[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[C. INSTRUCTIONS TO CONFEREES; MOTIONS TO INSTRUCT]
[Â§ 14. When Conferees Fair To Act]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 635-658]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
C. INSTRUCTIONS TO CONFEREES; MOTIONS TO INSTRUCT
 
Sec.    14. When Conferees Fail To Act

Failure To Report Within 20 Days
Sec.    14.1 Where conferees have been appointed for 20 calendar days and 
have failed to file a report, a motion to instruct the House managers 
at the conference is in order, and is privileged under Rule XXVIII 
clause 1(c).
On Aug. 1, 1935,(7) Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, submitted the following 
resolution to instruct the House conferees on S. 2796, the Public 
Utilities Act of 1935:

Resolved, That the managers on the part of the House at the conference 
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the 
House to the bill of the Senate, S. 2796, be, and they are hereby, 
instructed to agree to the provisions of section 11 of the Senate bill.

Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, interposed a point of order against 
the resolution offered by 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 7.     79 CONG. REC. 12265, 12266, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 636]]

Mr. Rayburn on the ground that it was not privileged under Rule XXVIII 
clause 11/2a.(8) Mr. O'Connor argued that the rule applied only to 
recalcitrant conferees. Since the conferees were appointed in this 
instance without instructions,(9) he contended that they could not be 
considered recalcitrant.

THE SPEAKER:(10) The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rayburn] has presented a 
motion to instruct the conferees on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on Senate bill 
2796 to agree to the provisions of section 11 of the Senate bill. He 
does so under the provisions of rule XXVIII, which has been referred to 
and read several times to the House in the past 2 or 3 days, and with 
which all Members are familiar.
The gentleman from New York makes the point of order that the motion is 
not a privileged motion.
The Chair has had occasion in the past several days to give 
considerable thought and study to this rule. The Chair has heretofore 
stated that in the opinion of the Chair the whole object and purpose of 
the rule was to enable the House to preserve some control over 
conferees after they had been appointed. Up until the time clause 11/2
(a) of rule XXVIII was adopted the House had no authority over 
conferees after their appointment. Under the rules and practices 
preceding the adoption of this rule it was necessary for the House to 
instruct the conferees before they were appointed or the House lost 
entire control unless the conferees made a report either of 
disagreement or agreement.
The Chair has heretofore stated that in the opinion of the Chair the 
House in adopting the rule and providing that 20 days should elapse 
before a motion of this kind was in order intended to give what it 
considered at that time full opportunity to the conferees to come to 
such agreement. Under the present situation, with reference to the 
conferees on this particular bill, the Chair finds that the conferees 
were appointed more than 20 days ago.
As stated, the gentleman from Texas is offering this motion under the 
provisions of this rule. The Chair does not think it is a question of 
recalcitrancy on the part of the conferees or that that is necessary to 
make this motion in order, because the Chair repeats that in his 
opinion the moving purpose of the House in adopting the rule was to 
maintain control by the House over its conferees upon any bill which 
had been committed to them. . . . 
The Chair does not think there is any ambiguity in the language 
employed in this rule. It provides for two motions, one of which is to 
discharge and appoint new conferees, and the other to instruct the 
conferees already appointed.
The gentleman from Texas has made the latter motion. The Chair thinks 
it is clearly authorized under the plain 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
 9.     See 79 CONG. REC. 11095, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., July 12, 1935.
10.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 637]]

language of the rule and therefore overrules the point of order.(11) 

Sec.    14.2 After House conferees have been appointed for 20 calendar 
days and have failed to make a report, a motion to discharge said 
conferees is of high privilege.
On Sept. 12, 1940,(12) Mr. Harry P. Beam, of Illinois, alluding to the 
fact that House managers on S. 326 (relating to the payment of awards 
to citizens of the United States under the General Claims Convention of 
Sept. 8, 1923, between the United States and Mexico) had been appointed 
on July 11,(13) of that year, stated:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a privileged motion. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, under rule 28 of the rules of the House of 
Representatives, paragraph 11/2(a),(14) section 910, the following 
appears:

After House conferees on any bill or resolution in conference between 
the House and Senate shall have been appointed for 20 calendar days and 
shall have failed to make a report, it is hereby declared to be a 
motion of the highest privilege to move to discharge said House 
conferees and to appoint new conferees, or to instruct said House 
conferees; and, further, during the last 6 days of any session of 
Congress, it shall be a privileged motion to move to discharge, 
appoint, or instruct House conferees after House conferees shall have 
been appointed 36 hours without having made a report.

Mr. Speaker, in conformity with the above-stated rule, I hereby move to 
discharge the conferees appointed on the bill S. 326.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(15) The gentleman will send his motion to the 
desk, and the Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Beam moves to discharge the House conferees on the bill of the 
Senate S. 326.(16) 
Sec.    14.3 After conferees have been appointed in both bodies for more 
than 20 calendar days, and have failed to report, a motion in the House 
to instruct the House conferees is highly privileged.
A motion to instruct may be directed to a portion of a Senate 
amendment, in this instance the motion urged acceptance by the House 
managers of one non-germane section of the Senate amendment in the 
nature of a 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     See also 118 CONG. REC. 16838-42, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., May 11, 
1972.
12.     86 CONG. REC. 12052, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
13.     Id. at pp. 9515, 9516.
14.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 
(1997).
15.     Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
16.     See also 95 CONG. REC. 11398, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 12, 
1949.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 638]]

