[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT]
[Â§ 31. Rejection of Report]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1062-1076]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT
 
Sec.    31. Rejection of Report

The rejection of a conference report by either House nullifies the 
agreements reached at the conference, and the legislation returns to 
the status it held immediately prior to conference.(1) The stage of 
disagreement continues, and 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     114 CONG. REC. 14375-96, 14398, 14402-05, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 551 (1997); Sec.Sec. 31.1-31.3, 
infra; and 5 Hinds' Precedents  Sec. 6525.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1063]]

amendments which originally required consideration in the Committee of 
the Whole need not return there.(2) The amendments in disagreement are 
again reported for consideration by the House, and motions for their 
disposition are in order.(3) 
Frequently the House will vote to insist on its disagreement to the 
Senate amendments and request a further conference.(4) If the Houses do 
not reach an agreement on the amendments in disagreement or agree to a 
further conference, the legislation will die.
The rejection of a conference report by one House nullifies the prior 
adoption of the report by the other House. In this event, the 
amendments in disagreement are called up for consideration in the 
second House.(5) 
When a conference report is rejected pursuant to the special procedure 
providing for separate votes on nongermane matter contained therein, 
the question before the House immediately occurs on a motion to recede 
and concur with an amendment containing all of the conference report 
not rejected by those separate votes.(6) 

Proceedings in Order Following Rejection of Conference Report

Sec.    31.1 Pending a vote on the adoption of a conference report, the 
Speaker, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, stated that the 
rejection of the report would leave the Senate amendment in 
disagreement, and that privileged motions to dispose of the 
disagreement would be in order and that a new conference could be 
asked.

During debate on the conference report on H.R. 6096, the Vietnam 
Humanitarian Assistance Act of 1975,(7) the following inquiry was 
directed to the Speaker:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 551 (1997) and 5 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec. 6589 cited therein are awkwardly worded and hence misleading on 
this issue.
 3.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 551 (1997); Sec. 31.1, infra; and 8 
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3303.
 4.     Sec.Sec. 31.9, 31.10, infra.
 5.     Sec.Sec. 31.6, 31.7, infra.
 6.     See Rule XXVIII clause 4(d), House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(b) 
(1997), and Sec. 30.11, infra.
 7.     121 CONG. REC. 12761, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., May 1, 1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1064]]

MR. [RICHARD L.] OTTINGER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(8) The gentleman will state it.
MR. OTTINGER: If we vote this down, would it then be in order for the 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations to go back to 
conference with instructions that we drop out section 4?
THE SPEAKER: . . . When the House disapproves a conference report, the 
matter is left in the position it was in before the conference was 
asked. That is under section 551 found in Jefferson's Manual. In other 
words, the conferees of the Senate have been discharged. The House 
would start all over with the House bill and the Senate amendments, and 
the Chair would recognize the chairman to offer a proper motion to 
dispose of the Senate amendment.
MR. OTTINGER: I have an additional parliamentary inquiry. Could the 
chairman request that a new conference be constituted?
THE SPEAKER: The chairman could do that, yes.

Reporting Amendments in Disagreement After Rejection of Report

Sec.    31.2 When a conference report is rejected, the Senate amendment 
is reported for further action by the House.

On Dec. 10, 1969,(9) the House was considering the conference report on 
H.R. 4292, Export Control Act Amendments of 1969.

MR. [WRIGHT] PATMAN [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The question is on the conference report. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 157, nays 238, not voting 
38. . . . 
So the conference report was rejected. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(11) The Clerk will report the Senate amendment.(12) 

Sec.    31.3 The Speaker has indicated that if a pending conference 
report was rejected, the last amendment between the Houses-in this case 
the Senate substitute for the House amendment in the nature of a 
substitute for the Senate bill-would then be 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 9.     115 CONG. REC. 38102-06, 38108, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
11.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
12.     See also 107 CONG. REC. 19219-21, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 13, 
1961; 84 CONG. REC. 2085, 2086, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 1, 1939; and 
80 CONG. REC. 9743-53, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1936.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1065]]

before the House for further action.

