
14.     See also 95 CONG. REC. 11139-43, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 9, 
1949.
15.     116 CONG. REC. 23524, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
16.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
17.     See also 118 CONG. REC. 7540, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 8, 1972; 
117 CONG. REC. 36832-35, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 1971; and 109 
CONG. REC. 12294-96, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., July 9, 1963.
18.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a (1997); for modern practice, 
see Sec. 11.8.
19.     116 CONG. REC. 40271, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 590]]

MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Yates 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. 
17755 be instructed to agree to Senate amendment No. 4.

THE SPEAKER:(20) The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) is recognized 
for 1 hour.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to my good friend, the very 
able gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.(1) 
Sec.    11.7 A Member who offered the motion and controlled the one hour 
of debate on a motion to instruct conferees yielded one half of his 
time to the opposition.
On Aug. 29, 1962,(2) Mr. James E. Van Zandt, a Republican from 
Pennsylvania, offered a motion to instruct the House managers at the 
conference on H.R. 11974, authorizing appropriations relating to the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

THE SPEAKER:(3) The gentleman from  Pennsylvania is recognized for 1 
hour.
MR. VAN ZANDT: Mr. Speaker, I will yield half my time, 30 minutes, to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Holifield],(4) the distinguished 
chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.
Controlling Debate Time on Motion To Instruct (Modern Practice)
Sec.    11.8 Where a motion to instruct conferees is being debated, with 
time divided between the majority and minority parties as provided by 
the rule, neither a motion for the previous question or the more 
preferential motion to lay on the table can be used in derogation of 
the Members' control of the time. 
While a motion to table a motion to instruct can be offered immediately 
after the motion is reported, once debate has commenced, the parties 
allocated time under Rule XXVIII clause 1(b)(5) are entitled to use 
their time. The proceedings of Mar. 18, 1992,(6) are illustrative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 1.     See also 95 CONG. REC. 11139-45, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 9, 
1949.
 2.     108 CONG. REC. 18029, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 4.     Mr. Holifield was a Democrat.
 5.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a (1997).
 6.     138 CONG. REC. 6018, 6022-24, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 591]]

APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4210, TAX FAIRNESS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 
ACCELERATION ACT OF 1992
MR. [DAN] ROSTENKOWSKI [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4210) to amend 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for increased 
economic growth and to provide tax relief for families, with Senate 
amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(7) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. ARCHER
MR. [BILL] ARCHER [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Archer moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate 
amendments to the bill H.R. 4210 be instructed not to agree to either 
those provisions in section 3001 of the Senate amendments which would 
impose a new tax rate of 36 percent on individuals, or those provisions 
in sections 3001 and 3002 of the House bill which would impose a new 
tax rate of 35 percent on individuals and increase the alternative 
minimum tax rate for individuals, as those provisions are committed to 
conference.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] will be recognized 
for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].
MR. ARCHER: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. . . 
. 
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. WALKER
MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
privileged motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Walker moves to lay on the table the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is a preferential motion, but it is not 
in order until debate has been concluded.
Who yields time?
MR. ARCHER: Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further requests for 
time, and I move the previous question.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I renew my privileged motion.
MR. ROSTENKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] yields 
back the balance of his time.
MR. ROSTENKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, how much time does this gentleman from 
Illinois have?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rosten-     
kowski] has 21 minutes remaining.
MR. ARCHER: Mr. Speaker, I did not yield back the balance of my time. I 
said I have no further requests for time and I move the previous 
question.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman cannot move the previous 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 592]]

question while the gentleman from Illinois still has time.
MR. ARCHER: In that event, then, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] reserves 
the balance of his time, which happens to be 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski]. . . . 
MR. ARCHER: Mr. Speaker, may I ask if the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Rostenkowski] has further requests for time?
MR. ROSTENKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
MR. ARCHER: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. . . 
. 
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
MR. ROSTENKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I, too, yield back the balance of my 
time.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I renew my preferential motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Walker moves to lay on the table the motion to instruct offered by 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] to lay on the table the motion 
to instruct offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer]. . . . 
So the motion to table the motion to instruct was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Three-way Allocation of Debate Time on Motion To Instruct
Sec.    11.9 Where both the manager of the bill and the proponent of a 
motion to instruct conferees are in favor of the motion, the Chair 
allocates the time equally between three persons, the proponent of the 
motion, the Member handling the bill in the other party, and a Member 
who rises in opposition to the motion; and it is the proponent who has 
the right to close the debate. 
Rule XXVIII clause 1(b)(8) dictates the division of time to be applied 
to debate on a motion to instruct conferees. This was the allocation 
applied on Aug. 1, 1994,(9) when a motion to instruct was offered to 
H.R. 4506, the energy and water appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1995.

