[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT]
[Â§ 29. Disposition of Reports and Amendments in Disagreement]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 938-1005]
 
        House-Senate Conferences
 
E. CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF REPORT
 
Sec.    29. Disposition of Reports and Amendments in Disagreement

A conference report may reflect an agreement to all amendments 
submitted to conference, some of the amendments (a partial conference 
report or partial agreement), or none of the amendments (a report of 
total disagreement). When the conferees report a partial agreement, the 
amendments remaining in disagreement are  considered after the 
consideration of the report itself.(4) However, in unusual 
circumstances, these amendments have been considered before the vote on 
the conference reports.(5) Since the 93d Congress, the "three-day 
rule"(6) has applied to reports of total disagreement as well as 
amendments in disagreement accompanying a partial conference report. 
This includes a disagreement reported by the conferees to an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute.(7) A two-hour availability requirement 
was added to Rule XXVIII in the 94th Congress.(8) The older practice 
was to consider amendments in disagreement the same day a report was 
submitted.(9) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     Sec. 29.3, infra.
 5.     Sec. 29.4, infra.
 6.     Rule XXVIII clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997). 
This rule delays the consideration of a conference report until the 
third day after the report and statement of the managers have been 
filed in the House, and requires that the report and statement be 
printed in the daily edition of the Congressional Record for the day on 
which they are filed (except during the last six days of a session). 
See generally Sec. 27, supra.
 7.     Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912b 
(1997), as amended pursuant to H. Res. 1153, Sec. 2(b)(2), 92d Cong. 2d 
Sess. (Oct. 13, 1972). The provisions of this clause became effective 
immediately prior to the beginning of the 93d Congress.  See Sec. 29.1, 
infra.
 8.     122 CONG. REC. 4625, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 26, 1976 (H. Res. 
868). Rule XXVIII clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1997); 
Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912b (1997).
 9.     See Sec. 29.12, infra, and 107 CONG. REC. 8892-94, 87th Cong. 1st 
Sess., May 25, 1961, for examples of the old 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 939]]

Each amendment reported in disagreement from a conference committee may 
be debated under the hour rule.(10) Since the beginning of the 93d 
Congress, control of this debate has been divided between the majority 
and minority parties(11) and, since the 94th Congress, may be divided 
three ways to give an opponent time if both the majority and minority 
managers support the motion offered by the floor manager.(12) 
Through the first session of the 93d Congress, the rules of the House
(13) provided for a separate vote (a two-thirds vote) on any Senate 
amendment which, if offered in the House, would be subject to a point 
of order on a question of germaneness. If the amendment were held not 
to be germane under that test, its adoption required a two-thirds vote. 
The mechanism for permitting points of order against provisions in a 
conference report or an amendment reported in disagreement which would 
have been subject to a point of order if offered in the House was 
shifted to Rule XXVIII clauses 4 and 5 in 1974. If the Chair sustains 
such a point of order, the amendment is not stricken but a motion to 
reject the provision is then in order. This new rule permits separate 
votes on parts of a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute if 
the Chair rules the provision to come within the rule. However, the 
general practice of requiring consideration of Senate amendments in 
their entirety still applies, and the rejection of any section of any 
amendment pursuant to these rules results in the rejection of the 
entire amendment.(14) 
When the amendment in disagreement is a House amendment, the House may 
recede therefrom and the bill returns to the position it had when last 
considered by the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
procedure whereby amendments accompanying reports in total disagreement 
were considered immediately after the report was filed.
10.     Sec. 29.18, infra.
11.     Sec. 29.22, infra. See Parliamentarian's Note in Sec. 29.19, 
infra.
12.     Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912(b) 
(1997).
13.     See Rule XX clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1971), 
adopted as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, adopted 
Jan. 22, 1971. For historical treatment, see House Rules and Manual 
Sec.Sec. 827, 913c (1997).
14.     The reader is urged to consult later editions of this volume as 
they are published for further modifications of the rules concerning 
this subject.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 940]]

Senate.(15) However, in accordance with Jefferson's Manual, the House 
may not recede from its own amendment and concur therein with an 
amendment.(16) 
When considering a Senate amendment reported from conference in 
disagreement, the House is not bound by the restrictions placed on the 
conferees, and it may recede and concur in the amendment with a germane 
amendment which is beyond the range of disagreement between the House 
and Senate versions.(17) The House may concur in a nongermane Senate 
amendment, and by so doing makes that matter germane to the House bill, 
and this matter may be included in a further conference report on that 
bill.(18) Also, where the conferees require specific additional 
authority to agree to a Senate legislative amendment to a House general 
appropriation bill, when such an amendment is reported from conference 
in disagreement the House may consider it(19) and may concur therein 
with an amendment which adds new legislation, provided that this 
amendment is germane to the Senate amendment.(20) The House may also 
agree to an amendment reported from conference in disagreement which 
carries an appropriation on a bill other than a general appropriation 
bill.(1) 
An example of the wide latitude the House may exercise when considering 
an amendment reported from conference in disagreement occurred when the 
House acted to incorporate many legislative provisions into the last 
general appropriation bill of a session.(2) 

Three-day Rule

Sec.    29.1 Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(3) requires that all amendments 
reported from conference in disagreement as well as reports in complete 
disagreement and the joint statement 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     Sec. 29.47, infra.
16.     House Rules and Manual, Jefferson's Manual Sec. 526 (1997). See 
Ch. 32, Sec. 7.15, supra. See, generally, Ch. 32, Sec.Sec. 7-12, supra.
17.     Sec.Sec. 29.31, 29.32, infra.
18.     Sec. 29.30, infra.
19.     Sec. 29.33, infra.
20.     Sec. 29.35, infra.
 1.     See Sec. 29.33, infra.
 2.     See Sec. 29.38, infra.
 3.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912b (1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 941]]

of the conferees must be printed in the Record on the day they are 
filed and be available for three calendar days before the amendment(s) 
in disagreement may be considered in the House.

On Oct. 13, 1972,(4) Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules called up House Resolution 1153, to amend the rules 
of the House. He explained that section 2 of House Resolution 1153 
accomplished two objectives:

First, it changes the wording of the 3-day rule on conference reports 
and the 3-day rule on committee reports to make it clear that what we 
mean is 3 days and not 4. As the rules are presently interpreted, a 
conference report filed on a Monday is not eligible for floor 
consideration until Friday. We think this is unreasonable. So we 
suggest changing the language of the rule to make sure that a 
conference report filed on Monday could be considered on Thursday. 
Surely, this should give Members enough time to study the report. . . . 
Section 2 of the resolution also takes care of a problem that arose 
recently concerning situations in which House conferees report they 
cannot come to an agreement with the Senate. The Chair has ruled that 
in situations of this kind, the normal rules on conference reports do 
not apply. The report of the conferees need not be available for 3 days 
before consideration; the report need not be available on the floor; 
and the debate time does not have to be equally divided for and 
against.
The Committee on Rules believes that all reports of conferees should be 
subject to these conditions, even when the conferees have not come to 
an agreement. House Resolution 1153 will accomplish this goal. . . .

Consideration of the resolution was concluded in the following manner:

MR. SISK: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Sisk: On page 8, immediately below line 5 
insert the following:
"Sec. 6. The amendments made by the foregoing sections of this 
resolution shall become effective immediately before noon on January 3, 
1973." . . . 

THE SPEAKER:(5) The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sisk.).
The amendment was agreed to.
MR. SISK: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the resolution. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 281, nays 57, not voting 
93. . . . 
So the resolution was agreed to. . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     118 CONG. REC. 36013-15, 36021-23, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 5.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 942]]

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Waiver of Three-day Rule

Sec.    29.2 Prior to the expiration of three calendar days (not 
including Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) from the filing of a 
conference report in total disagreement, the report and Senate 
amendment in disagreement may be considered if the House waives Rule 
XXVIII clause 2(b).

On June 29, 1973,(6) Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, requested 
unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the conference 
report and amendment reported from conference in disagreement on H.R. 
8410, providing for a continuation of a temporary increase in the 
public debt limit. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. 
William A. Steiger, of Wisconsin, to pose a parliamentary inquiry:

Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: that if an objection is 
heard to the request made by the gentleman from Arkansas, is it in 
order for the gentleman from Arkansas, the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, to move to suspend the rules to bring 
this to the floor of the House?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the Chair has the authority to 
recognize the gentleman for such a motion.

Amendments in Disagreement Considered-After Consideration of Conference 
Report

Sec.    29.3 When a conference report is being considered, the vote first 
occurs on agreeing to the conference report; the amendments reported 
there-in in disagreement are re-ported and acted on thereafter.

On Dec. 24, 1963,(7) the House was considering the conference report 
and amendments still in disagreement on H.R. 9499, foreign aid 
appropriations.

MR. [JOHN J.] RHODES of Arizona: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to 
propound a parliamentary inquiry, if I may.
THE SPEAKER:(8) The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
MR. RHODES of Arizona: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the 
first vote which will occur will be on the conference report.
THE SPEAKER: That is correct.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     119 CONG. REC. 22381, 22382, 22384, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 7.     109 CONG. REC. 25532, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 943]]

MR. RHODES of Arizona: And amendment No. 20 which is the so-called 
wheat amendment is not part of the conference report?
THE SPEAKER: That is correct. That will be considered by the House 
separately.
MR. RHODES of Arizona: If I may inquire further, Mr. Speaker, amendment 
No. 20 will be brought up in disagreement and on proper motion by the 
gentleman from Louisiana, a separate vote will occur at that time on 
amendment No. 20.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair understands that a motion will be made with 
respect to that amendment which is in disagreement.

- Prior to a Vote on a Conference Report

Sec.    29.4 Where adoption of a conference report is postponed pursuant 
to a special order putting over roll call votes to another day, the 
House proceeds immediately to the consideration of amendments reported 
back in disagreement.

On Sept. 18, 1962,(9) Mr. Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi, called up 
the conference report on H.R. 12648, agriculture appropriations, fiscal 
1963. After debate was held on the report, the following took place:

MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(10) The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. [RALPH F.] BEERMANN [of Nebraska]: Mr. Speaker, I objected to the 
vote on the ground that a quorum is not present.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Further proceedings on this matter will be 
deferred until tomorrow.
The Clerk will report the first amendment in disagreement.

The House then proceeded to dispose of all the amendments in 
disagreement.

Consideration of Amendment in Disagreement Before Proceeding to 
Conference Report (Senate)

Sec.    29.5 In the Senate, where a conference report was pending and the 
conferees had reported certain amendments in disagreement, the Senate 
by unanimous consent amended one of those amendments, then proceeded to 
adopt the conference re-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.     108 CONG. REC. 19708, 19714, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
10.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 944]]

port, and finally disposed of the remaining amendments in disagreement. 

Where a conference report on a continuing appropriation bill had been 
rejected by the Senate, perhaps because there had been no opportunity 
to offer and vote on an amendment involving a cap on federal 
comparability pay, the Majority Leader asked that the vote on adoption 
of the conference report be reconsidered and then suggested a procedure 
to allow a vote on the controversial provision by attaching it as an 
amendment to one of the amendments in disagreement. The request of 
Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd, of West Virginia, together with the 
proceedings of Dec. 13, 1980,(11) that followed, are carried here.

So the conference report (H.J. Res. 637) was rejected. . . . 
MR. ROBERT C. BYRD: Mr. President, a conference report cannot be 
amended. It can only be rejected or adopted. If it is rejected it can 
only go back to conference. In the event both bodies agree to have 
another conference, in which case all amendments that have not already 
been receded from by the House would again be up for negotiation.
The House has already adopted the conference report, and in so doing 
released its conferees. . . . 
. . . [A]s I say, the Senate can only do two things: That is, adopt the 
conference report or reject it. It cannot amend the conference report. 
But the Senate can, after adopting the conference report, vote to amend 
one of the amendments in disagreement, and there are several there. 
That is what I propose to do . . . . 
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to vote 
on the motion to reconsider forthwith, and that if the Senate votes to 
reconsider the vote, which I hope it will do because the decision is 
wrong at the moment-at the moment the conference report is rejected, 
but I hope the Senate will vote to reconsider.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed forthwith to a vote to 
reconsider, and if the motion to reconsider is agreed to, that I be 
recognized to offer an amendment on the pay cap, and that there be no 
more than 10 minutes for debate to be equally divided between the two 
leaders or their designees. I will not take any of the time. I will 
yield it to anybody. The Senate would proceed to vote within 10 minutes 
on the amendment. . . . 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(12) Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request? Objection is not heard. It is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to reconsider the vote by 
which the conference report was rejected. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     126 CONG. REC. 33985-90, 33994, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
12.     Daniel P. Moynihan (N.Y.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 945]]

So the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Under the previous order, the Senator from West 
Virginia is recognized.
MR. ROBERT C. BYRD: Mr. President, I ask that the clerk state the first 
amendment is disagreement.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The clerk will state the first amendment in 
disagreement.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment 
of the Senate numbered 7 to the aforesaid resolution, and concur 
therein with an amendment as follows:
Strike the matter stricken and inserted by said amendment, and insert: 
"not exceed $500,000,000: Provided further, That an overall ceiling for 
Foreign Military Credit Sales loans and grants of $3,046,187,000 is 
hereby established provided that of these funds $25,000,000 shall be 
for Oman and $6,000,000 for Kenya.".

MR. ROBERT C. BYRD: Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment, 
which is the language on the pay cap, and which the Senate previously 
adopted.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The clerk will state the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Robert C. Byrd) proposes an 
unprinted amendment numbered 1954 to the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment numbered 7.

MR. ROBERT C. BYRD: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the end of the amendment, add the following: "Notwithstanding any 
other provision of this joint resolution, the provisions of section 306
(a), (b), and (d) of H.R. 7593 (providing salary pay cap limitations 
for executive, legislative, and judicial employees and officials) shall 
apply to any appropriation, fund, or authority made available for the 
period October 1, 1980, through September 30, 1981, by this or any 
other Act.". . . .  

So the motion of Mr. Robert C. Byrd to concur in the House amendment 
with UP amendment No. 1954 was agreed to. . . . 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The question now is, Shall the conference report 
on House Joint Resolution 637 upon reconsideration be agreed to?
The yeas and nays are automatic.
MR. ROBERT C. BYRD: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the yeas and nays be vitiated.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on the adoption of the conference report.
The conference report was agreed to.
MR. ROBERT C. BYRD: Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by 
which the conference report was agreed to.
MR. [LOWELL P.] WEICKER [Jr., of Connecticut]: Mr. President, I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
MR. [WARREN G.] MAGNUSON [of Washington]: Mr. President, I ask 


[[Page 946]]

unanimous consent that the Senate concur en bloc in the amendments of 
the House to amendments of the Senate numbered 23, 24, 33, 34, 64, 89, 
90, 103, 109, 111, 134, 136, and 139.