On June 8, 1972,(13) the House was considering the conference report on 
S. 659, the Higher Education Amendments of 1972. After the previous 
question was ordered on the report, Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
answered a series of parliamentary inquiries posed by Mr. Joe D. 
Waggonner, of Louisiana:

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. WAGGONNER: Is it correct to assume that if the House rejected the 
conference report on S. 659, the bill would then be restored to the 
status it occupied when the House asked for a conference on March 8, 
1972?
THE SPEAKER: The last amendment of the Senate would then be pending.
MR. WAGGONNER: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: the gentleman will state it.
MR. WAGGONNER: Am I correct, then, that in the event the House votes 
its disagreement with the conference report, the status of the bill 
would be that it would then be restored to the position it occupied 
before a conference was requested?
THE SPEAKER: The Senate amendment to the House amendment would be 
before the House for further consideration.
MR. WAGGONNER: Would the Speaker please clarify that? Is it the Senate 
amendment which would be before the House, or the House amendment?
THE SPEAKER: The last action would be before the House, which is the 
Senate amendment.

Special Order Limiting Options if Conference Report Rejected

Sec.    31.4 The House has on occasion adopted a special order precluding 
further action on amendments in disagreement if a conference report is 
rejected. 

On Oct. 4, 1990,(14) the House adopted H. Res. 488, providing for 
consideration of the conference report on the concurrent resolution on 
the budget for fiscal years 1991 through 1995. The rule waived points 
of order, waived the requirements for reading the report, divided the 
debate time, and provided that if the report were rejected, any further 
action on   the amendment in disagreement would have to await a further 
order of the House. The rule also provided for putting in place the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     118 CONG. REC. 20339, 20340, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
14.     136 CONG. REC. 27590, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1066]]

budget allocations under 302(a) of the Budget Act and also specified 
that agreement to the resolution would not automatically send to the 
Senate a new debt limit bill under Rule XLIX.
SETTING FORTH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR 
FISCAL YEARS 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, AND 1995
MR. [BUTLER] DERRICK [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 488 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 488
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 310) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States 
Government for the fiscal years 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995, and 
all points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration are hereby waived. The conference report shall be 
considered as having been read when called up for consideration. Debate 
on the conference report shall be limited to not more than 2 hours, to 
be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Budget.
SEC. 2. Following disposition of the conference report, on motion with 
respect to disposition of H. Con. Res. 310 shall be in order except 
pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.
SEC. 3. The allocations of spending and credit responsibility to the 
committees of the House, to be printed in the Congressional Record by 
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget as soon as practicable, 
shall be considered to be the allocations required to be printed in the 
joint statement of managers on H. Con. Res. 310 pursuant to section 302
(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
SEC. 4. Rule XLIX shall not apply with respect to the adoption by the 
Congress of the conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 310). . . . 

MR. DERRICK: . . . The rule provides for 2 hours of general debate, to 
be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Budget Committee. After disposition of the conference 
report, no other motion with respect to the disposition of the 
conference report is in order, except by subsequent rule.
The rule also provides that as soon as practicable, the Budget 
Committee chairman will cause to be printed in the Congressional Record 
allocations of spending and credit which will be considered to be the 
allocations required under section 302(a) of the Budget Act.
Finally, the rule provides that rule XLIX will not apply with respect 
to the conference report on House Concurrent Resolution 310. Rule XLIX 
provides that when Congress adopts the conference report on the budget 
resolution which contemplates a level of public debt different than 
that currently allowed by law, the House is deemed to have adopted a 
joint resolution either increasing or decreasing the statutory limit on 
the public debt. Because the House has already passed and sent over to 
the Senate H.R. 5355, a long-term debt limit bill, there is no need for 


[[Page 1067]]

the conference report on the budget resolution to generate another debt 
limit bill.

Special Order Recommitting Rejected Conference Report

Sec.    31.5 Following its rejection of a conference report, the House 
considered and adopt-ed a unique special order providing for the 
recommittal of the report to the committee on conference, 
notwithstanding the prior action. 