substitute to H.R. 31, amending the Truth in Lending Act. 
The form of the motion, as excerpted from the proceedings of May 20, 
1981,(17) is carried here. 
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES TO AGREE TO SECTION 303 OF SENATE 
AMENDMENT TO H.R. 31, THE CASH DISCOUNT ACT
MR. [EDWARD R.] MADIGAN [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
privileged motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(18) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Madigan moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
committee of conference on the bill H.R. 31 be instructed to agree to 
section 303 of the Senate amendment which removes the age restriction 
for appointment to the Surgeon Generalship.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: 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 rise to urge my colleagues to support my motion to 
instruct House conferees on nongermane provisions found in H.R. 31, the 
Cash Discount Act.
As some of my colleagues may not be aware of the situation on this 
bill, I will give a brief recap:
H.R. 31, the Cash Discount Act, was reported by the House Banking 
Committee and passed the House. It was amended on the floor of the 
other body with the insertion of nongermane language relating to the 
Public Health Service Act. When returned to this body, the Speaker 
referred the nongermane portion of the amended bill to the Subcommittee 
on Health and the Environment of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Our 
distinguished chairman, the gentleman from California, called one day 
of hearings at which we discussed this and ancillary issues. The 
subcommittee and full committee took no further action. Some 6 weeks 
ago, the House appointed conferees on this bill. Three weeks ago, the 
other house did likewise. Conferees have unsuccessfully attempted to 
meet on two occasions.
This then is the situation today: A worthwhile piece of legislation has 
been blocked due to nongermane language. In addition, unrelated 
concerns have intruded upon the central issue of the amending language 
found in the bill.

Parliamentarian's Note: The 20-day rule has consistently been 
interpreted, in modern usage, to become privileged only after the 
conferees have been named in both bodies for the 20-day period required 
by the rule. Further, the rule has been interpreted to permit the 
privilege to attach to the motion only after the 20 days have 
completely run, not on the 20th day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     127 CONG. REC. 10319, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 639]]

Note, too, that the "notice requirement" in Rule XXVIII clause 1(c)(19) 
was not added to the rule until the 101st Congress.(20) 
Privilege of the House Not Alternative to 20-day Motion
Sec.    14.4 Where a rule of the House provides a specific method of 
proceeding against a dilatory or recalcitrant conference committee by a 
motion to discharge or instruct such committee, it is not in order to 
anticipate action under that rule by seeking to bring the matter before 
the House under the guise of a question of a privilege of the House.
On July 29, 1935,(1) Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, offered House 
Resolution 311, to instruct House conferees on S. 2796, the Public 
Utility Holding Company Act, to insist that any conference on that bill 
be held without the presence thereat of anyone who was not a manager 
for either the House or the Senate. The resolution contended that the 
refusal of the Senate managers to confer with their House counterparts 
unless the former were accompanied by certain advisors, constituted a 
question of a privilege of the House. Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, and Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, raised points of 
order against the resolution.

MR. BLANTON: I make the point of order that under rule XXVIII of the 
House of Representatives, after the Speaker appoints conferees, until 
the conferees make a report and file their report and statement here 
and have it printed, or unless 20 days have elapsed, and a proper 
motion is made under rule XXVIII(2) to discharge the conferees, the 
House loses jurisdiction entirely over the conferees until one of those 
two events happen.

Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, gave the following ruling:

The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Huddleston] 
has presented a resolution in which there are recitations of various 
statements of facts, and which is designed to instruct the conferees 
now having charge of the utility bill on the part of the House to 
further insist on said conferences being held-

Under free, fair, and just conditions and to insist that all persons 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 
(1997).
20.     See. H. Res. 5, 135 CONG. REC. 72, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 
1989.
 1.     79 CONG. REC. 12007-13, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 
(1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 640]]

who are not managers for either House or Senate be excluded from such 
conference.

The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] and the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Blanton] have raised a point of order and insisted that this 
resolution does not present a matter of privilege of the House. . . . 
With the limited opportunity the Chair has had to give consideration to 
this important matter, it appears that up until a short time ago, to be 
exact, the Seventy-second Congress, when a rule was adopted bearing on 
the subject, there was no way by which the House, after formal 
appointment of conferees, could instruct conferees, in the absence of a 
report of an agreement or a disagreement, except by unanimous consent. 
In the Seventy-second Congress the House, evidently realizing that 
situation, adopted a rule which the Chair will read to the House. It is 
section 11/2a of rule XXVIII. . . . 
That clause was adopted on December 8, 1931, in the first session of 
the Seventy-second Congress. Of course, the House had an object in 
adopting that rule. It was to preserve to the House the right to 
exercise authority, as the Chair construes it, in a matter pending 
between the House and Senate, insofar as its own conferees were 
concerned. As the Chair stated, up until that rule was adopted, the 
House had absolutely no authority, except by unanimous consent, to 
exercise any authority over the conferees theretofore appointed, except 
in those cases where the conferees had reported either an agreement or 
a disagreement. . . . 
As the Chair stated, from all the consideration he has given to this 
point of order in the limited time he has had to do so, he becomes more 
clearly convinced that in adopting this rule the House intended to cure 
a situation which, for some reason unexplained, had existed up until 
that time, because it was rather unusual that during all the years the 
House had never reserved to itself the right to tell conferees what 
they must do after they were appointed.
The Chair thinks that if this resolution was held in order at this time 
it would prove to be a bad precedent, for a similar question might be 
raised for one reason or another in every conference ordered by the 
House. . . . 
Now, there were two courses which the conferees could have pursued: One 
was to report to disagreement, which has not been done. The other was 
to wait for 20 days, under this rule, and then to proceed under its 
provisions as a matter of the highest privilege. If the conferees had 
reported a disagreement, it would be in order for the House to take 
such action as it pleased, either with reference to instructions or to 
sending them back for further consideration.
The Chair does not wish to be understood as passing on the merits of 
the question, because that is not within the province of the Chair. . . 
.  The Chair thinks that that is a matter of procedure that should be 
determined by the conferees. In the event that the conferees are unable 
to agree, it seems to the Chair that the remedy is provided in rule 
XXVIII. The Chair does not believe that under the facts stated a 
question 