The Senate having disposed of all the amendments in disagreement in a 
manner consistent with the prior House action, then, anticipating that 
the amendment added to the House amendment to Senate amendment number 7 
might not be accepted by the House, insisted on its amendment and asked 
a conference thereon.(13) The House, later on that same day, agreed to 
the request for a further conference.

Availability of Amendments on Floor

Sec.    29.6 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(14) copies of Senate 
amendments reported from conference in disagreement, as well as 
conference reports in complete disagreement and accompanying joint 
statements of the managers, must be available on the floor of the House 
when any such amendment  is considered, unless the amendment is 
considered under suspension of the rules.

On June 29, 1973,(15) Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, sought 
unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the conference 
report and amendments in disagreement on H.R. 8410, providing for a 
continuation of a temporary increase in the public debt limit. Mr. 
William A. Steiger, of Wisconsin, under a reservation of objection, 
posed a parliamentary inquiry:

Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: that if an objection is 
heard to the request made by the gentleman from Arkansas, is it in 
order for the gentleman from Arkansas, the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, to move to suspend the rules to bring 
this to the floor of the House?
THE SPEAKER:(16) The Chair will state that the Chair has the authority 
to recognize the gentleman for such a motion.
MR. STEIGER of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to 
object, may I ask the Chair's indulgence in a question relating to rule 
XXVIII, clause 2(b), as to whether we have waived that part of the rule 
XXVIII governing conference reports, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13.     126 CONG. REC. 33996, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
14.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 912 (1997).
15.     119 CONG. REC. 22318, 22383, 22384, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
16.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 947]]

which says: Nor shall it be in order to consider any such amendment 
that is to the conference unless copies of the report and accompanying 
statement together with the text of the amendment are then available on 
the floor.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that copies of the Senate amendment 
and conference report are available, but that suspension of the rules 
will suspend all rules.

Recommendations for Proposed Action

Sec.    29.7 The rules do not require conference committees to set out in 
their reports proposed action on amendments in disagreement.

On June 19, 1941,(17) Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, anticipating 
the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 4590, Department of 
Interior appropriations, fiscal 1942, with 38 amendments reported in 
disagreement, posed a parliamentary inquiry in which he noted that the 
conferees had agreed informally on a motion to recede from the various 
amendments in disagreement and concur therein with an amendment.

MR. COCHRAN: . . . I feel that the conferees not only on appropriation 
bills, but on all other bills where amendments are in disagreement and 
a motion is to be made to recede and concur, with an amendment that has 
already been agreed to by the conferees, then that motion should be 
printed in the conference report, so that the Members of the House may 
have an opportunity to intelligently examine the amendment and take 
such action as they deem advisable when it is reached.
I am not asking for an immediate decision but I respectfully request, 
if the Chair is not prepared, that he examine the present rules of the 
House in reference to conference committees and see if we are in 
position under existing rules to require conferees to publish motions 
they propose to make in reference to amendments that are in 
disagreement in the conference report. I feel that the membership of 
the House is entitled to such information. . . . 
THE SPEAKER:(18)   . . .  The Chair knows of no ruling of any Speaker 
or of anything in the rules or precedents of the House, that would 
require a conference committee to file more than what they considered 
to be a detailed statement of agreements made in the conference. 
Explanatory statements are made in the statement accompanying a 
conference report, but it is, so far as the Chair knows, entirely 
within the hands of the managers as to what they will include in the 
statement. The Chair cannot see how, under the rules of the House, 
members of a conference committee can be forced to include something in 
their statement that they do not want to include; and that would be 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17.     87 CONG. REC. 5352, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
18.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 948]]

the position of the Chair upon this matter at this time.
It occurs to the Chair, however, that the managers certainly under the 
rules would have the power to include in the statement accompanying a 
conference report the additional information suggested by the gentleman 
from Missouri in his parliamentary inquiry.

Time for Point of Order

Sec.    29.8 A point of order against a matter reported from       
conference in disagreement should be made after the conference report 
is agreed to and when the matter in disagreement is before the House 
for disposition.

On Oct. 6, 1949,(19) Mr. Michael J. Kirwan, of Ohio, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 3838, Department of Interior appropriations, 
fiscal 1950. After the further reading of the managers' statement 
(which was being read in lieu of the report itself) was dispensed with, 
the following occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(20) Does the gentleman from Montana [Mr. D'Ewart] desire 
to make a point of order?
MR. [WESLEY A.] D'EWART [of Montana]: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state to the gentleman, however, that the 
matter which he is complaining of is not in the conference report. It 
is a matter still in disagreement between the two bodies. The Chair 
doubts whether the gentleman's point of order would be proper at this 
time.
MR. D'EWART: Then, Mr. Speaker, the proper time to take this matter up 
would be when it comes before the House as a matter in disagreement.
THE SPEAKER: May the Chair inquire of the gentleman whether he intends 
to make a point of order against the conference report, or against a 
particular amendment in disagreement?
MR. D'EWART: Against a particular amendment, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kirwan].
MR. KIRWAN: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER: The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
The conference report was agreed to.

Mr. Kirwan then obtained the consent of the House for the en bloc 
consideration of several of   the amendments in disagreement including 
Senate amendment No. 132. After the Clerk read Senate amendment No. 
131, Mr. Kirwan made this request:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Senate amendment No. 132 be 
deleted from my motion.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     95 CONG. REC. 14028, 14034-36, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
20.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 949]]

There was no objection.
The Clerk continued to read the amendments in disagreement.

At the conclusion of the reading of these specified amendments in 
disagreement, the following occurred:

MR. KIRWAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recede and concur in 
these Senate amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Kirwan moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendments of the Senate numbered 6, 17, 20, 38, 46, 47, 50, 63, 66, 
83, 108, 109, 125, 128, 130, 131, 133, 134, 144, 148, 156, 162, 164, 
166, 172, 174, and 189 and concur therein.

MR. D'EWART: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a point of order against 
Senate amendment No. 132.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair understands that Senate amendment No. 132 has 
been deleted [from the unanimous-consent request to recede from 
disagreement to a series of Senate amendments].

After the disposition of all other amendments in disagreement, Senate 
amendment 132 was then reported:(1) 

THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 132: Page 56, line 7, insert the following: ": 
Provided further, That no part of this or prior appropriations shall be 
used for construction, nor for further commitments to construction of 
Moorhead Dam and Reservoir, Mont., or any feature thereof until a 
definite plan report thereon has been completed, reviewed by the States 
of Wyoming and Montana, and approved by the Congress."

MR. D'EWART: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state the point of order.
MR. D'EWART: Mr. Speaker I make a point of order against the provision 
found on page 56 of H.R. 3838, as reported by the conference committee. 
This provision reads as follows:

That no part of this or prior appropriations shall be used for 
construction, nor for further commitments to construction of Moorhead 
Dam and Reservoir, Mont., or any feature thereof until a definite plan 
report thereon has been completed, reviewed by the States of Wyoming 
and Montana, and approved by the Congress.

I make this point of order under rule 21, as it is clearly legislation 
on an appropriation bill; (1) because it is an affirmative direction 
and (2) it restricts executive discretion to a degree that may be 
fairly termed a change in policy. I call the Speaker's attention to 
page 422, section 844 of the House Rules and Manual, which reads, in 
part, as follows:

A provision proposing to construe existing law is in itself a 
proposition of legislation and therefore not in order. . . . 

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this provision is clearly subject to a 
point of order under rule 21.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     See 95 CONG. REC. 14038, 14039, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 6, 
1949.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 950]]

THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair has listened to the gentleman from Montana very carefully. 
The Chair will state that if an amendment of this sort had been 
proposed in the House of Representatives when this bill was under 
consideration in all probability it would have been subject to a point 
of order. The Chair does not feel that in this case it is a violation 
of clause 2 of rule 21, for the simple reason that it has been held as 
early as 1921 by Mr. Speaker Gillette that when an amendment that might 
have been subject to a point of order in the House if offered here was 
adopted by the Senate, and the conferees reported such an amendment in 
disagreement the House may consider the amendment.
Therefore, the Chair must overrule the point of order of the gentleman 
from Montana.
MR. KIRWAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recede and concur in the 
Senate amendment, and I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Montana 
[Mr. D'Ewart].

Budget Resolution Reported in Technical Disagreement Because of Scope

Sec.    29.9 Where conferees on a concurrent resolution on the budget 
reported in disagreement, their report stated the reasons for this 
action and explained that a compromise between the House and Senate 
managers was possible only by including figures outside the range of 
differences submitted to conference.

The conference report on Senate Concurrent Resolution 80 and a portion 
of the joint statement of the managers filed in the House on May 15, 
1978,(2) is included here. For further proceedings leading up to the 
debate on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment, see Sec. 28.14, 
supra.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 80
Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut] submitted the following 
conference report and statement on the concurrent resolution (S. Con. 
Res. 80) setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. Government 
for the fiscal year 1979:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 95-1173)
The Committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the House to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. 
Res. 80) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States 
Government for the fiscal year 1979, having met, after full and free 
conference have been unable to agree on a conference report because the 
conference decisions have reduced certain budget figures, including the 
deficit and the public debt, below the provisions enacted by either 
House. As set forth in the accompanying 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     124 CONG. REC. 13615, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 951]]

Joint Explanatory Statement, the conferees do propose a congressional 
budget, containing the lower figures, incorporated in a further 
amendment for the consideration of the two Houses.
ROBERT N. GIAIMO,
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN,
BUTLER DERRICK,
WILLIAM LEHMAN,
PAUL SIMON,
JOSEPH L. FISHER,
JIM MATTOX,
Managers on the Part of the House.
WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, 
FRITZ HOLLINGS,
ALAN CRANSTON,
LAWTON CHILES,
JAMES ABOUREZK,
HENRY BELLMON,
ROBERT DOLE,
H. JOHN HEINZ,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.

JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the conference 
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the 
House to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 80) setting forth the 
congressional budget for the United States Government for the fiscal 
year 1979, report that the conferees have been unable to agree. This is 
a technical disagreement, necessitated by the fact that in some 
instances the substitute language agreed to by the conferees includes 
figures which (for purely technical reasons) would fall outside the 
range between the corresponding House and Senate provisions.
It is the intention of the conferees that the managers on the part of 
the Senate will offer a motion in the Senate to recede and concur in 
the House amendment to the Senate-passed resolution with an amendment 
(in the nature of a substitute) consisting of the language agreed to in 
conference. Upon the adoption of such amendment in the Senate, the 
managers of the House will offer a motion in the House to concur 
therein. 

Reporting Amendments in Technical Disagreement

Sec.    29.10 Where conferees on a particular Senate amendment in 
disagreement develop compromise language to settle the dispute between 
the two Houses which is "legislative language" to which the House 
managers cannot agree (under Rule XX clause 2) without specific 
permission of the House, the matter is often brought back in "technical 
disagreement." 

This was the situation on May 16, 1978,(3) when a Senate amendment in 
disagreement to H.R. 9005, making appropriations for the District of 
Columbia, fiscal 1978, was considered in the House. The proceedings 
were as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     124 CONG. REC. 13921-23, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 952]]


THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(4) The Clerk will report the next amendment in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 37: Page 13, line 14, strike out: "$168,757,900" 
and insert "$102,173,400".
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. NATCHER
MR. [WILLIAM H.] NATCHER [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Natcher moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 37 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum named in said amendment, 
insert: "$129,173,400: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated 
for the Washington Civic Center shall be obligated until the 
Subcommittees on the District of Columbia Appropriations of the House 
of Representatives and the Senate have approved the plan submitted by 
the Mayor and the City Council for the Washington Civic Center".
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BAUMAN
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bauman moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 37 and concur therein.

MR. NATCHER: Mr. Speaker, I demand that the question be divided.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question will be divided.
Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) seek time?
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman would take some time 
briefly. I do not want to prolong this debate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) is 
recognized for 30 minutes. . . . 
MR. NATCHER: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to 
recede.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recede.
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is, Will the House recede from 
its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 37.
The House receded from its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 37.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. NATCHER
MR. NATCHER: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Natcher moves that the House concur in the amendment of the Senate 
numbered 37 with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum named in 
said amendment, insert: "$129,173,400: Provided, That none of the funds 
appropriated for the Washington Civic Center shall be obligated until 
the Subcommittees on the District of Columbia Appropriations of the 
House of Representatives and the Senate have approved the plan 
submitted by the Mayor and the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 953]]

City Council for the Washington Civic Center".
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BAUMAN
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bauman moves to table the motion to concur in the amendment of the 
Senate numbered 37, with an amendment.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the preferential motion 
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
MR. BAUMAN: 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 190, nays 
199, answered "present" 1, not voting 44. . . . 
So the preferential motion to table was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
MR. NATCHER: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion 
now pending.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the preferential motion offered by the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) to concur in the Senate amendment No. 37, with 
an amendment.
The question is on the preferential motion offered by the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
MR. [JOHN H.] ROUSSELOT [of California]: 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 199, nays 
183, answered "present" 1, not voting 51.

Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to table a motion disposing of an 
amendment in disagreement does not carry with it the amendment and the 
bill itself, since if the motion is tabled other motions remain 
available for disposition of the amendment, whereas the tabling of a 
Senate amendment itself has the effect of carrying to the table the 
House bill as well.

Where Conferees Report in Complete Disagreement

Sec.    29.11 Where conferees have filed a conference report on a Senate 
bill, and the Senate has then amended a House amendment to the bill, 
the conference report is called up in the House but is not acted on, 
and a motion


[[Page 954]]

to concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment is privileged, 
the stage of disagreement being in effect. 
The House does not act on a conference report in total disagreement but 
proceeds to consider the amendments in disagreement by motion. On Feb. 
24, 1976, the following conference report was filed:(5) 
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 94-839)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 2017) to amend the Drug 
Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972, and for other purposes, having 
met, after full and free conference, have been unable to agree.