When the House defeated the conference report on a concurrent 
resolution on the budget on Oct. 4, 1990, the papers had not been sent 
to the Senate but were still in possession of the House. Since the 
Senate had not acted, adoption of this special order-"deeming" the 
conference report "recommitted"-left the conference in place, obviated 
the necessity to appoint new managers, and precluded any motion to 
instruct. The rule also protected and provided for consideration of any 
subsequent report filed by the conferees and included provisions 
identical to those in the special order which had provided for 
consideration of the rejected conference report. The pertinent 
proceedings of Oct. 6, 1990,(15) follow:

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON HOUSE CONCURRENT 
RESOLUTION 310, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL 
YEARS 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, AND 1995

MR. [JOE] MOAKLEY [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 496 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. RES. 496
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution the conference report 
on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 310) setting forth the 
congressional budget for the United States Government for the fiscal 
years 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995, shall be considered as 
recommitted to conference, notwithstanding the prior action of the 
House on the conference report.
SEC. 2. All points of order against any subsequent conference report on 
House Concurrent Resolution 310 and against its consideration are 
hereby waived. Any such conference report shall be considered as read 
when called up for consideration. Debate on any conference report shall 
be limited to not more than 2 hours, to be equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on the Budget.
SEC. 3. No motion with respect to disposition of House Concurrent 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     136 CONG. REC. 27919-21, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 1068]]

Resolution 310 shall be in order except pursuant to this resolution or 
a subsequent order of the House.
SEC. 4. The allocations of spending and credit responsibility to the 
committees of the House, to be printed in the Congressional Record by 
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget as soon as practicable, 
shall be considered to be the allocations required to be printed in the 
joint statement of the managers on House Concurrent Resolution 310 
pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
SEC. 5. Rule XLIX shall not apply with respect to the adoption by the 
Congress of any conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 310).

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(16) The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] is recognized for 1 hour.
MR. MOAKLEY: . . . Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 496 sets the process 
in motion to bring a new budget agreement to the floor. This is a 
procedural matter; it is not an attempt to reconsider the budget we 
recently defeated.
The rule provides that the conference report on the budget will be 
recommitted to conference upon adoption of the rule. The rule waives 
all points of order against any subsequent conference report on H. Con. 
Res. 310 and against its consideration. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has been shut down. The President 
has vetoed the short-term continuing resolution and has vowed to veto 
any other attempt to keep the Government running at full power at least 
until a budget agreement has been reached. . . . 
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. [GERALD B. H.] SOLOMON [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 285, noes 
105, answered not voting 43, as follows: . . . 
So the resolution was agreed to.

House Rejection of Report Following Senate Action

Sec.    31.6 After the Senate adopted a conference report, which 
recommended that the Senate recede from its amendments, the House must 
also act upon the report and, in the event of its rejection, a motion 
to recede and concur in the Senate amendment would be in order.

On Mar. 15, 1956,(17) the Senate adopted the conference report on H.R. 
8320 (amending the Agricultural Acts of 1949 and 1954 to 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     Kweisi Mfume (Md.).
17.     102 CONG. REC. 4797-801, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1069]]

provide for school milk and brucellosis eradication programs) which 
provided that the Senate recede from its amendments to the text and 
title of the bill. On Mar. 21,(18) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [HAROLD D.] COOLEY [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 8320) to amend the Agricultural Act 
of 1949 and the Agricultural Act of 1954 with respect to the special 
school milk program and the brucellosis-eradi-cation program for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1956.

After the Clerk read the report, Mr. Cooley then sought unanimous 
consent that the statement of the managers on the part of the House be 
read also. Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, then rose:

MR. HALLECK: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like 
to submit a parliamentary inquiry at this point.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(19) The gentleman will state it.
MR. HALLECK: Mr. Speaker, if this conference report is voted down, 
would it then be in order immediately thereafter for any Member to 
offer a motion that the House recede and concur in the Senate 
amendments?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the conference report is voted down, the 
Senate amendments would then be before the House for further action, 
and involved in that action a motion to recede and concur would be one 
of the parliamentary steps that could be employed.

