<DOC>
[Cannon's Precedents -- Volume VIII]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:cannon_cclxi.wais]



                           Chapter CCLXI.\1\
 
                     AMENDMENTS BETWEEN THE HOUSES.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

   1. Principles of the parliamentary law. Section 3177.
   2. The motion to agree or concur. Sections 3178-3183.
   3. Motions to amend or refer amendments of the other House. 
     Section 3184.
   4. Text to which both Houses have agreed not to be changed. 
     Sections 3185, 3186.
   5. General decisions as to amending amendments of the other 
     House. Sections 3187-3190.
   6. Amendments of the other House considered in committee of the 
     Whole. Sections 3191, 3192.
   7. The motions to recede and concur. Sections 3193-3199.
   8. The motion to recede and concur with amendment. Sections 
     3200-3203.
   9. The motion to insist. Sections 3204-3207.
   10. The motion to adhere. Section 3208.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

  3177. Where one House recedes from its amendment to a bill after the 
other has concurred in the amendment with an amendment, agreement has 
not been reached and the bill is not passed.
  On October 3, 1913,\2\ on motion of Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of 
Alabama, the Speaker laid before the House the bill (H. R. 3321) to 
revise the tariff, with Senate amendment No. 609, from which the Senate 
had receded after the House had returned it to the Senate with a House 
amendment.
  Mr. Underwood moved that the House recede from its amendment to 
Senate amendment No. 609 and agree to the action of the Senate in 
receding from said Senate amendment.
  Mr. Asher C. Hinds, of Maine, characterized the motion as unnecessary 
and raised a question of order against it.
  After debate, the Speaker \3\ held:

  The gentleman from Alabama moves to concur in the action of the 
Senate relating to Senate amendment No. 609 to House bill 3321. The 
gentleman from Maine makes the point of order against the motion. The 
history of the transaction stated in brief is that the conferees agreed 
to this entire bill except the so-called Clarke cotton-futures 
amendment. The gentleman from Alabama offered an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to the Clarke amendment, which passed the House, 
and the Underwood amendment went to the Senate. The Senate disagreed to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Supplementary to Chapter CXXXI.
  \2\ First session Sixty-third Congress, Journal, p. 373; Record, p. 
5437.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3178
the Underwood amendment, and also receded from the Clarke amendment. 
The only question in issue is whether the two Houses have ever come to 
an agreement--to the same state of mind.
  What is the situation: did the Senate by disagreeing to the Underwood 
amendment and receding from its own amendment clear up the whole 
matter? If so, where is the Underwood amendment? What is its status? 
The House passed it; the House has never receded from it; the two 
Houses have never come to an agreement on this proposition, and 
therefore the Chair overrules the point of order. The question is on 
concurring in the action of the Senate relating to Senate amendment 
609.

  3178. A negative vote on a motion to concur in a Senate amendment was 
held equivalent to an affirmative vote to disagree.
  A two-thirds vote is required on motions disposing of Senate 
amendments to propositions requiring a two-thirds vote for passage.
  On June 21, 1991,\1\ the Speaker laid before the House the joint 
resolution (H. J. Res. 39) proposing an amendment to the Constitution 
providing for election of Senators, with a Senate amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  mr. Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, moved that the House concur 
in the Senate amendment.
  After debate, the ayes and noes were ordered and the vote being yeas 
111, noes 171, the Speaker \2\ announced that two-thirds having failed 
to vote in the affirmative, the House had disagreed to the Senate 
amendments.
  Mr. William H. Rucker, of Missouri, rising to a parliamentary 
inquiry, asked if it was not in order to vote on a motion to disagree.
  The Speaker ruled:

  At first the Chair was inclined to take the gentleman's view of it, 
but after consultation with the parliamentary clerk and the gentleman 
form Illinois, Mr. Mann, and finally with the great authority on 
parliamentary law, Mr. Hinds, of Maine, we all agreed that the failure 
of the motion to concur was equivalent to a motion to disagree.
  The House refuses to concur in the Senate amendment.

  3179. A negative vote on the motion to concur is tantamount to a vote 
to nonconcur and disposes of Senate amendments without further motion.
  The motion to concur in a Senate amendment takes precedence of the 
motion to disagree.
  On August 3, 1911,\3\ on motion of Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of 
Alabama, the bill (H. R. 4413), to place agricultural implements and 
certain other commodities on the free list, was taken from the 
Speaker's table with Senate amendments.
  Mr. Underwood moved that the House disagree to Senate amendments Nos. 
1 to 7, inclusive.
  Mr. Burton L. French, of Idaho, offered, as preferential, a motion to 
concur in the first seven amendments of the Senate.
  The Speaker recognized Mr. French and put the question on the motion 
to concur.
  The vote being taken and being decided in the negative, the Speaker 
\2\ said:

  That is equivalent to nonconcurrence in the Senate Amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 2434.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 3585.
Sec. 3180
  3180. On June 10, 1912,\1\ on motion of Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of 
Alabama, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. 
R. 18642) to revise the metal schedule, with Senate amendments.
  Mr. Underwood moved that the house disagree to Senate amendment No. 
3, relating to the Canadian reciprocity act.
  Mr. Irvine L. Lenroot, of Wisconsin, interposed a motion that the 
House agree to the Senate amendment.
  The Speaker \2\ recognized the motion to agree as preferential. 
Thereupon, Mr. Underwood inquired if a negative vote on the motion to 
concur would be equivalent to affirmative action on a motion to 
disagree.
  The Speaker replied in the affirmative, and the vote being taken on 
the motion to concur the yeas were 101, the nays were 145, and the 
House disagreed to the Senate amendment.
  3181. On December 20, 1913,\3\ on motion of Mr. Carter Glass, of 
Virginia, by unanimous consent, the bill (H. R. 8737) to provide for 
the establishment of Federal reserve banks, was taken from the 
Speaker's table for the consideration of the Senate amendment thereto.
  Mr. William H. Murray, of Oklahoma, moved that the House concur in 
the Senate amendment.
  Mr. Asbury F. Lever, of South Carolina, submitted a parliamentary 
inquiry as to whether it would be in order for the House to instruct 
conferees if the motion to concur was rejected.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair will state the parliamentary situation. If this motion is 
voted down, that is equivalent to a disagreement, and then a motion to 
instruct the conferees will be in order.