MR. [JOHN T.] MYERS of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a (1997).
 9.     140 CONG. REC. 18860, 18866, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 593]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Myers of Indiana moves that the managers on the part of the House 
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 4506 be instructed to insist upon 
the provisions contained in the House bill under the heading "General 
Science and Research Activities" that provide $279,399,000 for high 
energy physics facility operating expenses.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Sharp] rise?
MR. [PHILIP R.] SHARP [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition 
to the motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] in 
opposition to the motion?
MR. [TOM] BEVILL [of Alabama]: No, Mr. Speaker, I am supportive of the 
motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will divide the time in thirds, each 
Member receiving 20 minutes, one-third of the time.
The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] is recognized for 20 minutes.
MR. MYERS of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I am going to use the 4 minutes I have remaining in order 
to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(11) The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] has 
the right to close.
MR. SHARP: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut].
MR. [ERIC D.] FINGERHUT [of Ohio]: I thank the gentleman for yielding 
this time to me. . . . 
Right To Close Debate, Motion To Instruct
Sec.    11.10 The proponent of a motion to instruct conferees has the 
right to close debate thereon where debate is divided between the 
parties as provided in Rule XXVIII clause 1(b).
The pertinent clause in Rule XXVIII(12) was adopted in the 101st 
Congress.(13) Before this amendment was included in the rule, debate on 
a motion to instruct was under the hour rule, controlled by the 
proponent.(14) 
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES TO HOUSE AMENDMENTS TO SENATE AMENDMENT TO 
H.R. 3355
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Benjamin L. Cardin (Md.).
11.     Alcee L. Hastings (Fla.).
12.     Clause 1(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a (1997).
13.     See H. Res. 5 at 135 CONG. REC. 72, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 
3, 1989.
14.     See the proceedings at 140 CONG. REC. 8197, 8199, 103d Cong. 2d 
Sess., Apr. 21, 1994.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 594]]

MR. [JACK] BROOKS [of Texas]: Madam Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 401, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Brooks moves that the House insist on its amendments to the Senate 
amendment to the bill H.R. 3355 and request a conference with the 
Senate thereon.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(15) The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
The motion was agreed to.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES
MR. [BILL] MCCOLLUM [of Florida]: Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to 
instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. McCollum moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3355 be instructed 
to insist on the provision of the House amendment that authorizes $10.5 
billion for grants for State prison construction and operation and 
agree to the provisions of the Senate that requires States to change 
their laws to require that defendants serve at least 85 percent of the 
sentence ordered.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
MR. MCCOLLUM: Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. MCCOLLUM: Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. MCCOLLUM: Madam Speaker, do I as the proponent of this motion have 
the right to close debate?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct.
Debate on Motions To Instruct; Right To Close
Sec.    11.11 Where debate on a motion to instruct conferees is equally 
divided between the majority and the minority parties, the proponent of 
the motion has the right to close.
When a motion to instruct conferees is offered in the House, the 
division of time is governed by Rule XXVIII clause 1(b).(16) While the 
rule does not address which Member has the right to close, the standard 
practice in the House is that the proponent of the motion has that 
right, as indicated by the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     Barbara B. Kennelly (Conn.).
16.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 595]]