The conference report and the amendments in disagreement were taken up 
and resolved on Mar. 4, 1976:(6) 

MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the Senate bill (S. 2017) to amend the Drug Abuse 
Office and Treatment Act of 1972, and for other purposes.
THE SPEAKER:(7) The Clerk will read the conference report.
The Clerk read the conference report.
(For conference report and statement see proceedings of the House of 
February 24, 1976.)
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will read the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House engrossed 
amendment to the text of the bill (S. 2017) entitled "An Act to amend 
the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972, and for other 
purposes", insert the following:
That section 101 (21 U.S.C. 1101) of the Drug Abuse Office and 
Treatment Act of 1972 (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the 
"Act") is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
paragraph: . . . 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. STAGGERS
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House, concur in the Senate 
amendment to the House amendment on the Senate bill S. 2017.
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Sec.    29.12 Prior to the 93d Congress, when conferees reported in total 
disagreement their report was filed, ordered printed, called up and 
read, and the amendments in 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     122 CONG. REC. 4102, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     122 CONG. REC. 5497, 5502, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 955]

disagreement were immediately called up for consideration.

On June 30, 1972,(8) proceedings in the House relative to the filing of 
a conference report occurred as indicated below:

Mr. Mills of Arkansas submitted the following conference report on the 
bill (H.R. 15390) to provide for a 4-month extension of the present 
temporary level in the public debt limitation:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 92-1215)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 15390) to provide for 
a four-month extension of the present temporary level in the public 
debt limitation, having met, after full and free conference, have been 
unable to agree.

WILBUR D. MILLS,
AL ULLMAN,
JAMES A. BURKE,
Managers on the Part of the House.
RUSSELL B. LONG,
CLINTON P. ANDERSON,
HERMAN TALMADGE,
WALLACE F. BENNETT,
CARL T. CURTIS,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
Following a call of the House, the proceedings continued as follows:

MR. [WILBUR D.] MILLS of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 15390) to provide for a 4-month 
extension of the present temporary level in the public debt ceiling.

THE SPEAKER:(9) The Clerk will read the conference report.
The Clerk read the conference report. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the first amendment in disagreement.

Mr. John W. Byrnes, of Wisconsin, then raised a parliamentary inquiry:

Mr. Speaker, I make this parliamentary inquiry so that the Members of 
the House can be apprised of the parliamentary situation which we are 
in.
Under normal circumstances, Mr. Speaker, a conference report is filed, 
it either lays over under the rule(10) for 3 days--
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will ask the gentleman from Wisconsin to please 
state his parliamentary inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     118 CONG. REC. 23716, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 9.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
10.     Rule XXVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 912 (1971) as 
amended pursuant to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, Pub. L. 
No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140, Sec. 125(b)(2), Oct. 26, 1970, required that 
conference reports lay over for three days prior to consideration. 
Clause 2(b) was not added to this rule until the adoption of H. Res. 
1153, Sec. 2(b)(2), 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 13, 1972, and did not take 
effect until the 93d Congress.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 956]]


MR. BYRNES of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, my first parliamentary inquiry 
involves a question, and the question is: Why does this conference 
report differ, and why does this not follow the normal rules of the 
House with regard to laying over with respect to the required 
legislative days?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Wisconsin that 
the conference report was reported back in complete disagreement from 
the conference committee. . . . 
Where conferees report in disagreement all of the amendments of the 
Senate no action is taken on the report. It is filed, ordered printed 
and called up and read before further action is taken on the amendments 
in disagreement.
Where the conferees report they have been unable to agree on all 
amendments submitted to them the report is not acted on and the Speaker 
directs the Clerk to report the amendments in disagreement.
That is what the Chair is getting ready to do.(11)

Senate Action on Conference Report in Disagreement

Sec.    29.13 In the Senate, a conference report in total disagreement is 
agreed to before disposition of the amendment reported in disagreement.

Based on precedents of the Senate dating back at least to 1913,(12) a 
conference report in total disagreement, called up in that body, is 
acted upon before motions to dispose of the amendment in disagreement 
are entertained. The proceedings with respect to the concurrent 
resolution on the budget in the 96th Congress, as excerpted from the 
Record of May 23, 1979,(13) demonstrate the Senate practice. 
FIRST CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1980-CONFERENCE 
REPORT
MR. [EDMUND S.] MUSKIE [of Maine]: Mr. President, I submit a report of 
the committee of conference on House Concurrent Resolution 107 and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:(14) The report will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendment of the Senate to the resolution (H. Con. Res. 107) 
setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for 
fiscal year 1980 and revising the congressional budget for the U.S. 
Government for fiscal year 1979, having 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     See 118 CONG. REC. 23717, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., June 30, 1972.
12.     See Senate Procedure, Riddick-Frumin, p. 489, Sen. Doc. 101-28, 
101st Cong. 
13.     125 CONG. REC. 12398, 12399, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
14.     David H. Pryor (Ark.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 957]]

met, after full and free conference, have been unable to agree. Signed 
by a majority of the conferees.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report. . . . 
MR. MUSKIE: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the use of 
small electronic calculators be permitted on the Senate floor during 
consideration of and votes on the conference report on House Concurrent 
Resolution 107.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, it is so ordered.
MR. MUSKIE: Mr. President, I move that the conference report in 
disagreement be agreed to.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, the conference report in 
disagreement is agreed to.
MR. MUSKIE: Mr. President, I think I have to make one further request 
before I go any further.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recede from its amendment to 
the resolution (H. Con. Res. 107), and that it only be in order to move 
to agree to the resolution with a new amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, which shall not be amended.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there objection? . . . 
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Disagreement to Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute

Sec.    29.14 Under current practice, where conferees report that they 
are unable to agree on an amendment in the nature of a substitute sent 
to conference, their report is filed, and called up after three days 
but not acted upon, and the Speaker then directs the Clerk to report 
the amendment in disagreement.

On July 31, 1973,(15) Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, submitted the 
conference report in disagreement on S. 1888, to extend and amend the 
Agricultural Act of 1970.
On Aug. 3, 1973,(16) the following occurred in the House:

MR. POAGE: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill (S. 
1888) to extend and amend the Agricultural Act of 1970 for the purpose 
of assuring consumers of plentiful supplies of food and fiber at 
reasonable prices.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
THE SPEAKER:(17) The Clerk will read the conference report.
The Clerk read the conference report.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
July 31, 1973.)
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will read the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     119 CONG. REC. 27001-13, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
16.     Id. at p. 28121.
17.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 958]]

The Clerk proceeded to read the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment.
(For Senate amendment to House amendment, see proceedings of the Senate 
of July 31, 1973.)(18) 

Sec.    29.15 A conference committee reported a disagreement in order to 
give the House an opportunity to perfect a Senate amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.

On June 8, 1937,(19) Mr. William P. Connery, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
obtained the consent of the House to recommit the conference report on 
H.R. 6551 (to create a Civilian Conservation Corps) to the committee of 
conference. Mr. Connery had made an agreement with John Snell, of New 
York, the Minority Leader, to recommit this report to set the stage for 
later proceedings in which separate votes could occur in the House on 
three provisions on which the House had originally insisted. On June 
21, 1937,(20) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, recognized Mr. 
Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, to call up the subsequent conference 
report on H.R. 6551, in place of Mr. Connery who had died in the 
interim.

MR. RAMSPECK: . . . First, let me explain the parliamentary situation, 
briefly. After having reported a conference agreement to the House, Mr. 
Connery asked that the bill be recommitted to the conferees in order to 
give the House an opportunity to express its choice on the three 
matters. In pursuance of this desire, the conferees have reported a 
disagreement. I propose to offer a motion that the House recede from 
its disagreement to the Senate amendment. If that motion carries, which 
I trust it will, I then propose to offer three separate amendments to 
the Senate amendment which will substitute for the Senate provisions in 
controversy the House provisions. On each of these amendments a 
separate vote may be had if desired.
After the disposition of the three motions, I shall move to offer as a 
substitute for the entire Senate amendment a proposal which will 
contain, first, all the matters tentatively agreed on by the conferees, 
about which I am sure there is no substantial controversy; and, second, 
the matters which the House has just voted on in the previous separate 
three motions.
By following this procedure we shall be able to dispose of the 
noncontroversial matters, give the House the desired separate votes, 
and offer a proposition to the Senate which it can agree to or send to 
conference and which will set forth in definite fashion the position of 
the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     119 CONG. REC. 26897-911, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
19.     81 CONG. REC. 5462, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
20.     Id. at pp. 6095-97, 6099, 6100.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 959]]

I may say further that the reason for this complicated procedure is the 
fact that the Senate, in considering the House bill, struck out all 
after the enacting clause and substituted the Senate bill. It therefore 
became impossible for the conference, under the parliamentary 
situation, to carry out the promise which Mr. Connery made the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Snell] when the bill was taken from the 
Speaker's table and sent to conference. This is the only parliamentary 
method by which we can carry out that promise, and I am sure the 
Members of the House, in view of what has happened since, will join 
with me in helping to keep a promise for a man who never broke one. 
[Applause] . . . 
MR. [CARL E.] MAPES [of Michigan]: I do not understand clearly the 
parliamentary situation. As I understand the gentleman's motion, it is 
to recede and concur in the Senate amendment? . . . 
MR. RAMSPECK: If the pending motion is adopted, then I shall offer a 
motion to put back in the bill the provisions of the House bill and we 
will then go to conference on that.
MR. MAPES: After the House recedes, the gentleman then proposes to 
offer amendments to the Senate amendment?
MR. RAMSPECK: That is correct.

Parliamentary Situation Where Conference Report Ruled Out on Point of 
Order

Sec.    29.16 Amendments between the Houses once disagreed to do not 
again require consideration in the Committee of the Whole in the event 
the conference report is ruled out of order.

On Aug. 19, 1937,(1) after Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
sustained a point of order against the conference report on H.R. 7646, 
relating to public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, Mr. 
Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, raised a parliamentary inquiry:

When a conference report has been thrown out on a point of order is it 
not the same as if it had been rejected by the House?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from New York makes a parliamentary inquiry 
as to whether, when a point of order to a conference report is 
sustained ipso facto, the Senate amendments come before the House for 
further consideration. Is that the parliamentary inquiry?
MR. SNELL: Yes.
THE SPEAKER: In reply to the gentleman the Chair calls the gentleman's 
attention to section 3257, volume 8, Cannon's Precedents:

When a conference report is ruled out of order, the bill and amendments 
are again before the House as when first presented, and motions 
relating to amendments and conference are again in order.

MR. SNELL: When this first came back from the Senate there was an 
im-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     81 CONG. REC. 9376-79, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 960]]

portant matter that should have gone before the committee for 
consideration because it entailed expenditure of large amounts of 
money, and is it a privileged motion to move to consider that in the 
House at the present time?
THE SPEAKER: It is in the opinion of the Chair, because by sending the 
bill and Senate amendments to conference, the provisions of the rules 
requiring consideration in the Committee of the Whole were waived.

Sec.    29.17 Where a conference report on a House bill, amended in the 
Senate by a complete amendment in the nature of a substitute, is ruled 
out of order, the Senate amendment in disagreement remains before the 
House for disposition by any of a variety of motions. If the conference 
manager determines to proceed immediately to address the amendment in 
disagreement, the Speaker directs that it be read and then a motion may 
be offered to dispose of the amendment in disagreement.

On Sept. 27, 1976,(2) the conference report on H.R. 5546, the Health 
Professions Educational Assistance Act of 1976, was called up for 
consideration in the House. A point of order was raised against the 
report by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget,(3) and the 
report was then ruled out of order in violation of section 401(a) of 
the Congressional Budget Act, since it contained new spending authority 
not subject to advance appropriations. 

The manager(4) of the conference then offered a motion to recede from 
disagreement and concur in the Senate substitute with a further 
amendment which rectified the Budget Act violation. 
The various inquiries regarding this procedure are contained in the 
portions of the Congressional Record which are set forth herein:(5) 

MR. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order on the conference 
report.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(6) The gentleman from Washington will state 
his point of order.
MR. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement on H.R. 5546, the 
Health Professions Assistance Act of 1976, contains a provision which 
appears to provide borrowing authority which is not subject to advance 
appropriations. Consequently, it would 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.     122 CONG. REC. 32655, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3.     Brock Adams (Wash.).
 4.     Harley O. Staggers (W. Va.).
 5.     122 CONG. REC. 32655, 32656, 32679, 32703, 32704, 94th Cong. 2d 
Sess., Sept. 27, 1976.
 6.     John J. McFall (Calif.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 961]]

be subject to a point of order under section 401(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act.
Section 401(a) provides:

It shall not be in order in either the House of Representatives or the 
Senate to consider any bill or resolution which provides new spending 
authority described in subsection (c)(2)(A) or (B) (or any amendment 
which provides such new spending authority), unless that bill, 
resolution, or amendment also provides that such new spending authority 
is to be effective for any fiscal year only to such extent or in such 
amounts as are provided in appropriation acts.

Section 401(c)(2)(B) of the Budget Act defines spending authority as 
authority "to incur indebtedness-other than indebtedness incurred under 
the second Liberty Bond Act-for the repayment of which the United 
States is liable, the budget authority for which is not provided in 
advance by appropriation acts." This form of spending authority is 
commonly known as borrowing authority.
The conference report accompanying H.R. 5546 contains a provision 
creating a student loan insurance fund under section 734 of the Public 
Health Service Act.
Clearly, the requirement that the Secretary of the Treasury purchase 
these obligations constitutes borrowing authority.
And since the provision contains no requirement that the authority be 
limited to amounts provided in advance in appropriation acts, it 
appears to give rise to a section 401(A) point of order.
The fact that the provision relates to default payments which might 
arise pursuant to a loan guarantee program does not bring the provision 
within the "loan guarantee" exception to section 401 of the Budget Act. 
Although the loan guarantee itself may not be subject to advance 
appropriation, the default payment made pursuant to the provision in 
question does not constitute a loan guarantee and it is fully subject 
to the requirements of section 401.
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
MR. ADAMS: I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia, the chairman of 
the committee.
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I have a motion.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Staggers) concedes the point of order.
Therefore, the point of order is sustained.
The Clerk will report the Senate amendment in disagreement.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) called up a conference report, and a 
point of order was made against that conference report, which was 
sustained.
Is the conference report still before the House, Mr. Speaker?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The conference report is not, but the Senate 
amendment in disagreement is; and a 


[[Page 962]]

motion will be offered, the Chair will state to the gentleman from 
Maryland, that could cure the point of order. Therefore, if the 
gentleman will bear with us for the sake of orderly procedure, we will 
have this matter properly before the House. . . . 
MR. STAGGERS (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that further reading of the Senate amendment in disagreement be 
dispensed with.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. STAGGERS
MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Staggers moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate to the bill H.R. 5546, 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:
SHORT TITLE: REFERENCE TO ACT
SECTION 1. (a) This Act may be cited as the "Health Professions 
Educational Assistance Act of 1976". . . .

MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object to the 
unanimous-consent request made by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Staggers).
My inquiry of the Chair is the same as I made before, and that is that 
in view of the fact that a point of order has been made to any 
consideration of the conference report, is the motion that is being 
made to agree with the Senate amendment to the amendment of the House 
deleting the offending phrase?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: When a conference report is ruled out of order 
as this one was, then the Senate amendment in disagreement is before 
the House. This motion, if passed, would remedy the point of order that 
was made. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. [ROBERT H.] MICHEL [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. MICHEL: My parliamentary inquiry is this, Mr. Speaker, could the 
Chair advise us how many disagreeing amendments there are if there is 
no conference report to be adopted?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will advise the gentleman there is 
only one amendment and that is in the nature of a substitute and it is 
a very long amendment, it is about three-quarters of an inch thick and 
the reading of the Senate amendment was dispensed with.
The Chair understands that the offending language which was objected to 
by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Adams) which gave rise to the point of order is not in 
the motion now before the House.
MR. MICHEL: I thank the gentleman.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Staggers) will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from 
Ken-


[[Page 963]]

tucky (Mr. Carter) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).

Debate on Amendments in Disagreement

Sec.    29.18 Debate on each amendment in disagreement is under the hour 
rule.

On Mar. 16, 1942,(7) Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, called up the 
conference report and amendments in disagreement on S. 2208, the second 
war powers bill. Mr. Sumners then inquired:

Mr. Speaker, let me inquire in regard to the time. How much time is 
allowed for the entire disposition of the conference report, including 
amendment No. 32?
THE SPEAKER:(8) The gentleman is entitled to 1 hour on the conference 
report. He can yield such time as he desires. Then, if he desires, an 
hour may be taken on each amendment in disagreement.

Control of Debate

Sec.    29.19 As each amendment in disagreement is reported, the Chair 
recognizes the Member handling the conference report to offer a motion 
relating to that amendment; and even though another Member offers a 
preferential motion pertaining to the amendment, the Member 
handling the report does not thereby lose control of his or her 
allotted time for debate.

On Oct. 24, 1967,(9) Mr. Joe L. Evins, of Tennessee, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 9960, independent offices appropriations, 
fiscal 1968. After the House adopted the report, it granted unanimous 
consent for the en bloc consideration of two of the Senate amendments 
in disagreement.

THE SPEAKER:(10) The Clerk will report the Senate amendments in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 58: On page 36, line 23, strike out "$75,000,000" 
and insert "$125,- 000,000".
Senate amendment No. 59: On page 37, line 2, strike out  
"$237,000,000" and insert "$537,- 000,000".

MR. EVINS of Tennessee: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Evins of Tennessee moves that the House insist on its disagreement 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     88 CONG. REC. 2502-04, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 9.     113 CONG. REC. 29837-42, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
10.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 964]]

to the amendments of the Senate numbered 58 and 59.

MR. [ROBERT N.] GIAIMO [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Giaimo moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendments of the Senate numbered 58 and 59 and concur therein.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Evins].

During the hour of debate under his control, Mr. Evins recognized three 
Members, including Mr. Giaimo, who spoke in favor of the preferential 
motion, and two Members who spoke in favor of the motion that the House 
insist on  its disagreement to the Senate amendments. After this time 
had expired, the consideration of Senate amendments No. 58 and No. 59 
ended in the following manner:

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the preferential motion offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Giaimo] that the House recede from its 
disagreement to Senate amendments No. 58 and No. 59, and concur 
therein. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 156, nays 241, not voting 
35. . . . 
So the preferential motion was rejected. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Evins] that the House insist upon its disagreement 
to the amendments of the Senate No. 58 and No. 59.
The motion was agreed to.

Parliamentarian's Note: In this instance, Mr. Evins controlled the 
entire hour of debate on the motion offered by Mr. Giaimo. A Member 
handling a conference report controlled the entire hour of debate on 
each amendment reported in disagreement through the 92d Congress. Had 
this occurred after the 92d Congress, Mr. Evins would have controlled 
half an hour of debate and a Member of the minority the other half 
hour. House Resolution 1153, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 13, 1972, which 
became effective on Jan. 3, 1973, added clause 2(b) to Rule XXVIII, 
House Rules and Manual Sec. 912 (1973), to provide that time for debate 
on amendments reported from conference in disagreement be divided 
between the majority and minority parties. See also Sec. 29.27, infra.

Amendments in Disagreement as Unfinished Business

Sec.    29.20 Where the House disposed of a conference report on one day 
and then adjourned, the amendments in disagreement were consid-


[[Page 965]]

ered as unfinished business when the House next met. 
A portion of the proceedings of Aug. 1, 1991,(11) are carried to show 
how the Chair initiated the consideration of amendments in disagreement 
which remained to be disposed of after an adjournment of the House. 
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2427, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1992
AMENDMENTS IN DISAGREEMENT
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(12) The unfinished business is consideration 
of the amendments in disagreement on the conference report on H.R. 
2427.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 30, 1991, the 
amendments in disagreement are considered as having been read.
The Clerk will designate the first amendment in disagreement.

Modifying Pending Motion To Recede and Concur With Amendment 

Sec.    29.21 Where a motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment 
is before the House, offered under Rule XXVIII clause 4,(13) following 
the rejection of portions of a conference report after a decision that 
they were not germane, the only way to further modify the pending 
motion is to vote down the previous question.

On Dec. 15, 1975,(14) during the prolonged consideration of the 
conference report on S. 622, the Standby Energy Authorities Act, 
several inquiries were directed to the Speaker(15) after the majority 
manager of the conference report offered his motion that the House 
recede from disagreement and concur in the Senate amendment (to the 
House amendment to the Senate bill) with a further amendment. The 
pertinent debate from the Congressional Record is included here.

MR. [CLARENCE J.] BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, is the motion offered by the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) at this point amendable?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     137 CONG. REC. 20954, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
12.     Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).
13.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 913b (1997).
14.     121 CONG. REC. 40713, 40714, 40716, 40738, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
15.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 966]]

THE SPEAKER: No.
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Is it divisible?
THE SPEAKER: The only way it could be amended is if it is read. After 
debate, the previous question is in order. If the previous question is 
voted down, then it is amendable. . . . 
The Chair would like for the sake of the entire House, if the gentleman 
will bear with the Chair, to hear a parliamentary inquiry.
The gentleman from California is correct. The regular order is the 
reading of the motion.
MR. [JOHN E.] MOSS [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I am inclined not to 
be charitable. I insist upon the rules being applied, in this instance 
the reading of the motion pending.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will read.
The Clerk proceeded to read the motion.
MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts] (during the reading): Mr. 
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion [to recede and concur 
with an amendment] and amendment be considered as read and printed in 
the Record.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts? . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a parliamentary inquiry?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields to himself for a parliamentary inquiry.
The gentleman is recognized for 30 minutes.
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, in order to get to a modification of 
what we have before us that might receive a majority vote on the floor 
of the House, is it required that we would divide the question and that 
the House vote to recede and then modify the amendment of the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers)?
THE SPEAKER: The way the gentleman can get at what he apparently is 
trying to get at is to vote down the previous question on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from West Virginia.
MR. BROWN of Ohio: So that when the previous question on the motion of 
the gentleman from West Virginia is put, there should be a vote 
requested on that previous question so that we can vote down the 
previous question and then modify the amendment of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is not saying it should be done. The Chair is 
saying that that is the way to get done what the gentleman wants done. 
. . . 
The question is on ordering the previous question.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is voted down, 
then there is no vote on the issue raised by the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Staggers), and the time goes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Waggonner) for a motion, as I understand. Now, the vote 
to accomplish that would be a "no" vote, is that correct?
THE SPEAKER: A vote against the previous question will permit an 
amendment to be offered to the pending motion.


[[Page 967]]

MR. BROWN of Ohio: I thank the Speaker.

Division of Debate Time on Motion To Dispose of Amendment Between 
Houses

Sec.    29.22 In the modern practice, debate on a privileged motion to 
dispose of a Senate amendment in disagreement, during the subsequent 
stages of action following the rejection of a conference report, is 
equally divided between the majority and minority parties.

While the provisions of Rule XXVIII clause 2(b) specifically address 
the division of debate time on an amendment "reported in disagreement" 
from a conference committee, the practice has developed of dividing the 
time between the parties on any motion to dispose of an amendment, once 
the stage of disagreement has been reached.
On Dec. 19, 1985,(16) the Chair's announcement of the division of time 
in the proceedings carried here shows the practice that has been 
followed in recent years.(17) 
FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A further message from the Senate by Mr. Sparrow, one of its clerks, 
announced that the Senate agrees to the amendment of the House to the 
amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3128) entitled "An act to 
make changes in spending and revenue provisions for purposes of deficit 
reduction and program improvement, consistent with the budget 
process," with an amendment.
The message also announced that the Senate had passed a joint 
resolution of the following title, in which concurrence of the House is 
requested:

S.J. Res. 255. Joint Resolution Relative to the convening of the 2d 
session of the 99th Congress.
CONSOLIDATED OMNIBUS RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1985
MR. [WILLIAM (BILL) H.] GRAY of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3128) to make changes in 
spending and revenue provisions for purposes of deficit reduction and 
program improvement, consistent with the budget process, with the 
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment, and 
concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     131 CONG. REC. 38359, 38360, 38367, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     This practice supersedes that followed in the period immediately 
following the adoption of Rule XXVIII clause 2(b) in 1972. See House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 912(b) (1997) for a synopsis of the evolution of 
dividing debate time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 968]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(18) The Clerk will report the title of the 
bill and the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the 
Senate amendment as follows:
(See Senate proceedings in today's Record, page S18201, part II.)
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. DAUB
MR. [HAL] DAUB [of Nebraska]: Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion.
My motion is in writing, and it is on its way to the desk.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Daub moves to table the motion.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to lay on the 
table offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Daub).
The motion to table was rejected.
MR. GRAY of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I move to limit debate to 15 
minutes per side.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman requests that debate be limited. 
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
MR. DAUB: Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Objection is heard.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gray] will be recognized for 30 
minutes and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Latta] will be recognized for 
30 minutes [on the pending motion to concur].
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gray]. . . . 
MR. GRAY: . . . Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gray] to concur in the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
MR. GRAY of Pennsylvania: 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 137, nays 
211, not voting 86, as follows: . . . 
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Debate Time on Amendments Offered Once Stage of Disagreement Reached

Sec.    29.23 While the modern practice in the House is to divide time on 
motions to dispose of amendments once the stage of disagreement has 
been reached, as recently as the 96th Congress, the practice was to 
recognize the Member 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 969]]


making a motion for a full hour where the pending amendment had not 
been reported in disagreement.
The House had earlier adopted the conference report on S. 918, a bill 
addressing Small Business Act amendments but the Senate had rejected 
the report and thereafter had concurred in the House amendment to the 
Senate bill with a further amendment. When this new amendment reached 
the House on Feb. 6, 1980,(19) the following request was entertained 
and the debate proceeded as indicated.
SMALL BUSINESS ACT
MR. [NEAL] SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I move to take from the 
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 918) to amend the Small Business 
Act and Small Business Investment Act of 1958 and for other purposes, 
with a Senate amendment to the House amendment and concur in the Senate 
amendment to the House amendment with an amendment.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment and the 
House amendment to the Senate amendment to the House amendment, as 
follows:

Senate Amendment to House Amendment: In lieu of the matter proposed to 
be inserted by the House engrossed amendment, insert:
TITLE I-AUTHORIZATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS  AMENDMENTS . . . 
MR. SMITH of Iowa (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that further reading of the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment and the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment be dispensed with and that they be printed in the Record.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(20) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under the rule, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Smith) is recognized for 1 hour.

Recognition To Control One-third Time Against Conference Report

Sec.    29.24 The minority has no priority of recognition in opposition 
to a conference report to control one-third of the debate time where 
both managers are not opposed; and the Chair will recognize the senior 
member of the reporting committee to control the 20 minutes in 
opposition, regardless of party affiliation. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     126 CONG. REC. 2133, 2140, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
20.     James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 970]]

The rule providing for a three-way division of time on a conference 
report, where the managers are in favor of the report and another 
Member rises in opposition, was adopted in 1985.(1) 
The proceedings carried here(2) show the factors the Chair considers in 
deciding whom to recognize for the time in opposition.

MR. [PETER W.] RODINO [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1200) to amend the Immigration 
and Nationality Act to effectively control unauthorized immigration to 
the United States and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(3) Pursuant to House Resolution 592, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Tuesday, October 14, 1986.)
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rodino] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lungren] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
MR. [DON] EDWARDS of California: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards] 
opposed to the conference report?
MR. EDWARDS of California: I am opposed to the conference report, Mr. 
Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rodino] 
opposed to the conference report?
MR. RODINO: No, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under the rules, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Edwards], the senior member of the originally reporting committee, 
is entitled to 20 minutes.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [F. JAMES] SENSENBRENNER [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I rise 
to a point of order. I believe that the member of the minority would 
have preference to control the 20 minutes in opposition to the 
conference report under the precedents of the House and rule XXVIII, 
clause 2(b).
I am opposed to the conference report, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would state to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin under a ruling this year recognition goes to 
the opposition on the issue but not necessarily the minority party in 
the House; and under the rules the Chair is constrained to recognize 
the senior member of the Judiciary Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.     See Rule XXVIII clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a 
(1997), adopted as part of the package of rules put in place by H. Res. 
7 (131 CONG. REC. 393, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1985).
 2.     See 132 CONG. REC. 31630, 31631, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 15, 
1986.
 3.     Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 971]]

MR. [DAN] LUNGREN [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I could not hear the 
Chair's ruling. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that a member of the 
Subcommittee on Immigration would have the right to this time.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair was stating that under a situation 
like this, it is regrettable where two Members are seeking equal time, 
the Chair must rule that under the precedents of the House that in this 
case 20 minutes should be given to the senior Member in opposition to 
the conference report. That senior Member is the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Edwards].
Therefore, the time will be divided, 20 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Rodino], 20 minutes to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lungren], and 20 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Edwards].
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rodino].

Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair had occasion to make another decision 
regarding recognition later on the same day. The chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi, offered 
a motion on a Senate amendment in disagreement on the continuing 
appropriation bill, for fiscal year 1987. Both he and the minority 
floor manager, Ralph Regula, of Ohio, were in favor of the motion. A 
majority Member, Mike Lowry, of Washington, offered a preferential 
motion and claimed one-third of the time for debate on the underlying 
Whitten motion.(4) 

Demand for One-third of Debate Time Must Be Timely

Sec. 29.25 A challenge under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b),(5) that both 
managers are in favor of the pending motion to dispose of the amendment 
in disagreement is timely when the motion is offered but comes too late 
after debate has begun. 

As the proceedings of Nov. 6, 1991,(6) show, a Member must be timely if 
he desires to have a three-way division of time on a motion to dispose 
of an amendment in disagreement. 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. NATCHER
MR. [WILLIAM H.] NATCHER [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Natcher moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 29 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     See proceedings at 132 CONG. REC. 32116, 32117, 99th Cong. 2d 
Sess., Oct. 15, 1986 (H.J. Res. 738).
 5.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912b (1997).
 6.     137 CONG. REC. 30564, 30565, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 972]]

sum proposed by said amendment, insert "$125,000,000, of which 
$25,000,000 shall be for the Healthy Start program".

MR. [CARL D.] PURSELL [of Michigan] (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, 
I ask unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(7) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the motion is agreed to.
MR. [DAN] BURTON of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I object.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Objection is heard. . . . 
Does the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher] seek time on the motion?
MR. NATCHER: Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time at this time.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Michigan seek time?
MR. PURSELL: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Pursell] is 
recognized for 30 minutes. . . . 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. BURTON of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. BURTON of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, on these 
motions on amendments in disagreement, those who are opposed get some 
portion of the time. I was not allocated any time, nor was the question 
put by the Chair on whether or not the gentleman from Tennessee or the 
gentleman from Michigan was opposed. If they are opposed, they get the 
time, and I will ask them for time, but if they are not opposed, 
according to the rules, I believe I get part of the time.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would state that ordinarily the 
gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from Michigan would be 
recognized on each amendment. However, at the time the motion is 
offered, if another Member challenges the minority Member and the 
minority Member is not opposed, then that Member making the challenge 
would be entitled to one-third of the time.
MR. BURTON of Indiana: As a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, 
usually the Chair puts the question to those involved, the chairman and 
the ranking member: "Are you opposed to the motion?" And if they are 
not opposed, then those who are opposed are granted part of the time.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair normally does not put that question 
to the two managers unless there is a challenge.
MR. BURTON of Indiana: With all due respect to my colleague from 
Tennessee and my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Speaker, I make that 
request.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: On this amendment, the gentleman's request is 
not timely. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Pursell] controls the 
time. The gentleman from Indiana would have to ask for time from the 
gentleman from Michigan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     Don J. Pease (Ohio).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 973]]

Sec.    29.26 A Member who has offered a pending preferential motion to 
dispose of a Senate amendment in disagreement does not thereby gain 
control of time and may not, in time yielded him for debate, move the 
previous question and deprive the managers of the hour divided between 
them. 

Where a conference report(8) had been adopted and a motion offered by 
the majority manager of the conference to dispose of an amendment in 
disagreement by receding and concurring with a further amendment, a 
preferential motion to recede and concur was offered by Mr. Robert E. 
Bauman, of Maryland. Mr. Bauman was then yielded a brief time to debate 
his preferential motion by the minority manager, Mr. Robert H. Michel, 
of Illinois. The proceedings were as indicated below:(9) 

MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Flood) has offered or will offer a motion, and I have a preferential 
motion at the desk.
THE SPEAKER:(10) The Clerk will first report the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FLOOD
MR. [DANIEL J.] FLOOD [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Flood moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 72 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter inserted by said 
amendment, insert the following:
SEC. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
require, directly or indirectly, the transportation of any student to a 
school other than the school which is nearest or next nearest the 
student's home, and which offers the courses of study pursued by such 
student, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964."
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BAUMAN
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bauman moves that the House recede from its disagreement to Senate 
amendment No. 72 and concur therein.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Flood).
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, who has the right to the time 
under the motion?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) has 30 
min-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     H.R. 8069 (Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare 
appropriations for fiscal year 1976).
 9.     121 CONG. REC. 38714, 38716, 38717, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 4, 
1975.
10.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 974]]

utes, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) has 30 minutes. 
The time is controlled by the committee leadership on each side, and 
they are not taken from the floor by a preferential motion. . . . 

MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume 
before I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman). . . . 
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania has the floor and the 
Chair is trying to let the gentleman be heard.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have not yielded. My time has not expired.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman has time for debate only.
MR. BAUMAN: No; Mr. Speaker, it was not yielded for debate only.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Maryland has 15 seconds.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman was yielded to for debate only. The 
gentleman from Illinois had no authority under clause 2, rule XXVIII to 
yield for any other purpose but debate.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I was yielded to. There was no limitation on 
for what purpose.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman was yielded 5 minutes. He can use it for 
debate only. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division of the question.
MR. MICHEL: A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The question will be divided.
MR. MICHEL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois was given to 
understand that the time was to be divided equally. There was no 
indication on the part of the gentleman from Illinois that he had 
concluded giving what time he wanted to allocate to Members for general 
debate.
The gentleman from Illinois still has a request pending.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman has 30 minutes for debate only. He can yield 
more time.
MR. MICHEL: I am still entitled, if I understand it, to the balance of 
the time to which I have been originally allocated. The gentleman from 
Illinois has 17 minutes remaining.

Debate on Amendments in Disagreement

Sec.    29.27 When amendments in disagreement are considered in the House 
after disposition of the conference report, each amendment is debatable 
for one hour, equally divided between the majority and minority 
parties, and this division of time is not 


[[Page 975]]

disturbed by the offering of a preferential motion.

The rule dividing time on an amendment in disagreement(11) was first 
adopted in the 92d Congress.(12) It was later amended, in the 99th 
Congress,(13) to provide for a three-way division of time if the 
majority and minority floor leaders on the conference report both 
support the offered motion.
In the 94th Congress, a controversial Senate amendment was reported in 
disagreement from the conference dealing with the bill H.R. 8069, the 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and related agencies 
appropriation bill for fiscal year 1976. The original motion to dispose 
of the Senate amendment, offered by the majority floor manager of the 
report, was to recede from disagreement and concur with a further 
amendment. Immediately after the motion of Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of 
Pennsylvania, was read, Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland, offered a 
preferential motion to recede and concur. The Chair(14) explained that 
the offering of this preferential motion did not deprive Mr. Flood of 
the floor. When the minority floor leader yielded part of his debate 
time to Mr. Bauman, the latter spoke briefly and then attempted to move 
the previous question, but the Chair declined to entertain the motion 
since it would cut off the time allocated to the managers under Rule 
XXVIII clause 2(b). After debate, the question on receding and 
concurring was divided, the House receded from disagreement, rejected a 
motion to concur with an amendment, and eventually concurred in the 
Senate amendment.(15) 

MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Flood) has offered or will offer a motion, and I have a preferential 
motion at the desk.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will first report the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FLOOD
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912b 
(1997).
12.     See H. Res. 1153 (118 CONG. REC. 36013-23, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., 
Oct. 13, 1972).
13. See H. Res. 7 (131 CONG. REC. 393-413, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 
3, 1985).       
14.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
15.     121 CONG. REC. 38714, 38716-19, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 4, 
1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 976]]

Mr. Flood moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 72 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter inserted by said 
amendment, insert the following:
"SEC. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
require, directly or indirectly, the transportation of any student to a 
school other than the school which is nearest or next nearest the 
student's home, and which offers the courses of study pursued by such 
student, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964."

PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. BAUMAN
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bauman moves that the House recede from its disagreement to Senate 
amendment No. 72 and concur therein.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Flood).
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, who has the right to the time 
under the motion?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) has 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) has 30 minutes. 
The time is controlled by the committee leadership on each side, and 
they are not taken from the floor by a preferential motion. . . . 
MR. [ROBERT H.] MICHEL [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman). . . . 
MR. BAUMAN: The gentleman from Maryland has made his case and if the 
gentleman would like to concur in the stand taken by the majority party 
in favor of busing he can do that. I do not concur.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I demand the question be divided.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania has the floor and the 
Chair is trying to let the gentleman be heard.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have not yielded. My time has not expired.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman has time for debate only.
MR. BAUMAN: No; Mr. Speaker, it was not yielded for debate only.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Maryland has 15 seconds.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman was yielded to for debate only. The 
gentleman from Illinois had no authority under clause 2, rule XXVIII to 
yield for any other purpose but debate.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I was yielded to. There was no limitation on 
for what purpose.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman was yielded 5 minutes. He can use it for 
debate only. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division of the question. . . . 


[[Page 977]]

MR. MICHEL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois was given to 
understand that the time was to be divided equally. There was no 
indication on the part of the gentleman from Illinois that he had 
concluded giving what time he wanted to allocate to Members for general 
debate.
The gentleman from Illinois still has a request pending.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman has 30 minutes for debate only. He can yield 
more time.
MR. MICHEL: I am still entitled, if I understand it, to the balance of 
the time to which I have been originally allocated. The gentleman from 
Illinois has 17 minutes remaining.
THE SPEAKER: That is correct, but the question has been divided.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, when must a request for division be made?
THE SPEAKER: Any time the motion is pending and before the question is 
put the question may be divided, and it is already divided.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, if the question has been divided, then I have a 
preferential motion.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Illinois has 15 minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman's motion may come later.
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may require, and 
yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte). . . . 
MR. MICHEL: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
THE SPEAKER: The question is, Will the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 72?
The House receded from its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 72.
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. FLOOD
MR. FLOOD: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read the preferential motion as follows:

Mr. Flood moves that the House concur in the amendment of the Senate 
numbered 72 with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter 
inserted by said amendment, insert the following:
"SEC. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
require, directly or indirectly, the transportation of any student to a 
school other than the school which is nearest or next nearest the 
student's home, and which offers the courses of study pursued by such 
student, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964."

THE SPEAKER: The question is on the preferential motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


[[Page 978]]

MR. BAUMAN: 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 133, nays 
259, answered "present" 15, not voting 27. . . . 
So the preferential motion to the Senate amendment numbered 72 was 
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER: The question is, Will the House concur in the Senate 
amendment?
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. [JOHN F.] SEIBERLING [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded 
vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 260, noes 
146, answered "present" 1, not voting 27. . . . 
So the Senate amendment was concurred in.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.

Effect of Prior Action by Senate

Sec.    29.28 Where conferees re-port in disagreement, and the Senate 
then recedes and concurs in the House amendments with an amendment, 
the conference report is not acted on in the House and the Speaker 
directs the Clerk to report the Senate amendment to the House 
amendments for disposition by motion.

On Sept. 19, 1967,(16) the Senate, acting first on the conference 
report in complete disagreement on S. 953 (amending the Food Stamp Act 
of 1964), concurred in the House amendment in the nature of a 
substitute thereto, with an amendment. Later that day,(17) Mr. William 
R. Poage, of Texas, called up this conference report in the House. 
After the Clerk read the report the following occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(18) The Chair lays before the House the Senate amendments 
to the House amendment to S. 953, which the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House engrossed 
amendment insert: . . . 

After the Clerk read the Senate substitute for the House amendment in 
the nature of a substitute for the Senate bill, Mr. Poage was again 
recognized.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     113 CONG. REC. 25968, 25969, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     Id. at p. 26040.
18.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 979]]

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Poage moves that the House concur in the Senate amendments to the 
House amendment to S. 953.

The House adopted the motion offered by Mr. Poage.

Motion To Recommit

Sec.    29.29 A motion to recommit an amendment reported in disagreement 
by the conferees is not in order.

On Oct. 17, 1967,(19) the House was considering the amendments in 
disagreement reported from the conference on H.R. 11476, Department of 
Transportation appropriations, fiscal 1968. The following occurred:

MR. [EDWARD P.] BOLAND [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Boland moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 13 and concur therein.

THE SPEAKER:(20) The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 1 
hour. . . . 
MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry, if the gentleman will yield.
MR. BOLAND: I yield to the gentleman.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it. . . . 
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, is it in order to move to recommit this 
particular amendment to conference?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Illinois that 
at this point it would not be in order to do so.
MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Massachusetts will yield 
further for a parliamentary inquiry, is it in order, in the event the 
motion to recede and concur is voted down?
THE SPEAKER: After the House has taken some specific action with 
relation to the amendment of the other body, the Chair assumes that a 
further conference could be requested.

Inclusion in Second Conference Report of Concurrence in Nongermane 
Senate Amendment

Sec.    29.30 Where a House bill, with a Senate amendment to a House 
amendment to a nongermane Senate amendment reported in disagreement 
from an initial conference, is sent to a further conference, the House 
having separately concurred with an amendment in the nongermane Senate 
amendment following its approval of the first conference report, the 
subject of that nongermane 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19.     113 CONG. REC. 29044, 29048, 29049, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
20.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 980]]

Senate amendment becomes germane to the House bill, and may be included 
in the subsequent conference report.

On Oct. 17, 1972,(1) the House adopted House Report No. 92-1606, the 
conference report on H.R. 16810, to provide a temporary increase in the 
public debt limitation. Senate amendment No. 10 contained an 
unemployment benefits program, was therefore not germane to the House 
bill, and was for this reason reported by the conferees in 
disagreement. The House receded from its disa-greement to this 
amendment and concurred therein with an amendment:


THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 10:  . . . 

MR. [WILBUR D.] MILLS of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Mills of Arkansas moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
to Senate amendment numbered 10 and agree to the same with the 
following amendment: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by 
the Senate amendment, insert the following: . . .  

The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Later that day,(2) the Senate rejected this conference report, 
concurred in the House amendment to the Senate amendment with a further 
nongermane amendment, and requested a further conference with the House 
in a message received by the House on Oct. 18, 1972.(3) 

The message also announced that the Senate disagrees to the report of 
the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 16810) entitled "An 
act to provide for a temporary increase in the public debt limit and to 
place a limitation on expenditures and net lending for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1973."
And that the Senate agrees to the amendment of the House of 
Representatives to the amendment of the Senate numbered 10, to the 
above-entitled bill, with an amendment.
And that the Senate further insist upon its amendments to the above-
entitled bill and request a further conference with the House of 
Representatives on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon and 
appoints Mr. Long, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Talmadge, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. 
Jordan of Idaho be the conferees on the part of the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
1.      118 CONG. REC. 36951-53, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     Id. at pp. 36854-58.
 3.     Id. at p. 37050.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 981]]

Following receipt of the message, the House disagreed to the Senate 
amendments and agreed to the conference in the following exchange:(4) 

MR. MILLS of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 16810) to provide for a 
temporary increase in the public debt limit and to place a limitation 
on expenditures and net lending for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1973, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arkansas?
MR. [JAMES J.] PICKLE [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, I would ask the gentleman from Arkansas if this is the measure 
which also pertains to the extension of the unemployment benefits 
program.
MR. MILLS of Arkansas: If the gentleman will yield, it does. Yes.
MR. PICKLE: With great hesitation and reluctance, Mr. Speaker, I make 
the point of order that that portion of the bill is not germane.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will advise that this is a matter of disagreeing 
to the Senate amendments and that issue is not before the House at this 
time, so a point of order is not available at this time.
MR. PICKLE: Then the same point of order may be reserved when it comes 
back from conference?
THE SPEAKER: Perhaps.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas? The 
Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees . . . . 