  3182. In the Committee of the Whole, as in the House, a negative vote 
on the motion to concur is equivalent to an affirmative vote to 
disagree.
  On September 23, 1918,\4\ the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the 
consideration of Senate amendments to the bill (H. R. 11945) to 
stimulate the production of food.
  Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, moved to concur in Senate 
amendment No. 3, providing an appropriation for the dissemination of 
information on the manufacture of cottage cheese.
  The question being taken and being decided in the negative, Mr. 
Charles Pope Caldwell, of New York, proposed to offer a motion to 
disagree to the amendment.
  The Chairman \5\ declined to entertain the motion and said:

  The motion is lost, which was equivalent to a motion to disagree.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 7937.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 1307.
  \4\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 10687.
  \5\ Ben Johnson, of Kentucky, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 3183
  3183. A motion to insist on disagreement to a Senate amendment yields 
to a motion to agree and is not acted on in event of rejection of the 
latter motion.
  Instance wherein the Senate receded from its own amendment to a House 
bill with an amendment.
  A Member proposing a preferential motion is entitled to recognition 
prior to disposition of the pending motion, but may not by offering 
such motion deprive another of the floor.
  On February 21, 1929,\1\ Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, called up 
the Department of the Interior appropriation bill with Senate amendment 
No. 39, exempting privately owned lands occupied for religious purposes 
from condemnation for park purposes, still in disagreement between the 
two Houses, but from which the Senate had receded with an amendment.
  Mr. Cramton having offered a motion that the House insist on its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, Mr. John M. Evans, of 
Montana, proposed that the House recede from its disagreement and 
concur in the amendment.
  In response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Evans, the Speaker pro 
tempore \2\ held that the motion to agree was preferential to the 
motion to insist and was in order notwithstanding another Member had 
the floor, but could not deprive such other Member of the floor for 
debate.
  The Speaker pro tempore continued:

  The Chair is confronted with a somewhat puzzling problem in this 
connection, owing to the very peculiar parliamentary situation. It 
seems that the Senate has taken a most unusual course, to say the 
least, in receding from its own amendment and amending the same. In 
view of this situation the motion of the gentleman from Montana now is 
that the House agree to the Senate amendment as amended, and the 
question is on this motion.

  The motion having been rejected, the Speaker pro tempore in response 
to an inquiry from Mr. Cramton, held:

  The exact opposite of the gentleman's motion having been disagreed 
to, the Chair thinks it equivalent to an affirmative vote on the 
gentleman's motion, and therefore will not put the question.

  3184. A motion proposing a substitute for a Senate amendment yields 
to a motion for a perfecting amendment.
  On February 26, 1921,\3\ during the consideration of Senate 
amendments to the legislature, executive and judicial appropriation 
bill, the House voted to recede from its disagreement to Senate 
amendment No. 113.
  Whereupon Mr. William R. Wood, of Indiana, proposed an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute for the Senate amendment.
  Mr. Eugene Black, of Texas offered an amendment proposing to perfect 
the Senate amendment.
  Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, made the point of order that a 
substitute proposed by Mr. Wood was pending and the amendment offered 
by Mr. Black was not in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 3990.
  \2\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Speaker pro tempore.
  \3\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4005.
Sec. 3185
  The Speaker pro tempore \1\ overruled the point of order and said:

  The Chair thinks that the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas 
is a motion to amend the Senate amendment. The Chair will state that 
the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana was one offered apparently 
as a substitute for the Senate amendment. The amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas is an amendment which apparently seeks to perfect 
the text of the Senate amendment, and therefore would be in order. The 
question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Texas.

  3185. The Senate having proposed an amendment to a Senate bill which 
had passed both Houses, the House declined to entertain the amendment 
and by message informed the Senate that it could not act on a matter 
not in disagreement between the two Houses.
  On February 6, 1924,\2\ the House disagreed to the amendment of the 
Senate to the bill (S. 876) to provide for the disposition of bonuses, 
rentals and royalties received from the mining of coal, phosphate, oil, 
gas, and sodium on the public domain and in requesting conference with 
the Senate made the following order:

  Ordered, That the Clerk notify the Senate thereof; and that in 
respect to the proposed amendment of the Senate to the original text of 
the bill, not in disagreement between the two Houses, having already 
been agreed upon, the House can not now act.

  Subsequently, on March 3, when Mr. Carl Hayden, of Arizona, called up 
the conference report on the bill, Mr. Frederick W. Dallinger, of 
Massachusetts, made the point of order that the conferees had exceeded 
their authority by reporting amendments to the text of the bill to 
which both Houses had agreed.
  In controverting the point of order, Mr. Hayden explained that the 
change in that portion of the text of the bill not in disagreement had 
not been made by the managers in conference but had been made by the 
Senate after the bill was returned from the House and before conferees 
had been appointed, and that the matter objected was therefore properly 
before the conferees.
  The Speaker pro tempore \3\ ruled:

  The bill as passed in the House and the bill as passed in the Senate 
contain the same text which has been amended in conference. That matter 
was not the subject matter of the conference, because in that respect 
there was no disagreement between the two Houses, and the amendment is 
not to that portion of the bill or to that subject matter which was in 
disagreement between the two Houses, and which was properly the subject 
matter of the conference.
  The conferees changed the text of the bill in the particular in which 
there was no disagreement between the House and the Senate; therefore 
that report of the conferees comes squarely within the rules, which 
provide that the managers of the conference must confine themselves to 
the differences submitted to them, and, more specifically, the managers 
of a conference may not change the text to which both Houses have 
agreed.
  The House took no action on the amendment that the Senate put on the 
bill after it had passed the House and had gone back to the Senate with 
House amendments.
  It was not in disagreement between the two Houses, the House not 
having acted upon the Senate amendment. The Chair sustains that point 
of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Speaker pro tempore.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-eighth Congress, Journal p. 210; Record, p. 
3142.
  \3\ Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, Speaker pro tempore.
                                                            Sec. 3186
  3186. Items agreed to in a partial conference report are no longer in 
dispute and are not subject to modification in the consideration of 
amendments remaining in disagreement.
  On March 19, 1930,\1\ the Senate resumed consideration of amendments 
on which the two Houses are still in disagreement, to the bill (H. R. 
9979) the urgent deficiency appropriation bill, differences on the 
remaining amendments having been composed in a conference report 
previously adopted.
  Mr. William Henry McMaster, of South Dakota, offered a motion 
relating to items disposed of in the conference report.
  Mr. Carl Hayden, of Arizona, interposed a question of order.
  The President pro tempore \12\ held:

  The House and the Senate both having approved the conference report 
upon these items, they are no longer in dispute between the two bodies, 
and that is not in order. The Chair holds the point of order to be well 
taken.

  3187. A House bill messaged from the Senate with amendments requiring 
consideration in Committee of the Whole goes to the Speaker's table, 
and if not disposed of by unanimous consent is referred by the Speaker 
to its appropriate committee.
  General appropriation bills with Senate amendments reported back to 
the House from the Committee on Appropriations are privileged and are 
subject to motions authorized by the Committee.
  When a bill with Senate amendments is taken from the calendar for 
consideration, only the amendments are before the House, and the 
remainder of the bill, having been agreed to by both Houses, is not 
subject to further consideration.
  Amendments may not be offered in time yielded for debate only, and a 
Member yielding to another to propose an amendment loses the floor.
  Form of unanimous-consent agreement for the consideration of a Senate 
amendment.
  A motion to amend an amendment from the other House takes precedence 
of a motion to agree or disagree.
  On January 23, 1931 \3\ following the disposition of business on the 
Speaker's table, the Speaker \4\ announced:

  The Chair desires to make a statement at this time:
  The Interior Department appropriation bill with Senate amendments is 
on the Speaker's table. It is entirely within the discretion of the 
Chair what course should be taken with regard to the disposition of 
this bill. Ordinarily a request is made for unanimous consent to send 
such bills to conference at once. The other course is that the Speaker 
himself shall refer the bill to the appropriate committee. In view of 
the tremendous importance of the question arising under the Senate 
amendment providing for a $25,000,000 appropriation to the Red Cross, 
in view of the request of the members of the Appropriations Committee 
that hearings should be had and that the Red Cross may have the 
opportunity of stating its position, the Chair is going to take the 
course of referring
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 5608; Senate 
Journal, p. 222.
  \2\ George H. Moses, of New Hampshire, President pro tempore.
  \3\ Third session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 2975.
  \4\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
Sec. 3187
this bill to the Appropriations Committee, and refers the bill with 
Senate amendments to the Appropriations Committee and orders it 
printed.

  On January 29,\1\ Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, by direction of 
the Committee on Appropriations, reported the bill back to the House 
with the recommendation that the amendments of the Senate be disagreed 
to and the bill be sent to conference.
  The bill having been referred to the Union Calendar and ordered to be 
printed, Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, submitted a parliamentary 
inquiry as to the privilege of the bill and as to whether it would be 
in order for any Member to move that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for its consideration.
  The Speaker replied:

  The bill has just been ordered reported, but the report has not been 
printed, and any motion to be privileged would require the direction of 
the Committee on Appropriations. Therefore nothing would be in order at 
this stage except by unanimous consent.
  To-morrow, the bill being on the calendar, the Chair thinks that if 
the committee authorized any gentleman to take any appropriate action, 
it being a privileged bill, it would be proper.

  In response to a further inquiry from Mr. Robert G. Simmons, of 
Nebraska, the Speaker held that a member yielding to another to offer 
an amendment yielded the floor,
  The Speaker further held:

  It is not a bill that the House would be considering. It is simply a 
report from the Committee on Appropriations and the House will be 
considering only Senate amendments and not the bill itself. In view of 
the agreement between the House and the Senate on all matters, except 
the Senate amendments, nothing is under consideration except the Senate 
amendments.

  Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Cramton, by unanimous consent, it was 
ordered that all amendments, except amendment No. 144, providing an 
appropriation of $25,000,000 to be disbursed by the Red Cross in the 
drouth areas, be disagreed to; that debate on amendment No. 144 be 
limited to two hours, to be equally divided between Mr. Cramton and Mr. 
Edward T. Taylor, of Colorado; that any Member yielded time to be 
permitted to offer amendments on motions relating to the disposition of 
amendment No. 144; that at the expiration of the two hours the previous 
question be considered as ordered; and Senate amendment No. 144 being 
disposed of, the House should ask conference and the Speaker appoint 
conferees.
  Debate on Senate amendment No. 144 having been concluded, Mr. Cramton 
moved that the House disagree to the amendment.
  As a preferential motion, Mr. Taylor moved that the House concur in 
the amendment with an amendment providing that the $25,000,000 be 
administered by the President instead of by the Red Cross.
  Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that 
at this stage of disagreement a motion to concur would take precedence 
of a motion to concur with an amendment.
  The Speaker held that a motion to amend or to concur with an 
amendment took precedence over the motion to agree or disagree, and put 
the question on the motion of Mr. Taylor to concur with an amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 3445.
                                                            Sec. 3188
  3188.  On June 28, 1932,\1\ the House had agreed to the conference 
report on the naval appropriation bill and was considering the 
amendments remaining in disagreement between the two Houses.
  The Clerk read a Senate amendment proposing to substitute the amount 
of $1,191,850 for the amount of $1,014,250 provided by the House bill 
for increased pay of Navy officers.
  Mr. William A. Ayres, of Kansas, moved that the House recede and 
concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment substituting the 
amount of $1,157,535 for the amounts indicated, and proposing 
additional legislation.
  Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, interposed the point of order 
that the only disagreement between the two Houses was a matter of 
amounts and the proposal of additional legislation was not in order.
  The Speaker \2\ held that the House was not circumscribed in 
consideration of Senate amendments by previous action taken by either 
the House or the Senate, and said:

  On the grounds the gentleman makes his point of order the Chair will 
overrule it. The question is on the motion to concur with an amendment.