Sec.    31.7 The House rejected a conference report, which recommended 
that the Senate recede from its amendments, although the Senate had 
adopted the report. The House then proceeded to agree to the Senate 
amendments to the bill, thus providing for the enrollment of the bill 
with Senate amendments.

On Mar. 15, 1956,(20) the Senate adopted the conference report on H.R. 
8320, amending the Agricultural Acts of 1949 and 1954 to provide for 
school milk and brucellosis eradication programs. On Mar. 21,(1) Mr. 
Harold D. Cooley, of North Carolina, called up this conference report 
in the House.

The Clerk read the conference report.
The conference report and statement are as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     Id. at p. 5268.
19.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
20.     102 CONG. REC. 4797-801, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1.     Id. at pp. 5268, 5277-79.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1070]]

CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 1898)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 8320) to amend the 
Agricultural Act of 1949 and the Agricultural Act of 1954 with respect 
to the special school milk program and the brucellosis eradication 
program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, having met after full 
and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its amendments to the text of the bill and 
to the title of the bill.
HAROLD D. COOLEY,
W. R. POAGE,
T. G. ABERNETHY,
Managers on the Part of the House.
ALLAN ELLENDER,
OLIN D. JOHNSTON,
SPESSARD L. HOLLAND,
MILTON R. YOUNG,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
STATEMENT
The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the 
disagreeing positions of the two Houses on H.R. 8320, providing 
additional authority for the special school milk program and the 
brucellosis eradication program for the current fiscal year, submit the 
following statement in explanation of the effect of the action agreed 
upon by the conferees and recommended in the accompanying conference 
report: . . . 
In view of these considerations, the Senate has receded from its 
position and the bill as agreed upon and reported by the committee of 
conference is identical with the bill passed by the House.
HAROLD D. COOLEY,
W. R. POAGE,
T. G. ABERNETHY,
Managers on the Part of the House 
After the Clerk read the report, Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, 
under a reservation of a right to object to a request by Mr. Cooley 
that the managers statement might also be read, raised a parliamentary 
inquiry.

MR. HALLECK: Mr. Speaker, if this conference report is voted down, 
would it then be in order immediately thereafter for any Member to 
offer a motion that the House recede and concur in the Senate 
amendments?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(2) If the conference report is voted down, the 
Senate amendments would then be before the House for further action, 
and involved in that action a motion to recede and concur would be one 
of the parliamentary steps that could be employed.
MR. HALLECK: Mr. Speaker, if that motion should prevail, would it have 
the effect of sending the bill as amended in the other body to the 
White House for approval?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Assuming that the House was to take such 
action-and I am not passing any opinion on it at this time-there could 
be a definite conclusion of legislative action, and the answer to the 
gentleman's question would be in the affirmative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1071]]

MR. HALLECK: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of further parliamentary inquiry, 
if the conference report is voted up or if it is voted down and such a 
motion to recede and concur should prevail, action on the legislation 
would be finally completed today.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the conference report is agreed to, action 
is concluded legislatively. On the other hand, if the conference report 
is rejected and the necessary motion is made and adopted, why, that 
would also conclude it. The answer to both of the gentleman's questions 
is in the affirmative.

After debate on the conference report the following occurred:

MR. COOLEY: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the conference 
report.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the conference report.
MR. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 195, nays 215, not voting 
23. . . . 
So the conference report was rejected. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the Senate amendments.

After the Clerk read the Senate amendments the Speaker Pro Tempore 
recognized Mr. August H. Andresen, of Minnesota:

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recede and concur.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. August H. Andresen moves that the House recede from its 
disagreement to the Senate amendments to H.R. 8320 and concur therein.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 
1 hour.
MR. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN: Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time and move the 
previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion.
MR. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken and there were-yeas 406, nays 0, not voting 27. 
. . . 
So the motion was agreed to.

