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



                           Chapter CCLXII.\1\
 
                   GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONFERENCES.

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

   1. The managers, their functions, etc. Section 3209.
   2. Asking a conference. Sections 3210-3212.
   3. Conference asked for before vote of disagreement. Sections 
     3213-3217.
   4. General precedents. Section 3218.

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

  3209. Statement with reference to an unwritten rule of conference 
that the House proposing an amendment on which agreement can to be 
secured must recede or accept responsibility for failure of the bill.
  On July 3, 1930,\2\ in the Senate, Mr. James E. Watson, of Indiana, 
in the course of debate on the conference report on the bill (H. R. 
13174) to amend the World War veterans' act, said:

  When one House makes a decided and determined stand on a bill the 
other House has amended, and it looks as if there is going to be a sure 
deadlock, it is the business of the House that put the amendment into 
the bill to recede from that amendment or be responsible for the defeat 
of the legislation.
  The conferees on the part of the Senate did make a determined stand 
on these amendments, but the House, backed by a letter from the 
President of the United States, written while the conference was in 
session, insisted that we recede. We knew with that stand of the 
President of the United States and with the stand of the House of 
Representatives, that unless we did recede, under the rules of 
conferences, this legislation would be lost and the veterans would not 
be pensioned. That is the rule of conferences, I will say to the 
Senator.

  3210. Motions for conference are not in order until all Senate 
amendments have been disposed of.
  The House having under consideration a number of Senate amendments, 
it was held that a motion to insist on disagreement to one amendment 
might not include agreement to conference asked by the Senate until 
disposition of all pending amendments had been determined.
  On February 17, 1911,\3\ the House had agreed to the conference 
report on the Indian appropriation bill and was considering three 
Senate amendments still in disagreement.
  Mr. Charles H. Burke, of South Dakota, moved that the House further 
insist on its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 48 providing for 
collection of claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Supplementary to Chapter CXXXII.
  \2\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 12414.
  \3\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2792.
                                                            Sec. 3211
against Indians of the Standing Rock Agency, and agree to the request 
of the Senate for a conference.
  The Speaker \1\ called attention to the fact that no proposition had 
yet been made for the disposition of the two remaining Senate 
amendments still in disagreement and explained:

  There seem to be three amendments here that are not disposed of. The 
conference is not asked until the amendments are disposed of.

  Thereupon, Mr. Burke restricted his motion to further insistence on 
disagreement to Senate amendment No. 48.
  3211. The previous question having been ordered on the report of the 
Committee of the Whole recommending disagreement to Senate amendments, 
the preferential motion to concur was held not to be in order.
  A report from the Committee of the Whole when presented, is pending 
without motion for its adoption.
  On July 10, 1914,\2\ the Speaker announced that the unfinished 
business was the report of the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union, to which had been referred the Indian appropriation 
bill with Senate amendments.
  Mr. Byron P. Harrison, of Mississippi, offered a motion to concur in 
two amendments.
  Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, made the point of order that the 
question came first on agreeing to the recommendation of the Committee 
of the Whole and therefore the motion to concur, though preferential, 
was not admissible.
  After debate, the Speaker \3\ held:

  The situation is this: The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union, acting for that committee, reported to 
the House recommending that all of the Senate amendments to this bill 
be disagreed to, except amendments numbered 6 and 13, which should be 
agreed to, and which were agreed to. The rest of them were disagreed 
to, except amendments numbered 139 and 140, on the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi to have a separate vote on them. It happens 
in practice that nobody ever moves to adopt the report of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union. There are two instances 
in which no motion is required. One is on a conference report and the 
other is on the report of the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union, but practically the motion is pending to agree to the 
report of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. 
Ordinarily three motions could be made--that is, if this bill is in 
that state--a motion to disagree, a motion to concur with an amendment, 
and a flat motion to concur. Now, in this matter it seems to the Chair 
it ought to be decided in a way to give the House the best opportunity 
to really express its opinion. It might want to disagree, it might want 
to flatly concur, it might want to concur with an amendment. The 
previous question having been ordered on this mater, the Chair thinks 
that the motion to concur is not in order and that the vote is on 
whether the House will adopt the report of the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union as to these two 
amendments.