proceedings of Nov. 21, 1991,(17) shown in the following excerpt: 
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES OFFERED BY MR. SENSENBRENNER
MR. [F. JAMES] SENSENBRENNER [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Sensenbrenner 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. 3371, be instructed to accept the Senate position on certain 
firearms provisions in the Senate-passed crime bill, S. 1241, namely 
sections 207 and 1213 of that bill.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(18) The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Edwards] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
MR. SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, am I correct that I have the right to close?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Wisconsin does have the 
right to close.
Sec.    11.12 The proponent of a motion to instruct conferees has the 
right to close the debate on the motion. 
On July 28, 1994,(19) immediately after the request to go to conference 
was agreed to, a motion to instruct the conferees to insist on a 
certain House provision submitted to conference was offered by a 
minority Member.(20) After the Chair(1) had announced the division of 
time between the proponent of the motion and the chairman of the House 
Subcommittee on District of Columbia Appropriations,(2) Mr. Walsh 
inquired of the Chair about the right to close the debate. Proceedings 
were as follows:
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4649, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995; AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUPPLEMENTAL 
APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT, 1994
MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4649) making appropriations for the 
government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable 
in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, with 
Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     137 CONG. REC. 33344, 33346, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
19.     See 140 CONG. REC. 18405, 103d Cong. 2d Sess. (H.R. 4649).
20.     James T. Walsh (N.Y.).
 1.     Ted Strickland (Ohio).
 2.     Julian C. Dixon (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 596]]

amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
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. WALSH
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Walsh of New York 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. 4649, be instructed to insist on the House position on 
amendment numbered 16, reducing the D.C. budget by $150 million.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dixon] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, do we have the right to close debate?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The proponents of the motion will have the 
right to close the debate.
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Yielding for Amendment
Sec.    11.13 A Member  controlling the time for debate on his motion to 
instruct House managers at a conference loses the floor if he yields 
for an amendment.
On Feb. 8, 1965,(3) the following occurred after Mr. Robert H. Michel, 
of Illinois, offered a motion to instruct the House conferees on House 
Joint Resolution 234, which made supplemental appropriations for the 
Department of Agriculture:

MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to another member of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Langen].
THE SPEAKER:(4) The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
MR. [ODIN] LANGEN: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Illinois yield to the gentleman 
from Minnesota for the purpose of offering an amendment?
MR. MICHEL: If that is his desire, yes.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the gentleman from Illinois will 
lose the floor when he yields for that purpose.
MR. MICHEL: Then, I do not yield to the gentleman for that purpose.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Illinois declines to yield to the 
gentleman from Minnesota for the purpose of offering an amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     111 CONG. REC. 2092-99, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 597]]

Effect of Defeat of Previous Question
Sec.    11.14 If the previous question is voted down on a motion to 
instruct the managers on the part of the House, the motion is open to 
amendment and the Speaker may recognize a Member opposed to ordering 
the previous question to control the time and offer an amendment.
On May 29, 1968,(5) Mr. James A. Burke, of Massachusetts, offered a 
motion to instruct the House conferees on H.R. 15414, the Revenue and 
Expenditure Act of 1968. After the previous question had been ordered 
on this motion, Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, raised this 
parliamentary inquiry:

MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, should the previous question be voted down 
would the motion be open to a preferential motion to amend and would of 
necessity the time be controlled by those in opposition to the previous 
question?
THE SPEAKER:(6) The previous question has already been ordered. If it 
had not been ordered and voted down, the answer to the parliamentary 
inquiry of the gentleman from Louisiana would be in the affirmative.
Control of Debate on Amendment to Motion To Instruct
Sec.    11.15 Although the control of time for debate on a motion to 
instruct conferees is divided pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 1(b),(7) 
if the previous question is not ordered at the conclusion of that 
debate, another Member may be recognized to offer an amendment to the 
original motion and is entitled to control and to allocate time for  an 
undivided hour.
Pending the appointment of conferees on H.R. 4210, the Economic Growth 
Acceleration Act, a measure reported from the Committee on Ways and 
Means, a motion to instruct was offered by Mr. Bill Archer, of Texas, a 
member of the committee. After debate, a motion to lay the instruction 
on the table was rejected.
The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, who had controlled 30 
minutes of debate time on the original motion to instruct, then offered 
an amend-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     114 CONG. REC. 15499, 15511, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 7.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 598]]

ment. The relevant proceedings of Mar. 18, 1992,(8) are shown below.

So the motion to table the motion to instruct was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ROSTENKOWSKI TO THE MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED 
BY MR.  ARCHER
MR. [DAN] ROSTENKOWSKI [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment 
to the motion to instruct.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment by Mr. Rostenkowski to the motion to instruct offered by Mr. 
Archer: In the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas strike all 
after "be instructed" and insert in lieu thereof "to include in the 
conference report, within the scope of conference, provisions to 
provide significant middle-class tax relief."

