[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT]
[Â§ 32. Recommittal; Motions To Recommit]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1076-1122]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT
 
Sec.    32. Recommittal; Motions To Recommit

A motion to recommit a conference report to the committee of conference 
is in order in the House which first considers the report.(20) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     91 CONG. REC. 2837-57, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Id. at p. 3074.
18.     Id. at p. 3664.
19.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
20.     Sec. 32.1, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1077]]

The adoption or rejection of the report by this House results in the 
discharge of its managers, which dissolves the committee of conference, 
and generally precludes the second House from recommitting the report.
(1) However, a report may be recommitted after one House has acted on 
it, pursuant to a concurrent resolution approved by both Houses;(2) but 
such a resolution is not privileged for consideration in the House and 
must be called up by unanimous consent.(3) 
When a conference produces an agreement, the managers on the part of 
the House which had agreed to the conference are directed by 
Jefferson's Manual to take possession of the official papers from the 
managers of the asking House(4) thereby providing for prior 
consideration of the report in the agreeing House, thereby preserving 
to it the opportunity to recommit. However, if the managers on the part 
of the agreeing House fail to take possession of the papers, the House 
which requested the conference may act first on the report and preclude 
the agreeing House from recommitting it.(5) 
Conference reports may be recommitted by unanimous consent,(6) and in 
one instance a report in total disagreement was by unanimous consent 
recommitted to the committee of conference despite the fact that 
conferees are generally considered to be discharged when they report in 
this manner.(7) They may also be recommitted pursuant to a motion to 
suspend the rules.(8) 
A conference report may not be recommitted to a standing committee.(9) 
The motion to recommit a conference report is not in order until after 
the previous question has been ordered on the report,(10) and comes too 
late once the report has been agreed to.(11) 
Recognition to offer the motion to recommit is reserved for Mem-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Sec.Sec. 32.4-32.6, infra.
 2.     8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3316. See also Sec. 32.46, infra.
 3.     8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3309, and 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.Sec. 
6554, 6557.
 4.     House Rules and Manual, Jefferson's Manual Sec. 555 (1997). See 
generally Sec. 24, supra.
 5.     Sec. 32.5, infra.
 6.     Sec.Sec. 32.40-32.43, infra.
 7.     Sec. 32.7, infra.
 8.     Sec. 32.45, infra.
 9.     5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6558.
10.     Sec.Sec. 32.10, 32.11, infra.
11.     Sec. 32.13, infra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1078]]

bers opposed to the conference report,(12) and one opposed to the 
report unequivocally has priority over one merely opposed to the report 
in its present form.(13) Members of the minority party are accorded 
preference in recognition to offer the motion,(14) although the Speaker 
will recognize a member of the majority if no minority member seeks 
recognition.(15) 
Neither the straight motion to recommit a conference report nor the 
motion to recommit with instructions to the House managers may be 
debated.(16) After the motion has been read, the previous question 
thereon is considered pending. However, should the previous question be 
defeated, the motion may be amended(17) to add instructions to the 
House conferees(18) or to modify the instructions proposed in the 
original motion. The motion may not be divided to provide a separate 
vote on the instructions or parts thereof.(19) 
The managers on the part of the House function as agents of the House. 
Therefore, their authority may be no greater than that possessed by the 
House itself. Thus, instructions contained in a motion to recommit may 
not authorize the managers to do something the House itself could not 
do-amend its own bill after its passage.(20) However, a motion to 
recommit may instruct the House managers to agree to a Senate amendment 
containing an appropriation not authorized by law, since the vote on 
this motion satisfies the requirement of Rule XX clause 2(1) that 
specific authority to agree to such amendments be given by the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     Sec. 32.15, infra.
13.     Sec. 32.16, infra.
14.     Sec. 32.17, infra.
15.     Sec.Sec. 32.19, 32.20, infra.
16.     Parliamentarian's Note: Although the third sentence of Rule XVI 
clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1997), states that 10 
minutes of debate may be had on any motion to recommit with 
instructions, it has been held that the second sentence of that clause 
limits its application to bills and joint resolutions. Thus, on Nov. 
15, 1973, the Speaker ruled that there could be no debate on a motion 
to recommit a simple resolution with instructions to a standing 
committee. 119 CONG. REC. 37141, 37142, 37149-51, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. 
This had been construed to preclude debate on a motion to recommit a 
conference report with instructions to the managers on the part of the 
House.
17.     Sec. 32.22, infra.
18.     Sec. 32.23, infra.
19.     Sec.Sec. 32.27, 32.28, infra.
20.     Sec. 32.32, infra.
 1.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1079]]


House before the managers go to conference.(2) Although a motion to 
recommit may instruct the managers to agree to such an amendment or 
other legislative amendments to a general appropriation bill, it may 
not instruct them to concur therein with an amendment which adds 
further legislation.(3) This objective may be accomplished by reporting 
to the House a disagreement to the Senate legislative amendment. When 
this occurs, the House may consider the amendment(4) and may at this 
stage add further legislative provisions thereto, providing they are 
germane to the Senate amendment.(5) 
Recommittal of a conference report places the entire matter before the 
conferees.(6) This is the case even when the report has been 
recommitted with instructions affecting some but not all of the 
provisions sent to conference.(7) The conferees must reach a new 
agreement and file a new report(8) which is given a new number and 
considered as a new and separate report.(9) 
Although only one valid motion to recommit a conference report is in 
order at any particular stage in the proceedings,(10) a subsequent 
report filed upon recommitment of the original report is also subject 
to recommittal.(11) 

When in Order; Effect of Discharge of Managers

Sec.    32.1 A motion to recommit a conference report is in order if the 
other House has not acted on the report and thus discharged its 
managers.

On Mar. 29, 1961,(12) pending a unanimous-consent request to send 
to conference H.R. 5463, to amend the Sugar Act of 1948, Mr. Charles A. 
Halleck, of Indiana, posed a parliamentary inquiry:

MR. HALLECK: When the conference report comes back, would a motion to 
recommit be in order at that time?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     Sec. 32.36, infra.
 3.     Sec. 32.37, infra.
 4.     Sec. 29.33, supra.
 5.     Sec. 29.35, supra, especially Parliamentarian's Note.
 6.     Sec. 32.47, infra.
 7.     Sec. 32.50, infra.
 8.     Sec. 32.49, infra.
 9.     Sec. 32.48, infra.
10.     8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2737, and 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 
5582.
11.     8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3325.
12.     107 CONG. REC. 5288, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1080]]


THE SPEAKER:(13) If the House acts first.
MR. HALLECK: In other words, if the House acts first, when the 
conference report comes back, then a motion to recommit would be in 
order?
THE SPEAKER: If the House acts first, a motion to recommit a conference 
report would be in order.(14) 

Recommittal to Same Conference Committee

Sec.    32.2 Where a conference report is recommitted in the House, the 
same conferees remain appointed; but when a new conference report is 
filed, the managers must again sign the new report and statement. 

The conference report on the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982 
was recommitted, by motion, where it was discovered that a new 
provision had been inserted, not in either version, relating to federal 
pay. Since the Senate had not acted, the conference committee was still 
viable, and the Chair announced to the House that the same conferees 
would continue their deliberations.  He informally advised the managers 
that all conferees on the part of the House must sign the new report 
before it could be received.
The relevant proceedings in the House on Aug. 17, 1982,(15) were as follows:

MR. [JAMES R.] JONES of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
THE SPEAKER:(16) The Chair, without getting into any debate, wants the 
House to be aware of the parliamentary situation. It is understood that 
there will be a motion to recommit. If the motion to recommit prevails, 
then the bill will have to go back to the conference committee and the 
Chair struggles to see how we could possibly bring this bill up again 
before the tax bill. The leadership has scheduled the tax bill for 
Thursday, but this conference committee would have to go back, it would 
have to get unanimous consent to have it brought up when filed; so the 
Chair just wants Members to have in mind the technicality of what is 
happening.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. DERWINSKI
MR. [EDWARD J.] DERWINSKI [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
to recommit.
THE SPEAKER: Is the gentleman opposed to the conference report?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
14.     See also 109 CONG. REC. 25249, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 19, 1963.
15.     128 CONG. REC. 21397, 21398, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
16.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1081]]

MR. DERWINSKI: I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Derwinski moves to recommit the conference report to accompany the 
bill, H.R. 6955, to the committee of conference.

THE SPEAKER: Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the 
motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion to recommit. . . . 
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 266, nays 
145, not voting 23. . . . 
PERMISSION TO FILE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6955
MR. JONES of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
managers have until midnight tonight to file a conference report, and 
that this conference report may be taken up tomorrow or any day 
thereafter, and again that we would waive all points of order.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
THE SPEAKER: For the information of the House, the conferees 
automatically remain appointed to the same conference.

Parliamentarian's Note: The managers were advised that all must sign 
the new report, even though there were "general conferees on the whole 
bill" from the Committee on the Budget, and jurisdictional conferees 
from many House committees. The offending insert was in the portion of 
the report written by the Committee on Government Operations; this was 
the only segment of the complex report actually changed in the new 
report. 
The Senate position, as reflected in the signature sheets, was to 
require signatures only of the general conferees and those from its 
Committee on Governmental Affairs. The signatures affixed to the first 
conference report filed were also attached as part of the official 
papers.(17) 

Where Conference Report Was Recommitted for a Second Time

Sec.    32.3 The House twice recommitted a conference report on a general 
appropriation bill but finally agreed to the third report of the 
conferees.