The next day(5) Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, submitted and called 
up(6) the further conference report on H.R. 16810, House Report No. 92-
1614, which recommended that the Senate recede from its amendment to 
the House amendment to Senate amendment No. 10. During the debate on 
this conference report, Mr. James J. Pickle, of Texas, raised a 
parliamentary inquiry:

MR. PICKLE: Would the gentleman from Texas be permitted to make the 
point of order that the title in this conference report pertaining to 
the unemployment benefits program is not germane under this conference 
report?
THE SPEAKER:(7) That point of order would come up too late now.
MR. MILLS of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, just for the purpose of 
clarification, may I make a parliamentary inquiry?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. MILLS of Arkansas: Since the House did approve the nongermane 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.     Id. 
 5.     Id. at pp. 37065-73.
 6.     Parliamentarian's Note: Immediate consideration of this 
conference report was in order since this was the day on which the 92d 
Congress adjourned sine die. Id. at p. 37200.
 7.     Carl Albert (Okla.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 982]]

proposal with an amendment, that then becomes, when the conference 
committee submits a second conference report, germane to the bill, and 
can be included in the conference report, can it not?

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is correct.

Matters Beyond Scope of Disagreement

Sec.    29.31 In amending a Senate amendment reported from conference 
still in disagreement the House is not confined to the differences 
between the House bill and the Senate amendment; but the amendment to 
the Senate amendment must be germane.

On May 29, 1936,(8) the House adopted the conference report on H.R. 
11418, agriculture appropriations, fiscal 1937. After the Clerk read 
Senate amendment No. 85, reported in disagreement, Mr. William M. 
Colmer, of Mississippi, offered a motion to recede and concur therein 
with an amendment. Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, rose with a point 
of order:

Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the proposed amendment to 
the Senate amendment embraces provisions that are not in conference; 
that the gentleman can propose only such things as are embraced within 
the jurisdiction of the conference; and the amendment exceeds that 
matter by releasing restrictions that have already been agreed to by 
the conferees.
THE SPEAKER:(9) As the Chair reads the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi, it contains exactly the same language as 
the first portion of the Senate amendment except the amount is $40,000 
instead of $80,000.
MR. BLANTON: But, Mr. Speaker, it releases restrictions that have been 
agreed upon.
THE SPEAKER: In the opinion of the Chair the amendment is germane.
MR. BLANTON: Mr. Speaker, only those matters that were embraced within 
the jurisdiction of the conferees may be offered as amendments.
THE SPEAKER: This Senate amendment was reported back to the House still 
in disagreement, as a matter of fact, and is now before the House for 
such action as the House may see fit to take. The gentleman from 
Mississippi has offered a motion to recede and concur in the Senate 
amendment with an amendment. The Chair has held that the amendment is 
germane and therefore overrules the point of order.

The Senate amendment reported in disagreement from conference 
appropriated $80,000 with a proviso relating to authorizing 
appropriation of user fees collected 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     80 CONG. REC. 8341-44, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 983]]

under a related law. Mr. Colmer's amendment varied from the Senate 
amendment only in changing the amount appropriated to $40,000 and 
eliminating the proviso.

Sec.    29.32 While conferees are restricted by the differences in the 
bill and amendment before them, the House, when acting on a Senate 
amendment in disagreement, is not subject to the same limitation and 
may recede and concur in the Senate amendment with a further germane 
amendment which goes beyond the provisions of either the House or 
Senate versions.

On Dec. 11, 1967,(10) Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New York, the Chairman of 
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 7977, the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary 
Act of 1967. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, rose with a point of order:

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the conference report on 
the grounds that the House managers exceeded their authority and did 
not confine themselves to the differences committed to them, in 
violation of the rules and precedents of the House of Representatives.
The House bill, in section 107(a) provided a minimum charge of 3.8 
cents for bulk third-class mail effective January 7, 1968. Section 107
(a) of the Senate amendment provided a two-step minimum charge-the 
first of 3.6 cents effective January 7, 1968, and a second 4-cent rate 
effective January 1, 1969.
The differences committed to the conferees with respect to this postage 
rate and the effective dates for this rate were: A rate range between 
3.6 cents and 4 cents; a January 7, 1968, effective date for a one-rate 
charge with no further rate provided; and January 7, 1968, and January 
1, 1969, effective dates for any two-rate charges.
The conference report contains a two-rate charge-the first, 3.6 cents, 
effective January 7, 1968; the second, 4 cents, effective July 1, 1969.
The July 1, 1969, effective date for a second rate goes beyond the 
disagreements confided to the conferees. By agreeing to any effective 
date for a second rate beyond January 1, 1969, the House managers have 
clearly exceeded their authority.
Mr. Speaker, the precedents of the House, Cannon's Precedents, volume 
VIII, section 3264, have established that where two Houses fix 
different periods of time the conferees have latitude only between the 
two, but may not go beyond the longer nor within the shorter.

Mr. Dulski conceded the point of order, whereupon Speaker John 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     113 CONG. REC. 35811-33, 35841, 35842, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 984]]

W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, sustained the point of order. The Clerk 
then began to read the Senate amendment (in the nature of a substitute) 
in disagreement.

MR. DULSKI (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that further reading of the Senate amendment be dispensed with and that 
it be printed in full in the Record at this point.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
There was no objection.
MR. DULSKI: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion. 
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Dulski moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 7977) and concur therein with 
an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment 
insert the following: . . . 

Mr. Dulski's substitute for the Senate amendment consisted of the 
conference report which had just been ruled out on Mr. Gross' point of 
order.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(11) The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Dulski] that the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and concur therein with an 
amendment. . . . 
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 327, nays 63, not voting 
43. . . . 
So the motion was agreed to.

Consideration of Senate Legislative Amendments to General Appropriation 
Bills

Sec.    29.33 When an amendment that might have been subject to a point 
of order in the House as in violation of Rule XXI clause 2,(12) if 
offered in the House, was adopted by the Senate, and the conferees 
reported such an amendment in disagreement, the House may consider the 
amendment.

On Oct. 6, 1949,(13) the House approved the conference report on H.R. 
3838, Department of Interior appropriations, fiscal 1950. After the 
Clerk read Senate amendment No. 132, reported from conference still in 
disagreement, Mr. Wesley A. D'Ewart, of Montana, interposed a point of 
order on the ground that the amendment contained legislation and was 
therefore in violation of Rule XXI clause 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     Omar T. Burleson (Tex.).
12.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1997).
13.     95 CONG. REC. 14028, 14038, 14039, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
----------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 985]]

2. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, gave the following ruling:

The Chair has listened to the gentleman from Montana very carefully. 
The Chair will state that if an amendment of this sort had been 
proposed in the House of Representatives when this bill was under 
consideration in all probability it would have been subject to a point 
of order. The Chair does not feel that in this case it is a violation 
of clause 2 of rule 21, for the simple reason that it has been held as 
early as 1921 by Mr. Speaker Gillette that when an amendment that might 
have been subject to a point of order in the House if offered here was 
adopted by the Senate, and the conferees reported such an amendment in 
disagreement the House may consider the amendment.
Therefore, the Chair must overrule the point of order of the gentleman 
from Montana.

Consideration of Senate Amendments in Disagreement

Sec.    29.34 Rule XX clause 1(14) requires consideration of certain 
Senate amendments in the Committee of the Whole; but this requirement 
applies only before the state of disagreement is reached and it is too 
late to raise a point of order after the matter has been to conference 
and an amendment in dis-agreement is before the House.

During consideration of an amendment in disagreement to the conference 
report on the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and related 
agencies appropriation bill for fiscal year 1976,(15) an amendment in 
disagreement restricting appropriations in the bill to bus students to 
a school other than that nearest his or her home was reported. Mr. 
Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, raised a point of order of two 
parts: first, that the Senate amendment was legislative; second, that 
it required consideration in the Committee of the Whole.

The response of Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, put both arguments in 
perspective.

THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 72: Page 47, line 4, insert:
"SEC. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to 
require, directly or indirectly, the transportation of any student to a 
school other than the school which is nearest the student's home, and 
which offers the courses of study pursued by such student, in order to 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1997).
15.     121 CONG. REC. 38714, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 4, 1975.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 986]]

comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
POINT OF ORDER
MR. CONTE: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order on the amendment. This 
is legislation on an appropriation bill, and I would like to be heard 
on the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Massachusetts may be heard on his point 
of order.
MR. CONTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a point of order against 
Senate amendment No. 72 to the Labor-HEW Appropriations Act of 1976.
At this point, I should like to direct the Chair to rule 21, section 2 
of the House regarding the prohibition of legislation in an 
appropriations bill. The pertinent language states:

Nor shall any provisions in any such bill or amendment thereto changing 
existing law be in order.

Clearly, the purpose of this rule prohibiting legislation in an 
appropriations bill is to prohibit the overt alteration of fundamental 
law. This is the case where an amendment is concealed by the subterfuge 
of a limitation on spending.
While the Senate amendment No. 72 might appear to only act as a 
limitation on spending, it will actually change basic law as I will now 
set out.
Section 215(a), title II of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 
1974 provides the following language, which limits the specific 
distance a student may be transported in a schoolbusing program:

No court, department or agency of the United States shall, pursuant to 
section 214, order the implementation of a plan that would require the 
transportation of any student to a school other than the school closest 
to his place of residence which provides the appropriate grade level 
and type of education for such student. (Emphasis added.)

Notice that the distance a student can be transported is limited to the 
"school closest or next closest to his place of residence." I should 
now address myself to the language of the Senate amendment here in 
question:

None of the funds contained in this act shall be used to require, 
directly or indirectly, the transportation of any student to a school 
other than the school which is nearest the student's home, and which 
offers the courses of study pursued by such student, in order to comply 
with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Emphasis added.)

As is readily apparent, where the Equal Educational Opportunities Act 
of 1974 (Public Law 93-380) limits busing to either the student's 
immediate or adjacent school district, the Senate amendment further 
limits the transportation to the student's immediate district. I am 
sure the Chair can see this apparent attempt to change the effect of 
section 215(a) of Public Law 93-380.
I should like to note that while this is a Senate amendment and may be 
consistent with the rules of that House-it is not controlling. It is 
clear that since this is an appropriations bill and naturally 
originates in the House, it is the House rules which are controlling 
and I cite rule 20 on this point:

Any amendment of the Senate to any House bill shall be subject to the


[[Page 987]]

point of order that it shall first be considered in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union, if, originating in the 
House, it would be subject to that point.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I contend that this amendment carries 
the standard of a simple limitation in an appropriations bill, but in 
reality is a prima facie case of legislation in an appropriations bill, 
which on its face changes existing law.
Therefore, I urge that this point of order be sustained.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule.

The Chair overrules the point of order raised by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) because when that stage is reached that an 
amendment is in disagreement between the two Houses, the rule-clause 1 
of rule XX-cited by the gentleman from Massachusetts no longer applies 
and the amendment may be disposed of in the House. The Senate amendment 
is reported back in disagreement and not as part of the conference 
report, therefore clause 2 of rule XX is not applicable and the Senate 
amendment may be considered by the House.

Sec.    29.35 Where a Senate amendment proposing legislation on a general 
appropriation bill is, pursuant to the edict of Rule XX clause 2,(16) 
reported back from conference in disagreement, a motion to recede and 
concur in the amendment with a further amendment is in order (albeit 
the further amendment is also legislative), and the only test is 
whether the further amendment is germane to the Senate amendment 
reported in disagreement.(17) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.     House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
17.     Parliamentarian's Note: House con-sideration of Senate 
legislative amendments to general appropriation bills as illustrated by 
this precedent differs from Committee of the Whole consideration of 
House legislative provisions which had been permitted to remain in a 
general appropriation bill pursuant to a resolution waiving points of 
order against such provisions. In an example of the latter case, the 
Chairman has ruled that these legislative provisions could be perfected 
by germane amendments so long as they did not add further legislation. 
See 119 CONG. REC. 21388, 21389, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 26, 1973. 
These different rulings demonstrate the changing priority of two policy 
considerations at different stages of the legislative process. During 
the early stages great care is taken to separate the authorizing and 
appropriating functions of the House. Later, after both Houses have 
considered a matter and after the conferees have reported a 
disagreement, the requirement of expeditious disposal of the 
legislation supersedes 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 988]]

On Dec. 15, 1970,(18) the House was considering the amendments reported 
in disagreement from the conference on H.R. 17755, Department of 
Transportation appropriations, fiscal 1971. The following occurred:

THE SPEAKER:(19) The Clerk will report the next amendment in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment numbered 14: On page 7 line 11, insert:
"That $28,000,000 of the foregoing amount shall be available only upon 
enactment into law of H.R. 19444, 91st Congress, or similar 
legislation: Provided further,".

MR. [EDWARD P.] BOLAND [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
motion.
MR. [ROBERT C.] ECKHARDT [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
order on amendment No. 14.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the receding 
from the position of the House and concurring with the Senate has the 
effect of attaching positive legislation to an appropriation bill in 
violation of rule 21, paragraph 2, and other provisions.
Mr. Speaker, may I be heard briefly on my point of order?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
MR. ECKHARDT: . . . The provision contained in this motion to concur 
would provide that the managers on the part of the House will offer a 
motion to recede and concur in the amendment of the Senate with an 
amendment providing that $28 million of the appropriation for 
operations shall be derived from the airport and airways trust fund for 
combating hijacking.
So in effect this constitutes an amendment on H.R. 17755, an 
appropriation bill which alters existing law, Public Law 91-258. . . . 
MR. BOLAND: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point of order?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is recognized.
MR. BOLAND: Mr. Speaker, the motion is, I believe, germane to the 
Senate amendment. . . . 
There is no question about the amendment being legislation, but I 
submit that the House can legislate further, since this is in the bill, 
and the action of the Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Department 
of Transportation refers to the Senate amendment.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair recognizes that the Senate amendment is legislation on an 
appropriation bill not authorized by law.
However, the conferees did not agree to it in conference, but reported 
it back in disagreement. The Senate amendment is not subject to a point 
of order in the House. The Chair calls attention to volume VII of the 
Cannon's Prece-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
this earlier policy, and the House is accorded greater latitude in 
amending the Senate amendment.
18.     116 CONG. REC. 41504, 41505, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
19.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 989]]

dents, section 1572, the syllabus of which reads as follows:

Senate amendments interdicted by clause 2, rule XXI, are not subject to 
a point of order under the rule providing for a separate vote on such 
amendments when considered in the House, as the rule applies to 
conferees and their reports only.

