[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 16, Chapters 32 - 33]
[Chapter 33. House-Senate Conferences]
[A. INTRODUCTORY]
[§ 3. When Motion Is in Order]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 391-395]
House-Senate Conferences
A. INTRODUCTORY
Sec. 3. When Motion Is in Order
Possession of Official Papers
Sec. 3.1 A request to agree to a conference on a bill and appoint
conferees is not in order until the bill and papers are received from
the Senate.
On June 18, 1947,(17) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts,
recognized Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, and the following
proceedings occurred:
MR. ANDREWS of New York: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the House passed the
bill H.R. 3303, the so-called War Department enlistment bill. The
Senate passed Senate 1213, striking out all after the enacting clause
in the House bill and substituting the Senate provisions. By motion of
the Senate today, they request a conference. That is being messaged
over to the House. I move that we agree to the conference and that the
Speaker appoint conferees.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 93 CONG. REC. 7252, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 392]]
THE SPEAKER: The Chair would inform the gentleman from New York that
the papers have not yet arrived, and the request to agree to the
conference and appoint conferees is not in order at this time.
Stage of Disagreement
Sec. 3.2 Rule XX clause 1 (au-thorizing a single motion to disagree to
Senate amendments to a House bill on the Speaker's table and to request
or agree to a conference if that motion is authorized by the committee
having jurisdiction of the bill and if the Speaker recognizes for that
purpose) was held to supersede those precedents established prior to
the adoption of that rule which precluded the motion to go to
conference until the stage of disagreement had been reached.
On Aug. 1, 1972,(18) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Carl
D. Perkins, of Kentucky, Chairman of the Committee on Education and
Labor:
Mr. Speaker, upon direction of the Committee on Education and Labor, I
move to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 7130) to amend the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the minimum wage under
that act, to extend its coverage, to establish procedures to relieve
domestic industries and workers injured by increased imports from low-
wage areas, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto,
disagree to the Senate amendments, and request a conference with the
Senate thereon.
MR. [JOHN N.] ERLENBORN [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of
order against the motion.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
MR. ERLENBORN: Mr. Speaker, the motion to request a conference is not
in order until a motion to disagree to the Senate amendments has been
made and disposed of. I should like to be heard on the point of order.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear the gentleman on the point of order.
MR. ERLENBORN: Mr. Speaker, Jefferson's Manual, section 535, on page
265, states:
The motion to ask a conference is distinct from motions to agree or
disagree to amendments of the other House and is not in order until the
House has disposed of the preferential motions to agree, recede, or
insist. . . .
THE SPEAKER: The rule which the gentleman is talking about has been
superseded by clause 1 of Rule XX which provides a procedure for
sending bills to conference. The Chair overrules the point of order.
The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Kentucky. . . .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 118 CONG. REC. 26153, 26156, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 393]]
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 190, nays 198, not voting 44.
After Conference Report Ruled Out
Sec. 3.3 Where a point of order against a conference report is
sustained, the amendments of the Senate are again before the House, and
a motion to send the bill and amendments to conference is again in
order.
On Oct. 4, 1962,(19) after Speaker Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma, sustained a point of order against a conference report on
H.R. 7927, a bill to adjust postal rates, Mr. Tom Murray, of Tennessee,
offered a motion to send the bill and amendments in disagreement to
conference again.
MR. MURRAY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House insist upon its
disagreement with the amendments of the Senate and request a conference
with the Senate.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee.
The motion was agreed to.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, the Chair appoints the
following conferees: Messrs. Murray, Morrison, and Corbett.
There was no objection.
Where Preferential Motions Are Pending
Sec. 3.4 A motion to request a further conference on an amendment
reported in disagreement by conferees is not in order so long as
preferential motions to dispose of amendments in disagreement are
pending.
On Oct. 17, 1967,(20) the House was considering the amendment in
disagreement reported back from a conference on H.R. 11476, Department
of Transportation appropriations for fiscal 1968. Mr. Edward P. Boland,
of Massachusetts, moved that the House recede from its disagreement to
Senate amendment No. 13 and concur therein. Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of
Illinois, posed the following parliamentary inquiry:
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?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 108 CONG. REC. 22332, 22333, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. 113 CONG. REC. 29044, 29048, 29049, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 394]]
THE SPEAKER:(1) The amendment would still be before the House subject
to another form of a motion.
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. . . .
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.
Same Day as Receipt of Senate Message
Sec. 3.5 A motion to disagree to a Senate amendment to a House joint
resolution and request a conference with the Senate is in order under
Rule XX clause 1 on the same day the joint resolution and Senate
amendment are messaged back from the Senate, if the Speaker in his
discretion recognizes for that purpose and if the motion is authorized
by the committee which had reported the measure to the House.
On Nov. 16, 1971,(2) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, made a motion to
take from the Speaker's table House Joint Resolution 946, making
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1972, with a Senate
amendment thereto, and request a conference with the Senate. Mr. H. R.
Gross, of Iowa, raised a parliamentary inquiry:
Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
2. 117 CONG. REC. 41555, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 395]]
Can this kind of a motion be made on the same day the message is
received from the Senate?
THE SPEAKER:(3) The Chair will state to the gentleman that the answer
to his question is "Yes; it can be."