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(9) The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Rostenkowski] is recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. ARCHER: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 206, nays 
200, not voting 28, as follows: . . . 
So the amendment to the motion to instruct was agreed to. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to instruct, as 
amended, offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].
The motion to instruct, as amended, was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
THE SPEAKER:(10) The Chair appoints the following conferees, and, 
without objection, reserves the authority to make additional 
appointments of conferees and to specify particular portions of the 
House bill and Senate amendment as the subject of various appointments: 
. . . 
Conferees on H.R. 4210-Tax Fairness and Economic Growth Act: Messrs. 
Rostenkowski, Gibbons, Pickle, Rangel, Stark, Archer, Vander Jagt, and 
Crane.
There was no objection.
Debate Time on Amendment to Motion To Instruct
Sec.    11.16 The division of time for debate on a motion to instruct 
conferees (Rule XXVIII clause 1(b)) does not extend to debate on an 
amendment to such motion offered after the rejection of the previous 
question; for the proponent of the amendment to the motion is entitled 
to an hour under Rule XIV clause 2, the general hour rule of the House. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     138 CONG. REC. 6024, 6025, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
 9.     Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).
10.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 599]]

The proceedings of Oct. 3, 1989,(11) show the control of debate on a 
motion to instruct and on an amendment to that motion.

MR. [JULIAN C.] DIXON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3026) making 
appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other 
activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said 
District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990, 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:(12) Is there objections to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. GREEN
MR. [S. WILLIAM] GREEN [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
instruct.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Green 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. 
3026, be instructed to agree to the amendment of the Senate numbered 3.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Green] is 
recognized for 30 minutes in support of his motion. . . . 
MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to 
instruct. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it. . . . 
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 193, nays 
222, not voting 17. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I understand now that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dannemeyer] intends to offer an amendment to the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Green].
My question is: Under the offering will I receive part of the time?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would state to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon] that 1 hour would be allotted to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dannemeyer]. He would have to yield time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].
MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, if I understand, it all goes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dannemeyer], and he can yield opponents time. . . . 
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer to the motion to instruct: At the 
end of the pending motion, strike the period, insert a semicolon, and 
add the following language: "; Provided further that the conferees be
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     135 CONG. REC. 22859, 22862, 22863, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     William J. Hughes (N.J.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 600]]

instructed to agree to the provisions contained in Senate amendment 
numbered 22."

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. [WILLIAM E.] DANNEMEYER [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I yield one-
half of the time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], for 
purposes of debate only.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, if this motion to instruct now pending 
before the House is adopted, would it have the effect of amending the 
previous motion to instruct that was being considered and offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Green] so that, if this motion offered 
by the gentleman from California at this time is adopted, the House 
would then be voting on the contents of the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Green]?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer] 
is correct. The vote would then be on the motion to instruct offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Green], as amended.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, on that I reserve the balance of my time, 
and I ask for an aye vote on my amendment to the motion to instruct.
Sec.    11.17 Although control of time for debate on a motion to instruct 
conferees is divided equally between majority and minority parties 
pursuant to Rule XXVIII, where the previous question is not ordered on 
the motion to instruct, an ensuing hour is under the undivided control 
of a Member recognized by the Chair as leading the opposition to 
ordering the previous question, and that Member may then offer an 
amendment to the original motion to instruct.
The original motion to instruct conferees on the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1994 was offered by the ranking member of the 
Budget Committee, Mr. John R. Kasich, of Ohio. When the previous 
question on that motion failed to gain a majority, the following 
proceedings ensued, as shown in the Record of July 14, 1993.(13) 