Sec.    31.8 Rejection of a conference report on a House bill leaves the 
Senate amendment in disagreement pending for disposition by motion; a 
motion for a further conference is also in order but a motion to 
instruct the managers is in order only if the request for a further 
conference is agreed to.

To a parliamentary inquiry concerning the alternatives available if a 
pending conference report, which had been agreed to by the 


[[Page 1072]]

Senate, were to be rejected in the House, the Chair responded as  
indicated in the following excerpt from the House proceedings of May 1, 
1975:(3) 

MR. [RICHARD L.] OTTINGER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(4) The gentleman will state it.
MR. OTTINGER: If we vote this down, would it then be in order for the 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations to go back to 
conference with instructions that we drop out section 4?
THE SPEAKER: The answer is "no." 
When the House disapproves a conference report, the matter is left in 
the position it was in before the conference was asked. That is under 
section 551 found in Jefferson's Manual. In other words, the conferees 
of the Senate have been discharged. The House would start all over with 
the House bill and the Senate amendments, and the Chair would recognize 
the chairman to offer a proper motion to dispose of the Senate 
amendment.
MR. OTTINGER: I have an additional parliamentary inquiry. Could the 
chairman request that a new conference be constituted?

THE SPEAKER: The chairman could do that, yes.

Motion To Further Insist and Ask for Further Conference

Sec.    31.9 The House may reject a conference report, further insist on 
disagreement to the Senate amendment, and ask for a further conference.

On Sept. 26 (legislative day of Sept. 25), 1961,(5) Mr. John L. 
McMillan, of South Carolina, called up the conference report on H.R. 
258, amending the District of Columbia Sales Tax Act. At the conclusion 
of debate on the report the following occurred:

MR. MCMILLAN: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) The question is on the conference report. . 
. . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 97, nays 173, not voting 
164. . . . 
So the conference report was rejected. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the Senate amendment.

After the Clerk read the Senate amendment, the Chair recognized Mr. 
McMillan:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House further insist on disagreement to 
the Senate amendment and ask for a conference with the Senate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     121 CONG. REC. 12761, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 5.     107 CONG. REC. 21427-40, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1073]]

The motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair appoints the following conferees: 
Messrs. McMillan, Whitener, and Broyhill.(7) 

Sec.    31.10 A conference report having been voted down and a motion to 
further insist on disagreement and appoint conferees being agreed to, 
the bill returns to conference; but if such motion fails of adoption, 
the bill remains on the Speaker's table for further action.

On Oct. 7, 1940,(8) after the House ordered the previous question on 
the conference report on H.R. 960, extending Classified Civil Service, 
the following occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(9) The question is on agreeing to the conference report. . 
. . 
The question was taken; and there were-yes 132, nays 181, not voting 
116. . . . 
So the conference report was rejected. . . . 
Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia] and Mrs. Rogers of Massachusetts 
rose.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
MR. RAMSPECK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House further insist upon 
its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 960) 
extending the classified civil service of the United States and appoint 
conferees.
MR. [EARL C.] MICHENER [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. MICHENER: If the motion made by the gentleman from Georgia 
prevails, then the bill will be back in the same position it was before 
this procedure. Is this correct?
THE SPEAKER: If the motion prevails, the bill goes back to conference.
MR. MICHENER: And if the motion does not prevail, the bill will not be 
in conference and very likely will not be disposed of this session.
THE SPEAKER: It will be on the Speaker's table.

Recognition Following Rejection of Conference Report

Sec.    31.11 Upon rejection of a conference report on a House bill with 
Senate amendments, the manager is entitled to priority in recognition 
to offer a motion to dispose of the amendments; and he may move to 
disagree with all the amendments and request a further conference,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     See also 110 CONG. REC. 20121, 20127, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 
18, 1964; and 88 CONG. REC. 5573-83, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., June 25, 
1942.
 8.     86 CONG. REC. 13333, 13334, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 9.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1074]]

although this motion is not of the highest priority.