[[Page 641]]

of privilege is involved. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of 
order.
Instruction To Agree With an Amendment
Sec.    14.5 The managers on the part of the House at a conference, 
having failed to make a report within 20 calendar days, were instructed 
to agree to a Senate amendment with an amendment.
On May 9, 1946,(3) the following proceedings occurred in the House:

MR. [BRENT] SPENCE [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, the Members of the 
conference committee on the bill (H.R. 4761) to amend the National 
Housing Act by adding thereto a new title relating to the prevention of 
speculation and excessive profits in the sale of housing, and to insure 
the availability of real estate for housing purposes at fair and 
reasonable prices, and for other purposes, having been appointed for 
more than 20 days and failing to file a report, I desire to make a 
motion under paragraph 11/2a of rule XXVIII of the House,(4) which 
motion is at the Clerk's desk. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(5) The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Spence] offers a 
motion which the Clerk will report.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Spence moves to instruct the managers on the part of the House at 
the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill 
H.R. 4761 to agree to section 11(a) of the Senate amendment, with an 
amendment, as follows: Strike out "$600,000,000" as it appears there- 
in, and insert in lieu thereof "$400,000,000."

After considerable debate, the House agreed to the motion.
Including Argument in Motion
Sec.    14.6 It is not within the province of the Chair to rule out a 
motion to instruct conferees under Rule XXVIII clause 1(c) on the 
ground that it contains argument.
On May 26, 1936,(6) Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, offered a motion 
pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 11/2a,(7) to instruct House conferees on 
H.R. 11581, the District of Columbia appropriation bill for fiscal 
1937. Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, made a point of order against 
the motion on the ground that it contained argument. Although Mr. 
Blanton subsequently withdrew his motion and asked that another motion 
be considered in its place, Mr. Snell 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     92 CONG. REC. 4750, 4766, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
 5.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 6.     80 CONG. REC. 7939, 7945, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 642]]

urged the Speaker, Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, to rule on his point 
of order.

MR. SNELL: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to have a ruling on 
this proposition. I made the point of order earlier that the 
argumentative part of the original proposition was not in order and I 
think for the future precedents of the House we should have a ruling on 
that question. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: . . . The rule to which the Chair has referred(8) provides 
only for a motion, but the Chair does not believe that any presiding 
officer ought to put himself in the position of dictating to a Member 
just how his motion should be made. If the Chair should hold that the 
motion carries argument, then it would be up to the Chair to delete 
from the motion such portions as occurred to the Chair to be 
argumentative, and if that were the practice the Chair at some time 
might delete portions of the motion in exercising that privilege.
The Chair thinks this is a matter for the House to decide, and the 
Chair is unwilling, out of a spirit of fairness, to undertake to 
dictate to the Members just how they shall draw their motions.
Recommittal to Existing Conference; Does Not Break Time Under 20-day 
Vote
Sec.    14.7 Where the Senate is first to act on a conference report and 
determines to recommit it to the committee of conference, the conferees 
are not at that point discharged; the same managers resume their 
negotiations, and a motion to instruct the managers on the part of the 
House under the "20-day rule" would still be permissible in the House 
if those conferees in fact have been appointed for more than the 20 
days. 

On May 24, 1990, the House had amended, insisted on its amendment, and 
asked for a conference on the bill S. 933, the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. 
The Senate under the normal progression of the official papers would 
act first on the report and in fact did so. As indicated by the 
comments of Mr. Steve Bartlett, of Texas, there had been some thought 
to letting the House act first. The inquiry by Mr. William E. 
Dannemeyer, of California, and the Chair's response shows that the 
continuity of the appointment of conferees is not broken if the report 
is recommitted by the first body to act. The proceedings of June 28, 
1990,(9) were as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     The Chair had previously referred to Rule XXVIII clause 11/2a.
 9.     136 CONG. REC. 16156, 16157, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 643]]

CONSIDERATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
(Mr. Hoyer asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
MR. [STENY H.] HOYER [of Maryland]: . . . I regret to inform the 
Members that it does not appear that the U.S. Senate is prepared to 
transfer the papers back to the House of Representatives this 
afternoon. As a result, I regret to inform the Members that we will not 
be considering the Americans With Disabilities Act this afternoon and, 
therefore, will not be considering it until after we return. . . . 
MR. BARTLETT: I thank the gentleman for yielding. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman for that decision, on two 
bases. First of all, on process: It seems to me that the rules of the 
House which say that the other body needs to act first, in fact, rule 
No. 555, states rather explicitly that in all cases of conference asked 
after votes of disagreement the conferees of the House making it are to 
leave the papers with the conferees of the other.
We have had disputes informally during the course of the day as to 
whether those papers could somehow be transferred back to this House 
even though the other body is required under the House rules to act 
first.
It seems to me that had that happened, it would have been disruptive to 
the process and Members would not have had sufficient, adequate 
notification as to which body was going to act first. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I would like, if I may, to ask a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The gentleman will state it.
MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, if the Senate, when it takes up the 
conference report, would consider a motion to recommit the bill to 
conference because of the failure of the conferees to adopt the 
provision of both Houses on the Chapman amendment and that motion to 
recommit would be successful, would it then be in order, since the 
conferees are still in existence and in business, for the House to then 
consider a motion to instruct conferees on the Chapman amendment?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman's conclusion is correct.
MR. DANNEMEYER: I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. . . . 
Giving Notice of Intent To Offer Motion To Instruct
Sec.    14.8 A Member announced to the House that it was his intention to 
offer a motion to instruct the House managers at a conference, the 
conferees having been appointed for over 20 days without having filed a 
report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 644]]

On May 22, 1968,(11) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
granted Mr. James A. Burke, of Massachusetts, permission to address the 
House.