Both the first and second conference reports were called up under the 
protection of special orders which waived points of 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     See 128 CONG. REC. 21453, 21454, 97th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 17, 1982.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1082]]

order against the reports and their consideration.(18) Such blanket 
protection was required since all amendments in disagreement were 
brought back inside the reports.
The motion offered by the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee 
on the Interior, Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, is shown below in a 
portion of the debate defining the matters of major controversy which 
motivated the motion to recommit.(19) 

MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, 7 weeks ago I offered a motion to recommit this 
conference report in order to improve this dreadful bill and restore 
the mining moratorium. Well, the conference committee reconvened. 
Instead of improving the bill, they made it worse. If my colleagues 
voted for my motion to recommit the Interior appropriations conference 
report in September, they must vote for the motion to recommit that I 
will offer at the appropriate time today for two reasons: one, that the 
mining moratorium has not met the expectations of the House; and, 
second, because of what has been, what is being proposed for the 
Tongass National Forest. . . . 
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. YATES
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(20) Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
MR. YATES: I am, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Yates moves to recommit the conference report on the bill H.R. 1977 
to the committee of conference with instructions to the managers on the 
part of the House to insist on the House position on the amendments of 
the Senate numbered 108 and 158.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. [RALPH] REGULA [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     The first conference report (H. Rept. 104-259) was recommitted on 
Sept. 29, 1995 (141 CONG. REC. 26940, 26941, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.). 
The second report (H. Rept. 104-300) was recommitted on Nov. 15, 1995 
(141 CONG. REC. 32625, 32626, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.). The third and 
final report (H. Rept. 104-402) was agreed to on Dec. 13, 1995 (141 
CONG. REC. 36322, 36323, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.).
19.     See 141 CONG. REC. 32619, 32625, 32626, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., 
Nov. 15, 1995 (H.R. 1977, Interior appropriations for fiscal year 
1996).
20.     Scott McInnis (Colo.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 1083]]

and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 230, nays 
199, not voting 4. . . . 

When Motion To Recommit Is Precluded

Sec.    32.4 A motion to recommit a conference report is not in order 
when the other House has, by acting on the report, discharged its 
managers.

On June 5, 1968,(1) at the end of debate on the conference report on 
H.R. 11308 (amending the National Foundation of Arts and Humanities Act 
of 1965) the following occurred:

MR. [FRANK] THOMPSON [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
previous question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
MR. [WILLIAM J.] SCHERLE [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
MR. THOMPSON of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(2) The gentleman will state the point of 
order.
MR. THOMPSON of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
against the motion to recommit on the ground that the other body has 
already acted.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The point of order is sustained.
The question is on the conference report.(3) 

Sec.    32.5 If the managers on the part of the House, which had agreed 
to a conference, fail to take possession of the papers at the close of 
that conference, the Senate may act first on the conference report and 
thereby preclude a motion to recommit in the House.

On July 3, 1952,(4) the Senate requested a conference with the House on 
the disagreeing votes on S. 3066, to amend the defense housing laws. 
Later that day(5) the Senate agreed to the conference report on S. 
3066. The next day(6) the report was called up in the House. At the 
conclusion of the debate thereon the following occurred:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     114 CONG. REC. 16058, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 3.     See also 102 CONG. REC. 13755, 13764, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 
20, 1956.
 4.     98 CONG. REC. 9048, 9049, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
 5.     Id. at p. 9169.
 6.     Id. at pp. 9379, 9380.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1084]]

MR. [BRENT] SPENCE [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
MR. [ABRAHAM J.] MULTER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER:(7) The Chair will state to the gentleman from New York 
that a motion to recommit is not in order, the Senate having acted on 
the conference report.
MR. MULTER: Mr. Speaker, if they did, they acted improperly, because 
this should have been acted on in the House first.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is not aware that the Senate has acted 
improperly. We have received a message that they agreed to the 
conference report.
The question is on the conference report. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 296, nays 22, not voting 
112.

Sec.    32.6 Where one House has acted first on a conference report 
(notwithstanding the fact that it had requested the conference) and 
thereby discharged its managers, the other House cannot recommit the 
report, but only has the option of accepting or rejecting it.

On Oct. 19, 1965,(8) the Senate agreed to the conference report on S. 
2300, the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965. On Oct. 20, 1965,(9) Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. George H. Fallon, 
of Maryland, to call up this conference report in the House. Mr. 
William C. Cramer, of Florida, noted that although the Senate had 
requested the conference(10) its managers had refused to surrender the 
papers to their House counterparts, contrary to the customary practice 
of the two Houses.

MR. CRAMER: . . . So far as I am concerned, the action taken leaves, in 
my opinion, if the proper rights of the House and the prerogatives of 
this great coequal legislative body, coequal with the Senate, if we are 
to sustain our rights as conferees and as a coequal body, little 
alternative but to vote down the conference report. . . . 
If we thus let them subvert the rules of this House, which are very 
clear, that the party asking for the conference, the other body has the 
right to act first on the conference report-and if that had been done, 
we would have had an opportunity to vote on a motion to recommit, for 
or against the Dickey-Lincoln School project a second time and so 
instruct the conferees-we will 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 8.     111 CONG. REC. 27346-60, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9.     Id. at pp. 27698-717.
10.     Id. at pp. 24841-49.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1085]]

see that the other body is acting to prevent us from acting. . . . 
In conference a member of the conferees asked the chairman the 
question: "Is it not true that the other body, the Senate, having asked 
for this conference, we, the House, have a right to the papers and to 
act first?" The answer was "Yes" by the chairman of the conference, the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. McNamara.

The House adopted the conference report.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate was anxious to act first on this 
conference report so that it could enforce its position with respect to 
the controversial Dickey-Lincoln School project on the St. John's 
River. The House had, on Sept. 22, 1965, rejected this project, but it 
had been restored, at the insistence of the Senate conferees, in the 
conference. Had the House acted first on the report, a motion to 
recommit would have been in order. The House conferees were advised to 
insist on their right to possession of the papers before they signed 
the report. In the conference, however, Senator Patrick V. McNamara, of 
Michigan, insisted on retaining the papers, notwithstanding the 
objections of the House conferees.

Effect of Report in Total Disagreement

Sec.    32.7 By unanimous consent, the House recommitted a conference 
report which had been filed but not called up and in which the 
conferees had reported in total disagreement, although under the usual 
procedure House conferees are discharged upon reporting their inability 
to agree.

On Oct. 19, 1971,(11) Mr. Paul G. Rogers, of Florida (on behalf of Mr. 
Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia), filed the conference report in 
total disagreement on Senate Concurrent Resolution 6, closing Public 
Health Service hospitals and clinics. The House took no action on the 
report until Dec. 1 of that year(12) when the following occurred:

MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the conference 
report on the Senate concurrent resolution, Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 6, be recommitted to the committee of conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     117 CONG. REC. 36867, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     Id. at p. 43835.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1086]]

THE SPEAKER:(13) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from West Virginia?
There was no objection.

Parliamentarian's Note: The usual rule is illustrated at 8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 3240, where Speaker Champ Clark, of Missouri, held that 
the managers on the part of the House had been discharged when they 
filed their report in total disagreement.

No Debate on Motion To Recommit Conference Report

Sec.    32.8 A motion to recommit a conference report with instructions 
is not subject to debate. 

Rule XVI clause 4,(14) relating to the motion to recommit a bill or 
joint resolution after the previous question is ordered, specifies that 
such a motion is subject to limited debate. However, a conference 
report does not fall under this clause, a report not being a "bill or 
joint resolution." The motion to recommit a conference report pending 
the previous question, or after the previous question is ordered, is 
authorized not by Rule XVI but by Rule XVII clause 1.(15) 

There is often confusion about which of these rules is applicable and 
for this reason the Chair sometimes clarifies the matter without 
waiting for an inquiry from the floor:(16) 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(17) Without objection, the previous question 
is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA
MR. [GEORGE] MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
MR. MILLER of California: Mr. Speaker, yes; I am.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Miller of California moves to recommit the conference report on the 
bill S. 395 to the committee of conference with instructions to the 
managers on the part of the House to insist on the provisions of the 
House amendment No. 5 which strike title III of S. 395.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: This motion is not debatable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
14.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1997).
15.     Id. at Sec. 804.
16.     See 141 CONG. REC. 31761, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 8, 1995.
17.     Scott McInnis (Colo.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1087]]

Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
There was no objection.

Effect of Debate Subsequent to Adoption of Report; Effect on Motion To 
Recommit

Sec.    32.9 An agreement to permit debate of a conference report, even 
though the report had already been agreed to, and to insert this debate 
in the Record preceding that point where the conference report was 
agreed to, does not reopen the report to permit the making of any 
motions, such as the motion to recommit, the adoption of which would 
alter the prior action of the House in agreeing to the report.

On May 22, 1968,(18) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, called up the 
conference report on S. 5, the Consumer Credit Protection Act, which 
the House then adopted without debate. Several Members expressed a 
desire to reopen these proceedings so that debate on the report might 
be in order. To accommodate the wishes of these Members, Speaker John 
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized the Majority Leader, Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma.

MR. ALBERT: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 40 minutes of 
debate may be had on this matter, to be equally divided between the 
gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from New Jersey, and that it 
appear in the Record prior to the adoption of the conference report.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
The Chair will always preserve the dignity of the proceedings of the 
House in protecting the rights of the Members.
The question now is: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Oklahoma?
MR. [RICHARD H.] POFF [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right 
to object.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Virginia reserves the right to object.
MR. POFF: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object in order to 
propound a question to the distinguished majority leader. In the event 
the House agrees to the request of the gentleman, would the minority 
maintain the right under the rules of the House to offer motions to 
recommit if it were so disposed?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman ought to address his question to the Chair. 
That question should be addressed to the Chair, and, assuming that the 
gentleman did address the Chair, the Chair will state that point has 
gone by, and a motion to recommit under those circumstances would not 
be in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     114 CONG. REC. 14375-96, 14398, 14402-05, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1088]]


Time For Motion

Sec.    32.10 A motion to recommit a conference report is not in order 
until the previous question has been ordered on the conference report.