On Oct. 20, 1990,(10) the House ordered the previous question on, and 
then rejected, the conference report on H.R. 5311, the District  of 
Columbia Appropriations Act, 1991. After the conference report was 
rejected, the following proceedings occurred:

APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 5311, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1991
MR. [JULIAN C.] DIXON [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move to insist on 
the disagreement to all Senate amendments to the bill, H.R. 5311, and 
request a further conference with the Senate thereon.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(11) The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].
The motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Dixon, Natcher, Stokes . . . and Conte.
There was no objection.

Parliamentarian's Note: Chairman Dixon could have been preempted by a 
more preferential motion. The stage of disagreement having been reached 
when the House initially disagreed to the Senate amendments and agreed 
to the conference, the following motions are privileged and have the 
precedence indicated: (1) to recede and concur; (2) to recede and 
concur with amendment; (3) to insist on disagreement and request a 
further conference; (4) to insist on disagreement; and (5) to adhere. 

Recognition of Minority Member for Motion

Sec.    31.12 A conference report was rejected and (when the manager of 
the conference did not seek recognition) the Speaker recognized a 
minority member of the committee to move to concur in the Senate 
amendment with an amendment.

On Dec. 10, 1969,(12) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 4293, the Export Control Act amendments of 
1969. The House rejected the report and the Clerk proceeded to read the 
Senate amendment in disagreement.

MR. [GARRY E.] BROWN of Michigan (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I 
ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be 
dis-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     136 CONG. REC. 31493, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
11.     William H. Gray III (Pa.).
12.     115 CONG. REC. 38077, 38102-06, 38108, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1075]]

pensed with and it be printed in the Record.
THE SPEAKER:(13) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Michigan?
There was no objection.
MR. BROWN of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.(14) 
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Brown of Michigan moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment 
as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
amendment, insert the following: . . . 

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Brown).
The motion was agreed to.

Where Senate Amendment Is Laid on the Table, Effect on Bill

Sec.    31.13 Where a conference report is rejected, and the manager 
moves to insist on its disagreement, a motion to lay the Senate 
amendment on the table is preferential and if adopted, carries the 
amendment and the bill to the table.

When the conference report on the Federal Trade Commission Amendments 
of 1978 (H.R. 3816) was called up on Sept. 28, 1978, the previous 
question was ordered but on the question of the adoption of the report, 
the noes prevailed, 214 to 175. 
The manager's motion that the House insist on its disagreement was then 
preempted by a motion to lay the Senate amendment on the table. 
Proceedings were as indicated below.(15) 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
MR. [BOB] ECKHARDT [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members. . . . 
So the conference report was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
14.     Mr. Brown, who was the 10th ranking minority member on the 
Committee on Banking and Currency in the 91st Congress, had been 
appointed as a conferee on H.R. 4293 on Oct. 27, 1969, 115 CONG. REC. 
31571, but did not sign the conference report, Id. at pp. 35584, 35585, 
Nov. 24, 1969.
15.     124 CONG. REC. 32334, 32335, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1076]]

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. ECKHARDT
MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Eckhardt moves that the House insist on its disagreement to the 
Senate amendment.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BROYHILL
MR. [JAMES T.] BROYHILL [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Broyhill moves to lay on the table the amendment of the Senate to 
the bill, H.R. 3816.

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the preferential motion to lay on the 
table offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill).
The preferential motion to table was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
So the Senate amendment and the bill H.R. 3816 were laid on the table.

Referred to Standing Committee

Sec.    31.14 A House bill with Senate amendments was by unanimous 
consent referred to the committee which originally reported it after 
the House agreed to a conference report thereon and the Senate rejected 
the conference report.

On Mar. 27, 1945,(16) the House adopted the conference report on H.R. 
1752, to amend the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. On Apr. 
3 of that year(17) the Senate rejected this conference report. On Apr. 
23,(18) the following occurred in the House:

MR. [ANDREW J.] MAY [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1752) to amend the 
Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 and for other purposes, with 
Senate amendments thereto, and ask that the same be referred to the 
Committee on Military Affairs.

THE SPEAKER:(19) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Kentucky?
There was no objection.