MR. BURKE of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I have taken this time to 
advise the House that on next Wednesday, May 29, I propose to offer a 
motion to instruct the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the bill, H.R. 15414, the tax bill, to insist on an 
expenditure reduction for fiscal year 1969 of $4 billion, instead of a 
6 billion cut.(12) 
Form of Notice of Intention To Instruct Conferees
Sec.    14.9 Under Rule XXVIII clause 1 (as amended in 1989) a Member 
must give one day's notice of his intention to offer a motion to 
instruct conferees who have been appointed for 20 days without filing a 
report.  
The amendment to Rule XXVIII, requiring notice of an intention to offer 
a motion to instruct conferees under the "20-day rule" (see clause 1
(c)) was adopted in 1989;(13) the application of the new rule was 
illustrated during the proceedings of Nov. 13, 1989.(14) 
NOTICE OF MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 3299
(Mr. Tauke asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
MR. [THOMAS J.] TAUKE [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to serve 
notice that I am going to propose a motion to instruct conferees on 
H.R. 3299, the conference committee having been constituted over 20 
days. My motion will be to instruct the conferees to substitute, in 
lieu of title III of the Education and Labor Committee section, those 
provisions of the Ways and Means Committee section to expand the title 
XX block grant and the earned-income tax credit.

Parliamentarian's Note: The proposed motion to instruct can be 
described in general terms but the exact form of the motion must be 
included in the Record to constitute the adequate "notice" required by 
the rule. In the example carried here, the motion was never 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     114 CONG. REC. 14433, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
12.     Parliamentarian's Note: The conferees had reached agreement but 
had not yet filed their report. Under these conditions, a motion to 
instruct the managers on the part of the House, under Rule XXVIII 
clause 1(b) (clause 1(c) in 1997), was in order.
13.     See H. Res. 5, 135 CONG. REC. 72, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. The rule 
is currently carried in Sec. 910, House Rules and Manual (1997).
14.     135 CONG. REC. 28559, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 645]]

placed in the Record in its precise form, and perhaps because of this 
deficiency, was never called up. 
Procedure for Giving Notice of Intention To Instruct Under 20-day Rule
Sec.    14.10 The required notice under Rule XXVIII clause 1(c)(15) that 
a Member intends to offer a motion to instruct conferees under the 20-
day rule has been fulfilled by a statement during special orders, since 
giving such notice is not considered "business" which would be 
inappropriate during such proceedings.
It has long been the policy of the Speaker not to permit the conduct of 
business after the House has begun special-order speeches at the end of 
a legislative day. The announcement of an intent to offer a motion to 
instruct does not require the consent of the House and has thus been 
permitted after the conclusion of legislative business. Such a request 
is shown here.(16) 
SPECIAL ORDERS 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(17) Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, and under a previous order of the 
House, the following Members are recognized for 5 minutes each. . . . 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF INTENTION TO OFFER MOTION TO INSTRUCT ON H.R. 820, 
NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT
MR. [DANA] ROHRABACHER [of California]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 
1(c) of rule 28, I announce to the House that tomorrow I intend to 
offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 820. I had previously 
expected to offer this motion today. The form of the motion is as 
follows:

Mr. Rohrabacher moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the 2 Houses on the Senate 
amendment to the bill, H.R. 820, be instructed to insist on the 
provisions contained in section 506 of the House bill, entitled 
"Prohibitions", the text of which is as follows: "None of the funds 
made available in this Act may be used to provide any direct Federal 
financial benefit to any person who is not (1) a citizen or national of 
the United States; (2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 
residence; or (3) an alien granted legal status as a parolee, asylee, 
or refugee.".
Divisibility of Motion To Instruct Offered After 20 Days

Sec.    14.11 A motion to instruct conferees under Rule XXVIII 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
16.     See 140 CONG. REC. 26341, 26347, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 28, 1994.
17.     Robert C. (Bobby) Scott (Va.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 646]]

to agree to a Senate amendment with an amendment may not be divided for 
the purpose of permitting a vote on the Senate amendment itself.
On May 9, 1946,(18) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [BRENT] SPENCE [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, the Members of the 
conference committee on the bill (H.R. 4761) to amend the National 
Housing Act by adding thereto a new title relating to the prevention of 
speculation and excessive profits in the sale of housing, and to insure 
the availability of real estate for housing purposes at fair and 
reasonable prices, and for other purposes, having been appointed for 
more than 20 days and failing to file a report, I desire to make a 
motion under paragraph 11/2a of rule XXVIII of the House,(19) which 
motion is at the Clerk's desk. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(20) The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Spence] offers a 
motion which the Clerk will report.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Spence moves to instruct the managers on the part of the House at 
the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill 
H.R. 4761 to agree to section 11(a) of the Senate amendment, with an 
amendment, as follows: Strike out "$600,000,000" as it appears 
therein, and insert in lieu thereof "$400,000,000." . . . 