  The question was taken and the motion was agreed to, when the Speaker 
added:

  Let the Chair say in connection with that point of order that if the 
gentleman from New York had made the point of order that the proposed 
amendment was not germane to the Senate amendment, the Chair thinks it 
would have been sufficient, but the gentleman from New York said it was 
beyond the jurisdiction of the conferees, and the motion to concur with 
an amendment is not subject to that point of order.

  3189. In amending a Senate amendment the House is not confined within 
the limits of amount set by the original bill and the Senate amendment.
  On June 20, 1932,\3\ the House agreed to the conference report on the 
legislative appropriation bill, and the Clerk reported the Senate 
amendment remaining in disagreement, in part as follows:

  During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1933, the compensation for 
each civilian and noncivilian office, position, employment, or 
enlistment in any branch or service of the United States Government or 
the government of the District of Columbia is hereby reduced as 
follows: Compensation at an annual rate of $2,500 or less shall be 
exempt from reduction; and compensation at an annual rate in excess of 
$2,500 shall be reduced by 11 percent of the amount thereof in excess 
of $2,500.

  Mr. John McDuffie, of Alabama, moved that the House recede from its 
disagreement to the Senate amendment and concur in it with an amendment 
in part as follows:

  During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1933, the rate of compensation 
for each civilian or noncivilian office, position, or employment in any 
branch or service of the United States Government or the government of 
the District of Columbia, is reduced as follows: If more than $1,200 
per annum, but less than $12,000 per annum, 10 percent; if $12,000 per 
annum or more, but
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 14208.
  \2\ John N. Garner, of Texas, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 13525.
Sec. 3190
less than $15,000 per annum, 12 per cent; if $15,000 per annum or more, 
but less than $20,000 per annum, 15 per cent; if $20,000 per annum or 
more, 20 per cent.

  Mr. John C. Schafer, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that the 
proposed amendment was not within the range between the original bill 
and the Senate amendment, neither providing for a reduction of salaries 
below $2,500.
  The Speaker pro tempore \1\ overruled the point of order and said:

  The gentleman from Wisconsin interposes a point of order against the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama to the Senate proposal, 
upon the ground that the provisions embodied in the motion of the 
gentleman from Alabama to recede and concur with an amendment to the 
Senate amendment was beyond the limits fixed in either the House bill 
or the Senate amendment. A syllabus of an opinion by Chairman Hepburn, 
of Iowa, made on February 26, 1992, which may be found in Hinds' 
Precedents (vol. 5, sec. 6187) is as follows: ``In amending a Senate 
amendment the House is not confined within the limits of amount set by 
the original bill and the Senate amendment.'' The Chair thinks that 
that decision disposes of the point of order raised by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin. The Chair desires to say in passing upon these points 
of order that in cases of this kind the only requirement is that the 
amendment proposed in the motion to recede and concur with an amendment 
must be germane to the Senate amendment. This question arose on May 3, 
1922, when Mr. Speaker Gillett, in overruling a point of order similar 
to this, held that to a Senate amendment providing a new method of 
taxation in the District of Columbia and revising the fiscal 
relationship of the District of Columbia and the United States with 
other incidental propositions and an amendment proposing a different 
scheme is germane, although different in detail.
  The Chair thinks that these decisions fully cover point of order 
raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin, and therefore overrules the 
point of order.

  3190. Where the Senate had amended a House bill by striking out a 
section, it was held in order in the House to concur with an amendment 
inserting a new text in lieu of that stricken out.
  On February 21, 1923,\2\ the House was considering the War Department 
appropriation bill which has been returned from conference with certain 
Senate amendments still in disagreement.
  The Clerk read the following:

  Amendment No. 38: Page 23 of the bill, after line 16, strike out the 
following: ``None of the funds appropriated in this act shall be used 
for payment of any officer of the Army on the active or retired list 
while such officer is engaged in the business of selling supplies or 
services to the United States or is employed by any individual, 
partnership, or corporation which engages in such business.

  Mr. Daniel R. Anthony, jr., of Kansas, moved that the House recede 
from its disagreement to the Senate amendment and concur with an 
amendment as follows:

  Amendment No. 38: None of the money appropriated in this act shall be 
used to pay any officer on the retired list of the Army who is employed 
by any individual, partnership, corporation, or association as a sales 
or contract agent or as the manager or directing head of sales or 
contracts for the purpose of selling, contracting for the sale of, 
negotiating for the sale of, or furnishing to the Army or the War 
Department any supplies, materials, equipment, lands, buildings, 
plants, vessels, or munitions. And none of the money appropriated shall 
be used to pay any officer on the retired list of any of the services 
hereinbefore enumerated who is employed by any individual, partnership, 
corporation, or association regularly or frequently engaged in making 
direct sales of any merchan-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, Speaker pro tempore.
  \2\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 4200.
                                                            Sec. 3191
dise or material to the particular service hereinbefore enumerated from 
which such officer was retired.

  Mr. Tom Connally, of Texas, made the point of order that the 
amendment with which it was proposed to concur involved legislation 
which neither House had submitted to the conferees.
  Mr. Anthony submitted that any germane amendment to the language 
which the Senate amendment proposed to strike from the House bill was 
in order, and that the additional language in the amendment which he 
proposed was in the nature of a limitation.
  The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order and said:

  The difference between the two Houses is the House amendment that was 
stricken out by the Senate, so the House amendment is before the House. 
The Senate amendment is to strike out the House provision, which brings 
the subject before the House. The Chair overrules the point of order.