On Dec. 15, 1970,(19) the House had debated the conference re- port on 
H.R. 17755, Department  of Transportation appropriations, fiscal 1971, 
and Mr. Edward P. Boland, of Massachusetts, had moved the previous 
question thereon. Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, rose.

MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(20) The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, as I understand, in order to have specific 
instructions given to the conferees it is necessary that the previous 
question be voted down; is that correct? I mean on the motion to 
recommit?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
Illinois is in error. The previous question on the conference report 
has to be ordered before there can be a motion to recommit.

Sec.    32.11 A motion to recommit a conference report is in order after 
the previous question has been ordered on the adoption of the report.

On June 28, 1955,(1) after the House ordered the previous question on 
the conference report on H.R. 3005, amending the Universal Military 
Training and Service Act, Mr. Noah M. Mason, of Illinois, raised a 
parliamentary inquiry.

MR. MASON: When is the proper time to offer a motion to recommit?
THE SPEAKER:(2) The proper time to offer a motion to recommit is after 
the ordering of the previous question.(3) 

Timing of Motion To Recommit

Sec.    32.12 A motion to recommit a conference report is in order after 
debate and the ordering of the previous question and is not affected by 
a special order waiving the reading. 

The Speaker's response to the following parliamentary inquiry 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     116 CONG. REC. 41502, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
 1.     101 CONG. REC. 9379, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 3.     See also 109 CONG. REC. 25409, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 21, 
1963; and 107 CONG. REC. 20533, 20534, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 21, 
1961.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1089]]

made on Aug. 2, 1977,(4) relates to the proper time to make a motion to 
recommit a conference report.

MR. [ELLIOTT] LEVITAS [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(5) The gentleman will state the parliamentary inquiry.
MR. LEVITAS: Mr. Speaker, will it be in order, since the rule waives a 
reading of the conference report, will it be in order to offer a motion 
to recommit and, if so, at what point would it be in order?
THE SPEAKER: It would be in order after the debate on the conference 
report. A motion to recommit is in order after the previous question is 
ordered.

Sec.    32.13 A motion to recommit comes too late after a conference 
report has been agreed to.

On May 22, 1968,(6) the House adopted without debate the conference 
report on S. 5, the Consumer Credit Protection Act, and laid on the 
table a motion to reconsider that action. After several Members 
expressed a desire to reopen these proceedings, the Majority Leader, 
Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, asked unanimous consent that 40 minutes of 
debate be allowed on the report, and that this debate appear in the 
Record prior to the adoption of the report. Speaker John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Richard H. Poff, of Virginia, under a 
reservation of the right to object.

MR. POFF: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object in order to 
propound a question to the distinguished majority leader. In the event 
the House agrees to the request of the gentleman, would the minority 
maintain the right under the rules of the House to offer motions to 
recommit if it were so disposed?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman ought to address his question to the Chair. 
That question should be addressed to the Chair, and assuming that the 
gentleman did address the Chair, the Chair will state that point has 
gone by, and a motion to recommit under those circumstances would not 
be in order.

Recognition To Offer Motion

Sec.    32.14 The mere fact that a Member states he has a motion to 
recommit a conference report does not extend recognition by the Chair 
for such motion.

On June 28, 1955,(7) after the House ordered the previous question on 
the conference report on H.R. 3005, amending the Univer-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     123 CONG. REC. 26105, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
 6.     114 CONG. REC. 14375-96, 14398, 14402-05, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     101 CONG. REC. 9379, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1090]]

sal Military Training and Service Act, the following occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(8) The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
MR. [HOWARD W.] SMITH of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit.
MR. [NOAH M.] MASON [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit. . . . 
MR. SMITH of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. SMITH of Virginia: I offered a motion to recommit and I was 
recognized.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman had not been recognized by the Chair.
MR. SMITH of Virginia: I had been recognized. I was looking at the 
Speaker and the Speaker was looking at me.
THE SPEAKER: The point of order is overruled. The Clerk will report the 
motion to recommit of the gentleman from Illinois.

Sec.    32.15 In recognizing Members to move to recommit a conference 
report the Chair gives preference to Members opposed to the report.

On Sept. 11, 1940,(9) the House ordered the previous question on the 
conference report on S. 3550, prohibiting the transportation of 
convict-made goods in interstate commerce, after which the following 
occurred:

MR. [EARL C.] MICHENER [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
MR. MICHENER: Certainly.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman qualifies.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Michener moves to recommit the conference report to the conference 
committee. . . . 

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: . . . The question is on the motion to 
recommit.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Michener) 
there were-ayes 28, noes 94.

Speaker's Discretion

Sec.    32.16 A Member opposed to a conference report in its present form 
qualifies to move to recommit such report, but if another Member 
unequivocally opposed to the report desired recognition to make the 
motion, the Speaker indicated he would be given priority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 9.     86 CONG. REC. 11938, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
10.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1091]]

On Oct. 18, 1949,(11) after the previous question was ordered on the 
conference report on H.R. 5856, Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 
1949, the following occurred:

MR. [A. S. MIKE] MONRONEY [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
to recommit.
THE SPEAKER:(12) Is the gentleman opposed to the conference report?
MR. MONRONEY: I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Monroney moves to recommit the conference report to the conference 
committee with instructions to the managers on the part of the House to 
further insist upon the House provisions for the exemption of employees 
of newspapers of circulation of 5,000 or under.

MR. [WALTER E.] BREHM [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BREHM: If I understood the gentleman from Oklahoma correctly, he 
said he was opposed to the bill in its present form. If I understand 
the rules correctly, that is incorrect. He is either opposed to it or 
he is for it. I wonder if the gentleman will state his position?
THE SPEAKER: If the gentleman is opposed to the bill in its present 
form he would be opposed to it. However, if some other Member had asked 
to qualify to submit a motion to recommit, and said he was absolutely 
opposed to the bill, unequivocally, as a gentleman said the other day, 
then of course the Speaker would recognize him.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.

Sec.    32.17 Members of the minority party have preference in 
recognition for a motion to recommit.

On June 28, 1955,(13) the previous question had been ordered on the 
conference report on H.R. 3005, amending the Universal Military 
Training and Service Act. The following occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(14) The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
MR. [HOWARD W.] SMITH of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit.
MR. [NOAH M.] MASON [of Illinois]:(15) Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: . . . Is the gentleman from Illinois opposed to the bill?
MR. MASON: I am, definitely.
MR. SMITH of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     95 CONG. REC. 14943, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
13.     101 CONG. REC. 9379, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
14.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
15.     Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Smith was a member of the majority 
party, the Democrats. Mr. Mason was a Republican.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1092]]

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. SMITH of Virginia: I offered a motion to recommit and I was 
recognized.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman had not been recognized by the Chair.
MR. SMITH of Virginia: I had been recognized. I was looking at the 
Speaker and the Speaker was looking at me.
THE SPEAKER: The point of order is overruled. The Clerk will report the 
motion to recommit of the gentleman from Illinois.

Recognition for Motion To Recommit Conference Report

Sec.    32.18 The Chair's recognition for a motion to recommit a 
conference report, while guided by precedent, is not subject to 
challenge and there is no appeal from his decision of whom to recognize 
where a choice has to be made between a minority conferee and a more 
senior member of the committee of jurisdiction who is not a conferee.

The proceedings of June 27, 1980,(16) during consideration of the 
conference report on S. 1308, the Energy Mobilization Board Act, were 
as indicated below.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(17) All time has expired.
MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
previous question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: For what reason does the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Devine) rise?
MR. [SAMUEL L.] DEVINE [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
MR. [MANUEL] LUJAN [Jr., of New Mexico]: Mr. Speaker, I am a member of 
the conference committee, and I am opposed to the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Devine).
MR. DEVINE: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit, and I am opposed 
to the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman qualifies.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. LUJAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. LUJAN: Mr. Speaker, does not a member of the conference committee 
have preference in recognition to the ranking minority member on the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     126 CONG. REC. 17371, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
17.     John P. Murtha (Pa.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1093]]

standing committee working on the bill?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) was on his 
feet at the time of the recommittal motion. Does the gentleman from 
Ohio, the second ranking minority member of the conference committee, 
have a motion?
MR. [CLARENCE J.] BROWN of Ohio: I am unqualified for the motion to 
recommit. I was standing, however, to make sure that the motion to 
recommit was protected for the minority, and when the Chair recognized 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine), the ranking minority member of 
the Commerce Committee, I took my seat.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine) is 
recognized as the senior Member.
MR. LUJAN: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear an answer to my parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: As the gentleman knows, the Chair's control 
over recognition is not subject to challenge and the Chair recognized 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine).
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine) is recognized for a motion.
MR. DEVINE: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
MR. DEVINE: I am opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman qualifies.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Devine moves to recommit the conference report to accompany the 
Senate bill, S. 1308, to the committee of conference.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote 
on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order 
that a quorum is not present.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 232, nays 
131, answered "present" 1, not voting 69.

Sec.    32.19 Members of the minority have preference of recognition for 
motions to recommit and when such motion is offered by a Member of the 
majority the Speaker inquires as to whether any Member of the minority 
demands recognition.

On June 27, 1947,(18) after the House had completed debate on 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     93 CONG. REC. 7845, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1094]]

the conference report on H.R. 3737, providing revenue for the District 
of Columbia, the following occurred:

MR. [JOSEPH P.] O'HARA [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER:(19) Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
MR. O'HARA: I am, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Does any Member of the minority demand recognition? If 
not, the gentleman is recognized.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.(20) 

Sec.    32.20 The Speaker recognized a majority Member to offer a motion 
to recommit a conference report in the absence of a minority Member 
seeking recognition to offer the motion.