MR. [VITO] MARCANTONIO [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. MARCANTONIO: As I understand the motion filed by the gentleman from 
Kentucky, it provides for agreeing to the Senate amendment with an 
amendment. Is it possible to have the motion divided so that a vote may 
be taken on the Senate amendment itself?
THE SPEAKER: It is one proposition, it is not divisible.
Sec.    14.12 A motion to instruct conferees under Rule XXVIII clause 1
(c) is divisible if it contains two or more substantive propositions.
On May 26, 1936,(1) Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, pursuant to a 
clause in Rule XXVIII(2) offered a motion to instruct House conferees 
on H.R. 11581, the District of Columbia appropriations bill for fiscal 
1937. The motion contained three separate instructions. After the Clerk 
read the motion and after the previous question 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     92 CONG. REC. 4750, 4751, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
19.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 
(1997).
20.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 1.     80 CONG. REC. 7945, 7951, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 
(1973). In 1936, the pertinent clause was numbered 11/2a.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 647]]

was ordered, Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, rose.

MR. SNELL: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a division of the resolution.
THE SPEAKER:(3) The Chair thinks the resolution is divisible, and the 
Clerk will report the first portion of the resolution.
Motion To Instruct as Unfinished Business
Sec.    14.13 A motion to discharge conferees which is pending when the 
House adjourns becomes the unfinished business the next day.
On Sept. 12, 1940,(4) after Mr. Harry P. Beam, if Illinois, offered a 
motion to discharge the House conferees on S. 326, the following 
occurred:

MR. [SAM] RAYBURN [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(5) The gentleman will state it.
MR. RAYBURN: Mr. Speaker, if the House should adjourn now and a 
conference report is not filed by 12 o'clock noon tomorrow, would the 
motion of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Beam] be pending and still 
in order?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It would be the unfinished business of the 
House and the first thing in order tomorrow.
Number of Motions
Sec.    14.14 It has been held that the rule authorizing a motion to 
instruct conferees after the expiration of 20 calendar days is not 
restricted to one such motion.
On Aug. 22, 1935,(6) Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, offered a privileged 
motion to instruct the House conferees on S. 2796 (the Public Utility 
Holding Company Act), who had been appointed more than 20 days prior 
and had not filed a report. Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, then 
rose.

MR. HUDDLESTON: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
resolution is not privileged. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, this motion, if privileged at all, is privileged under 
House Rule 1-A,(7) the 20-day rule. It will be remembered that some 
days ago, 20 days having elapsed after the appointment of conferees 
under the rule, this matter was brought up and a motion was made by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rayburn] to instruct conferees. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
 4.     86 CONG. REC. 12053, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 5.     Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
 6.     79 CONG. REC. 14162-64, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7.     See Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 648]]

That motion was rejected. Thereupon, another motion was made to 
instruct the conferees and the motion was agreed to.
The view which I present is that by that action the force of the 20-day 
rule was exhausted. The bolt was shot-its force and effect is spent-and 
no motion can be again made under that rule.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that if this motion can be made today it 
could have been made at any time since the prior action by the House. 
Also, that if this motion can be made now, it being the second motion 
to instruct after a motion to instruct has been passed by the House, an 
unlimited number of motions to instruct can be made. In short, if this 
motion is privileged, a motion can be made every day to instruct 
conferees; it can be made every hour in every day. Manifestly, in the 
adoption of the rule it was never contemplated that any such 
multiplicity of motions should be made. Therefore, we are driven to the 
conclusion that only a single motion, when it is passed, can be made 
within the 20-day rule. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(8) The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Rayburn] has submitted a motion to instruct the conferees on the 
so-called "utility bill," which motion has already been read from the 
Clerk's desk. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Huddleston] makes the 
point of order that the motion is not privileged under the rules of the 
House. The Chair again reads the rule upon which the gentleman from 
Texas has predicated his motion: Section 11/2(a) of rule XXVIII reads 
in part as follows:

After House conferees on any bill or resolution in conference between 
the House and Senate shall have been appointed for 20 calendar days and 
shall have failed to make a report, it is hereby declared to be a 
motion of the highest privilege to move to discharge said House 
conferees and to appoint new conferees, or to instruct said House 
conferees.

It will be noted that the rule itself does not undertake to place any 
limitations upon the number of motions that may be made. The Chair has 
heretofore stated that, in his opinion, this rule was adopted in the 
Seventy-second Congress with the sole object and purpose on the part of 
the House of retaining control over the conferees after they had been 
appointed to consider differences between the House and the Senate.
Prior to that time, as we all know, after the appointment of the 
conferees, the House lost control. In fact, if the Chair may repeat, 
this rule was adopted to bring back to the House control over its own 
agents, or conferees, after giving them 20 days in which to come to 
some agreement with the representatives of the other body. To say that 
control is exhausted after the making of one motion it seems to the 
Chair is not justified by the rule or by the evident intent of the 
House when it adopted the rule. Certainly the House did not adopt this 
rule with the idea of retaining control of its own agents and then 
immediately after a motion was made, whatever might be the subject of 
the motion, again surrendering for all 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 649]]

time to come control of those agents or those conferees. . . . 
 . . . The Chair thinks it clear that if the House had intended that 
only one motion should be made under this rule, it would have said so 
when the rule was adopted. Certainly the Chair has no authority to 
limit the number of motions made under the plain reading of this rule.
The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order and the gentleman 
from Texas is recognized.
Sec.    14.15 Where conferees have not reported within 20 days following 
their appointment, motions to instruct can be offered; and defeat of 
one such motion does not prohibit the later submission of an identical 
motion.
Rule XXVIII clause 1(c) provides an opportunity for numerous motions to 
instruct House managers after they have been in conference for 20 
calendar days or more and have not filed a report.(9) 