  3191. Under the later practice, Senate amendments when reported from 
the Committee of the Whole are voted on en bloc and only those 
amendments are voted on severally on which a separate vote is demanded.
  On September 23, 1918,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union reported back to the House the Senate amendments to 
the bill (H. R. 11945) to stimulate the production of food, with the 
recommendation that Senate amendment No. 13 be agreed to with an 
amendment and that the remaining Senate amendments be disagreed to.
  The previous question having been ordered, the Speaker \3\ put the 
question on agreeing to the recommendation of the Committee of the 
Whole.
  Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, raised the question of order that 
each amendment should be voted on severally and cited section 6193 of 
Hinds' Precedents in support of his contention.
  The Speaker dissented and said:

  The procedure is exactly like that in any other case, and the 
business of the Chair is to ask if a separate vote is desired on any 
amendment.
  The Chair was starting to put the question whether a separate vote 
was desired on any amendment when the gentleman intervened.
  There is nothing more sacred about these amendments than the 
amendments to any ordinary bill.

  Mr. Julius Kahn, of California, having requested a separate vote on 
Senate amendment No. 13, the Speaker put the question as follows:

  The gentleman from California has demanded a separate vote on 
amendment No. 13. Is a separate vote demanded on any other? If not, the 
Chair will put them en gross.
  The question is on the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union to disagree to all the amendments 
except to Senate amendment No. 13.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 10693.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 3192
  3192. When a Senate amendment is reported back to the House from 
Committee of the Whole with an amendment and with the recommendation 
that the Senate amendment as amended be concurred in, the vote is taken 
first on the proposed amendment and then on concurrence.
  On September 23, 1918,\1\ Mr. Ben Johnson, of Kentucky, Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported to 
the House that the Committee had had under consideration Senate 
amendments to the bill (H. R. 11945) the food stimulation bill, and had 
directed him to report them back to the House with the recommendation 
that Senate amendment No. 13 be agreed to with an amendment and the 
remaining Senate amendments be disagreed to.
  The Speaker \2\ was proceeding to put a question on agreeing to the 
amendment to Senate amendment No. 13 recommended by the Committee of 
the Whole when Mr. William L. Igoe, of Missouri, made the point of 
order that it was not necessary to vote on the amendment to the Senate 
amendment, but that the vote should be taken on the Senate amendment as 
amended.
  The Speaker ruled that the vote came first on the amendment proposed 
by the Committee of the Whole to the Senate amendment and then on the 
recommendation of the Committee of the Whole for disposition of the 
Senate amendment as amended.
  3193. The motion to recede from disagreement and concur in a Senate 
amendment has precedence of a motion to insist further, but a Member by 
offering such motion may not deprive the Member in charge of the floor.
  On March 10, 1930,\3\ the house having agreed to the conference 
report on the first deficiency appropriation bill, proceeded to the 
consideration of Senate amendments still in disagreement between the 
two Houses.
  Senate amendment No. 27, having been read, Mr. William R. Wood, of 
Indiana, moved that the House insist on its disagreement to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Edward H. Wason, of New Hampshire, proposed, as preferential, a 
motion that the House recede from its disagreement and concur in the 
amendment.
  In response to a point of order raised by Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of 
Michigan, the Speaker pro tempore \4\ held that while the motion to 
recede and concur was preferential, it did not take the floor from the 
Member in charge of the bill.
  3194. A bill with amendments of the other House is privileged after 
the stage of disagreement has been reached.
  The motion to recede and concur takes precedence of the motion to 
further assist.
  On July 16, 1932,\5\ Mr. Henry B. Steagall, of Alabama, called up 
from the Speaker's table, as privileged, the bill (H. R. 12280) to 
create Federal home loan banks, returned from the Senate with 
amendments, and moved that the House further insist on its disagreement 
to the amendments of the Senate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 10694.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 5638.
  \4\ Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, Speaker pro tempre.
  \5\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 15746.
                                                            Sec. 3195
  Mr. C. William Ramseyer, of Iowa, objected that the proposal was not 
privileged.
  The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order and said:

This is a House bill with Senate amendments on which there is a 
disagreement between the two Houses, and it has been uniformly held 
that this is a privileged motion.

  Thereupon, Mr. Ramseyer offered, as preferential, a motion that the 
House recede from its disagreement and concur in the Senate amendments.
  The Speaker held that the motion to recede and concur took precedence 
over the motion to further insist and put the question:

  The gentleman from Iowa moves that the House recede and concur in 
Senate amendments No. 46 and No. 47. The question is on the motion of 
the gentleman from Iowa to recede and concur in the Senate amendments.

  3195. The rejection of a motion to recede from disagreement to a 
Senate amendment and concur therein is equivalent to further 
disagreement to the amendment.
  On April 15, 1926,\2\ the House was considering Senate amendments to 
the independent offices appropriation bill remaining in disagreement 
after the adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. William R. Wood, of Indiana, moved that the House recede from its 
disagreement to Senate amendment No. 1, and agree thereto. The question 
being taken on the motion, it was decided in the negative.
  Whereupon, Mr. Tom Connally, of Texas, inquired as to the effect of 
the rejection by the House of the motion to recede and concur.
  The Speaker \3\ held that the effect of the vote was to further 
disagree to the Senate amendment.
  3196. The stage of disagreement having been reached, the motion to 
recede and concur takes precedence over the motion to recede and concur 
with an amendment, but the motion to recede and concur having been 
divided, and the House having receded, the motion to concur is first 
voted on and if rejected then the motion to concur with an amendment.
  On June 17, 1921,\4\ the House having agreed to the conference report 
of the army appropriation bill, was considering the Senate amendments 
still in disagreement.
  The Clerk read Senate amendment No. 10, increasing the appropriation 
for the Army from $72,678,659 to $81,000,000.
  Mr. Daniel R. Anthony, jr., of Kansas, moved that the House recede 
from its disagreement and concur in the amendment with an amendment 
increasing the amount from $72,678,659 to $77,741,370.
  Mr. Julius Kahn, of California, offered, as a preferential, a motion 
to recede from disagreement and concur in the Senate amendment.
  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, made the point of order that the 
motion was not preferential.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John N. Garner, of Texas, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 7543.
  \3\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2727.
Sec. 3197
  The Speaker pro tempore \1\ overruled the point of order and said:

  The Chair would state that the rulings are to the effect that the 
stage of disagreement having been reached, as would appear to be the 
case here in this instance, a motion to recede and concur takes 
precedence over a motion to recede and concur with an amendment. The 
Chair, following that precedent, will overrule the gentleman's point of 
order.