On July 23, 1970,(1) after the previous question was ordered on the 
conference report on H.R. 14705 (providing a federal-state unemployment 
compensation program) the following occurred:

MR. [JAMES G.] O'HARA [of Michigan]:(2) Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
to recommit.
THE SPEAKER:(3) Is the gentleman opposed to the conference report?
MR. O'HARA: I am, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

Sec.    32.21 Where his privilege of offering a motion to recommit a 
conference report was usurped by a designee of the Republican Minority 
Leader, the ranking minority manager voiced his objections during floor 
debate on the conference report. 

The comments carried here were made during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 3345, the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act 
of 1994.(4) 

MR. [JOHN T.] MYERS of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with somewhat mixed feelings and emotions. I 
hope I can express myself, where I stand. This is the third time that 
this same issue has come before this body. The other two times I have 
supported 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
20.     See also 92 CONG. REC. 9776, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 23, 1946.
 1.     116 CONG. REC. 25616, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. O'Hara was a Democrat, the majority 
party in the 91st Congress.
 3.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 4.     See 140 CONG. REC. 6096, 6097, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 23, 
1994.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1095]]

it, without any hesitation. However, the procedure that will probably 
be adopted today makes it very difficult for me to support the 
legislation. . . . 
So reluctantly today I want to see what happens on the motion to 
recommit. And I admit, the procedure being used today is one that has 
been used not too often around here. I am not disagreeing with the 
procedure that the leader's designee will offer the motion to recommit. 
It has not been used too many times around here, but I understand the 
rules of the House and there is no way I can object to it. But it is a 
procedure that should not be used very often, only most reluctantly 
when there is something wrong with the legislation.

Parliamentarian's Note: The rules of the Republican Conference, in 
effect on the date of Mr. Myers' remarks, provided as follows: 
"Whenever more than one Republican Member proposes to offer such a 
motion [to recommit], the Republican leader (or if not present and in 
the absence of a stated position, the most senior elected Member of the 
Leadership available) shall determine the course of action that best 
reflects the position of the Conference and the Leadership. Any 
Republican Member having priority in recognition to offer such a motion 
shall act in accordance with that determination, including if 
necessary, yielding one's rights to offer such a motion to another 
Republican Member."
It should be noted that this conference declaration does not have the 
status of a House rule. The power of recognition, even on a motion to 
recommit, resides in the Speaker, who, where possible,  follows 
precedent in determining which Member to recognize. A conference or 
caucus rule would not bind the Speaker but it is likely that he would 
show deference to the wishes of the Minority Leader in cases where 
there is a conflict among those seeking recognition to recommit. 

Motion as Subject to Amendment

Sec.    32.22 The Speaker has indicated that a motion to recommit a 
conference report may be amended if the previous question is voted down 
on the motion to recommit.

On Dec. 30, 1970,(5) after the previous question had been ordered on 
the conference report on H.R. 18582, amending the Food Stamp Act of 
1964, Mr. George A. Goodling, of Pennsylvania, offered the following 
motion:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     116 CONG. REC. 44169, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1096]]

Mr. Goodling moves to recommit the conference report on the bill H.R. 
18582 to the Committee on Conference.

MR. [WILLIAM R.] POAGE [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
question on the motion to recommit.
THE SPEAKER:(6) The question is on ordering the previous question on 
the motion to recommit. . . . 
MR. [THOMAS S.] FOLEY [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. FOLEY: Mr. Speaker, if the vote on the previous question on the 
motion to recommit does not carry, would it then be in order for a 
Member to seek recognition for the purpose of offering an amendment to 
the motion to recommit?
THE SPEAKER: The answer to that is, it would be under the precedents 
and practices of the House.(7) 

Sec.    32.23 Procedure in the House where the House rejects the motion 
for the previous question on a straight motion to recommit a conference 
report and amends the motion by the addition of instructions.

Where the previous question is rejected on a motion which is not 
subject to debate, the consideration of an amendment to the motion also 
proceeds without debate.     
When considering the conference report on a general appropriation bill,
(8) the House rejected a straight motion to recommit (which is not 
subject to debate) and then when an amendment was offered to add 
instructions that the managers insist on disagreement to a certain 
amendment, debated the amendment under a reservation of the right to 
object to dispensing with the reading of the amendment.(9) 

MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. MYERS OF INDIANA
MR. [JOHN T.] MYERS of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
MR. MYERS of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, in its present form, I am.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 7.     See also 101 CONG. REC. 9379, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., June 28, 
1955; and 96 CONG. REC. 12674, 12684, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 16, 
1950.
 8.     H.R. 2445 (energy and water appropriations for fiscal year 1994).
 9.     See 139 CONG. REC. 25330, 25331, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 
1993.
10.     William J. Hughes (N.J.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1097]]

Mr. Myers of Indiana moves to recommit the conference report on H.R. 
2445 to the committee of conference.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on ordering the previous 
question on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the 
Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
MR. [JIM] SLATTERY [of Kansas]: 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 159, nays 
264, not voting 10. . . . 
So the previous question on the motion to recommit was rejected. . . . 
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SLATTERY TO THE MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY 
MR. MYERS OF INDIANA
MR. SLATTERY: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the motion to 
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Slattery to the motion to recommit offered by 
Mr. Myers of Indiana: Insert before the period at the end the 
following: "with instructions to the managers on the part of the House  
to insist on disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 33".
MR. SLATTERY (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kansas?
MR. [SHERWOOD L.] BOEHLERT [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
right to object, I will not object, but I would ask my colleague from 
Kansas to explain the motion to recommit, because there is some 
question as to whether or not this motion would affect projects other 
than the SSC.
MR. SLATTERY: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kansas?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Slattery] to the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Myers] and on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the amendment to the motion 
to recommit offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Slattery].
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
MR. SLATTERY: 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 282, nays 
143, not voting 8. . . . 
So the amendment to the motion to recommit was agreed to. . . . 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to recommit, as 
amended.
The motion to recommit, as amended, was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


[[Page 1098]]

Sec.    32.24 A motion to recommit a conference report may be amended to 
include instructions to the House conferees if the previous question is 
voted down on the motion to recommit.

On Dec. 15, 1970,(11) after the House had completed debating the 
conference report on H.R. 17755, Department of Transportation 
appropriations, fiscal 1971, the following occurred:

MR. [EDWARD P.] BOLAND [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
previous question on the conference report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(12) Without objection, the previous question 
is ordered.
MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I object. I was on my 
feet, and I request a rollcall on ordering the previous question.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Illinois wants a rollcall 
on ordering the previous question?
MR. YATES: I do, Mr. Speaker, on the ground that a quorum is not 
present. I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, as I understand, in order to have specific 
instructions given to the conferees it is necessary that the previous 
question be voted down; is that correct? I mean on the motion to 
recommit?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
Illinois is in error. The previous question on the conference report 
has to be ordered before there can be a motion to recommit.(13) 
MR. YATES: Then, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
The previous question was ordered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     116 CONG. REC. 41502, 41503, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
12.     Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
13.     Parliamentarian's Note: The inquiry posed by Mr. Yates was 
premature. The question before the House at the time of the inquiry was 
on ordering the previous question on the conference report. This 
question required approval before any motion to recommit the conference 
report would have been in order. Mr. Yates attempted to clarify his 
inquiry to indicate that he was concerned with amending the motion to 
recommit if the previous question were voted down on that motion (which 
was still not in order). The Speaker Pro Tempore ignored this attempted 
clarification since the inquiry as clarified was nevertheless still 
premature. However, Mr. Yates' contention is supported at 8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec.Sec. 2695, 2762.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1099]]

MR. [MARK] ANDREWS of North Dakota: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
MR. ANDREWS of North Dakota: I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the gentleman from North 
Dakota has filed a motion to recommit. In view of the fact that the 
previous question has not been ordered--
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The previous question on the conference report 
has been ordered.
MR. YATES: But it has not been ordered on the motion to recommit, Mr. 
Speaker, because I would object to it.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will state that the Clerk has not 
reported the motion to recommit as yet.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Andrews of North Dakota moves to recommit the conference report on 
H.R. 17755 to the Committee of Conference.

MR. BOLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to 
recommit. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 205, nays 185, not voting 
43. . . . 
So the previous question was ordered. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(14) The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.

Sec.    32.25 A motion to recommit a conference report with instructions 
is not subject to amendment after the previous question is ordered on 
the motion.

On Sept. 20, 1962,(15) the House debated the conference report on H.R. 
12391, the Food and Agricultural Act of 1962. After the previous 
question had been ordered on the conference report, Mr. Charles B. 
Hoeven, of Iowa, offered a motion to recommit the report with 
instructions to the managers on the part of the House.

MR. [HAROLD D.] COOLEY [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
previous question on the motion to recommit.
The previous question was ordered.
MR. [THOMAS G.] ABERNETHY [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(16) The gentleman will state it.
MR. ABERNETHY: Mr. Speaker, is it in order to offer a substitute motion 
in the form of a simple motion to recommit the conference report?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
15.     108 CONG. REC. 20094-129, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
16.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1100]]

THE SPEAKER: Not after the previous question has been ordered.
MR. ABERNETHY: Has the previous question been ordered?
THE SPEAKER: The previous question has been ordered.

Special Order Prohibiting Instructions in Motion To Recommit 
Conference Report

Sec.    32.26 The House considered and rejected a special order reported 
from the Commit-tee on Rules which, inter alia, waived points of order 
against a conference report and prohibited instructions in any motion 
to recommit. 