The Chair overrules the point of order.

Perfecting Senate Amendments in Disagreement in the House

Sec.    29.36 Where a Senate amendment containing legislation is reported 
in disagreement from a conference on a general appropriation bill, it 
may be perfected by a further House amendment, albeit legislative in 
effect, so long as the House amendment is germane to the Senate 
amendment. 

Rule XX clause 2,(20) prohibits the managers on the part of the House 
from agreeing to a Senate amendment which would constitute legislation 
on a general appropriation bill under Rule XXI clause 2(b).(1) Such 
amendments of the Senate are routinely reported in disagreement to 
avoid making the conference report subject to a point of order. 
During the proceedings of Aug. 1, 1979,(2) the point of order against 
the manager's motion to recede and concur with an amendment, the 
response of Speaker Pro Tempore James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, and the 
subsequent action in dividing the question on the manager's motion were 
as follows:

MR. [TOM] BEVILL [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bevill moves to recede in the amendment of the Senate No. 37 and 
concur therein with an amendment as follows in lieu of the matter 
proposed to be inserted by the Senate insert:
SEC. 502. There is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not 
otherwise appropriated, for an additional amount for "Construction of 
an Extension to the New Senate Office Building" $52,583,400 toward 
finishing such building and to remain available until expended: 
Provided, That the amount of $137,730,400 shall constitute a ceiling on 
the total cost for construction of the Extension to the New Senate 
Office Building.
It is further provided, That such building and office space therein 
upon completion shall meet all needs for personnel presently supplied 
by the Carroll Arms, the Senate Courts, the Plaza Hotel, the Capitol 
Hill 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 (1997).
 1.     See House Rules and Manual Sec. 834b (1997).
 2.     125 CONG. REC. 22007, 22008, 22010, 22011, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 990]]

Apartments and such buildings shall be vacated.
POINT OF ORDER
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state the point of order.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, this amendment offered at this time would not 
have been in order had it been offered to the bill as originally before 
the House. The bill is an appropriation bill and this constitutes 
legislation on an appropriation bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Alabama desire to be 
heard on the point of order?
MR. BEVILL: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out this is merely a change of 
the report language that is in the appropriation bill and it is germane 
and it is a part of the bill.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair would 
like to state that the only requirement of the amendment in the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Alabama is that it be germane to the 
Senate amendment. The language is quite clearly germane to the Senate 
amendment No. 37 and, therefore, the motion is in order and the point 
of order is overruled.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
 MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, under the rules would not a demand by any 
Member to separate the questions to recede and concur with an amendment 
be permitted and then only a vote would occur on the first part of 
that, which would be the motion to recede?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct, such a motion would 
be in order. The House could consider the first part if the two items 
were separated.
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I demand that the question be divided.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is protected.
The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 30 minutes in support of 
his motion, or such portion of that time as he may consume. . . . 
MR. BEVILL: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is, will the House recede from 
its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 37?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote, and I request a fair 
count.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will state that the gentleman is 
fully within his rights to demand a recorded vote and to expect a fair 
count.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 214, noes 
184, not voting 36, as follows: . . . 
So the House receded from its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 37.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


[[Page 991]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is, Will the House concur in 
Senate amendment No. 37 with an amendment?
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.   

Amendment to Senate Amendment in Disagreement Must Be Germane

Sec.    29.37 While a point of order against a motion to recede and 
concur with an amendment in a Senate amendment to a general 
appropriation bill reported from conference in disagreement will not 
lie merely because the proposed House amendment adds legislation, there 
is a requirement that it be germane to the Senate amendment. 

An amendment reported in disagreement from the conference on defense 
appropriations, fiscal 1980, which restricted the use of funds for 
missile development was pending when a motion was offered to recede and 
concur with a further amendment authorizing certain new research and 
development funds. The point of order against the motion offered by the 
bill's manager and subsequent arguments thereon, as excerpted from the 
proceedings of Dec. 12, 1979,(3) are carried here.

THE SPEAKER:(4) The Clerk will report the next amendment in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 56: Page 29, line 7, insert: None of the funds 
appropriated under this paragraph to continue development of the MX 
Missile may be used in a fashion which would commit the United States 
to only one basing mode for the MX missile system.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. ADDABBO
MR. [JOSEPH P.] ADDABBO [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Addabbo moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 56 and concur therein with an 
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter inserted by said 
amendment, insert:
None of the funds appropriated under this paragraph to continue 
development of the MX missile may be used in a fashion which would 
commit the United States to only one basing mode for the MX missile 
system.
In addition to any other funds authorized to be appropriated under this 
heading, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated during fiscal 
year 1980 an additional amount of $5,000,000 only for research and 
development on the Perimeter Acquisition Radar Attack Characterization 
System (PARCS).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     125 CONG. REC. 35520, 35521, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4.     Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 992]]


POINT OF ORDER
MR. [RICHARD H.] ICHORD [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of 
order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
MR. ICHORD: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Addabbo) for the reason 
that this calls for an authorization. The amendment calls for an 
authorization in an appropriation bill.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, the amendment is not germane, and I would 
point out for the edification of the Chair that the authorization for 
the PARCS radar was rejected by both the Committee on Armed Services of 
the House and the permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
House, which are the authorizing committees for this particular weapons 
system.
MR. ADDABBO: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
MR. ADDABBO: . . . We realize that this is authorization on an 
appropriation bill, but it is insisted on by the Senate chairman of the 
conference committee, Senator Stennis of Mississippi, who is also the 
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. . . . 
So, Mr. Speaker, I do concede the point of order, but I would hope the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ichord) would not insist on his point of 
order.
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ichord) insist on 
his point of order?
MR. ICHORD: Mr. Speaker, I must insist on the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman insists on his point of order.
MR. [JACK] EDWARDS of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point 
of order?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
MR. EDWARDS of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I hate to find myself at odds with 
my subcommittee chairman, but I do not believe that I can concede the 
point of order.
This is a point of order raised against an amendment brought back in 
disagreement. It is not a point of order raised to a bill, and my 
understanding of the rules is that a point of order would not lie to an 
amendment brought back in disagreement.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will rule that the germaneness point of order is 
well taken. It is very obvious that the motion is not germane as it 
relates to the Senate amendment 56, and the Chair sustains the point of 
order.

Adding Legislative Provisions to Appropriation Bill

Sec.    29.38 The House adopted a resolution waiving points of order 
against a conference report on an appropriation bill, and making in 
order motions to recede from disagreement to any Senate amendment 
(reported from conference still in disagreement) and concur therein 
with an amendment inserting in this bill any or all pro-


[[Page 993]]

visions of a legislative bill (and amendments thereto) as agreed to by 
the House conferees on the appropriation bill.
On Aug. 2, 1955,(5) Mr. James W. Trimble, of Arkansas, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules reported and called up House Resolution 337, 
providing for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 7117, 
appropriations for the legislative branch for fiscal 1956.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report on the bill H.R. 7117, making 
appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1956, and for other purposes, and all points of order against 
the conference report are hereby waived; that during the consideration 
of the amendments of the Senate to the bill H.R. 7117 reported from the 
conference committee in disagreement it shall be in order, 
notwithstanding any rule of the House to the contrary, to move that the 
House recede from its disagreement to any such amendment and concur 
therein with an amendment inserting in the proper place in the bill any 
or all of the parts of the provisions of the bill H.R. 7440 and any 
amendments thereto as agreed upon by the House conferees on the bill 
H.R.  7117. . . . 

Mr. Trimble explained the purpose of the resolution:

This rule waives points of order on the conference report on the 
legislative appropriation bill. Briefly, it simply waives points of 
order for the substitution of certain features of H.R. 7440.

Mr. Karl M. LeCompte, of Iowa, added:

This resolution will make in order the consideration of legislation on 
a conference report.

The House debated the extent to which this resolution would incorporate 
provisions of H.R. 7440 in the conference report on H.R. 7117, and then 
adopted the resolution.
Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, then submitted and called up the 
conference report on H.R. 7117. The House adopted the report without 
debate, and the Speaker instructed the Clerk to read the only amendment 
reported in disagreement. After the Clerk read Senate amendment No. 52, 
the following occurred:

MR. ROONEY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recede and concur in the 
Senate amendment with an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Rooney moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
amendment of the Senate numbered 52, and concur therein with an 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     101 CONG. REC. 13051-56, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 994]]



amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment 
insert: . . . 

After the Clerk read his motion, Mr. Rooney explained,

Mr. Speaker, this is the amendment which was discussed just prior to 
the adoption of the rule. This is where the provisions of H.R. 7440 
reported by the House Administration Committee and for which a rule was 
granted about a week ago, as amended by the House conferees, are 
inserted in this appropriation bill. . . . 

After a brief discussion of this motion, the consideration of the 
Senate amendment was concluded in the following manner:

THE SPEAKER:(6) The question is on the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Parliamentarian's Note: During July 1955, the Committee on House 
Administration held hearings on a proposal to authorize increases in 
the salaries of certain House employees. Tentative arrangements were 
made with the legislative subcommittee of the Committee on 
Appropriations to include these recommendations in the legislative 
appropriation bill (H.R. 7117) when such recommendations were referred 
to it by the Committee on House Administration. Leaders of the 
Committee on Appropriations rejected this arrangement. The Committee on 
House Administration then reported its recommendations to the House as 
embodied in H.R. 7440. The legislative appropriation bill passed the 
House, was amended in the Senate to provide for many salary increases 
for its employees, and was sent to conference. The House leadership 
requested that the provisions of H.R. 7440, authorizing raises for 
certain House employees, be inserted in H.R. 7117 in conference (since 
this was the last appropriation bill for the year). The Senate 
conferees refused to do this, so it was decided by the House leadership 
to resort to the resolution referred to above. The procedure outlined 
in the resolution was followed, the Senate agreed to the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment, and the provisions of H.R. 7440, 
authorizing the desired appropriations, became a part of the bill H.R. 
7117, and were enacted into law.

Changing Text Not in Disagreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.     Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 995]]

Sec.    29.39 When considering a Senate amendment reported from a 
conference in disagreement, the House may not recede and concur therein 
with an amendment which changes a provision of the bill which is not in 
disagreement.

On Mar. 9, 1939,(7) Mr. Clifton A. Woodrum, of Virginia, called up the 
conference report on H.R. 2868, the deficiency appropriations bill, 
fiscal 1939. After the Clerk read the first amendment in disagreement, 
Mr. Woodrum offered a motion to recede and concur therein with an 
amendment. Speaker Pro Tempore Lindsey C. Warren, of North Carolina, 
recognized Mr. John Taber, of New York, who raised a point of order:

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the amendment on the 
ground that it attempts to amend an item that has not been in 
disagreement.
MR. WOODRUM of Virginia: Will the  gentleman reserve his point of order 
to permit me to make a brief explanation?
MR. TABER: Yes; I will reserve it.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New York reserves a point 
of order against the amendment.
MR. WOODRUM of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly the portion of the 
amendment to which the gentleman objects is subject to a point of 
order; but the situation that confronts the House and the Wage and Hour 
Division of the Department of Labor is that we carry in this deficiency 
bill a deficiency appropriation for the Wage and Hour Division, but 
they are actually out of money now and have been for several days. 
Under the law the deficiency appropriation, when finally signed by the 
President, will be available only from the time of its becoming law; so 
there is a period of some 8, 10, or 12 days during which the 
obligations and expenses of this Bureau have been running which are not 
provided for unless language is put in here or a joint resolution is 
passed. The language, of course, is subject to a point of order if the 
gentleman desires to press it, but if he does that we shall have to go 
through the formality of passing a joint resolution.
I hope with this explanation the gentleman will be willing to withdraw 
his point of order. The amendment does not increase the appropriation 
or do anything except to make the money available to pay the expenses 
which have been incurred during this interim I mentioned.
MR. TABER: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel I can accept the gentleman's 
proposition. I feel that I should insist on my point of order. I do not 
know whether I would insist on it if unanimous consent were asked to 
amend page 5 by itself as the gentleman has suggested, but I shall have 
to insist on the point of order if it is coupled with the census bill.
MR. WOODRUM of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the point of order 
and will reoffer the amendment with the latter part of it stricken.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.     84 CONG. REC. 2525, 2526, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 996]]

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The point of order made by the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Taber] is sustained.

Interruption of Series of Motions on Amendments in Disagreement by 
Other Business

Sec.    29.40 While the House was considering a series of amendments in 
disagreement on one measure, it interrupted the consideration to call 
up amendments in disagreement on another appropriation bill.

Consideration of amendments on two different appropriation bills are 
matters of equal privilege. In this situation,(8) the leadership was 
anxious to complete consideration of H.R. 4781, the Defense 
appropriation bill, where only two amendments remained in disagreement, 
before adjourning for the evening. Unanimous consent to interrupt 
consideration of the various amendments in disagreement and the motions 
pertaining thereto to H.R. 4637, the foreign operations appropriations 
bill, was not required, since in the House, between motions, other 
business of the same or higher precedence can be raised.