  After debate, on motion of Mr. Anthony, the previous question was 
ordered on the pending motions.
  Mr. Garrett demanded a division of the question.
  The question being divided and the ayes and noes being ordered on the 
motion to recede, it was decided in the affirmative, yeas 154, nays 
135; and being taken on the motion to concur, was decided in the 
negative without division.
  The question then recurring on the motion to concur with an 
amendment, and being taken, it was decided in the affirmative, yeas 
158, nays 128. So the motion to concur with an amendment was agreed to.
  3197. A motion to recede is preferential as tending to bring the 
Houses to agreement.
  The motion to recede and concur is divisible, and being divided and 
the House having receded, a motion to amend has precedence of the 
motion to concur.
  A Member having control of time for debate can not exclude the 
preferential motion to recede and concur, but may not be deprived of 
the floor by such motion.
  On June 31, 1909,\2\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 1033) 
to provide for the thirteenth and subsequent decennial censuses, with 
Senate amendments, the Senate having rejected a conference report and 
asked for further conference.
  During debate relating to Senate amendment No. 15, in time allotted 
to Mr. Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, the Speaker \3\ in response to 
a parliamentary inquiry from Mr. Thetus W. Sims, of Tennessee, ruled:

  A motion that the House recede from its disagreement to the Senate 
amendment would tend to bring the two bodies together and would be a 
preferential motion. Ordinarily the motion is made that the House do 
recede and concur. That motion, however, is divisible, and if the House 
should recede from its disagreement then it could concur in the Senate 
amendment with an amendment.

  Thereupon, Mr. Sims moved that the House recede from its disagreement 
to Senate amendment No. 15 and concur therein.
  Mr. Crumpacker raised the point of order that he had the floor and 
had declined to yield for the motion.
  The Speaker held:

  It occurs to the Chair that at the proper time, under the 
circumstances, the gentleman from Tennessee ought to be recognized to 
make the motion.
  Of course he could not take the gentleman from Indiana from the floor 
in his hour.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Speaker pro tempore.
  \2\ First session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 3618.
  \3\ Joseph C. Cannon, Illinois, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3198
  3198. The stage of disagreement having been reached, the motion to 
recede and concur takes precedence of the motion to recede and concur 
with an amendment.
  A motion to recede and concur is divisible, and being divided and the 
House having receded, a motion to amend has precedence of the motion to 
concur.
  On September 30, 1913,\1\ the House agreed to the conference report 
on the tariff bill and proceeded to the consideration of Senate 
amendment No. 609, relating to cotton futures, still in disagreement.
  Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, moved that the House recede from 
its disagreement to the amendment and agree to the same with an 
amendment providing for a tax on transactions in cotton for future 
delivery.
  Mr. Otis Wingo, of Arkansas, proposed a preferential motion that the 
House recede from its disagreement and concur in the amendment as 
received from the Senate.
  Mr. Thomas W. Hardwick, of Georgia, announced that if the motion to 
recede and concur was entertained, he proposed to demand a division of 
the question.
  Mr. Underwood, as a parliamentary inquiry, requested that the Speaker 
rule as to which motion had precedence.
  The Speaker \2\ ruled:

  The gentleman from Alabama moves to recede from the disagreement of 
the House to the Senate amendment No. 609 and concur in that amendment 
with the amendment that has just been read. The gentleman from Arkansas 
moves that the House recede from its disagreement and concur in the 
Senate amendment. The gentleman from Alabama asks for a ruling as to 
which motion is preferential.
  The whole subject has been somewhat complicated by a misunderstanding 
which exists as to the practices of the House in slightly different 
parliamentary situations. When the House passes a bill and it goes over 
to the Senate and comes back with a Senate amendment, the regular 
course is for the Senate amendment to be considered in the House. Three 
motions are then in order--to disagree, to concur, or to concur with an 
amendment. It has always been held that a motion to concur in the 
Senate amendment takes precedence of a motion to disagree. This grows 
out of the fact that it is the business of the House to do business and 
not to retard business. The motion to concur tending to dispose of the 
matter in issue without further negotiations is held preferential on 
the ground that it expedites the business of the House. However, a 
motion to concur with an amendment takes precedence of the simple 
motion to concur. The practice is well established, and if this were 
the situation to-day, the Chair would hold the motion to concur with an 
amendment preferential, but this is not the situation before us. The 
House has taken up this amendment together with all the other Senate 
amendments to the tariff bill and disagreed to them en bloc and sent 
the bill to conference. We now have a conference report settling all 
the other amendments and leaving only this amendment in disagreement 
between the two Houses. The practice of the House has always been, 
apparently, that when a state of disagreement has been reached between 
the two Houses, the motion to recede and concur takes precedence of the 
motion to recede and concur with an amendment. Sections 6219, 6220, 
6221, and 6222 of Hinds' Precedents contain precedents to this effect.

  The Speaker then read section 6219 of Hinds' Precedents and 
continued:

  This decision follows the logical rule in such matters and is 
directly in point. It is precisely the situation that is before us. The 
Chair therefore holds that the motion of the gentleman from
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 5276.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 3199
Arkansas has precedence. The Chair will go a little further in 
explanation of the situation, inasmuch as he is informed that the 
gentleman from Georgia proposes to demand a division of the motion of 
the gentleman from Arkansas. A motion to recede and concur is 
divisible. If a division should be demanded, the motion to recede would 
first be put; if that were carried, the situation would be exactly the 
same as if the amendment had just been received from the Senate and no 
action ever taken upon it. The question would then recur upon the 
motion to concur; but here the anomalous rule referred to a moment ago 
would again interfere, and if any gentleman desired to offer a motion 
to concur with an amendment this would take precedence over the simple 
motion to concur. This exact situation was passed on by Mr. Speaker 
Cannon in 1907 in an exhaustive opinion contained in section 6209 of 
Hinds' Precedents. Mr. Speaker Cannon there reached the conclusion 
which the Chair has indicated, and that conclusion the present occupant 
of the Chair believes to be the correct one and if the situation should 
arise will so hold.