The text of the special order, called up in the House on Apr. 19, 1988,
(17) is carried here.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 5, ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
MR. [MARTIN] FROST [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 427 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 427
 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report on the bill (H.R. 5) to improve 
elementary and secondary education, and all points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration are hereby waived, and 
the conference report shall be considered as having been read when 
called up for consideration. A motion to recommit the conference report 
may not contain instructions.
SEC. 2. At any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved 
into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of a bill containing the text printed in section three of 
this resolution, and the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
with. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and 
which shall not exceed thirty minutes, equally divided and controlled 
by a proponent and an opponent, the bill shall be considered as having 
been read for amendment under the five-minute rule. No amendment to the 
bill shall be in order in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. 
At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill, the Committee shall 
rise and report the bill to the House, and the previous question shall 
be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
intervening motion except one motion to commit, which may not contain 
instructions.
SEC. 3. The text of the bill as follows:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,
"Section 223(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended-
"(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking out 'under eighteen years of age 
or to any other person without that person's consent';
"(2) by striking out paragraph (2);
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     134 CONG. REC. 7345, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1101]]

"(3) in paragraph (4), by striking out 'paragraphs (1) and (3)' and 
inserting in lieu thereof 'paragraphs (1) and (2)'; and
"(4) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as paragraphs (2), 
(3), and (4), respectively.".

Parliamentarian's Note: The reported rule specified that all points of 
order were waived against the conference report and against its 
consideration. One reason for this waiver was that  the conferees 
appointed to consider the nongermane issue, the so-called "dial-a-
porn" provision added in the Senate and modified in conference, never 
actually met.  They evidently conferred among  themselves without 
holding a formal meeting in open session. 
The second rare provision in the rule was the restriction on including 
instructions in the motion to recommit. This was the first instance 
where the Committee on Rules recommended such a limitation on a motion 
to recommit a conference report.

Divisibility of Motion

Sec.    32.27 A motion to recommit a conference report with instructions 
is not divisible.

On June 27, 1947,(18) after the previous question had been ordered on 
the conference report on H.R. 3737, to provide revenue for the District 
of Columbia, Mr. Joseph P. O'Hara, of Minnesota, offered a motion to 
recommit the report with instructions to the managers on the part of 
the House. Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, rose.

MR. DIRKSEN: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
THE SPEAKER:(19) The gentleman will state it.
MR. DIRKSEN: Would not the motion be divisible?
THE SPEAKER: A motion to recommit is not divisible.

Sec.    32.28 On a motion to recommit a conference report with 
instructions, it is not in order to demand a separate vote on the 
instructions or various branches thereof.

On Apr. 11, 1956,(20) Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
offered a motion to recommit the conference report on H.R. 12, to amend 
the Agricultural Act of 1949, with five specific instruc-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     93 CONG. REC. 7845, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
19.     Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
20.     102 CONG. REC. 6157, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1102]]

tions to the managers on the part of the House.

MR. [ARTHUR L.] MILLER of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(1) The gentleman will state it.
MR. MILLER of Nebraska: Since the motion to recommit applies to several 
titles and sections of the bill, is it possible under the rules of the 
House to get a separate vote on the various amendments that seek to 
strike certain matter from the bill?
THE SPEAKER: A motion to recommit is not subject to division.

Restrictions on Motion To Recommit

Sec.    32.29 The Committee on Rules has reported, and the House has 
adopted, a special order restricting the motion to recommit a 
conference report to one offered by the Minority Leader and specifying 
the debate time thereon.

The special order, as excerpted from the Congressional Record of Apr. 
21, 1988,(2) is carried in full here. 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3, TRADE AND INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY 
REFORM ACT OF 1987
MR. [CLAUDE] PEPPER [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 430 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 430
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall 
proceed to consider, without intervening motion, the conference report 
on the bill (H.R. 3) to enhance the competitiveness of American 
industry, and for other purposes, 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 continue 
not to exceed four hours, equally divided between the majority party 
and the minority party. Any motion to recommit the conference report 
with instructions, if offered by Representative Michel of Illinois, or 
his designee, shall be debatable for not to exceed twenty minutes, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and a Member opposed.

THE SPEAKER:(3) The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Pepper] is recognized 
for 1 hour.

Motion To Instruct Not Subject to Demand for Division of  Question

Sec.    32.30 The motion to recommit a bill to conference with various 
instructions is not 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 2.     134 CONG. REC. 8102, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1103]]

subject to a demand for a division of the question under Rule XVI 
clause 6; since only one proper motion to recommit is in order. 
In the 103d Congress,(4) Mr. George W. Gekas, of Pennsylvania, offered 
a motion to recommit the conference report on S. 349, the Lobbying 
Disclosure Act of 1994. The motion included instructions pertaining to 
several sections of the conference agreement. After a series of 
parliamentary inquiries, the proponent of the motion directed the 
following inquiry to the Speaker:

MR. GEKAS: Madam Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(5) The gentleman will state it.
MR. GEKAS: Madam Speaker, is the motion in order insofar as it seeks to 
clarify the ambiguous language that we feel is contained in this 
legislation on grassroots lobbying?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
order of the gentleman from Texas.
MR. GEKAS: Madam Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it.
MR. GEKAS: Madam Speaker, I think I know the answer to this, but I must 
pose it for the record.
Is the motion that I have made divisible in any way?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman's motion is not divisible. The 
gentleman may offer one, proper motion to recommit.
MR. GEKAS: I understand that. I will yield to the decision of the Chair 
on this matter.

Waiver of Points of Order Against Conference Report Does Not Protect 
Motion To Instruct

Sec.    32.31 A waiver of all points of order against a conference report 
does not protect a motion to recommit the conference report with 
instructions.

The conference report on  S. 349, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1994, 
had been called up after the adoption of a special order(6) waiving all 
points of order against the report and its consideration. The Speaker 
was asked, by way of a parliamentary inquiry, whether the waivers 
granted in the rule 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     140 CONG. REC. 26781, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 29, 1994.
 5.     Nancy Pelosi (Calif.).
 6.     H. Res. 550, adopted by the House on Sept. 29, 1994. See 140 
CONG. REC. 26753, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1104]]

protected the motion to recommit.(7) 
  
MR. [DICK] ARMEY [of Texas]: Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(8) The gentleman will state it.
MR. ARMEY: Madam Speaker, I see by the rule just passed that allows 
this bill to be under consideration that in this rule, it says all 
points of order against conference report and against its consideration 
are waived except the provisions of clause 2. If in fact the majority 
is able to bring the bill to the floor by waiving all points of order 
against the bill, would that waiver not also cover the gentleman's 
motion to recommit?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The waiver does not inure to the motion to 
recommit.
MR. ARMEY: The waiver only applies to the bill brought to the floor by 
the majority, not to the motion to recommit offered by the minority?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: To the conference report.

Scope of Instructions Permitted in Motion

Sec.    32.32 A motion to recommit a conference report to the committee 
of conference with instructions to do something which the House itself 
does not have the power to do-to amend its own bill after its passage-
is not in order.

On Aug. 25, 1950,(9) after the House had finished considering the 
conference report on H.R. 7786, the general appropriation bill for 
fiscal 1951, Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, offered a motion to 
recommit.

THE SPEAKER:(10) The Clerk will report the motion of the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Marcantonio].
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Marcantonio moves to recommit the conference report on H.R. 7786 to 
the committee of conference with instructions to the managers on the 
part of the House to incorporate  in the conference report the 
following provision: At the end of chapter XI, titled "General 
Provisions," add the following:
"None of the funds appropriated in this act shall be paid to any 
person, firm, partnership, or corporation which refuses equality in 
employment to any person because of race, or creed."

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order against the motion.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state the point of order.
MR. CANNON: Mr. Speaker . . . the provision which the gentleman from 
New York seeks to add to the confer-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     See 140 CONG. REC. 26781, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 29, 1994.
 8.     Nancy Pelosi (Calif.).
 9.     96 CONG. REC. 13476, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
10.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 1105]]

ence report does not appear in either the House bill or the Senate 
bill. It is therefore not in conference. It is not in difference 
between the two Houses. . . . [T]he motion to recommit is not in order. 
. . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule. . . . The motion to recommit 
calls upon the committee of conference to do something which the House 
itself does not have the power to do, namely to amend its own bill 
after its passage. This matter, not being in either the House version 
or the Senate version of the bill, the Chair holds that the point of 
order is well taken and sustains the point of order.(11) 

Sec.    32.33 A motion to recommit a conference report with instructions 
to include a matter not in either the House or Senate version of the 
bill is not in order.

On Aug. 25, 1950,(12) the House was considering the conference report 
on H.R. 7786, the general appropriation bill, fiscal 1951. Mr. Vito 
Marcantonio, of New York, offered the following motion to recommit:

Mr. Marcantonio moves to recommit the conference report on H.R. 7786 to 
the committee of conference with instructions to the managers on the 
part of the House to incorporate in the conference report the following 
provision: At the end of chapter XI, titled "General Provisions," add 
the following:
"None of the funds appropriated in this act shall be paid to any 
person, firm, partnership, or corporation which refuses equality in 
employment to any person because of race, color, or creed."

Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, raised a point of order against this 
motion.

MR. CANNON: Mr. Speaker . . . the provision which the gentleman from 
New York seeks to add to the conference report does not appear in 
either the House bill or the Senate bill. It is therefore not in 
conference. It is    not in difference between the two Houses. . . . 
[T]he motion to recommit is not in order. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(13) The Chair is ready to rule. . . . The motion to 
recommit calls upon the committee of conference to do something which 
the House itself does not have the power to do, namely to amend its own 
bill after its passage. This matter, not being in either the House 
version or the Senate version of the bill, the Chair holds that the 
point of order is well taken and sustains the point of order.(14) 

Sec.    32.34 A motion to recommit a conference report may not 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     See also 101 CONG. REC. 5846, 5870, 5871, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., 
May 9, 1955.
12.     96 CONG. REC. 13476, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
13.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
14.     See also 101 CONG. REC. 5846, 5870, 5871, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., 
May 9, 1955.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1106]]

include instructions to report matter beyond the differences committed 
to conference.  
On Nov. 22, 1981,(15) during consideration of a conference report on a 
continuing appropriation bill, Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, 
who was concerned about the expiration date contained in the report, 
asked the following inquiry about how that date could be changed.