MR. [THOMAS S.] FOLEY [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, the reason I sought 
recognition is that there is the possibility of asking unanimous 
consent that the House move out of the present order of debate to 
consider motions to be offered by the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Chappell] with respect to the Department of Defense 
appropriation bill prior to final action with respect to this 
amendment.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(9) Is the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Foley] making a request?
MR. FOLEY: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Chappell].
MR. [WILLIAM V.] CHAPPELL [Jr., of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
request. I ask unanimous consent that we call up from the Speaker's 
table the remaining amendments in disagreement on the bill, H.R. 4781, 
making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 
1989 and for other purposes.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
right to object, I am just trying to figure out what we are doing here.
Do I understand that we are rising on the bill that we are presently 
considering, going to another bill, and then 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.     See 134 CONG. REC. 27321, 27322, 100th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 30, 
1988.
 9.     Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 997]]

coming back to the bill that we were considering?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The House is not in the Committee of the 
Whole. We would not have to rise. We are in the House.
MR. WALKER: . . . Can we get some explanation as to why? . . . 
MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, we are going to 
take up the Defense conference report. The Senate is taking it up. They 
have two amendments. We feel we can clean this up in about 5 minutes 
and then get right back onto this bill here. . . . 
MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
MR. CHAPPELL: Mr. Speaker, there are two amendments yet to be disposed 
of in this conference. One is amendment No. 89, and the other one is 
amendment No. 252.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Chappell] 
call up the amendments?
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4781, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 
ACT, 1989
MR. CHAPPELL: Mr. Speaker, I call up from the Speaker's table the 
remaining amendments in disagreement on the bill (H.R. 4781) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1989, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENTS IN DISAGREEMENT
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the first amendment in 
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 89:
Resolved, That the Senate agree to the amendment of the House of 
Representatives to the amendment of the Senate numbered 89 with an 
amendment as follows: . . . 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. CHAPPELL
MR. CHAPPELL: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Chappell moves that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the 
House amendment to the Senate Amendment No. 89.

The motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will report the remaining amendment 
in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 252:
Resolved, That the Senate agree to the amendment of the House of 
Representatives to the amendment of the Senate numbered 252 with an 
amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by 
the House amendment to the Senate amendment insert: . . . 
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. CHAPPELL
MR. CHAPPELL: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Chappell moves that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the 
House amendment to the Senate amendment No. 252.

The motion was agreed to.


[[Page 998]]

A motion to reconsider the votes by which action was taken on the two 
motions was laid on the table.

En Bloc Consideration

Sec.    29.41 The House may grant unanimous consent for the en bloc 
consideration of all but one amendment reported in disagreement from a 
conference, and consider that amendment separately.

On Mar. 1, 1939,(10) the House was considering the conference report on 
the independent offices appropriation bill, fiscal 1940. The Speaker, 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, recognized Mr. John Taber, of New 
York, to pose a parliamentary inquiry:

If the conference report should be voted down, would it be in order to 
ask unanimous consent to dispose of the other amendments than the 
T.V.A. all in one block in accordance with the conference report so 
that they might be disposed of and we might get at the T.V.A. question 
by itself?
THE SPEAKER: In answer to the parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman 
from New York, the Chair will state that if unanimous consent should be 
given by the House to vote on the amendments en bloc, aside from the 
one in dispute, that such action could properly be taken and would 
dispose of all items except the ones in dispute.

Considering Amendments in Disagreement En Bloc

Sec.    29.42 In the consideration of a myriad of amendments reported in 
disagreement from a conference on a general appropriation bill, the 
manager often asks that those amendments to which the House proposes to 
recede and concur be considered (by unanimous consent) as read, and 
disposed of en bloc. 

The procedure used in disposing of the amendments in disagreement to 
the State, Justice, Commerce, and Judiciary appropriation bill, fiscal 
1979, is often employed to expedite consideration  of non-controversial 
amendments.  Note that those amendments in disagreement that were to be 
disposed of by a motion to recede and concur with an amendment were 
also considered as read. When reached in the consideration, the Clerk 
reported the amendments by number, and then the manager offered the 
appropriate motion to dispose of the pending amendment. The proceedings 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10.     84 CONG. REC. 2085, 2086, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 999]]


in the House of Sept. 28, 1978,(11) are carried below:

So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . . . 
AMENDMENTS IN DISAGREEMENT
MR. [NEAL] SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, there are 65 amendments in 
technical disagreement, and may I inform the Members, if they will bear 
with me, we will be able to take care in about 7 or 8 minutes of all 
except amendments 9 and 123, which we will postpone until tomorrow. . . 
. 
Mr. Speaker, in order to expedite the disposition of these amendments, 
I would like to suggest that all such amendments on which we are asking 
that the House recede and concur be considered en bloc. Accordingly, 
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Senate amendments numbered 1, 
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 26, 27, 
28, 29, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 56, 73, 78, 88, 91, 92, 96, 101, 
102, 103, 104, 105, 110, and 114 be considered as read, printed in the 
Record, and that they be considered en bloc.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection. . . .
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. SMITH OF IOWA
MR. SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Motion offered by Mr. Smith of Iowa:
Mr. Smith of Iowa moves that the House recede from its disagreement to 
the amendments of the Senate numbered 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 
13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 
41, 56, 73, 78, 88, 91, 92, 96, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 110 and 114 
and concur therein.

The motion was agreed to.
MR. SMITH of Iowa: Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
consideration of the amendments 9 and 123 be postponed until tomorrow, 
and be considered the unfinished business for tomorrow.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Maryland]: Reserving the right to object, 
Mr. Speaker, I do so to make in inquiry of the Chair. If this 
postponement is granted, will these be the first order of unfinished 
business in the morning?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
Maryland that as unfinished business, the answer to the question is 
yes. . . . 
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENTS IN DISAGREEMENT
MR. SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remaining amendments in disagreement, 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.     124 CONG. REC. 32449, 32452, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1000]]


that is, Senate amendments numbered 2, 22, 24, 25, 30, 31, 34, 51, 66, 
67, 90, 100, 106, 109, 111, 113, 115, 116, 117, and 124 be considered 
as read, printed in the Record, and that they be identified by the 
Chair by number so that I may offer motions for their disposition.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.

Sec.    29.43 The House may adhere to its disagreement to certain Senate 
amendments en bloc.

On June 30, 1937,(12) after the House considered the conference report 
and several amendments in disagreement on H.R. 6692, military 
appropriations, fiscal 1938, the following occurred:

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the reading of the remaining amendments in disagreement be 
dispensed with and that they be considered en bloc.
THE SPEAKER:(13) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Missouri?
There was no objection.
MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion, which I send to 
the Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Cannon of Missouri moves that the House adhere to its disagreement 
to the amendments of the Senate to the bill H.R. 6692, the military 
appropriation bill, 1938, nos. 1, 47 to 77, inclusive, and 80, and the 
amendment of the Senate to the title of said bill.

MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a vote on the motion.
The motion was agreed to.

Varying Order of Consideration of Amendments

Sec.    29.44 The disposition of Senate amendments in disagreement 
normally proceeds in the order in which they appear in the House text; 
but the House may vary the order of consideration by a unanimous-
consent agreement.

Where controversy is expected on a particular motion to dispose of a 
Senate amendment in disagreement, its disposition can be postponed 
until a more convenient time on the following day by a proper 
unanimous-consent request.(14) 

MR. [NEAL] SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
amendments numbered 147 and 148 be passed over this evening and that 
they be considered tomorrow, Wednesday, October 20, 1993, immediately 
prior to 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.     81 CONG. REC. 6611, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
13.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
14.     See 139 CONG. REC. 25388, 25390, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 
1993 (H.R. 2519).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1001]]

the consideration of amendment No. 171.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(15) Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Clerk will designate the next amendment in 
disagreement. . . . 
The motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair rules that further consideration of 
this bill will continue tomorrow.

Corrections in Dollar Amounts

Sec.    29.45 The House by unanimous consent authorized the enrolling 
clerk to correct dollar amounts contained in several amendments 
reported from conference in disagreement pursuant to a series of 
motions specifying these corrections.

On June 22, 1939, after the House adopted the conference report on H.R. 
5269, Department of Agriculture appropriations, fis-cal 1940, and 
considered several amendments reported from conference still in 
disagreement, the following occurred:(16) 

THE SPEAKER:(17) The Clerk will report the next amendment in 
disagreement.
MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Clerk be authorized on Senate amendments Nos. 21, 26, 27, 33, 
105, 115, 116, 142, and 148 to correct the totals contained in said 
foregoing amendments and to formulate the proper motions and messages 
in respect thereto in accordance with the action of the House on the 
remaining Senate amendments reported in disagreement, and such motions 
so formulated shall be considered as agreed to by the House.
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
There was no objection.

Mr. Cannon then offered and the House adopted motions correcting the 
dollar amounts contained in the amendments mentioned above.

Timing of Message to Senate

Sec.    29.46 House action on amendments reported back in disagreement is 
not messaged to the Senate until final action has been taken on 
adoption of the conference report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.     Kweisi Mfume (Md.).
16.     See 84 CONG. REC. 7740, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
17.     William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1002]]

On Sept. 18, 1962,(18) the House deferred the vote on the conference 
report on H.R. 12648, Department of Agriculture appropriations, fiscal 
1963, until the following day,(19) and then immediately disposed of the 
amendments reported from conference still in disagreement. On Sept. 20, 
the Senate received a message from the House which included the 
following:(20) 

The message further announced that the House had agreed to the report 
of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 12648) making 
appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, and for other purposes; that 
the House receded from its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate 
Nos. 4, 25, and 40 to the bill, and concurred therein, that the House 
receded from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 38 to 
the bill, and concurred therein with an amendment, in which it 
requested the concurrence of the Senate, and that the House insisted 
upon its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate Nos. 1, 2, 6, 19, 
44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, and 54 to the bill.

House Recedes From Its Amendment

Sec.    29.47 When a House amendment to a Senate bill is reported back 
from conference in disagreement and the House insists on its amendment, 
the bill returns to the Senate with such message for further action; 
but should the House recede from its amendment the bill retains its 
original form.

On Mar. 16, 1942,(1) the House was considering the amendments reported 
in disagreement from the conference on S. 2208, the second war powers 
bill, 1942. The following occurred:

MR. [HATTON W.] SUMNERS of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House 
insist upon its amendment numbered 32, and yield myself 10 minutes. . . 
. 
MR. [CHARLES F.] MCLAUGHLIN [of Nebraska]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(2) The gentleman will state it.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: If the House votes not to insist upon its amendment, 
then there is nothing before the conferees, because the House will then 
have yielded to the position taken by the 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18.     108 CONG. REC. 19708, 19720, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
19.     108 CONG. REC. 19945, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 19, 1962.
20.     Id. at p. 19992.
 1.     88 CONG. REC. 2508, 2512, 2513, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2.     Richard M. Duncan (Mo.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1003]]

Senate, as I understand the situation. Am I correct?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the House recedes from its amendment, then 
there would be no reason to go to conference.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: That is what I intended to ask. So that the situation 
is, Mr. Speaker, if I understand it correctly, we have two 
alternatives-one to insist and one to recede.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is correct.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: If we recede, we vote to pass without further action by 
the conferees the bill in the form in which it was prior to the time 
the Judiciary Committee, by committee amendment, moved that this title 
be stricken out, and prior to the time the House adopted that 
amendment. If we vote to insist, then we send it back to conference for 
action by the conferees. Is that not the situation?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the House adopted the pending motion, then 
it goes back to the Senate for further consideration. It goes to the 
Senate first before it goes to conference.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: If the Senate does not agree with our action in 
accepting the Sumners motion insisting on the House amendment, then the 
matter will have to go to conference?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is correct.

Senate Amendment Reported in Disagreement is One Entity and Not 
Divisible

Sec.    29.48 A Senate amendment reported in disagreement from a 
conference committee is considered in its entirety, and it is not in 
order to consider individually separate items contained therein.

On May 20, 1936,(3) the House was considering a Senate amendment 
reported in disagreement from the conference on the Department of 
Interior appropriation bill, fiscal 1937. The amendment authorized the 
construction of seven separate reclamation projects. Mr. Edward T. 
Taylor, of Colorado, offered a motion to recede and concur in this 
amendment with an amendment which related to one of the seven projects 
contained in the Senate amendment. Mr. Fred Cummings, of Colorado, then 
raised a parliamentary inquiry:

Will a motion be in order to consider these items separately?
THE SPEAKER:(4) No; there is only one Senate amendment.

Requesting a Further Conference

Sec.    29.49 When both Houses have adopted a conference report on a bill 
and amendments 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.     80 CONG. REC. 7623, 7624, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4.     Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1004]]

thereto, but certain amendments are still in disagreement between them, 
a further conference may be asked on these remaining amendments.
On Sept. 24, 1962,(5) Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, and the following occurred:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 
the bill (H.R. 12711) making appropriations for sundry independent 
executive bureaus  . . .  and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 
30, 1963, and for other purposes, further insist on disagreement to the 
Senate amendments and agree to the further conference asked by the 
Senate.
May I explain that the other body adopted all of the conference report 
on the independent offices appropriation bill except three items, and 
we are asking unanimous consent to go back to conference on those three 
items.
The Clerk read the title of the bill. . . . 
THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees: 
Messrs. Thomas, Yates, Cannon, Ostertag, and Taber.

Sec.    29.50 A motion to request further conference on an amendment 
reported in disagreement by conferees is not in order as long as 
preferential motions (to recede, recede and concur, insist or adhere) 
are pending.

On Oct. 17, 1967,(6) Mr. Edward P. Boland, of Massachusetts, offered a 
motion to recede and concur in Senate amendment No. 13, which had been 
reported in disagreement from the conference on H.R. 11476, Department 
of Transportation appropriations, fiscal 1968.

MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
inquiry, if the gentleman will yield.
MR. BOLAND: I yield to the gentleman.
THE SPEAKER:(7) The gentleman will state it.
MR. YATES: This is a motion to recede and concur in the Senate 
amendment. What would be the effect of voting down such a motion? Will 
it have the effect of sending the conferees back to conference for the 
purpose of ironing out this particular item again?
THE SPEAKER: The amendment would still be before the House subject to 
another form of a motion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.     108 CONG. REC. 20489, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6.     113 CONG. REC. 29044, 29048, 29049, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7.     John W. McCormack (Mass.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1005]]

MR. YATES: What would be the nature of that motion, Mr. Speaker?
THE SPEAKER: The motion could be that the House insist on its 
disagreement.
MR. YATES: I thank the Speaker.
MR. [DURWARD G.] HALL [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
yield?
MR. BOLAND: I yield to the gentleman.
MR. HALL: If the gentleman from Massachusetts' motion that the House 
recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 13 and 
concur therein was voted down, then another motion would be in order, 
would it not, I would ask as a parliamentary inquiry, to instruct the 
conferees to maintain the position of the House or that the House 
insist upon its disagreement with the other body?
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state in response to the parliamentary 
inquiry propounded to the Chair by the distinguished gentleman from 
Missouri that if the House should insist upon its disagreement, then 
the matter could go back to conference.