  3199. By receding from an amendment with which it agreed to a Senate 
amendment, the House does not thereby agree to the Senate amendment.
  The question on a motion to recede from an amendment to a Senate 
amendment and concur in the Senate amendment may be divided on the 
demand of any Member.
  On February 21, 1910,\1\ the House was considering Senate amendments 
to the urgent deficiency appropriation bill still in disagreement after 
the adoption of the conference report.
  The Clerk read Senate amendment No. 39 making appropriation for the 
expenses of the immigration commission, which the House had agreed to 
previously with an amendment prohibiting the use of any part of the 
appropriation for field work.
  Mr. Augustus P. Gardner, of Massachusetts, moved that the House 
recede from its amendment to Senate amendment No. 39 and agree to the 
Senate amendment, and inquired if an affirmative vote on his motion 
would amount to concurrence in the Senate amendment.
  The Speaker \2\ held:

  It seems to the Chair that the point made by the gentleman from 
Minnesota, although the Chair was inclined to take the other view of 
it, is well taken, namely, that the motion to recede and concur in the 
Senate amendment was conditional with the House amendment; and it seems 
to the Chair that if the House should recede from its former action 
when it agreed to the House amendment, that would leave the proposition 
open either for concurring in the Senate amendment unconditionally or 
to a House amendment.

  Mr. Swagar Sherley, of Kentucky, submitted a parliamentary inquiry as 
to whether the motion to recede from the amendment and concur in the 
Senate amendment was divisible.
  The Speaker said:

  The Chair thinks that on demand it would be divisable.

  3200. When first taken from the Speaker's table for consideration, 
the motion to amend, usually presented in the form of a motion to 
concur with an amendment, takes precedence of the motion to concur, and 
the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2180.
  \2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3201
latter motion may not be made while the former is pending, but the 
stage of disagreement having been reached, the motion to concur is in 
order and is preferential.
  On August 17, 1912,\1\ the House proceeded to the consideration of 
the conference report on the naval appropriation bill which had been 
submitted with several Senate amendments still in disagreement.
  The conference report having been agreed to, Mr. Lemuel P. Padgett, 
of Tennessee, moved to disagree to the remaining Senate amendments and 
ask for a conference.
  Mr. George E. Foss, of Illinois, offered a motion to agree to Senate 
amendment No. 102, one of the amendments still in disagreement, 
authorizing the construction of two battleships.
  Debate having been concluded, Mr. John A. Thayer, of Massachusetts, 
offered, in the nature of a substitute for the pending motion to 
concur, a motion to concur with an amendment substituting cruisers for 
battleships.
  Mr. Padgett made the point of order that after conference a motion to 
concur with an amendment could not be made while a motion to concur was 
pending.
  The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order and said:

  The two Houses have attempted to get together by going into 
conference. They have been in conference, and under the precedents the 
preferential motion is to concur. Before going to conference the 
preferential motion is to concur with an amendment.
  The Chair had occasion to go into that question very carefully a 
little time ago. The amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts is 
out of order. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the 
gentleman from Illinois to agree to the Senate amendment.

  3201. A motion to concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment is 
not in order while a motion to concur with another amendment is 
pending, but may be offered as an amendment or as a substitute for the 
pending motion.
  On February 21, 1917,\3\ the House was considering Senate amendments 
to the Post Office appropriation bill when the Clerk read Senate 
amendment No. 34, prohibiting the transmission of mail matter 
advertising intoxicating liquor and providing a penalty.
  Mr. Swagar Sherley, of Kentucky, moved that the House concur in the 
amendment with an amendment making the provision effective one year 
from the date of its approval.
  Mr. John H. Small, of North Carolina, proposed a motion that the 
House concur with an amendment omitting the penalty.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that a motion 
to concur with an amendment was not in order while motion to concur 
with another amendment was pending.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 11189.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 3795.
Sec. 3202
  The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order:

  You can not offer another motion to concur with an amendment while a 
motion to concur is pending. The proper construction to put on the 
motion of the gentleman from North Carolina is that it is an amendment 
to the Sherley amendment or a substitute for the Sherley amendment.

  3202. The stage of disagreement not being reached, the motion to 
concur in an amendment of the other House with an amendment has 
precedence of the simple motion to concur, but, the stage of 
disagreement having been reached, the motion to recede and concur takes 
precedence of the motion to recede and concur with an amendment.
  Instance wherein, under a unanimous consent agreement, a Senate 
amendment was taken up after the bill had been sent to conference and 
agreed to by the House without recommendation or report from the 
conferees.
  On January 31, 1919,\2\ on the motion of Mr. Claude Kitchin, of North 
Carolina, by unanimous consent, the House agreed to entertain a motion 
to instruct conferees on the revenue bill, with reference to Senate 
amendment No. 222 relating to taxation of campaign contributions.
  Mr. William W. Rucker, of Missouri, moved that the House instruct its 
conferees to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment making it 
effective on passage.
  Mr. John N. Garner, of Texas, offered, as preferential, a motion to 
concur.
  A question of order having been raised as to which motion was 
entitled to preference, Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, said in 
debating the question:

  Mr. Speaker, the rule is perfectly patent, and I called attention to 
it when the gentleman asked to send this bill to conference. When the 
Senate amendment first comes before the House the preferential motion 
is to concur with an amendment, but after the Senate has insisted on 
the amendment and it comes before the House again, the preferential 
motion is to concur in the Senate amendment, which takes precedence 
over a motion to concur with an amendment, the design in each case 
being to bring the two bodies together in the easiest way. By analogy, 
the motion of the gentleman from Texas takes precedence.