MR. CONTE: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my chairman a question.
I do not feel that there is a scope problem. We could offer a motion to 
recommit for a continuing resolution to a date certain, December 15. As 
I see it, under amendment 71, section 140, it says:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint resolution, this 
resolution, other than section 101, 142, 144, shall expire on March 30, 
1982.

Therefore, that is standing there naked and it would be in order to 
amend that to make it December 15 or December 18, 1981. . . . 
MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mississippi]: In the first place, the 
gentleman is asking me about the rules. I am not an expert on the 
rules, but I presume any motion to recommit with instructions could go 
to any part of the instrument we are dealing with. . . . 
MR. CONTE: Listen, I spoke on my feelings on this conference report and 
they have not changed a bit. But I think that we should know, and now I 
ask, in view of the fact that I did not get an answer, Mr. Speaker, I 
ask a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER:(16) The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) will 
state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. CONTE: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary inquiry is that on a motion 
to recommit can the date for the continuing resolution, the expiration 
date of July 15, be changed to an earlier date before July 15?
THE SPEAKER: That motion could only be considered by unanimous request 
because it would not be within the scope of the differences between the 
two Houses which have been committed to conference regarding 
termination dates.
MR. CONTE: I thank the Chair. That is the answer I want.

Sec.    32.35 A motion to recommit a conference report with instructions 
to the House managers to report back an agreement which would include 
the provisions of the bill as reported by the House committee, rather 
than as passed by the House with changes, was held not in order.

On May 9, 1955, the House was considering the conference report 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     127 CONG. REC. 28747, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
16.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1107]]

on S. 1, the Postal Field Service Compensation Act of 1955.(17) After 
the previous question had been ordered on the conference report, Mr. 
Edward H. Rees, of Kansas, offered the following motion to recommit:

Mr. Rees of Kansas moves to recommit the bill S. 1 as amended to the 
committee of conference with instructions to report back an agreement 
which would include the provisions of H.R. 4644 as reported by the 
House Post Office and Civil Service Committee, with the additional 
provision that the 6-percent increase be retroactive to March 1, 1955.

MR. [THOMAS J.] MURRAY of Tennessee: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order against the motion to recommit. As I understand, the motion 
instructs the conferees to do something less than the House voted. We 
are bound to follow the instructions of the House in the conference. 
That matter is not even in conference. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(18) The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair thinks that this 
question has been passed upon many times in the past. An exactly 
similar question was raised on September 15, 1922, when a very 
distinguished gentleman by the name of John N. Garner made a similar 
motion to recommit with instructions to the conferees to lower the 
rates contained in either the bill or in the amendment. Mr. Edward 
Taylor, of the State of Colorado, made the point of order. Speaker 
Gillette sustained the point of order, and that decision may be found 
in Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, section 3244. It is exactly on all 
fours with this. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Instructions Concerning Legislative Amendments to Appropriation Bill

Sec.    32.36 While a motion to recommit a conference report generally 
may not include instructions which would be inadmissible if offered as 
an amendment in the House, instructions to agree to a Senate amendment 
containing an appropriation not authorized by law is in order since the 
vote on the motion satisfies the separate vote requirement of Rule XX 
clause 2.(19) 

On Dec. 19, 1973,(20) after the previous question had been ordered on 
the conference report on H.R. 11576 (supplemental appropriations, 
fiscal 1974), Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, offered a motion 
to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     See 101 CONG. REC. 5846, 5870, 5871, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
19.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
20.     119 CONG. REC. 42565, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[page 1108]]

Mr. Conte moves to recommit the conference report on the bill (H.R. 
11576) to the committee on conference with the following instructions 
to the managers on the part of the House: To agree to Senate amendment 
No. 5.

MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
against the motion to recommit on the ground that it is legislative, it 
is not authorized in law. Under the precedents of the House a motion to 
instruct conferees or to recommit a bill to conference under 
instructions may not include instructions directing the House conferees 
to do that which would be inadmissible if offered as an amendment in 
the House, Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, section 3235.
THE SPEAKER:(1) The point of order is not in order at this time.
Under clause 2 of rule XX, a motion to recommit a conference report 
with instructions to House conferees to agree to a Senate amendment 
which violates clause 2, rule XXI is in order. The motion to recommit 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts does not instruct the 
conferees to add additional legislation or an additional unauthorized 
item, but merely to concur in Senate amendment 5.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion to recommit. . . . 
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 216, nays 
180, not voting 36. . . . 
So the motion to recommit was agreed to.

Sec.    32.37 A motion to recommit a conference report on a general 
appropriation bill may not, under Rule XX clause 2,(2) include 
instructions which would add legislation to that contained in a Senate 
amendment.(3) 

On Nov. 13, 1973,(4) the House had just ordered the previous question 
on the conference report on H.R. 8877, appropriations for the 
Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare, when Mr. 
Albert H. Quie, of Minnesota, offered the following motion to recommit:

Mr. Quie moves to recommit the Conference Report on H.R. 8877 to the 
Committee of Conference with the following instructions to the Managers 
on the part of the House:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
Senate numbered 32 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: "That the aggregate amounts made available to 
each State under title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act for 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 2.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
 3.     Contrast Sec. 29.24, supra.
 4.     119 CONG. REC. 36847, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1109]]

grants to local education agencies within that State shall not be more 
than 120 per centum of such amounts as were made available for that 
purpose for fiscal year 1973, and the amount made available to each 
local educational agency under said title I-A shall not be less than 90 
per centum of the amount made available for that purpose for fiscal 
year 1973".

MR. [DANIEL J.] FLOOD [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order against the motion to recommit.
THE SPEAKER:(5) The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the motion to 
recommit on the ground that it instructs the conferees to include 
matter in the conference report which is not otherwise in order. This 
provision described in the instructions we just heard is clearly 
legislation on an appropriation act. Therefore, it is not eligible for 
inclusion in a conference report under provisions of clause 2, rule 20 
and clause 2, rule 21.(6) . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . . 
The motion to recommit directs the House conferees to recommend that 
the House recede from its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 32 and 
concur therein with an amendment. Senate amendment No. 32 was reported 
from conference in disagreement because, under clause 2 of rule XX, the 
House conferees had no authority to agree to that amendment, since it 
contained legislation on an appropriation bill and would have been 
subject to a point of order. The Chair notes that on June 26, 1973,(7) 
Chairman Holifield sustained a point of order against an amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Quie), on the grounds that 
the amendment added additional legislation to legislative language 
which had been permitted to remain in the bill by a resolution waiving 
points of order.
Under the precedents of the House, a motion to instruct conferees, or 
to recommit a bill to conference with instructions, may not include 
instructions directing House conferees to do that which would be 
inadmissible if offered as an amendment in the House-Cannon's 
Precedents, volume VIII, section 3235.
The Chair would like to point out two of the syllabi in section 3235:

Instructions to managers of a conference may not direct them to do that 
which they might not do otherwise.
A motion to instruct conferees may not include directions which would 
be inadmissible if offered as a motion in the House.

In the instant situation the Chair is of the opinion that the 
instructions included in the motion to recommit would, if offered in 
the House as an amendment to the language of the Senate amendment, add 
legislation thereto. As was the case in Chairman Holifield's ruling of 
June 26, 1973, the language would constitute a change in the allotment 
formula contained in the language of the Senate amendment. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 6.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1997).
 7.     119 CONG. REC. 21388, 21389, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1110]]

The Chair therefore holds that the motion to recommit is not a 
permissible motion within the meaning of clause 2, rule XX, and 
sustains the point of order.

Recommittal of Appropriation Bill

Sec.    32.38 Following remarks made by the Chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, a conference report on an appropriation bill was 
recommitted with instructions to the managers on the part of the House 
to insist on disagreement to certain Senate amendments.

On Oct. 4, 1967,(8) Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of Pennsylvania, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 10196, appropriations for the Departments of 
Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare, fiscal 1968. During the 
debate on the report, George H. Mahon, of Texas, Chairman of the full 
Committee on Appropriations, took the floor to criticize spending 
increases contained therein. However, Mr. Mahon added,

I do not condemn the report. I am going to vote for the conference 
report, because I think it is the best job that can be done at the 
moment. I am, however, telling the House that we are escalating 
spending and it is going to make it more and more difficult to lead the 
fight to rescind.

After the previous question had been ordered, the following occurred:

MR. [FRANK T.] BOW [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(9) Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
MR. BOW: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the conference report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bow moves to recommit the conference report on H.R. 10196 to the 
committee on conference with instructions to the managers on the part 
of the House to insist upon its disagreement to Senate amendments which 
exceed the budget request therefore.

MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to 
recommit.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to recommit. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 226, nays 174, not voting 
32. . . . 
So the motion to recommit was agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     113 CONG. REC. 27727-30, 27734-38, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9.     Hale Boggs (La.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1111]]

Recommittal Motion Instructing Conferees Not To Meet

Sec.    32.39 Example of a motion to recommit a conference report with 
instructions to the conferees not to meet again until subsequently 
directed to do so by the House. 

H.R. 1854, the legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1996, was the first to be considered in the budget cycle. The motion to 
recommit (which was rejected) was intended to delay final action on 
this appropriation bill until others had progressed through the 
process.(10) 
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. OBEY
MR. [DAVID R.] OBEY [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
MR. OBEY: At the present time, Mr. Speaker, yes.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Obey moves to recommit the conference report on H.R. 1854 (H. Rept. 
104-212) to the Committee on Conference with instruction that the 
conferees not meet until subsequently instructed to do so by the House 
pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XXVIII.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.