The following discussion of the repetition of motions to instruct under 
this rule occurred on July 22, 1974.(10) 
MOTION TO FURTHER INSTRUCT CON-FEREES ON H.R. 69, EXTENDING THE 
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. WAGGONNER
MR. [JOE D.] WAGGONNER [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, under clause 
1, rule XXVIII, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Waggonner 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. 
69, be instructed to insist upon the provisions of the House relating 
to limitations on the transportation of students embodied in title II 
of the House bill.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [WILLIAM A.] STEIGER of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order against the preferential motion.
THE SPEAKER:(11) The gentleman will state it.
MR. STEIGER of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against 
the preferential motion to instruct the conferees on the basis that 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), permitting the 20-day motion to 
instruct, has been part of the rules since Dec. 9, 1931 (8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 3225). An amendment to the rule in the 101st Congress 
put in place a one-day notice requirement before the motion can be 
privileged. After notice is given, the Speaker then sets a time and/or 
place in the legislative schedule on the next legislative day for 
consideration of the motion. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 
(1997). 
10.     120 CONG. REC. 24448, 24449, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 650]]

on two previous occasions the House has already instructed conferees on 
H.R. 69 on identical language.
If I can be heard on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that 
without the benefit of precedents other than those contained in 
Cannon's, it is difficult for the Members of the House to understand 
fully all of the precedents of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, but let us review the history.
Prior to the appointment of conferees, the gentleman from Michigan 
offered a motion to instruct conferees on the so-called Esch amendment 
on school busing that was agreed to by the House. After 20 days had 
elapsed, the gentleman from Louisiana offered a subsequent motion to 
further instruct the conferees on exactly the same question, the busing 
of children under title II of the House bill. The gentlewoman from 
Hawaii offered a motion to instruct conferees, and I did not on a 
timely basis raise a point of order against her motion to instruct 
conferees at that point.
Let me go back to what Champ Clark said in volume 8, page 726 of 
Cannon's Precedents.
It says in the ruling at 3236, that:

One motion to instruct having been considered and disposed of, a 
further motion to instruct was not admissible.

The Speaker at that time said:

The motion to instruct is analogous to a motion to recommit, and there 
can be but one motion to recommit that is in order, and it is 
amendable; . . . there must be an end to all things sometime or other.

I make my point of order based on that appropriate ruling by Speaker 
Clark, on the basis that it is not wise nor timely for the House to 
instruct conferees time after time, whether on the same subject or on a 
different subject, and all things must come to an end.
I would hope that the Chair will support the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Louisiana desire to be heard on 
the point of order?
MR. WAGGONNER: I do desire to be heard, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, that which some people consider wise and that which the 
rules provide sometimes are somewhat different, and in this instance 
the rules are to the contrary. The rules and the precedents speak for 
themselves.
Speaker Byrns, on August 22, 1935, volume 79, 74th Congress, 1st 
session, was called to rule upon a similar point of order. A Member of 
the House who later became Speaker, Mr. Rayburn, of Texas, offered a 
privileged resolution. Mr. Huddleston made a point of order against 
that privileged resolution. He said:

Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the resolution is not 
privileged.

He went further and he said:

This motion, if privileged at all, is privileged under House Rule 1-A, 
the 20-day rule. It will be remembered some days ago, 20 days having 
elapsed after the appointment of conferees under the rule, this matter 
was brought up and a motion was made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Rayburn) to instruct conferees. That motion was rejected. There-


[[Page 651]]

upon, another motion was made to instruct the conferees and the motion 
was agreed to.

Mr. Huddleston went on to say:

The view which I present is that by that action the force of the 20-day 
rule was exhausted. The bolt was shot-its force and effect is spent-and 
no motion can be again made under that rule.

And then he went on and argued further the point.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is sufficient to quote the ruling of the Chair, 
Speaker Byrns, on that question, and the Chair stated it was ready to 
rule and the rule by the Speaker was:

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rayburn) has submitted a motion to 
instruct the conferees on the so-called "utility bill", which motion 
has already been read from the Clerk's desk. The gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Huddleston) makes the point of order that the motion is not 
privileged under the rules of the House. The Chair again reads the rule 
upon which the gentleman from Texas has predicated his motion: . . .

The Chair then read the rule. The Chair went on to say:

It will be noted that the rule itself does not undertake to place any 
limitations upon the number of motions that may be made. The Chair has 
heretofore stated that, in his opinion, this rule was adopted in the 
Seventy-second Congress with the sole object and purpose on the part of 
the House of retaining control over the conferees after they had been 
appointed to consider differences between the House and the Senate.
Prior to that time, as we all know, after the appointment of the 
conferees, the House lost control. In fact, if the Chair may repeat, 
this rule was adopted to bring back to the House control over its own 
agents, or conferees, after giving them 20 days in which to come to 
some agreement with the representatives of the other body.

Mr. Speaker, rather than to read the rest of that opinion, let me say 
the Speaker concluded then by saying: 

The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order and the gentleman 
from Texas is recognized.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the point of order be overruled and that I be 
recognized.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule. The general rule as stated on 
page 127 of Cannon's Procedures is:

Conferees failing to report within 20 days after appointment may be 
instructed or discharged and motions to instruct or discharge and 
appoint successors are of the highest privilege.