So the previous question was not ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
MR. KASICH: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     139 CONG. REC. 15668-70, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 601]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(14) The gentleman will state it.
MR. KASICH: Mr. Speaker, since the motion on the previous question was 
defeated, then the gentleman would be allocated how much time and would 
I be able to receive part of that time, since he is amending my motion?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman would be entitled to 1 hour and 
the yielding of time would be at his discretion. The gentleman from 
Ohio would not automatically be entitled to time.
MR. [MARTIN O.] SABO [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the 
gentleman from Ohio more time than we take.
MR. KASICH: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Minnesota yield me an 
equal amount of time in order to present the case against his amending 
my motion?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is not a parliamentary inquiry.
MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
arliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, in the case of the previous debate just 
completed, the 1 hour of time, how was the time allocated?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It was allocated 30 minutes on each side.
MR. WALKER: Was that done by virtue of the amendment?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It was done pursuant to the rules of the 
House. Under clause 1(b) of rule XXVIII, the time for debate on the 
original motion was equally divided. Recognition after the rejection of 
the motion for the previous question, however, is under the hour rule, 
and the Member recognized for that hour may yield time at his 
discretion.
MR. WALKER: So it would have to be a matter of courtesy to this side 
for him to give us an equal amount of time; is that correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair has stated what the rules are.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SABO AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE MOTION TO 
INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. KASICH
MR. SABO: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the 
motion to instruct.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Sabo as a substitute for the motion to 
instruct offered by Mr. Kasich:
In lieu of the instructions in the motion offered by Representative 
Kasich, insert the following:
"I move 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 H.R. 
2264 be instructed to accept the higher thresholds on the treatment of 
Social Security benefits in section 8215 of the Senate amendment."

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] is 
recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 602]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to hear in the House 
right now. Do I understand the substance of the amendment before us is 
to strike the language of Kasich and then replace half the language of 
Kasich by amendment?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The motion was just reported to the House.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, it was very difficult to hear it.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
motion.
The Clerk reread the motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will not further characterize it.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, so the effect of the amendment is to strike 
the spending increase portions of the Kasich budget?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will not further characterize the 
motion.
The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] is recognized for 1 hour. . . . 
MR. SABO: Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the 
previous question on the amendment and on the motion to instruct.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] as a substitute for the motion 
to instruct offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. . . . 
So the amendment offered as a substitute for the motion to instruct was 
agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], as amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 415, noes 
0, not voting 19. . . . 
Effect of Rejecting Previous Question on Motion To Instruct
Sec.    11.18 After rejection of a motion for the previous question on a 
motion to instruct conferees, the Member who led the opposition to the 
ordering of the previous question, as determined by the Speaker, is 
recognized for a full hour.
The original motion to instruct conferees had been to insist on certain 
House provisions under the heading "General Science and Research 
Activities." Mr. Philip R. Sharp, of Indiana, had argued for a motion 
to instruct which preserved another House provision which terminated 
funding for certain projects-the Advanced 


[[Page 603]]

Liquid Metal Reactor Program-among others. His amendment to the 
original motion did not eliminate the Myers' instruction but added 
further instructions at the end thereof. Proceedings showing the 
recognition which followed rejection of the previous question are 
carried here.(15) 

MR. [JOHN T.] MYERS of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance 
of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion to instruct. 
. . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(16) 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. . . . 
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 171, nays 
209, not voting 54. . . . 
So the previous question was not ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SHARP TO THE MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. 
MYERS OF INDIANA
MR. SHARP: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the motion to instruct.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Sharp to the motion to instruct offered by Mr. 
Myers of Indiana: Insert before the period at the end of the following: 
and to insist upon the provisions contained in the House bill that 
provide funds for the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor, the Integral Fast 
Reactor, and the Actinide Recycle Program only for purposes of program 
termination.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Sharp] is 
recognized.
MR. SHARP: Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for Members of the House, we do 
not plan to take any more time on the debate of the issue. We had an 
hour debate on this. The distinguished chairman of the committee and 
the ranking minority member agrees that we will not further debate the 
issue this evening, but proceed to the vote.
Mr. Speaker, this is the motion to instruct that the House stay with 
its position to terminate the advanced liquid metal reactor that it 
adopted in the regular order of business.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the amendment and on the motion to instruct.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Sharp] to the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. SHARP: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: All those in favor of taking the vote by the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     See 140 CONG. REC. 18868, 18869, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 1, 1994.
16.     Alcee L. Hastings (Fla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 604]]

yeas and nays will rise and remain standing.
MR. SHARP: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my demand for the yeas and nays.
The amendment was agreed to.