Recommittal by Unanimous Consent

Sec.    32.40 A conference report may by unanimous consent be recommitted 
to the committee of conference.

On June 30, 1965,(11) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York.

MR. CELLER: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the conference 
report on Senate Joint Resolution 1, concerning the amendment involving 
Presidential inability, be referred to the committee on conference 
because of a technical error in copying. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
There was no objection.(12) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     See 141 CONG. REC. 23747, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 6, 1995.
11.     111 CONG. REC. 15212, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     For other illustrations involving recommittal by unanimous 
consent, see 113 CONG. REC. 17738, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 28, 1967; 
104 CONG. REC. 12113, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., June 24, 1958; and 81 CONG. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1112]]

Sec.    32.41 A conference report was recommitted by unanimous consent to 
permit the conferees to make certain changes and to file a new report.

On Nov. 7, 1973,(13) Mr. John Melcher, of Montana, submitted the 
following request in relation to the conference report on S. 1081, the 
Alaska pipeline authorization:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the conference report on S. 
1081, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to grant rights-of-way 
across Federal lands where the use of such rights-of-way is in the 
public interest and the applicant for the right-of-way demonstrates the 
financial and technical capability to use the right-of-way in a manner 
which will protect the environment, be recommitted to the committee of 
conference for the purpose of directing the committee to make technical 
corrections.
THE SPEAKER:(14) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Montana?
There was no objection.

Sec.    32.42 On one occasion, a Member was granted unanimous consent to 
recommit a conference report on a bill and immediately submitted 
another on the same bill.

On Oct. 10, 1949,(15) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, and the following occurred:

MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to recommit the 
conference report on the bill (S. 2115) to authorize payment by the 
Administrator of Veterans' Affairs on the purchase of automobiles and 
other conveyances by certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes.
THE SPEAKER: Without objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. Rankin submitted the following conference report and statement on 
the bill (S. 2115) to authorize payment by the Administrator of 
Veterans' Affairs on the purchase of automobiles and other conveyances 
by certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes, for printing in 
the Record: . . . 

Sec.    32.43 Parliamentarian's Note: Where conferees had exceeded their 
authority in reporting new subject matter not in disagreement between 
them and had been advised that a point of order would be made against 
the report, the chairman of the House 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
REC. 5462, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 8, 1937.
13.     119 CONG. REC. 36222, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
14.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
15.     95 CONG. REC. 14163, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1113]]

conferees obtained unanimous consent for its recommittal.

On June 28, 1967,(16) Emanuel Celler, of New York, the Chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, made the following request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the conference report on the 
bill (H.R. 2508) to require the establishment, on the basis of the 18th 
and subsequent decennial censuses, of congressional districts composed 
of contiguous and compact territory for the election of 
Representatives, and for other purposes, be recommitted to the 
committee of conference.
Mr. Speaker, this has been cleared by the minority leader, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Gerald R. Ford], and by the ranking Member 
on the minority side, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch].
THE SPEAKER:(17) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New York?
There was no objection.

Conference Action Where Report Is Recommitted

Sec.    32.44 Where the House had rejected a special order waiving points 
of order against a conference report, the House later, by unanimous 
consent, recommitted the report, thus requiring the conferees to meet 
and file a new conference report, complete with new signatures by the 
conferees.

On Aug. 11, 1994, the House rejected a special order waiving all points 
of order against the conference report on the Violent Crime Control and 
Law Enforcement Act of 1993.(18) On Aug. 19, 1994, the House, by 
unanimous consent, recommitted the bill to the existing conference. The 
Speaker did not have to reappoint the conferees, but did supplement his 
original appointment by adding three general conferees (raising the 
number of general conferees to 13, in a ratio of eight majority to five 
minority).(19) On Aug. 21, 1994, a new conference report was filed, and 
on the same day the Committee on Rules reported, and the House passed, 
another resolution protecting the new conference 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     113 CONG. REC. 17738, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
18.     H. Res. 517 waived all points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration, as well as the reading of the 
voluminous report. See 140 CONG. REC. 21541-69, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
19.     See 140 CONG. REC. 23316, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 19, 1994.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1114]]

report. This new rule (20) contained the same waivers that were in the 
rejected special order but did increase the debate time and permitted 
one motion to recommit, which could contain instructions only if 
offered by the Minority Leader. The new rule and the conference report 
were adopted on this date.

The recommittal, the appointment of conferees, and the form of the rule 
finally adopted are carried below.
RECOMMITTAL OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3355, VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL 
AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1993
MR. [RICHARD A.] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the conference report on the bill, H.R. 3355, to amend the 
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow grants to 
increase police presence, to expand and improve cooperative efforts 
between law enforcement agencies and members of the community to 
address crime and disorder problems, and otherwise to enhance public 
safety, be considered and recommitted to conference.
THE SPEAKER:(1) The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] asks 
unanimous consent that the bill, H.R. 3355, be recommitted to 
conference.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection. . . . 
APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL CON-FEREES ON H.R. 3355, VIOLENT CRIME 
CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1993
THE SPEAKER: Pursuant to rule X, the Chair appoints as additional 
conferees to the bill (H.R. 3355) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control 
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow grants to increase police 
presence, to expand and improve cooperative efforts between law 
enforcement agencies and members of the community to address crime and 
disorder problems, and otherwise to enhance public safety, the 
following Members: Mrs. Schroeder, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, and Mr. 
Castle.
The Clerk will notify the Senate of the change in conferees.

On Aug. 21, 1994,(2) the new conference report on H.R. 3355 was filed 
and a rule was then adopted waiving points of order.
FURTHER CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3355, VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW 
ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1993
Mr. Derrick, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
privileged resolution (H. Res. 526, Rept. No. 103-713), which was 
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     H. Res. 526. See 140 CONG. REC. 23567, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
 1.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
 2.     140 CONG. REC. 23567, 23568, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1115]]

H. RES. 526
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider a further conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3355) 
to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
allow grants to increase police presence, to expand and improve 
cooperative efforts between law enforcement agencies and members of the 
community to address crime and disorder problems, and otherwise to 
enhance public safety. All points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report 
shall be considered as read. The conference report shall be debatable 
for 80 minutes, with 20 minutes controlled by the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, 40 minutes controlled by the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and 20 minutes 
controlled by Representative Castle of Delaware. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the conference report to final 
adoption without intervening motion except one motion to recommit, 
which may contain instructions only if offered by Representative Michel 
of Illinois or his designee.

MR. [BUTLER] DERRICK [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 526 and ask for its 
immediate consideration. . . . 
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 526 waives all points of order against 
the conference report on H.R. 3355, the Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act, and against its consideration. The rule further 
provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
This rule will allow the House to consider the conference report for 
H.R. 3355, the omnibus crime control bill. The rule also allows for one 
motion to recommit. The motion to recommit may contain instructions, 
but only if offered by Representative Michel or his designee. The 
motion to recommit may not contain instructions under any circumstances 
unless offered by Representative Michel or his designee.

Recommittal Under Suspension of the Rules

Sec.    32.45 A conference report was recommitted to a conference 
committee under a motion to suspend the rules.

On Apr. 1, 1935,(3) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, recognized 
Mr. James P. Buchanan, of Texas, and the following occurred:

MR. BUCHANAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the conference 
report on House Joint Resolution 117, making appropriations for relief 
purposes, be recommitted to the Committee of Conference.
MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, will the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Buchanan], explain why he 
wants to have the joint resolution recommitted?
MR. BUCHANAN: Mr. Speaker, there are several reasons.
MR. [CLIFTON A.] WOODRUM [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
regular order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     79 CONG. REC. 4761, 4765, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1116]]

MR. TABER: Then I shall object, Mr. Speaker. . . . 
MR. BUCHANAN: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and recommit the 
conference report on House Joint Resolution 117, making appropriations 
for relief purposes, to the committee of conference.
THE SPEAKER: Is a second demanded?
MR. TABER: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
MR. BUCHANAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a second be 
considered as ordered.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
There was no objection. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Buchanan] to suspend the rules and recommit the conference report 
to the committee of conference. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 257, nays 110, not voting 
64. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to.

Recommitting Bill in Enrollment Stage to Conference

Sec.    32.46 The House, by a motion to suspend the rules, agreed to a 
concurrent resolution (1) rescinding the signatures of the Speaker and 
the President Pro Tempore of the Senate on an enrolled bill, (2) 
vacating the adoption of the conference report in the two Houses, and 
(3) then recommitting the matter to a conference committee.