Now, the Chair would like to note that the citation that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin gave from Speaker Champ Clark did not refer to 
privileged motions under clause 1(b), rule XXVIII, where conferees have 
failed to report in 20 calendar days.
The Chair has examined the precedents that the gentleman from Louisiana 
has cited and agrees that they support the proposition that a second or 
any number of motions to instruct are in order. The Chair therefore 
overrules the point of order and recognizes the gentleman from 
Louisiana.
Sec.    14.16 A second motion to instruct conferees was made the same day 
upon the same 


[[Page 652]]

matter in disagreement between the two Houses.
On Aug. 1, 1935,(12) Speaker     Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, 
recognized Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, to offer the following 
motion to instruct the conferees on S. 2796, the Public Utilities Act 
of 1935:

The Clerk read as follows:

Motion to instruct conferees by Mr. Huddleston: Moved that managers on 
the part of the House appointed upon request of the Senate for a 
conference upon the disagreeing votes of the House and the Senate on 
the amendment adopted by the House to S. 2796 be, and they are hereby, 
instructed as follows:
That it is the will of the House that its managers insist upon a 
conference being held under just and fair conditions, such as will 
insure careful, calm, and deliberate consideration and will tend to 
promote an agreement by the conference, and that in the performance of 
their duties as such managers it is and shall remain the right and 
privilege of the managers on the part of the House, if in their 
judgment it is desirable in promoting the aforesaid ends, that such 
conference be held without the presence thereat of any person not a 
manager upon the part of either House or Senate.

Earlier that day, a motion to instruct the conferees on S. 2796, 
offered by Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, had been defeated in the House.
(13) 
Sec.    14.17 A motion to instruct House conferees who have failed to 
report for 20 calendar days is in order notwithstanding the previous 
adoption by the House of the same motion to instruct.
On May 11, 1972,(14) Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, was 
recognized in regard to S. 659, the Higher Education Amendments of 
1971.

MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged motion 
under clause 1, rule XXVIII.
THE SPEAKER:(15) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Waggonner 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 amendment to the bill S. 659 be instructed to 
insist upon the provisions contained in Sections 1701 and 1703(b) of 
the House amendment. . . . 

MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House, this is an effort 
on my part, and others, to insist upon the instructions previously 
given to the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     79 CONG. REC. 12272, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
13.     Id. at pp. 12265-72.
14.     118 CONG. REC. 16838, 16842, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
15.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 653]]

House conferees to stand by the House language contained in the higher 
education bill which specifically, under the conditions set forth by 
the Broomfield amendment, the Ashbrook amendment, as amended by the 
Green amendment, instruct them to stand by the language of those 
amendments prohibiting busing to overcome racial imbalance and prohibit 
coercion by the executive branch of Government.(16) 

The motion to instruct was agreed to by the House.
Multiple Motions To Instruct, 20-day Rule; Notice Requirement
Sec.    14.18 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), as it existed in the 
99th Congress, any number of proper motions to instruct the House 
conferees could be offered after a bill had been committed to 
conference for more than 20 calendar days, and such motions could be 
offered one after another so long as more highly privileged business 
did not intervene. 
The proceedings on July 10, 1985,(17) illustrate how motions under the 
20-day rule could divert the House from scheduled business. As a result 
of the increased use of such motions, the House adopted a change to 
Rule XXVIII clause 1(c) in the 103d Congress, requiring one day's 
notice of a Member's intention to offer the motion.(18) 

MR. [PAUL E.] KANJORSKI [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
privileged motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(19) The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Kanjorski moves that, pursuant to the provisions of clause 1(b) of 
Rule XXVIII, 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 
bill Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 be instructed to insist on the 
House provisions providing for full cost-of-living adjustments for 
Social Security recipients, federal military and civilian retirees, 
black lung recipients, railroad retirees, and recipients of VA 
compensation and pensions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     The House had on Mar. 8, 1972, adopted a motion to instruct 
conferees identical to that offered by Mr. Waggonner in this instance. 
118 CONG. REC. 7554-63, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
17.     131 CONG. REC. 18440, 18442, 18448, 18449, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     See 135 CONG. REC. 72, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1989 (H. 
Res. 5). See current text of the rule in House Rules and Manual Sec. 
910 (1997).
19.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 654]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Kanjorski] is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY 
MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, it has now been discussed on the floor that 
the gentleman from Ohio would be entitled to offer an amendment or to 
offer another motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the Chair to allow the gentleman 
from Ohio to offer that motion immediately following the disposal of 
the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Subsequent to the disposition of the motion to 
instruct by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski], the Chair 
could recognize another Member for the purpose of offering another 
privileged motion to instruct. . . . 
MR. KANJORSKI: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
privileged motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to instruct, 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].
The motion to instruct was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . . . 
MR. [DELBERT L.] LATTA [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged 
motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
Mr. Latta moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes between the two Houses on the 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 32, be instructed to insist on the 
House position on cost of living adjustments; and further in order to 
achieve the largest possible deficit reduction package, and to adopt a 
budget path that will lead the nation toward a balanced budget, the 
managers on the part of the House are instructed to adopt additional 
domestic savings to guarantee that the dollars in savings that are lost 
by insisting on the House position are realized through additional 
spending restraint.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Latta] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
Tabling Motion To Instruct After 20 Days
Sec.    14.19 A motion to instruct House conferees is highly privileged 
after they have been appointed for 20 calendar days and have failed to 
report; but pending the demand for the previous question on the motion, 
the motion to table the instructions is in order.  
The motion to instruct under Rule XXVIII clause 1(c), where conferees 
have failed to report within 20 days following their appointment, is a 
"motion of the 


[[Page 655]]

highest privilege."(20) On Sept. 22, 1976, this motion was subject to 
debate under the hour rule(1) which in the example shown, was under the 
control of Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, who offered the 
motion to instruct:(2) 

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

Pursuant to the provisions of rule XXVIII, clause 1(b), Mr. Waggonner 
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. 12572, to 
amend the U.S. Grain Standards Act to improve the grain inspection and 
weighing system, and for other purposes, be instructed to disagree to 
the Senate amendment and to insist on the language of the House bill.

MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, my preferential motion is offered as a 
motion of the highest privilege pursuant to rule XXVIII, clause 1(b), 
which states:

After House conferees on any bill or resolution in conference between 
the House and Senate shall have been appointed for twenty calendar days 
and shall have failed to make a report, it is hereby declared to be a 
motion of the highest privilege to move to discharge said House 
conferees and to appoint new conferees, or to instruct said House 
conferees; and further, during the last six days of any session of 
Congress it shall be a privileged motion to move to discharge, appoint, 
or instruct, House conferees after House conferees shall have been 
appointed thirty-six hours without having made a report.

My motion applies to the House conferees on H.R. 12572, the so-called 
grain inspection bill. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, the conferees have been meeting for 4 months. I do not 
believe that we should abandon the House-passed provision which was 
opposed by only 33 Members when we passed this bill earlier this year. 
. . . 
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the preferential motion.
MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MR. BERGLAND
MR. [BOB] BERGLAND [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the 
preferential motion on the table.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order.
THE SPEAKER:(3) The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Waggonner) will state 
his point of order.
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, in offering a 
preferential motion, the time belongs to the offeror. Now, for the 
benefit of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Bergland), I can move the 
previous ques-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 910 (1997).
 1.     The division of debate time on a motion to instruct conferees 
between the majority and minority parties was added to Rule XXVIII, as 
a new clause (b), in the 101st Congress. See H. Res. 5, 135 CONG. REC. 
72, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1989. 
 2.     122 CONG. REC. 31876, 31881, 31882, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 656]]

tion, and the vote occurs on the previous question. The vote does not 
occur on a motion to table until the previous question is voted on and 
unless the previous question is not ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state the gentleman's statement is not 
correct. If the gentleman moves the previous question, the motion to 
instruct conferees is first subject to being tabled.
MR. WAGGONNER: That is exactly what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker. We 
have to table my motion.
THE SPEAKER: The motion to table the motion to instruct is privileged 
over the previous question.
MR. WAGGONNER: But the previous question has to be tabled first, Mr. 
Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: No, that is not correct. The motion to table is being 
applied to the motion to instruct conferees, and not to the previous 
question on that motion.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. WAGGONNER: For my information, Mr. Speaker, will the Chair cite for 
me the rule which is the basis of the Chair's ruling?
THE SPEAKER: The citation is clause 4 of rule XVI.
MR. WAGGONNER: And that says what, Mr. Speaker?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will read a portion of the rule:

When a question is under debate, no motion shall be received but to 
adjourn, to lay on the table, for the previous question (which motions 
shall be decided without debate), to postpone to a day certain, to 
refer, or to amend, or postpone indefinitely; which several motions 
shall have precedence in the foregoing order; and no motion to postpone 
to a day certain, to refer, or to postpone indefinitely, being decided, 
shall be again allowed on the same day at the same stage of the 
question.

MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, what is that preferential order?
MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I call for the 
regular order. The regular order is on the motion to table; is it not?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct.
MR. YATES: Then, Mr. Speaker, let us have a vote.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion to table offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Bergland).
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, am I correct in assuming that the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Bergland) has moved to table the previous question?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Bergland) has moved to 
table the preferential motion to instruct conferees.
MR. BAUMAN: And that is what we will be voting on?
THE SPEAKER: Yes, and that is privileged.
MR. BAUMAN: I thank the Speaker.


[[Page 657]]

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, under what rule of the House can the 
gentleman move to table the preferential motion without the previous 
question's being denied?
THE SPEAKER: The rule which the Chair has just cited and under the 
precedents in support thereof.
MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, how can any vote be conducted without the 
previous question's being ordered?
THE SPEAKER: It is a motion to table, which must be voted on before the 
motion for the previous question on the matter which the gentleman 
refers to.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, I demand the regular order.
THE SPEAKER: The regular order is demanded.
The Chair is putting the question on the motion which is before the 
House.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Bergland) to table the preferential motion offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Waggonner).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
MR. WAGGONNER: 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 224, nays 
178, not voting 28. . . . 
So the motion to table the preferential motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Discharge of Conferees by Unanimous Consent
Sec.    14.20 On one occasion the managers on the part of the House at a 
conference were by unanimous consent discharged and the House receded 
from its disagreement to the Senate amendment and concurred therein.
On Dec. 14, 1944,(4) Mr. Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, made the 
following request in the House:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 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. 3732) to repeal the prohibition against the filling 
of a vacancy in the office of district judge in the district of New 
Jersey, be discharged and that the House immediately proceed to 
consideration of the Senate amendment to that bill.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER:(5) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania? . . . 
There was no objection. . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     90 CONG. REC. 9485, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 658]]

MR. WALTER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recede and concur in the 
Senate amendment. 
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


[[Page 659]]