  3212. It is not unusual for conferees to agree in advance to bring 
amendments back to the House for further instruction in event of 
failure to secure specified disposition in conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 11937.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 3213
  On December 10, 1918,\1\ Mr. Claude Kitchin, of North Carolina, asked 
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H. R. 
12863), the tariff bill, disagree to Senate amendments, and agree to 
the conference asked by the Senate.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, under reservation of the right to 
object, inquired if the House would be given the opportunity to 
consider certain of the amendments in event of failure to agree to them 
in conference.
  Mr. Kitchin gave assurance that if the conferees failed to agree to 
the child-labor amendment, the amendment providing for enforcement of 
the prohibition law in the District of Columbia and the amendment 
providing for a tax on political contributions, the managers on the 
part of the House would return them to the House in disagreement for 
its consideration and instruction.
  3213. A motion for a conference is not in order until the stage of 
disagreement has been reached.
  On December 18, 1912,\2\ the House had passed the bill (S. 3175), the 
immigration bill, with amendments, when Mr. John L. Burnett, of 
Alabama, offered a motion that the House request a conference with the 
Senate on the bill and amendments thereto.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, submitted the question of order that 
no disagreement had yet been reached and that neither House could 
request a conference until there was a disagreement and insistence on 
that disagreement.
  The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order and said:

  The proper function of a conference committee is to settle 
differences between the two Houses, and there are no differences 
between the two Houses as far as has been developed. For all the House 
knows or all the Chair knows, the Senate will accept this amendment, 
and therefore the point or order is sustained. A motion to insist would 
have been in order, and the Chair will not say that in an emergency as 
to time or any other thing of the sort we would not hold the pending 
motion out of order, but no emergency exists, and this bill should take 
the usual course.

  3214. One House may pass a bill of the other with amendments, and 
immediately, without waiting for the other House to disagree, may ask a 
conference.
  On July 9, 1909,\4\ a message was received in the House announcing 
that the Senate had passed, with amendments, the bill (H. R. 1438) the 
Aldrich-Payne tariff bill; had insisted on its amendments to the bill; 
and requested a conference with the House on the bill and amendments.
  3215. On September 9, 1913,\5\ in the Senate the bill (H. R. 3321) to 
reduce tariff duties and to provide revenue for the Government, had 
been passed with amendments, when on motion of Mr. Furnifold M. 
Simmons, of North Carolina, a conference was requested on the 
amendments before the bill had been messaged to the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 927.
  \2\ Third session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 866.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \4\ Fourth session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 4363.
  \5\ First session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 4618.
                                                            Sec. 3216
  3216. Instance wherein the House passed a bill of the other with 
amendment, and immediately, without waiting for the other House to 
disagree, insisted on its amendment and asked for conference.
  On May 16, 1928,\1\ the House passed, with an amendment, the joint 
resolution (S. J. Res. 46) providing for the manufacture and 
distribution of fertilizer at Muscle Shoals.
  Whereupon, Mr. John M. Morin, of Pennsylvania, moved that the House 
insist on its amendment to the joint resolution and ask for a 
conference.
  The Speaker \2\ expressed doubt as to whether such motion was in 
order before the Senate had taken action on the amendment.
  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, took issue and said:

  The gentleman from Pennsylvania is quite within his rights. It is not 
a usual procedure, but a perfectly parliamentary procedure. It is 
seldom that the House has made such a request, but it has frequently 
been done in the Senate. If the Chair will indulge me, so far as I have 
been able to ascertain, the practice began in the Senate in the passage 
of the Dingley revenue bill in 1897. Following that it was the practice 
on revenue bills for many years. The present occupant of the chair I am 
sure will remember that what became known as the Payne-Aldrich bill, to 
the making of which he contributed so great a part, passed the Senate, 
and immediately on its passage the Senate moved to insist on its 
amendments and ask for a conference.

  The Speaker took the position that insistence prior to disagreement 
by the Senate would evidence a lack of courtesy to the Senate, 
especially in view of the fact that the proceeding was without 
precedent on the part of the House.
  Mr. Morin withdrew the motion, but subsequently, on the same day was 
recognized by the Speaker to renew it.
  The Speaker said:

  Before putting the motion the Chair would like to make this 
statement: When the gentleman from Pennsylvania offered the motion a 
little while ago the Chair expressed doubt as to whether the motion was 
in order. The gentleman from Tennessee submitted that the motion was in 
order under the precedents of the House. The Chair stated that he had 
no recollection during his term as a Member of this House of such a 
motion being offered. The Chair finds as a matter of fact that once 
during his service in the House this motion was made. It was as far 
back as 1907. The Chair can find no other precedent except one that 
occurred in 1891, and in neither case was any opinion given by the 
occupant of the chair in 1907. The Chair reads from Hinds' Precedents, 
volume 5, the following:

  The Speaker read sections 6294 and 6300 from Hinds' Precedents and 
continued:

  So the Chair was practically correct in saying that the matter had 
never come up where it was decided during his service in the House.
  The Chair is of the opinion that such a proceeding is contrary to 
established rules of parliamentary procedure. It is true it has 
occurred a number of times in another body, the object being to alter 
the ordinary proceedings in conference, that is, to have one body act 
where it would not naturally act. The Chair also finds that in both 
cases, so far as the House was concerned, this procedure was on the 
last day of the session. The Chair can see some reason why such a 
motion could be submitted on the last day. The Chair is clearly of the 
opinion, however, that it is against the rules and the proper practice 
of parliamentary procedure. The object of a conference is to harmonize 
disagreements. In this case there is no disagreement. We have no 
assurance that the Senate is not in agreement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 8894, 8922.
  \2\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
Sec. 3217
  However, in view of these two precedents, the Chair does not care to 
assume the responsibility of refusing to recognize the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania. The Chair will give further attention and consideration 
to this matter and will reserve judgment, the next time such a motion 
is made, as to whether he will decline to recognize a gentleman making 
this motion. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania.

  The question being taken, it was decided in the affirmative without 
division, and the motion that the House insist and ask conference was 
agreed to.
  3217. Discussion of the practice of the Senate in asking conferences 
on its amendments to House bills without waiting for the House to 
disagree.
  On January 22, 1921,\1\ the House considered the District of Columbia 
appropriation bill which the Senate had messaged over with sundry 
amendments on which it had requested conference without waiting for 
disagreement on the part of the House.
  During debate on the bill, Mr. Finis J. Garett, of Tennessee, made 
the following observation:

  I want to suggest, if I may, for the consideration of those charged 
with the responsibility of arranging the order of business, that this 
particular measure which is before us originated in the House. It 
passed the Senate, and immediately upon its passage in the Senate it 
was moved that a conference be asked with the House. I have looked at 
the Record to see the form of that motion. It is my recollection that 
the usual form of the motion, whichever body it is made in, is to 
insist on its amendments or disagreement and ask for a conference. But 
I want to call attention to the practice that has become very frequent 
of late years for the Senate to take a House bill, put amendments on 
it, and immediately ask for a conference without having the bill come 
back to the House to take such action as the House may see fit on the 
amendments.
  That was not formerly the practice. My recollection is that probably 
the first measure in which that practice was adopted was the Dingley 
tariff bill. I was not a Member of Congress at that time. After the 
Dingley tariff bill had passed the Senate with Senate amendments, 
immediately, without its coming back to the House, it was moved to 
insist on the Senate amendments and ask for a conference with the 
House. I do not think it occurred again until the Payne tariff bill 
passed the Senate. Then the same policy was adopted. Since that time in 
recent years it has become almost the custom. The effect of that is it 
necessitates the House acting first on the conference report. A 
conference report comes up for action first in the body which agrees to 
the conference and not in the body that has asked for it.
  It has occurred to me that possibly in working under this new rule 
that it may be desirable to bring about a change in that practice so 
that the House bill can be returned with Senate amendments and let the 
House determine what it is going to do with the Senate amendments in 
advance of any conference being requested or agreed to.

  3218. Instance wherein the Senate receded from its disagreement to a 
House amendment to its amendment, although it had insisted and asked a 
conference, to which the House had agreed.
  On February 26, 1921,\2\ the House having under consideration Senate 
amendments to the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation 
bill, concurred in Senate amendment No. 113, providing a bonus of $240 
for civilian employees, with an amendment making certain exemptions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1890.
  \2\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4007.
                                                            Sec. 3218
  On March 1,\1\ the Senate disagreed to the amendment of the House and 
insisted on its disagreement and asked further conference.
  The House agreed to the conference asked by the Senate and appointed 
conferees, but on the same day,\2\ before a conference was had, a 
message was received in the House announcing that the Senate has 
receded from its disagreement to the amendment of the House to Senate 
amendment No. 113 and had agreed to the same.
  Thereupon, the bill was enrolled and signed by the Speaker.\3\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Record, p. 4122.
  \2\ Record, p. 4210.
  \3\ Record, p. 4314.