Where congressional action had been completed on a major railroad bill, 
the delivery of the enrolled Senate bill was delayed pending 
consultations with the White House regarding changes in the bill which 
might prevent a Presidential veto. The concurrent resolution considered 
under suspension of the rules on Jan. 20, 1976,(4) was the mechanism 
used in the House to re-create the conference committee so the 
modifications could be made.(5) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     H. Con. Res. 527, vacating certain actions of the Senate and the 
House on S. 2718, the Rail Services Act of 1975. See 122 CONG. REC. 
281, 282, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5.     The bill had been enrolled by the Senate before the sine die 
adjournment of the two Houses on Dec. 19, 1975 (121 CONG. REC. 42014, 
94th Cong. 1st Sess.). Hearing of an anticipated veto, the Senate held 
the bill until the second session convened on Jan. 20, 1976, when 
action could be taken to send the bill back to conference to make 
necessary modifications. The concurrent resolution considered in the 
House vacated the conference proceedings in both Houses in the reverse 
order to the actual actions in adopting the report in the two Houses, 
thereby returning to the stage of the bill prior to consideration of 
the conference report, thereby re-
---------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1117]]

MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 
527) vacating certain actions of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives with respect to the bill S. 2718, relating to railroad 
revitalization and regulatory reform, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. CON. RES. 527
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That 
the action of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
acting President pro tempore of the Senate in signing the enrolled bill 
(S. 2718) to improve the quality of rail services in the United States 
through regulatory reform, coordination of rail services and 
facilities, and rehabilitation and improvement financing, and for other 
purposes, is hereby rescinded; the proceedings by which the House 
adopted the conference report on such bill and laid on the table a 
motion to reconsider the vote thereon on December 19, 1975, are hereby 
vacated; the proceedings by which the Senate adopted the conference 
report on such bill and laid on the table a motion to reconsider the 
vote thereon on December 19, 1975, are hereby vacated; and the 
conference report on such bill is hereby recommitted to the committee 
of conference.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) Is a second demanded?
MR. [JOE] SKUBITZ [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, a second will be considered 
as ordered.
There was no objection.
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is necessary to resolve a situation which 
has arisen because of the rejection by the administration of some of 
the provisions contained in the bill, S. 2718, relating to railroad 
revitalization and regulatory reform, agreed to by both Houses on 
December 19, 1975.
The administration indicated that the bill would be vetoed because of 
the amount of money involved and because of the lack of administration 
control over the funding of ConRail, the corporation created to operate 
the bankrupt northeast railroads.
Because of this certain veto, the Senate did not send the bill to the 
White House in the usual manner. During the recess period over 
Christmas, the leadership of the two committees involved, the Committee 
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and the Senate Commerce Committee, 
authorized representatives of both committees to sit down with 
representatives of the administration and discuss the possibility of 
developing a recommendation for modification of this legislation which 
might be acceptable to both the House and the Senate, as well as the 
administration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
constituting the original conference to which the bill was then 
recommitted by action of H. Con. Res. 527. New conferees were therefor 
not named and no motion to instruct was available.
 6.     John J. McFall (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1118]]


The negotiations have been completed and this resolution is necessary 
to vacate the actions of both Houses in agreeing to the bill and to 
recommit the legislation to the conference committee where the 
conferees can examine the recommended proposal and file a new 
conference report with both Houses.

The Senate on the following day(7) adopted House Concurrent Resolution 
527 and under the terms thereof the matter was recommitted to 
conference. When the House received a message from the Senate informing 
it of the Senate's concurrence, the Speaker appointed one conferee to 
fill a vacancy on the conference committee which had been caused by the 
resignation of a Member from the House.

A message from the Senate by Mr. Sparrow, one of its clerks, announced 
that the Senate had passed without amendment a concurrent resolution of 
the House of the following title:

H. Con. Res. 527. Concurrent resolution vacating certain actions of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives with respect to the bill S. 
2718, relating to railroad revitalization and regulatory reform, and 
for other purposes. . . .
The message also announced that the Senate vacates its adoption of the 
conference report on S. 2718 and recommits the same to the committee of 
conference, pursuant to the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 
527. 
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE ON S. 2718
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(8) The  Chair announces, without objection, 
the appointment of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill) as 
a conferee on the Senate bill (S. 2718) to fill the existing vacancy on 
the committee of conference on that bill.
There was no objection. 

Effect of Recommittal

Sec.    32.47 When a conference report is recommitted to the committee of 
conference the entire matter is again before that committee for 
consideration.

On Sept. 11, 1940,(9) the House was considering the conference report 
on S. 3550, prohibiting the transportation of convict-made goods in 
interstate commerce. Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, offered a 
motion to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Michener moves to recommit the conference report to the conference 
committee.

MR. MICHENER: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     122 CONG. REC. 526, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 21, 1976.
 8.     John J. McFall (Calif.).
 9.     86 CONG. REC. 11938, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1119]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The gentleman will state it.
MR. MICHENER: If this motion should carry, the conferees would then be 
permitted to go back and cut out all the exemptions which they have 
included here if they wanted.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The whole matter would be before the 
conferees.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Michener) 
there were-ayes 28, noes 94.

Filing and Numbering of Second Conference Report

Sec.    32.48 Where a conference report is recommitted to the committee 
of conference, and a second report is then filed by the conferees, this 
second report is numbered and otherwise treated as a new and separate 
report.

On June 28, 1962,(11) the following entry appeared in the portion of 
the Record regarding reports of committees in the House:

MR. PATMAN: Committee of conference. S. 3161. An Act to provide for 
continuation of authority for regulation of exports, and for other 
purposes (Rept. No. 1949). Ordered to be printed.

However that same day(12) this conference report was filed in and then 
recommitted by the Senate. On June 29, 1962,(13) Mr. Wright Patman, of 
Texas, made the following request:

MR. PATMAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the managers on 
the part of the House of the Banking and Currency Committee have until 
12 o'clock tonight to file a report on S. 3161.
THE SPEAKER:(14) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
There was no objection.

The Record for June 29, 1962,(15) carried this entry regarding reports 
of committees:

MR. PATMAN: Committee of conference. S. 3161. An Act to provide for 
continuaqtion of authority for regulation of exports, and for other 
purposes (Rept. No. 1955). )rdered to be printed.

On June 30, 1962, Mr. Patman called up the new conference report on S. 
3161, House Report No. 1955.

MR. PATMAN: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill 
(S. 3161) to provide for continuation of authority for regulation of 
exports, and 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
11.     108 CONG. REC. 12135, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
12.     Id. at pp. 12192, 12196, 12197.
13.     Id. at p. 12297.
14.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
15.     108 CONG. REC. 12343, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1120]]

for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
managers on the part of the House be read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
The conference report and statement are as follows:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 1955)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 3161) to provide for 
continuation of authority for regulation of exports, and for other 
purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to 
recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: . . . 

Sec.    32.49 Where a conference report is recommitted with instructions 
relating to certain items in such report, the managers at the 
conference are not discharged and it is necessary for them to arrive at 
a new agreement and file a new report.

On June 8, 1942,(16) the Senate was discussing the conference report on 
S. 2025 relating to pay allowances for certain service personnel. 
Senator Warren R. Austin, of Vermont, made the following statement:

In view of the statement by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin 
[Mr. La Follette] that he raised a question only as to one point in the 
conference report, and did not raise any question as to the remainder 
of it, but wished the remainder to be left undisturbed as reported, I 
should like to have the Record show the parliamentary status of the 
report of the conferees on Senate bill 2025.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(17) The Chair understands that the conferees 
have not been discharged by the action of either House on the 
conference report. Therefore the motion recently agreed to by the 
Senate recommits the conference report and the bill to the same 
conferees, with instructions to the Senate conferees. As the Chair 
understands the instructions, they deal with specific items. The Senate 
conferees are instructed only with respect to the items dealing with 
the seventh and sixth grades.
MR. AUSTIN: Mr. President, another parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator will state it.
MR. AUSTIN: Is it true that the present parliamentary status makes it 
necessary to have a new agreement and a new conference report?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Chair so holds.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     88 CONG. REC. 4995, 4996, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
17.     Joel Bennett Clark (Mo.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1121]]

Effect of Instructions on Specified Item(s)

Sec.    32.50 If a conference report is recommitted with instructions on 
one item, the managers are not confined, in their new conference, to 
the subject matter of the instructions but may negotiate and report on 
all matters that have been in disagreement.

On Dec. 20, 1969,(18) as the House concluded its consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 15149, foreign assistance appropriations 
fiscal 1970, Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, posed a parliamentary 
inquiry concerning a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. If the motion to recommit reads 
as follows, will it limit the conference to the consideration of this 
particular issue, or will the conference as a whole be open for the 
consideration of all issues in the conference? Let me read the motion 
to recommit, Mr. Speaker, that will be as follows:

I move to recommit the conference report on the bill H.R. 15149 with 
instructions to the managers on the part of the House to agree with the 
amendment of the Senate No. 25.

Mr. Speaker, if that is offered and does prevail, is the conference as 
a whole free to discuss and decide issues involving the whole bill or 
all issues within both the House and Senate versions?
THE SPEAKER:(19) In response to the parliamentary inquiry, if the 
motion to recommit with instructions on one item should prevail, then 
all items in disagreement are open for further consideration by the 
conference committee.

Notification to Senate

Sec.    32.51 Where a conference report is recommitted to conference, the 
Senate is not notified and the House managers carry the original papers 
back to conference.

On Dec. 1, 1971,(20) the following occurred concerning the conference 
report on Senate Concurrent Resolution 6 (closing Public Health 
Service hospitals and clinics) which had been reported in total 
disagreement:(1) 

MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the conference report on the Senate concurrent 
resolution, Senate Concurrent Resolution 6, be recommitted to the 
committee of conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     115 CONG. REC. 40454, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
19.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
20.     117 CONG. REC. 43835, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.     117 CONG. REC. 36867, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 1971.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1122]]

THE SPEAKER:(2) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
There was no objection.

Immediately after this request was granted the House proceeded to 
consider other business.

Rejection of Motion

Sec.    32.52 If a motion to recommit a conference report is voted down, 
the question before the House is on the adoption of the conference 
reports.

On Sept. 20, 1962,(3) after the House had ordered the previous question 
on the conference report on H.R. 12391 (the Food and Agricultural Act 
of 1962) Mr. Charles B. Hoeven, of Iowa, offered a motion to recommit 
the report. Mr. Thomas G. Abernethy, of Mississippi, posed a 
parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, if the motion of the gentleman from Iowa is voted down, 
would it then be in order for the House conferees to return to 
conference upon the making of a proper motion?
THE SPEAKER:(4) If the motion to recommit is defeated, then the 
question comes on adoption of the conference report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
 3.     108 CONG. REC. 20099, 20105, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------