  The Speaker \1\ acquiesced and said:

  The gentleman has stated the case precisely as it is.

  3203. When the Senate amendments are taken up for the first time, the 
motion to concur with an amendment takes precedence over the simple 
motion to concur, but after the House has disagreed the order is 
reversed and subsequently the motion to recede and concur takes 
precedence over the motion to recede and concur with an amendment.
  The motion to recede and concur is divisible and being divided and 
the House having voted to recede, the motion to amend takes precedence 
over the motion to concur.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \2\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2455.
                                                            Sec. 3204
  On July 12, 1932,\1\ the House agreed to a conference report on the 
Army appropriation bill, and the Clerk read the first amendment 
remaining in disagreement between the two Houses.
  Mr. Ross A. Collins, of Mississippi, moved that the House recede from 
its disagreement to the Senate amendment and concur with an amendment.
  Mr. Henry E. Barbour, of California, offered as preferential a motion 
to recede from disagreement and concur in the Senate amendment.
  Mr. Collins submitted the point of order that the motion to recede 
and concur with an amendment was of the higher privilege.
  The Speaker pro tempore \2\ held:

  The motion of the gentleman from California to recede and concur is a 
preferential motion.

  Whereupon, Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, demanded that the 
question be divided and the vote taken first on the motion to recede.
  The Speaker pro tempore held that the question was divisible and put 
the question on the motion to recede.
  The question having been decided in the affirmative and the House 
having receded, Mr. Collins moved that the House concur in the Senate 
amendment with an amendment.
  Mr. Barbour demanded recognition to move that the House concur in the 
Senate amendment.
  The Speaker pro tempore denied recognition and said:

  The motion of the gentleman from Mississippi to concur with an 
amendment is a preferential motion at this stage. The gentleman from 
Mississippi is recognized.

  3204. The stage of disagreement having been reached, that motion 
which tends most quickly to bring the House into agreement is 
preferential.
  In the consideration of Senate amendments to a House bill the motion 
to concur takes precedence over the motion to disagree further.
  A demand for the previous question by the Member in charge of a bill 
does not preclude consideration of a preferential motion.
  On January 12, 1917,\3\ the conference report on the bill H. R. 
10384, the immigration bill, had been ruled out of order and the House 
had again taken up consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill.
  Mr. John L. Burnett, of Alabama, moved that the House further 
disagree to the amendments of the Senate and ask for further 
conference, and on that motion demanded the previous question.
  Mr. Williams S. Bennett, of New York, offered, as preferential, a 
motion to agree to Senate amendment numbered 6.
  Mr. Burnett made the point of order that the motion to agree was not 
preferential and was not in order after the previous question had been 
demanded.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 15138.
  \2\ Clifton A. Woodrum, of Virginia, Speaker pro tempore.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1295.
Sec. 3205
  The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order and said:

  The gentleman from New York makes a preferential motion to agree to 
Senate amendment numbered 6, which the Clerk will report.

  3205. A motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment takes 
precedence of a motion to insist further on disagreement to the Senate 
amendment.
  On February 17, 1911,\2\ the House agreed to the conference report on 
the Indian appropriation bill and proceeded to the consideration of 
three Senate amendments still in disagreement.
  Mr. Charles H. Burke, of South Dakota, moved to insist further on the 
disagreement of the House to Senate amendment No. 48.
  Mr. Louis B. Hanna, of North Dakota, proposed, as preferential, a 
motion that the House recede from its disagreement to Senate amendment 
No. 48 and concur in the same.
  The Speaker \3\ held:

  The chair has no doubt as to the priority of these motions. The 
gentleman from South Dakota was compelled to yield, having made his 
motion to further insist on the disagreement to the Senate amendment, 
to the preferential motion made by the gentleman from North Dakota that 
the House recede and concur. Both of those motions are preferential, 
but the one made by the gentleman from North Dakota was of the highest 
preference.

  3206. On June 18, 1918,\4\ the House agreed to the conference report 
on the naval appropriation bill and proceeded to the consideration of 
certain Senate amendments not included in the report.
  Senate amendment No. 33 being read, Mr. J. Fred C. Talbott, of 
Maryland, moved that the House recede from its disagreement and concur 
in the amendment.
  In response to an inquiry from Mr. Thomas S. Butler, of Pennsylvania, 
the Speaker \1\ held that rejection by the House of the motion to 
recede and concur would have the same effect as an affirmative vote on 
a motion to insist further on disagreement to the amendment.
  3207. On February 28, 1920,\5\ during the consideration of Senate 
amendments to the second deficiency appropriation bill still in 
disagreement between the two House, Mr. George Holden Tinkham, of 
Massachusetts, moved that the House recede from its disagreement to 
Senate amendment numbered 34 and agree to the same.
  The motion being rejected, the Speaker,\6\ in response to an inquiry 
from Mr. James W. Good, of Iowa, held that the refusal of the House to 
recede and concur was equivalent to a vote to disagree to the 
amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \2\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2793.
  \3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 7977.
  \5\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3649.
  \6\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3208
  3208. A vote to adhere may not be accompanied by a request for a 
conference.--On May 23, 1908,\1\ Mr. Jesse Overstreet, of Indiana being 
recognized to offer a motion that the rules be suspended and that the 
House adhere to its disagreement to the Senate amendment to the Post 
Office appropriation bill fixing rates of transportation for ocean 
mail, coupled with the motion a provision that the conference be 
requested to adhere.
  The Speaker \2\ interposed:

  One moment.--If the gentleman from Indiana will give his attention. 
If the House should adhere to its disagreement to the Senate amendments 
it should not ask for a conference. It is not the usual custom where 
the House adheres, and a simple motion to adhere would be sufficient if 
it is the sense of the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 6862.
  \2\ Joseph G. Cannon, Illinois, Speaker.